multipurpose tree species research for small farms: strategies ... - part

Review of FSR Approach and Methods
The generalized approach to FSR is described
in Figure 1. This approach is similar to many
advocated for agroforestry research and
development (Raintree 1987). While the approach
may not have changed since the early days of FSR,
there has been a considerable degree of
development and refinement of individual
procedures and methods,
Diagnosis
Many early FSR projects regarded site
description as the first of a sequence of steps.
They gathered as much information about the
target area as possible, using comprehensive
surveys. Only subjects that had been previously
identified could be included, and attempts to cover
all possible subjects and problems led to
impossibly long questionnaires. This exercise was
often delegated to a particular sub-group of the
FSR team, usually economists, and carried out by
specially hired enumerators. The technical
scientists often did not contribute to, or benefit
from the diagnosis, and ended up working on
familiar topics such as variety aad fertilizer testing.
Chambers (1983) eloquently summarized the
practical results of such extensive surveys:
...material remains unprocessed, or if
processed, unanalyzcd, or if analyzed, not
written up, or if written up, not read, or if read,
not remembered, or if remembered, not used or
acted upon.
These problems led to a greater emphasis on
rapid rural appraisal (RRA) methods, where a
small interdisciplinary group of researchers would
talk to farmers, progressivw farmers and key
individuals without a predetermined questionnaire
(Collinson 1981). Concepts and ideas were taken
from ecology, which helped to identify and
diagram relationships between farm enterprises,
farms and communities (Hart 1981; Conway i986).
When broad problems were identified with a RRA
approach, smaller, more directed surveys could
then be designed to obtain more focused
information on particular constraints,
In spite of its apparent simplicity, the informal
survey can vary in terms of success or uzefulness.
Talking and listening to farmers is not easy.
Scientists may come from a different community,
speak a different language and may not be trained
to interact with people. Researchers also have
preferences of visiting near roads, in dry seasons,
156
with male farmers, with the better off, and
biases to their discipline or more prestigious
commodities (Chambers 1983). Even
agricultural researchers trained in FSR methods
may not see the trees on farms they visit -- they
are simply invisible to them (Raintree 1987).
Techniques of rapid rural appraisal became
the subject of great interest and several
specialized workshops, ie. Khon Kaen (1987).
Ultimately, the only way to improve RRA skills
is to practice, which means that it needs to
become a routine method, rather than an
occasional activity supported by external
agencies or advisors.
Diagnosis does not just involve surveys, either
formal or informal. Fied experiments designed
to explore the causes of productivity problems
(exploratory trials) have been a common feature
of FSR programs (Winkleman and Moscardi
1981). The first stage of experimentation or
observational trials described by Huxley (1987),
to explore a situation rather than confirm a
hypothesis, is similar to the focus of agroforestry
research. He also described a number of
systematic procedures that are especially useful
in agroforestry.
Diagnostic methods have therefore evolved
considerably from the site descriptions of many
early FSR projects. Many farming systems
researchers probably started out with the idea
described by Raintree (1987), believing that
there was a single optimal procedure that would
be perfected through experience. Instead,
practitioners increasingly blend the best and
most appropriate of an array of different
techniques, depending on the circumstances.
The diagnosis and design rocedures
developed by the InternationalCouncil for
Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF)
demonstrate an increasing portfolio of
procedural variations to be used depending on
the scale of the field situation (village,
watershed, or region), while maintaining and
simplifying the underlying concepts (Raintree
1987). Diagnosis has been increasingly
recognized as an iterative process, rather than a
first step in a sequential process, done once and
then forgotten. Continuous diagnostic work is
planned on the basis of the results of each cycle
of activities and serves to constantly focus
research and extension efforts (Raintree 1987;
Tripp and Woolley 1987).