Thanks Ewen, you raise important questions which need to be delved into. Researchers need to influence the donor community with concrete evidence. Bringing donors closer to the communities can aid this as it provides a platform where donors directly interact with the beneficiaries and listen to their stories, their actual needs and wants. I was a bit hesitate to change the title but I will think through it again. Thanks.

I agree. Our research needs to consider the needs of actors who directly or indirectly interact with the producers especially the consumers. The approach needs to enhance producers’ capacity to meet the demands of the consumers. In most cases, its private sector – traders- who are knowledgeable about this thence and can pass on this information to farmers and researchers.

Indeed Dirk. And that adds grist to the mill. Participatory research need not be limited to
farmers alone. There are wider groups that are affected by our work, or who have a stake in the agendas we pursue. The scope for building this methodology is immense. If we can but agree that we need to start this journey, then we can determine how. I like Annet’s idea here because it tables the idea of a “different approach to science”.

Stuart, you spell out the agenda clearly. Thanks. We need to ask ourselves the question…”What would our research look like if we engaged the beneficiaries right from the start? Right from the process of initiating ideas to inform our research? You raise good points.

Hi Polly, I do understand your concern of keeping reports in the shelf. We need to be accountable. Information from participatory analyses needs to be shared widely and influence people in charge of carrying research in specific areas. It is important that we avoid raising expectations as we facilitate the discussions. We also need to be open and set realistic goals. What I have learned working with farmers is that once you are clear about what the two parties want and set realistic goals, it works out well. Whatever can not be achieved needs to be disclosed.

Instead, what if we were to explore participatory science where we do not consult with farmers, but engage with them throughout the research process. This would mean that the research question would alter on the basis of what the discovery has been, and would be shaped together with farmers.

This would reveal two things.

1) Research that navigates towards what system wide intelligence is telling us. Participation would here enable the off-pathway consequences to come into view, and to influence how the research evolves. This allows for complex interactions and the unexpected to help surface solutions that we would not otherwise have seen from the expert stand point. The consequences of this is research that is more rapidly “fit for purpose”

2) The evolution of new scientific method that deals with complex interaction by fostering and engaging with emergence, as opposed to making a-priori assumptive hypothesis than needs to be locked for the purposes of replication. My sense is that our approaches to date emphasize the need for replication as proof of concept, which in turn implies that systems are not complex and unpredictable. It treats our world as being complicated (not complex) and therefore reducible to ultimate predictability. I am no longer convinced that we can continue like this if we expect to deliver research findings that are useful generically. Such participatory research could be invaluable in exploring tools and methods that enable such research to happen with the right level of robust testing. This therefore is a research agenda in its own right.