Farmer participatory research (FPR) has generated many programmatic statements and few technologies. FPR has probably been of interest more because of dissatisfaction with the green revolution and agricultural establishment research than because of a proven ability of scientists and farmers to collaborate together. There are several barriers between farmers and scientists, not the least of which is social distance. The role of FPR should be critically examined; it may work best setting research agendas or in the case of researchers who (...) can dedicate themselves to FPR full-time for quite some time. (shrink)

Farmers all over the world perform experiments, and have done so since long before modern experimental science and its recognized forerunners. There is a rich anthropological literature on these experiments, but the philosophical issues that they give rise to have not received much attention. Based on the anthropological literature, this study investigates methodological and philosophical issues pertaining to farmers’ experiments, including the choice of interventions to be tested, the planning of experiments, and the use of control fields and other means (...) to deal with confounding factors. Farmers’ experiments have some advantages over the field trials of agricultural scientists, but also some comparative disadvantages. The two experimental traditions are complementary, and neither of them can replace the other. Several aspects of farmers’ experiments are shown to have a direct bearing on central topics in the philosophy of science. (shrink)

Recent trends in agriculturalresearch and development emphasize the need forfarmer participation. Participation not onlymeans farmers' physical presence but also theuse of their knowledge and expertise.Understanding potentials and drawbacks of theirlocal knowledge system is a prerequisite forconstructive collaboration between farmers,scientists, and extension services.An ethnoentomological study, conducted in aTharu village in Nepal, documents farmers'qualitative and quantitative knowledge as wellas perceptions of insects and pest management,insect nomenclature and classification, andissues related to insect recognition and localbeliefs. The study offers a basis to improvepest management (...) programs in terms of efficacyand acceptance. It demonstrates, for instance,that a concept of pests and beneficials isvirtually missing in traditional farmingcommunities and that the Tharu folkclassification profoundly differs from thescientific classification, but is not radicallydifferent from other folk entomologicalsystems. Insects belong to the taxa calledkiraa consisting of arthropods andnon-arthropods that interact with humans. Theyare classified in several overlappinghierarchies where locomotion and human impactplay major roles while morphological criteriaare almost irrelevant. Recognition ofkiraa, however, is dominated by agriculturalaspects followed by physiological-behavioral,ecological, and human-directed features.Morphological criteria play a minor role. Innomenclature, however, the insects' physicalappearance is more important than otherfeatures. The study further shows that male andfemale farmers have different perceptions ofkiraa.The insect-related knowledge system of theTharu has prevented farmers from using modernpesticides in the past. In the course ofmodernization, however, some aspects of theirknowledge system could become obsolete andprove disadvantageous to their livelihood andagro-ecosystems. (shrink)

Folk experiments in agriculture are often inspired by new ideas blended with old ones, motivated by economic and environmental change. They tend to save labor or capital. These notions are illustrated with nine short case studies from Nicaragua and El Salvador. The new ideas that catalyze folk experiments may be provided by development agencies, but paradoxically, the folk experiments are so common that the agencies that inspire them usually pay little attention to them. Some folk experiments are original, but others (...) simply copy innovations that farmers have seen somewhere else. Unlike formal scientific research, in which results are consistently written, folk experiments are rarely “inscribed,” because the results are for use by individual farmers and need not be shared with an audience. (shrink)

Ethnoveterinary research, development, and extension (ERD&E) has emerged as a rich field for discovering, adapting, and transferring appropriate and sustainable animal health technologies to rural and peri-urban stockraisers, especially in Third World countries. This field is defined as the holistic, interdisciplinary study of local knowledge and practices, together with the social structure in which they are embedded, that pertain to the healthcare and healthful husbandry of animals used for a multitude of purposes. Especially in the Third World, livestock play a (...) large number of important roles that are little understood or appreciated in today's First World. Study of these benefits and their role in Third World livelihoods offers numerous lessons that span not only the virtues but also some of the technical, ethical, and methodological challenges of working with local knowledge. ERD&E emerged as an internationally recognized branch of research in the mid-1970s largely in response to an increasing concern with animal health in the context of practical, field-level projects in animal agriculture. As many as 90% of the world's population continue to rely mainly on their own localized ethnomedicine for the bulk of their personal healthcare as well as their veterinary needs. With the escalating costs of Western healthcare technologies, it is essential to build upon this local knowledge. Of course, ethnoscience is not perfect, and recognition of the immense value of ERD&E does not imply that conventional science is to be abandoned. Rather each has much to learn from the other. Making knowledge by judiciously drawing upon insider and outsider, site-specific and universalistic, and both old and new understandings can take us back to a brighter development future. (shrink)