PARADE actions' proposal

The meeting :Participatory Agricultural Research: Approaches, Design and Evaluation - Expert Meeting was organized by the CGIAR consortium under coordination of Ms. Katherine Snyder (CIAT) - & Ms. Beth Cullen (ILRI) -

During 5 days experts met to exchange on participatory agricultural research and discuss future potential actions. Outside the internal results of the meeting, here are some actions that we have tried pushing :

End-Users' needs assessment

 Aim Getting the final target stakeholders of PAR, mainly farmers, citizens and local CBOs, to be exposed to the PAR design and use issues, and be able to express their own requirements and criteria for designing and implementing PAR.
 How0. organize means 
1. Agree on a common international methodology combing "push" and "pull" with very adequate methods, like maybe drama, role playing games, movie showing, etc
2. select target groups worldwide, using the partners network
3. Implement globally the assessment
4. Gather and analyse results
5. Feedback results to all participants in communities and publish results
 Who* PAR experts for the method
* Any PAR implementers
* Communities
 Cost 4 PM for the managing group + 2PM per CS for local management + 3 1/2 day per participant in communities
 Risks Difficult balance push/pull - Method design impossible - Limited extension - No added value of results

High-level Consensus conference on PAR

 Aim A decision makers consensus conference on PAR --> would bring high level decision makers (CG board, donors representatives, academic top leaders) to assess the pros and cons of PRA through an instructed and structured debate in front of a pool of experts
 How0. agree and organize means 
1. Get top level decision makers to agree on the principles
2. Select the panel (high level decision makers)
3. Agree on the process and content, agenda
4. Select experts and "witnesses" from case studies
5. Organize logistics
6. Make and animate and monitor the consensus COnference
7. Write conclusion and disseminate through public events
 Who* consensus conference experts for the method and facilitation
* PAR experts for the expert panel
* High level decision makers / policy makers interested in PAR vs non PAR
* Other "witnesses"
 Cost 3 PM for organization + 6 PDs for all participants + 2 PM for post-valuation
 Risks decision makers refuse to engage - poor debate - no conclusive outcome

Systematic experimental assessment of PAR processes and value

 Aim A set of very structured controlled experiments to test and compare the process, outcomes and constraints for different PAR approaches, tools, methods, in different contexts, using the principles of randomized trials + policy experiments & field experiments
 How0. agree and organize means / select partners and participants
1. select target PAR methods / tools / issues
2. decide methodology for experiments with external experts, including the monitoring protocol and definition of value assessment
3. design and pre-test methods for the experiments
4. select and organize local test contexts
5. implement the local tests including results collection
6. post-process and synthesize results per experiments
7. aggregate and compare
8. publish
9. revise, repeat, extend
 Who* expert scientists in experiments, social or biophysical
* PAR experts - methods designers and implementers
* local partners in Case studies
 Cost **high** per case, per experiment
 Risks diversity and multiplicity of treatments - ethics - complexity of methodological design - relation between controlled vs. realism - multiple value assessment 

Systematic comparative protocols of existing cases

 Aim Reviewing and post-evaluating existing case studies using a common method
 How0. Organize means and partners
1. decide list of target methods / cases
2. decide methods for evaluation
3. select target case and organize partnership
4. go there and implement ex-post evaluation
5. collect and process results
6. analyze
7. publish
 Who* PAR experts
* M&E experts
* PAR cases implementers / holders
* local case studies partners
 Cost 4 PM for structuring + 2 PM per case for evaluation + 6 PM for synthesis
 Riskslost memory - reconstruction - difficult to agree on common M& E - unwilling partners for ex-post evaluation - complexity and diversity of processes - disentangling factors

General meta-PAR workflow

 Aim A generic methodological workflow for thinking, choosing and implementing methods with and for stakeholders from the different perspectives --> help both scientists and policy makers to consider why and how PAR should or shouldn't be used
 How0/ organize means and partners
1. Revise past experiences (cf other PARADE actions)
2. revise litterature on the same
3. build an abstract general model of PAR & R4D processes with actors, info flows, conditions
4. build an operational decision support tool (computer based or not) based on this model
5. test this tool and evaluate it
6. disseminate through demonstration exercices with real users
 Who* experts in PAR
* process modellers
* decision support systems developers
* guinea pigs users
 Cost12 PM for model and framework + 6 PM for tool development + 6 PM for test
 Risks complexity of the model - acceptance of the decision trajectories - user friendliness / compliance of the decision tool - adoption