To what extent is the diversity of Farmer Field Schools reflected in their assessment? A literature review
Purpose: Assessment of agricultural advisory services is crucial to improve their quality and effectiveness. Farmer Field Schools (FFS) have been adapted to meet context specific needs in crop or farm management. This article investigates whether the diversity of FFS interventions is reflected in the assessment methods used to evaluate them. Design/Methodology/Approach: Through a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature we identified 180 articles and selected 34 that assessed FFS. Implementation was characterised based on farmers' participation and FFS topics. Assessment methods were analysed using a causal chain of inputs, outputs, outcomes, and impacts. Findings: Our results showed three types of FFS: (1) technology transfer; (2) consultative participation at cropping system level; and, (3) consultative or collaborative participation at farm level. Fifteen studies did not describe FFS implementation at all. Out of the 34 assessments, 23 focused on inputs (knowledge) and outputs (changes in practices, agricultural or economic performance) for farmers. Only six studies assessed long-term impacts of FFS. Theoretical implications: We found a paradox between the shift from a technology transfer to a participatory advisory services paradigm, and the implementation and assessment of FFS, which do not mirror this shift. Assessment methods remain based on assumed technology transfer, which is not suitable for the evaluation of participatory approaches and their results, including in terms of capacity to innovate. Practical implications: Assessing FFS as a collective and farmer-centered experiential learning approach requires appropriate evaluation methods that account for the diversity of contexts, FFS implementation, and the changes they generate. Originality/Value: The diversity of FFS has rarely been analysed to date. This article proposes a typology to go beyond FFS as a catch-all term and to guide their assessment.
id |
dig-cirad-fr-597273 |
---|---|
record_format |
koha |
spelling |
dig-cirad-fr-5972732024-01-29T03:13:34Z http://agritrop.cirad.fr/597273/ http://agritrop.cirad.fr/597273/ To what extent is the diversity of Farmer Field Schools reflected in their assessment? A literature review. Bakker Teatske, Blundo Canto Genowefa, Dugué Patrick, De Tourdonnet Stéphane. 2021. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 27 (3) : 381-401.https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1858890 <https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1858890> To what extent is the diversity of Farmer Field Schools reflected in their assessment? A literature review Bakker, Teatske Blundo Canto, Genowefa Dugué, Patrick De Tourdonnet, Stéphane eng 2021 Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension C10 - Enseignement E20 - Organisation, administration et gestion des entreprises ou exploitations agricoles école pratique d'agriculture contrôle continu transfert de technologie système de culture gestion de l'exploitation agricole approche participative conseiller agricole évaluation de l'impact service de vulgarisation société de conseil http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_331069 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_2736 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_7645 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_1971 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_2799 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_9000119 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_143 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_37938 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_8631 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_50188 Purpose: Assessment of agricultural advisory services is crucial to improve their quality and effectiveness. Farmer Field Schools (FFS) have been adapted to meet context specific needs in crop or farm management. This article investigates whether the diversity of FFS interventions is reflected in the assessment methods used to evaluate them. Design/Methodology/Approach: Through a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature we identified 180 articles and selected 34 that assessed FFS. Implementation was characterised based on farmers' participation and FFS topics. Assessment methods were analysed using a causal chain of inputs, outputs, outcomes, and impacts. Findings: Our results showed three types of FFS: (1) technology transfer; (2) consultative participation at cropping system level; and, (3) consultative or collaborative participation at farm level. Fifteen studies did not describe FFS implementation at all. Out of the 34 assessments, 23 focused on inputs (knowledge) and outputs (changes in practices, agricultural or economic performance) for farmers. Only six studies assessed long-term impacts of FFS. Theoretical implications: We found a paradox between the shift from a technology transfer to a participatory advisory services paradigm, and the implementation and assessment of FFS, which do not mirror this shift. Assessment methods remain based on assumed technology transfer, which is not suitable for the evaluation of participatory approaches and their results, including in terms of capacity to innovate. Practical implications: Assessing FFS as a collective and farmer-centered experiential learning approach requires appropriate evaluation methods that account for the diversity of contexts, FFS implementation, and the changes they generate. Originality/Value: The diversity of FFS has rarely been analysed to date. This article proposes a typology to go beyond FFS as a catch-all term and to guide their assessment. article info:eu-repo/semantics/article Journal Article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://agritrop.cirad.fr/597273/7/597273.pdf text Cirad license info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess https://agritrop.cirad.fr/mention_legale.html https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1858890 10.1080/1389224X.2020.1858890 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1858890 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/purl/https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1858890 |
institution |
CIRAD FR |
collection |
DSpace |
country |
Francia |
countrycode |
FR |
component |
Bibliográfico |
access |
En linea |
databasecode |
dig-cirad-fr |
tag |
biblioteca |
region |
Europa del Oeste |
libraryname |
Biblioteca del CIRAD Francia |
language |
eng |
topic |
C10 - Enseignement E20 - Organisation, administration et gestion des entreprises ou exploitations agricoles école pratique d'agriculture contrôle continu transfert de technologie système de culture gestion de l'exploitation agricole approche participative conseiller agricole évaluation de l'impact service de vulgarisation société de conseil http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_331069 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_2736 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_7645 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_1971 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_2799 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_9000119 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_143 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_37938 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_8631 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_50188 C10 - Enseignement E20 - Organisation, administration et gestion des entreprises ou exploitations agricoles école pratique d'agriculture contrôle continu transfert de technologie système de culture gestion de l'exploitation agricole approche participative conseiller agricole évaluation de l'impact service de vulgarisation société de conseil http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_331069 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_2736 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_7645 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_1971 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_2799 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_9000119 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_143 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_37938 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_8631 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_50188 |
spellingShingle |
C10 - Enseignement E20 - Organisation, administration et gestion des entreprises ou exploitations agricoles école pratique d'agriculture contrôle continu transfert de technologie système de culture gestion de l'exploitation agricole approche participative conseiller agricole évaluation de l'impact service de vulgarisation société de conseil http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_331069 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_2736 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_7645 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_1971 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_2799 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_9000119 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_143 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_37938 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_8631 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_50188 C10 - Enseignement E20 - Organisation, administration et gestion des entreprises ou exploitations agricoles école pratique d'agriculture contrôle continu transfert de technologie système de culture gestion de l'exploitation agricole approche participative conseiller agricole évaluation de l'impact service de vulgarisation société de conseil http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_331069 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_2736 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_7645 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_1971 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_2799 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_9000119 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_143 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_37938 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_8631 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_50188 Bakker, Teatske Blundo Canto, Genowefa Dugué, Patrick De Tourdonnet, Stéphane To what extent is the diversity of Farmer Field Schools reflected in their assessment? A literature review |
description |
Purpose: Assessment of agricultural advisory services is crucial to improve their quality and effectiveness. Farmer Field Schools (FFS) have been adapted to meet context specific needs in crop or farm management. This article investigates whether the diversity of FFS interventions is reflected in the assessment methods used to evaluate them. Design/Methodology/Approach: Through a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature we identified 180 articles and selected 34 that assessed FFS. Implementation was characterised based on farmers' participation and FFS topics. Assessment methods were analysed using a causal chain of inputs, outputs, outcomes, and impacts. Findings: Our results showed three types of FFS: (1) technology transfer; (2) consultative participation at cropping system level; and, (3) consultative or collaborative participation at farm level. Fifteen studies did not describe FFS implementation at all. Out of the 34 assessments, 23 focused on inputs (knowledge) and outputs (changes in practices, agricultural or economic performance) for farmers. Only six studies assessed long-term impacts of FFS. Theoretical implications: We found a paradox between the shift from a technology transfer to a participatory advisory services paradigm, and the implementation and assessment of FFS, which do not mirror this shift. Assessment methods remain based on assumed technology transfer, which is not suitable for the evaluation of participatory approaches and their results, including in terms of capacity to innovate. Practical implications: Assessing FFS as a collective and farmer-centered experiential learning approach requires appropriate evaluation methods that account for the diversity of contexts, FFS implementation, and the changes they generate. Originality/Value: The diversity of FFS has rarely been analysed to date. This article proposes a typology to go beyond FFS as a catch-all term and to guide their assessment. |
format |
article |
topic_facet |
C10 - Enseignement E20 - Organisation, administration et gestion des entreprises ou exploitations agricoles école pratique d'agriculture contrôle continu transfert de technologie système de culture gestion de l'exploitation agricole approche participative conseiller agricole évaluation de l'impact service de vulgarisation société de conseil http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_331069 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_2736 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_7645 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_1971 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_2799 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_9000119 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_143 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_37938 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_8631 http://aims.fao.org/aos/agrovoc/c_50188 |
author |
Bakker, Teatske Blundo Canto, Genowefa Dugué, Patrick De Tourdonnet, Stéphane |
author_facet |
Bakker, Teatske Blundo Canto, Genowefa Dugué, Patrick De Tourdonnet, Stéphane |
author_sort |
Bakker, Teatske |
title |
To what extent is the diversity of Farmer Field Schools reflected in their assessment? A literature review |
title_short |
To what extent is the diversity of Farmer Field Schools reflected in their assessment? A literature review |
title_full |
To what extent is the diversity of Farmer Field Schools reflected in their assessment? A literature review |
title_fullStr |
To what extent is the diversity of Farmer Field Schools reflected in their assessment? A literature review |
title_full_unstemmed |
To what extent is the diversity of Farmer Field Schools reflected in their assessment? A literature review |
title_sort |
to what extent is the diversity of farmer field schools reflected in their assessment? a literature review |
url |
http://agritrop.cirad.fr/597273/ http://agritrop.cirad.fr/597273/7/597273.pdf |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT bakkerteatske towhatextentisthediversityoffarmerfieldschoolsreflectedintheirassessmentaliteraturereview AT blundocantogenowefa towhatextentisthediversityoffarmerfieldschoolsreflectedintheirassessmentaliteraturereview AT duguepatrick towhatextentisthediversityoffarmerfieldschoolsreflectedintheirassessmentaliteraturereview AT detourdonnetstephane towhatextentisthediversityoffarmerfieldschoolsreflectedintheirassessmentaliteraturereview |
_version_ |
1792500075564367872 |