Product matrix
From cg-parade ilriwikis
Contents
- 1 Participatory Agricultural Research: Approaches, Design and Evaluation
- 2 Oxford, 9-13 December 2013
- 3 Product Matrix
- 3.1 #TOC-End-Users-needs-assessmentEnd-Users' needs assessment
- 3.2 #TOC-High-level-Consensus-conference-on-PARHigh-level Consensus conference on PAR
- 3.3 #TOC-Systematic-experimental-assessment-of-PAR-processes-and-valueSystematic experimental assessment of PAR processes and value
- 3.4 Systematic comparative protocols of existing cases
- 3.5 General meta-PAR workflow
Participatory Agricultural Research: Approaches, Design and Evaluation
Oxford, 9-13 December 2013
Product Matrix
- Roadmap for monitoring, evaluation and learning of participatory agricultural research (Marina)
- The contribution of Participatory Agricultural Research (PAR) to achieving the SLOs (Marc)
- The PAR community of practice - what will it look like
- PAR tool typology (Tracy)
- PAR state of the art review / conceptual framework (Tracy)
- Strategy for capacity development linked to participatory agricultural research (Saa)
- Strategy paper for advocacy on participatory agricultural research (Nicole)
- Roadmap for the delivery of an initial framework on participatory agricultural research (Katherine and Beth)
- PAR value proposition (from the workshop)
- PAR profiles - of tools and approaches (Terry)
- PAR personal journeys - how PAR changes us (Terry)
Blog piece on PARADE, what I got out of it (Jo) Presentations at the expert meeting
The writeshop 'roadmap" (full size inage)
media type="custom" key="25318754"
The final output from the clustering activity on Thursday:
Framework | Community of practice Taskforce | Capacity Development | Advocacy, lobbying, comms, outreach | M&E | State of the Art |
A Framework for integrated demand driven systems research by Q1 2015 | Product: community of practice in each region actively monitored | Product: training module on PAR, state of the art methods, approaches, ethics | Develop statement on how PAR contributes to achieving SLOs | Checklist for monitoring and evaluating indicators | Study on how participatory ag research has been successful and how it will this help us meet SLOs |
Product: strategy paper and action plan | Community of practice annual meeting with yammer, wiki by Q1 2014 | Product/action Training and capacity development on Par (R4D) processes, management approaches |
Side event at Fund Council on participatory agricultural research in Nov 2014 | Product/action Designing common ME frameworks and good practices Use as accountability mechanism explicit to PAR |
Product/action State of the art review 5 year plan |
User perception, needs assessment of PAR | Terms of reference for PAR taskforce | Funding for higher degree with continued support on return | Action 5 year planning Consensus conference on PAR |
Process Develop appropriate evaluation frameworks and methods |
An outline for a systematic review paper on successes and failures of PAR |
Strategy action plan | Action: building alliances within CG and with partners and stakeholders to champion PAR | More research money directly to NARs for them to decide how to spend | Share/advocate lobby for PAR results | M&E tools for PAR programs within our CRP | Product/action Collective demonstration products |
Fergus Floriane Nils Marina |
Cross CRP working group: start with system CRPS on PAR by Q1 2014 | CG support university faculty to embed in ministries for x years | Explore opportunity for special issue on PAR | Toolbox for ME | A definition of typology on PAR |
Identification of enabling conditions for transdisciplinary approaches | A manifesto describing how the process will work | Murat Clovis Valentine Marina NIls |
Progress/action Document PAR Evidence base | ||
Product/action Incentives for PAR with organizations |
Nicole Mark |
Toobox for facilitating PAR | |||
Promote better interaction among and between NARs | Nicole Saa Amet Regis Marc |
Tracy Geraldine Adrian Tim Martha |
Nils Ferrand and colleagues also proposed some follow up activities ([[1]])
#TOC-End-Users-needs-assessmentEnd-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. |
How | 0. 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 |
When | 2014-1015 |
#TOC-High-level-Consensus-conference-on-PARHigh-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 |
How | 0. 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 |
When | 2015-1016 |
#TOC-Systematic-experimental-assessment-of-PAR-processes-and-valueSystematic 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 |
How | 0. 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 |
When | 2015-1018 |
Systematic comparative protocols of existing cases
Aim | Reviewing and post-evaluating existing case studies using a common method |
How | 0. 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 |
Risks | lost memory - reconstruction - difficult to agree on common M& E - unwilling partners for ex-post evaluation - complexity and diversity of processes - disentangling factors |
When | 2014-2016 |
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 |
How | 0/ 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 |
Cost | 12 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 |
When | 2014-2016 |