Resources

The semi-structured interview is a vital tool in rapid rural appraisal, and one for which a number of guidelines have been drawn up. It is an important way of furthering our understanding of the lives of rural people, but it needs to be understood by its practitioners. It is argued that it can contain an inherent bias which often conflicts with the understanding rural people have of the nature of knowledge and information, and therefore the meaning of questions and answers. In a Sudanese example, though interviews with key informants indicated that relief seed had been fairly distributed, further interviews with other members of the community showed that seed had not been distributed equitably to all groups throughout the area. Other examples of interviews in Somalia and Ethiopia are presented and the article concludes that mis-hearing can be corrected by further probing, verification and interpretation.

In Tanzania, a participatory approach was used to increase community capability to identify poor households and arrange assistance based on community resources. Community-based nutritional status data was used to identify households with severely malnourished children, and community leaders were used to identify poor households. Strengths and weaknesses of participatory methods are discussed with a proposition that their purpose should be community-enabling, rather than only to extract information from communities. The Triple-A cycle developed by UNICEF (Assessment, Analysis and Action) to improve conditions of women and children is adapted to include community assessment, analysis and action. Some case studies from Tanzania are presented with examples from conventional as well as participatory studies.

This study investigated rural livelihood systems and the response of local communities to changing resource conditions in two communities in Machakos District, a semi-arid region in Kenya. A section on methodolgoy outlines the methods used during the research, which included PRA techniques as well as more conventional approaches. Among the PRA techniques used were spatial methods such as village transects or mapping, methods focused on time-related data such as time-lines or seasonal calendars, and those focusing on social data such as household interviews and group meetings to discuss village institutions. Several of the techniques were easily modified for gathering gender-differentiated data. It was found that there had been a significant and rapid change in the lives of people living in the region as the livelihood base shifted from cattle rearing to coffee growing. The changes have had particularly adverse impact on the lives of women, particularly poor women, in the area.

This paper was written from the perspective of a rural sociologist doing wealth ranking in Swaziland, with the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) with the intention of identifying the poorest members of the community. It details the process of a decision to use a "rapid" approach, the percieved and actual problems with the said approach. Ranking mechanisms used are described and results and conclusions from the exercise given. It emphasises the need for adequate time for exercises to be conducted if they are to produce 'good' results. Finally, the need for training in the use of these methods is stressed.

The study examines the Farmer Participatory Research approach to technology generation for resource poor farmers, and how it compares to other approaches to agricultural technology generation. The Farmers Innovation and Technology Testing [FITT] is a farmer participatory evaluation method. Through FITT the Gambian Department of Agricultural Research has attempted to establish a 'technology link' with farmers groups that have been 'set-up' by NGOs. The core of this study is an evaluation of the FITT programme using PRAs in two villages. Although the report is perhaps too large for mailing as a whole, it does contain some extensive discussion of these 'PRA based evaluations': Chapter 4 covers the PRA methods employed, which included wealth ranking exercises, preference ranking of crops and the drawing of seasonal calendars. Chapter 7 provides some useful discussion concerning some of the limitations and problems encountered in this PRA exercise. Finally the appendices include some detailed description of the PRA exercises mentioned above.

Fish from Malawi's lakes provide approximately 70% of the country's animal protein, although as the population has increased per capita consumption has declined. Smallholder aquaculture is expanding rapidly in the southern part of the country and has the potential to alleviate some of these shortfalls in fish supply by providing a cheap protein source (01). The film looks at a collaborative research programme developed by the Fisheries Department, the International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM) funded by GTZ, and the University of Malawi. The programme aims to develop aquaculture technology which is appropriate to the needs of rural farmers (02). Constant evaluation and feedback from farmers to researchers means that the research can be refined according to farmer's needs (03). While there had been a rapid expansion in fish farming in Malawi, catches were variable and often poor. The problems were due to a lack of suitable fish species and feeds and poor water fertility (06), as well as farmers' inability to invest and the lack of integration of fish farming into the traditional farming system (07). An on-farm survey of resources and farming systems allowed researchers to prioritise research needs and develop aquaculture models relevant to the local agricultural situation (07). Methods of increasing overall productivity were investigated, including assessing the use of grass as an input (08), compost technologies for improving water fertility (10), and integrating agriculture and aquaculture systems (12). Methods of harvesting fish using locally available materials were also investigated (14). Open days at the aquaculture centre provide opportunities for farmers and researchers to interact. Farmers also participate in on-farm discussion and testing of technologies (19). The constant evaluation and feedback from farmers to researchers means that research agendas can be refined to meet farmers needs (21).