Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
3.4.1 C
of m m u n i t y
i
D e n t i t i e s
A n D
C
o l l e C t i v e
A
C t i of n
All communities showed a strong sense of identity, with little or no sharing of resources
across village boundaries. Resources across the boundaries shown in their resource
maps were described as belonging to other people. Associations, burial committees,
women's groups, and other community institutions were often contained within the vil-
lage boundaries. The existence of villages as a level of organization in the human activ-
ity holarchy was further confirmed by the apparent integrated sharing of resources and
reciprocal exchange of means of production and information in addition to the appar-
ent shared sense of belonging together. Although the interaction between researchers
and the communities in extensive villages was minimal, similar organizational charac-
teristics were suspected to exist based on descriptions by key informants.
In spite of the existence of these communities, the ability to implement action
plans (Table 3.13) differed significantly among the villages, indicating that this was a
result of factors other than the sense of belonging. An interesting feature was that the
villages with a high degree of cooperation (based on the level of participation in vil-
lage activities; Table 3.13) described their relationship with the administrative arm
of government as that of decision makers rather than collaborators (Table 3.3). Fur-
thermore, these villages were reported as having more nongovernmental institutions
that collaborated with each other (Table 3.3). The ability to implement action plans
seemed to depend on several factors, three of which were age of settlement, levels of
household income, and perceived absence of collaboration between the community
and administration. Despite being an older settlement with residents being descen-
dants of a common ancestor, Mahindi village was one of the villages with the lowest
ability to implement most of their planned actions. The cause of this was not clear
but seemed to relate to the quality of leadership in the village.
3.4.2 C
of m m u n i t y
p
A r t i C i pAt i of in
The participation of communities in generating data on their agroecosystem, analyz-
ing the data, and then using them to make action plans was perceived to be a gainful
exercise by the communities and provided an entry point to the communities for the
researchers. The most important exercises in this regard were the mapping exercises,
historical background, and transect walks. However, the first meeting with the com-
munities was critical since important decisions were made at this point, and commu-
nity perceptions of the process were formed at this point. If the initial meeting fails
to attract representatives of the major stakeholder groups, serious biases to the pro-
cess may result. Because the researchers had little or no initial contact, it is difficult
to provide descriptions and agendas that would ensure the participation of all stake-
holders. In this research, divisional government department officials were included
in the process to provide insights into the possible stakeholder groups and to ensure
stakeholder participation in the initial meetings.
Another constraint to the participatory process is the tendency by communities
to bias themselves toward the perceived interests of the researcher. Because of this,
participants provide what they consider “correct answers,” resulting in tautological
biases. This can be minimized in several ways. The first is by providing the com-
munities with a succinct description of the action research process at the beginning.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search