Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
involved facilitators reexamining all the outputs (maps, charts, and tables) from the
workshops and listing themes, issues, and concerns identified as problems or con-
straints. The relative frequency of a particular theme, issue, or concern was seen as
an indicator of its relative importance. Problems and concerns mentioned in only one
of the outputs were not included in the initial list. Local participants were then asked
to add any other problem or concern that they thought should be included. After
participants confirmed that the list was exhaustive, the problems were listed on sort-
ing cards and a pairwise ranking carried out. In the pairwise ranking, the facilitator
showed the cards two at a time, each time asking the participants to decide which of
the two concerns depicted was the bigger problem to the residents. A tally mark was
made on the back of a card whenever the concern it depicted was chosen. The cards
were then sorted in order of the tally marks, the lowest card having the fewest tally
marks and the topmost card having the most.
3.2.4.16
Problem analysis
In this process, the perceived causes, the coping strategies, and the opportunities
for resolution of stated problems or concerns were assessed. A tabular matrix was
drawn on the ground using chalk or on a large sheet of paper using felt pens. The
first column identified the problems or concerns. The subsequent columns identified
the analytical themes (causes, coping strategies, opportunities). Each problem row
in the table represented a problem, ranked in the order of severity as identified in
the pairwise ranking. Each of the most important problems was analyzed from each
thematic viewpoint and the outputs recorded either pictorially or using descriptive
statements in the tabular matrix. Problem analysis was carried out in groups of 6-10
local participants. Group composition in terms of gender, age, and other criteria
depended on the nature of problems analyzed.
3.2.4.17
Preference Ranking
Preference (Rietbergen-McCracken and Narayan, 1998) ranking involved the assess-
ment of options based on predefined criteria. It was carried out using card sorting
similar to that in problem ranking. In this case, the facilitator asked participants to
identify the better of two options. Preference ranking was used to identify the most
suitable opportunities for each of the problems.
3.2.4.18
action Planning
Action plans were activities—listed in order of priority—that were to be undertaken
to meet defined goals and objectives. Also included was a list of resources needed to
complete the tasks, sources of funds and materials, and the actors for each activity
listed.
3.2.5 f
o l l o w
-
u p
Follow-up workshops were scheduled every 3 months to monitor the implementation
of action plans and annually to carry out evaluations, replan research and development
Search WWH ::
Custom Search