The webinar discussed participatory and social approaches to agricultural research communication. Presenters discussed using write shops to repackage research, participatory social research methods at ILRI that engaged researchers, and participatory video. Participatory video in particular allows those who are often unheard to have a voice by putting video cameras in their hands. It reveals power dynamics and identifies opportunities for action while facilitating bottom-up participation and multidirectional communication in the research process. The webinar emphasized interactive and dialogue-driven approaches over passive dissemination to support social learning and knowledge generation.

1. GFAR Communications Webinar
gfar-secretariat@fao.org
Challenging Development and
Research Communications – Part I

2. Presenters
Michael Victor (WLE)
Meredith Giordano (IWMI)
Peter Ballantyne (ILRI)
Julian Gonsalves (IIRR)
Q&A
Fisher Qua
Juliet Braslow
Beatrice Makwenda (NASFAM)
Karen Hampson (Farm Radio International)
Q&A
Moderators: Charles Plummer/Peter Casier (GFAR)

3. Introductory slides by Michael Victor
Communication for change -
From one to many
Framing presentation by Michael Victor

4. Communication for change
involves new processes

5. Research Development
Universities,
research
institutes,
bio-medical
facilities,
genetics etc
UN,
development
NGOs,
philanthropic
foundations,
governments
Solutions
The Classic Model

6. Action
Research
Development
Leadership
Learning
Communications
Partnerships
Trust

7. Participatory research (research ‘in’
development)
• Engages people who may
otherwise be subjects of
research or recipients of
interventions as co-
researchers
• Places the capacity for
generating and using
knowledge in the hands of
people who are trying to
improve their own lives.
• Citizen science and
Participatory video

8. Participatory communication
• Catalyzes creation,
documentation,
exchange and
dissemination of
knowledge by and of
individuals and
communities
• Contributes to inclusive
decision making
processes

9. Social learning
• Processes in which people
learn through interacting
with each other
• Since decisions need to be
collective, the learning
needs to be collective.
https://ccsl.wikispaces.com

10. Continuum of communications across the research for development spectrum
Research
Communications
Strategic
Communication
Participatory
Comms/ C4D
Social Learning/
Empowerment
Linear, one-way
Deliver’s
prepackaged
messages with
limited interaction
Response driven
Predetermined
packages with
user feedback
and interaction
Interactive
Communication
Approach to
change behavior
and attitude
Dialogue and
process driven
Knowledge and
decision made
through interactive
process
Dissemination Facilitation
Passive, One-way transfer
Facilitated, Active,
Feedback & interaction
WLE Project
synthesis, MG
Repackaging
research, using
'write shops' as
an example, JG
Participatory
social research
comms, PB
"How to
use multi-
stakeholder
platforms. FQ
Participatory
video, JBUptake of
aflatoxins,
BM
Farm radio,
KH

11. Communication for Change
• Create Conversations &
engage with partners,
with stakeholders,
• Learning: Process not just
products (learning)
• Linking and connecting
• No silver bullet: multiple
channels and routes – no
one way
• Understand local context
• Demonstrate usefulness
and effectiveness. Take chances – without which there is
no innovation (positive deviance)

12. TITLE (IMAGE OPTION)
Image options available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/waterlandeco
Project synthesis (and its communication):
A researcher’s point of view

13. Uniting agriculture and nature for poverty reduction
A fundamental shift in global agriculture is required…
… making sustainability the core strategy for agricultural
development
Rockström et al. 2016

14. Uniting agriculture and nature for poverty reduction
WLE Sustainable Intensification Implementation
Briefs: Objectives
• Elaborate WLE’s approach to sustainable intensification of
agricultural systems
• Bring together the scientific evidence and solutions across
the WLE portfolio that contribute to this transition
• Present the work in an engaging way as a Flagship product of
WLE
• Target investors, development professionals and researchers

15. Uniting agriculture and nature for poverty reduction
WLE Sustainable Intensification Implementation
Briefs: Adaptive process
• Identify cross-cutting “themes”: topics that illustrate scientific
contributions and solutions for sustainable intensification
• Aggregate research: common research questions to organize the
outputs and prepare initial research summaries
• Decide target audience and format: ~ 6 page briefs with references
and links to additional resources
• Prepare and revise drafts, incorporating feedback from peer
review: joint effort of writers, scientists and communications team
• Test the product: share initial brief for feedback both within and
outside of the program

16. Uniting agriculture and nature for poverty reduction
WLE Sustainable Intensification Implementation
Briefs: Product(s)
+
SIIBs Complementary Synthesis Products

17. Uniting agriculture and nature for poverty reduction
WLE Sustainable Intensification Implementation
Briefs: Challenges and Lessons Learned
• What’s the purpose? Clarify from the start the purpose of and
target audience(s) for the synthesis.
• How to get started? Identify common research questions
across projects and products and standardize a system to code
and store the information.
• Where to “draw the line”? Challenges of synthesizing an on-
going research program.

18. U N I T I N G A G R I C U LT U R E A N D N AT U R E F O R P O V E R T Y R E D U C T I O N
THANK YOU
wle.cgiar.org

19. Beyond articles: Participatory, ‘social’
agricultural research communication
Peter Ballantyne
International Livestock Research Institute

20. Agricultural research communication
1. Usually, agricultural
scientists know how to
publish in articles and
reports;
2. But, ‘as usual’ research
communication isn’t enough
to achieve outcomes.
3. Effective participation, rich
engagement, collective
synthesis, facilitation, social
learning and diverse
channels help research to
communicate ‘un-usually’
4. At ILRI, like others, we’ve
tried various ways to do
this.

21. Participatory, ‘social’ research
communication
• Involves researchers as
communicators
• Supports researchers in
participatory co-
creation [with each
other and with others]
• Engages researchers in
documenting, sharing
and learning processes
• Facilitates science
sharing and uptake

22. Enhancing dairy-based
livelihoods in India and
Tanzania through feed
innovation and value
chain development
approaches
ILRI, CIAT, national and
local and community
partners
IFAD
2012-2015

23. What we tried to do
• Participatory, social ways to:
• Discuss, capture, document insights
and lessons
• Publish, disseminate, make results
accessible
• Engage, design, facilitate for
effective participation

24. Meetings and workshops

25. Review and learning
• Exercise - ‘Me and MilkIT' - Mapping activities along the life of the
project
• Deep dive into lessons results, outcome pathways, developing project
story and how project evolved differently in the two countries. -> Early
thoughts: MilkIT project learning points
• ‘MilkIT memories' - Identifying and synthesizing key products and
outputs and lessons
• ‘MilkIT futures’ - Outcomes and impacts - now and projected
• Synthesis: agreed set of project products to work on

26. Village innovation platform meetings

27. Outreach event with partners
‘synthesis posters’, media and blogposts

28. Synthesis blogpost

29. Outreach ‘poster’

30. Interview with partner

31. Review –> Outreach –> Writeshop

32. Different products

33. Whiteboard script

34. Review -> Outreach poster -> whiteboard ->
video

35. Back to the blog

36. Other products – policy brief

37. Photos from the scientists

38. The MilkIT story
• Besides the science; some ‘un-usual’
comms
• Reviewed, discussed, documented
insights and lessons – events,
meetings, platforms, visits, interviews,
writeshops, experiments – on the wiki,
in blogposts, in products
• articles, practice and policy briefs,
posters, chapters, case studies, video,
media stories, outreach, conferences
• Designed, facilitated, engaged events
– facilitation, preparation, writing,
learning, socializing, reporting
• Multiple stocktaking & communication
activities with diverse outputs and
purposes
• Scientists the key actors; with some
help from their comms friends!

39. Dr. Julian Gonsalves
Senior Advisor
International Institute of Rural Reconstruction

40. The focus in the R&D community has to shift to those that
were left behind (the bottom 40% that has NOT benefited
much from agricultural science and modernization efforts).
Unfortunately those that do front line work, interphasing
with farmers and local communities probably lack internet
connectivity.
Not only do we have an EQUITY and WIDENING INCOME GAP
worry but also a DIGITAL DIVIDE.
Science simplification (and social learning) can play a major
role in bringing change where it is needed.
Conventional knowledge products can still make a difference
(complementary to electronic platforms). Don’t give up on
them.

42. Source:
https://asia.ifad.org/enrap/resources/activities/enrap-iii/enrap-experience-
on-writeshops/writeshop-outputs/?searchterm=writeshop

43. Sources:
Volume 1: http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/bitstream/10625/35115/1/IDL-35115.pdf
Volume 2: https://www.idrc.ca/en/book/participatory-research-and-development-
sustainable-agriculture-and-natural-resource-0
Volume 3: https://www.idrc.ca/en/book/participatory-research-and-development-
sustainable-agriculture-and-natural-resource-management

44. Source: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/35111

46. Source: https://waterandfood.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/KM6.jpg
Source: https://waterandfood.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/KM113.jpg

48.  Simplifying complex or long articles
(i.e. repackaging research report)
 Bringing together field workers with an experience that needs
to be documented (via an assisted process involving
writers/editors)
 To critique proposals and annual reports (peer review,
multiple stakeholders)
 To critique and improve policy briefs (researchers interact
with policy makers in reviewing science-derived policy briefs)

49.  Vary from one to five days (topics
and writers are pre-identified; first
drafts and outlines prepared before the writeshop)
 Preliminary layout, artwork and initial editing done
DURING the writeshop
 Post writeshop is longer because it is where harmonisation
and final editing and layout is done
 Process is modified if relying on PREVIOUSLY published
materials (involves external reviews, final editors and
layout staff)

50. https://cgspace.cgiar.
org/handle/10568/71
100
http://www.fao.org/3/
a-i4580e.pdf
http://www.angoc.org/
wp-
content/uploads/2015/
10/Enhacing-
Ownership-and-
Sustainability-Book-
FULL.pdf
http://capri.cgiar.org/s
ourcebook/

51. Questions/Remarks

52. Continuum of communications across the research for development spectrum
Research
Communications
Strategic
Communication
Participatory
Comms/ C4D
Social Learning/
Empowerment
Linear, one-way
Deliver’s
prepackaged
messages with
limited interaction
Response driven
Predetermined
packages with
user feedback
and interaction
Interactive
Communication
Approach to
change behavior
and attitude
Dialogue and
process driven
Knowledge and
decision made
through interactive
process
Dissemination Facilitation
Passive, One-way transfer
Facilitated, Active,
Feedback & interaction
WLE Project
synthesis, MG
Repackaging
research, using
'write shops' as
an example, JG
Participatory
social research
comms, PB
"How to
use multi-
stakeholder
platforms. FQ
Participatory
video, JBUptake of
aflatoxins,
BM
Farm radio,
KH

53. Pinning the Tail on the Donkey
The good, bad, ugly and lovely of embracing the
complexity of multistakeholder platforms
GFAR Webinar, March 21st, 2017

54. Purpose: To enhance relational coordination among multiple stakeholders and
generate new knowledge through sharing research, practices, and field
experiences from the Water, Food, and Energy nexus.
Participants: 36 research teams (2-12 people) sharing the results of their work
306 Participants 139 Institutions

55. Structure & Methods:
– 3-day Forum
– 36 sessions , plus knowledge sharing & social events in the evening
– Designed each session from the ground up using Liberating Structures and
other participatory dialogue methods
Design Challenges:
– Accepting the dynamic incompleteness of a single event
– Breaking inherited habits (dissemination vs. discovery & dialogue,
synthesis vs. sensemaking)
– Busting persistent myths around (individual) learning & development
– Making research outcomes understandable and actionable
– Establishing the conditions for novel insights to emerge and new
knowledge to be generated
– Creating opportunities for serendipitous collisions and interacting with
unusual suspects

56. The Good
• Much of the system is in the room
together
• The social network is dense & rich
• Conveners are unforgiving in their
dual focus on new knowledge
creation AND enhancing relational
coordination among participants
• Desire to organize and structure
interactions in a more generative
way is high
• Aesthetics of the experience and
space are set-up to promote
interaction & learning
(http://www.art-sciencefactory.com/onebigmob_story.html)

57. The Bad
• Persistent myths about the generation
of new knowledge and the role of the
Rat
• Assumptions about learning as a linear,
logical, and flat sequence as opposed
to a complex, dynamic unfolding
• Fully embracing that “This is NOT a
research conference”

58. The Ugly
• Snapping back into old habits
• Coordinating the design of 36
participatory sessions and
introducing researchers to a new
repertoire of methods (Liberating
Structures)
• Getting clear on the purpose of the
session… and then sticking with the
design
• Suggesting to researchers that there
is a wider dynamic range of
possibilities when engaging
stakeholders aside from ‘getting
feedback on my project’

59. The Lovely
• Enthusiastic engagement
punctuated with moments of
confusiasm
• Observing the co-production of
new knowledge happening in
realtime
• Experimentation around new
methods and embracing the
complex and messy uncertainty of
inviting participants to generate
something novel together
• Densification of the social &
relational network – a tighter
weave of connections
• Hosting & convening
principles/conditions that make it
safe to take bolder risks

60. Resources
www.liberatingstructures.com/ls
Images of Organization by Gareth Morgan
Greater Mekong Forum on Water, Food, and Energy:
https://wle-mekong.cgiar.org/2016forum/
Relational Coordination Research Collaborative:
https://rcrc.brandeis.edu/

61. Participatory Video: interactive
research ‘in’ development
Juliet Braslow
March 21 2017

62. Participatory Video
• How do you give a voice to those who
often are not heard?
• Handing over a video camera and
equipment leads to learning on many
levels
• Facilitates true bottom-up
participation in the research process
• Reveals group power dynamics
• Helps identify opportunities for
individual and group action
• Multidirectional communication and
opportunities for feedback
6
2

63. Participatory video process
• Through a 6 day process farmers:
• Learn video techniques
• Practice interviewing skills
• Support each other to learn together
• Distil the messages they want to share
• Develop, film, and edit their story
• Choose audience to inform about important issues:
• Often community, local leaders, and the world
6
3

64. Five Participatory Video case studies
• Facilitated with local partners in
Ghana, Kenya, Malawi and
Tanzania
• Across different community and
agroecological contexts
• Shared learning from videos,
interviews, observations, and
discussion during and after the
video production
6
4

65. Indigenous knowledge for sustainable resource use
• Farmers focused on their knowledge in
order to:
• Help others (NGOs, government, etc.)
better understand their local context
& acknowledge indigenous practices
• Facilitate farmer-to-farmer learning
• Myriad of examples include:
• Manure management with a limited
supply
• Tree species’ multiple uses and
benefits
• Incorporating local manure and trees
that attract goats to fertilize the field
with their droppings
6
5

66. Farmers’ teach their systems thinking
• Farmers demonstrate
their systems thinking at
multiple levels
• Farming system level:
interconnectedness of
farming activities
• Landscape system level:
farm activities impact the
wider environment
• Poverty forces people to
interact with their
resources unsustainably
6
6

67. Landscape system: farm activities impact the environment
6
7
Farmers Identify
Upstream & Downstream Relationships
• Unsustainable activities lead to:
• Lack of water upstream
• Flooding downstream
• Impacts crop, forest, livestock
productivity
• Terraces, stone bunds, grass strips,
trees on farm can help
Farmin
g
System
Erosio
n
Water
qualit
y
Forest
goods
Water
Availability
“Some choose not to cooperate and they are not
taking responsibility upstream for the effects
downstream”
Farmer in Malawi

68. Linking and connecting: Video screenings and discussions
Every PV process includes
screenings and discussions with
various actors such as:
• District Executive Committee
• Forestry and Agriculture
departments
• Community members
• Traditional authorities and
leaders
• Local TV and radio stations
• Locally active NGOs
• Power of farmers on screen &
leading discussions
• Group brainstorming for action
and behavior change
6
8

69. Conclusions
The PV process:
• Allows farmers to take control of the
dialogue to communicate for the
change they desire
• Provides a unique space for a
transformative learning process
• Farmers demonstrate their systems
thinking and understanding of how
farm activities impact the world around
them
• Feeds into research and development
activities that are locally relevant
Farmers hope their videos can serve to
inspire the necessary cooperation and
individual action toward safeguarding
ecosystems and food security
6
9
“Even on the first day I could operate the camera on my own
and then all together we helped each other learn more. We
worked as a team to learn and make a good video.”
Rachel, a farmer in Malawi

70. Thank you, Asante, Zikomo,
Npohiya, Barka
7
0
These Participatory Video processes were made
possible in partnership with:
With funding from:
Malawi (Photo: J. Braslow)
Juliet.braslow@gmail.com
Photos by Juliet Braslow/CIAT

71. Participatory Videos and links
• Blogs about Participatory Video and
mapping Process
• http://blog.ciat.cgiar.org/an-ecosystems-
approach-to-the-sdgs-in-africa-why-we-
need-to-listen-to-farmers/
• http://blog.ciat.cgiar.org/farmers-film-
their-homegrown-solutions/
• http://blog.ciat.cgiar.org/filming-for-
change-when-farmers-get-behind-the-
camera/
• http://blog.ciat.cgiar.org/farmers-become-
editors-what-next/
• http://insightshare.tumblr.com/post/1426
31656625/farmers-film-their-homegrown-
solutions
7
1
• You Tube links of Participatory Videos
• "Ti Na Nyang" – "We Can" Upper East
Ghana: https://youtu.be/8hw4ytnCU6A
• “Let's conserve the environment by finding
solutions to end poverty” Ntcheu district
Malawi: https://youtu.be/0EZD5lv_xAQ
• “Farming challenges in North Alego,
Kenya”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTUU
P6RYWSQ&feature=youtu.be
• “Don’t Destroy the Environment” Upper
West, Ghana:
https://youtu.be/RrZQt3dHJoA
• “The Environment is Life” Lushoto,
Tanzania:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erjbv
Nr15jY&feature=youtu.be

72. Opportunities for the EC/PAEPARD funded project:
Participatory Research for Stemming Aflatoxin pre- and post-harvest waste
in the groundnut value chain (GnVC)
How mobile phone videos can foster
aflatoxin / groundnut research uptake by
farmers

73. Addressing the adoption challenge
• Aflatoxin research and aflatoxin
awareness creation is only effective when
farmers can implement affordable and
practical (technical) solutions

74. Addressing the communication challenge

75. Sample
Sample
Sample
SampleSample
Sample
Sample
Radio/TV/ Videos
Calendars
Leaflets
Newsletter
Means of
reaching out
farmers
Mobile
phones
Trainings/coachin
g/ backstopping/
meetings
Demos/field
days
Seeing is believing

76. From researcher managed trials to farmer participatory
research on groundnuts and aflatoxin
• Researcher managed
• ConsultativeOn-farm trials
• Farmer managed
• Collaborative
Farmer participatory
research

77. From researcher guided video to farmer participatory
video on groundnuts and aflatoxin
In 2015 the Video production team of
National Smallholders Farmers Association
of Malawi (NASFAM) went to film a
smallholder farmer Eletina Cosmas working
with her pigeon peas and maize.
They hoped that by the end of the day they
will have a farmer-training video to pass on
to other farmers.
Right before the camera rolled Eletina seems
to be confused and she asks “How do I get
to watch this video after you are finished
doing it?”
Eletina like most of smallholder in Malawi
farmers are constantly on look for right
quality information, at right time and right
medium.

78. From researcher guided video to farmer participatory
video on groundnuts and aflatoxin
DJs in Malawi distribute movies and
music videos to a large rural audience.
The DJs are mostly young men who are
based in small towns and put videos on
people’s cell phones and on DVDs
In 2015 three DVDs were distributed in
English, Chichewa and other Malawian
languages to 95 DJs in southern Malawi.
The DVD compilations were: Rice Advice
(11 video modules), Fighting Striga (10
video modules), Chilli (7 video modules)
A survey in September 2016 revealed that 21,800 rural people watched the
Access Agriculture videos as a result the distributed DVDs in 2015.
During market days the farmers visit burning centres. The farmers can get his
or her memory card filled up with Access Agriculture films to watch on the
phone. These phones are not smart phones but the basic GSM phones with
memory card slot

79. Managing aflatoxins in groundnuts
during drying and storage
Tuesday 21st February 2017
Let us learn how to dry and store groundnuts to have clean, healthy
groundnuts, free of aflatoxins
Certain moulds grow on groundnut, maize and other foods. These moulds
produce a poison called aflatoxin. To have healthy groundnuts it is important
to care for the groundnut during its whole growth, but especially during drying
and storage.
• Language: English
• Forthcoming: Chichewa (Malawi)
and Chinyanja (Zambia)
• Duration 15:40
• Produced for McKnight Foundation
• Produced by Agro-Insight
• Distributed by: Access Agriculture
website or the Agtube website

80. farmradio.org@farmradio
Sharing knowledge, giving voice

81. farmradio.org@farmradio
1. Scale
2. Interactive = results
3. Preferred language
4. Accessibility
5. Overcomes literacy
6. Oral tradition
7. Cost-effective
Why Radio?

82. farmradio.org@farmradio
FRI uses interactive radio strategies & ICT tools
to link researchers, broadcasters and farmers
(feedback/dialogue loops) to share research
results with communities.
Room for doubt and discussion
INNOVATION: RADIO AND ICTs
AS A RESEARCH UPTAKE
PATHWAY

83. farmradio.org@farmradio
ICT INNOVATION
FRI’s Uliza Platform: Through use of mobile phones, SMS,
voice messages, broadcasters and researchers can reach and
get feedback from listeners.

84. farmradio.org@farmradio
ACHIEVING RESULTS
○ A 2014 study with Irish Aid in 4 countries
showed that on average, people in listening
communities are 5x more likely to to take up a
practice featured in a participatory radio
campaign.
○ Recent outcome evaluation on station with
half million potential listeners estimated that
71,000 farmers began to practice after
listening
○ Estimated 20 million African farmers provided
with radio-based extension services since
2010

85. farmradio.org@farmradio

86. farmradio.org@farmradio
COST PER
ADOPTER
FRI’s participatory radio campaigns can
encourage listeners to adopt agricultural
practices for less than $1 USD per farmer.

87. farmradio.org@farmradio

88. farmradio.org@farmradio
THANK YOU

89. Questions/Remarks