A framework for incorporating indigenous knowledge systems into agricultural extension

B. Rajasekaran
R.A. Martin
D.M. Warren

A study in three villages of the Union Territory of Pondicherry (India) revealed that indigenous knowledge systems can provide a frame of reference for strengthening agricultural extension programmes. The findings of the study have led the researchers to develop a framework for incorporating indigenous knowledge systems into agricultural extension organizations. This article presents their methodological framework to incorporate indigenous knowledge systems into agricultural extension organizations for sustainable agricultural development in India.

Local people, including farmers, landless labourers, women, rural artisans and cattle rearers are the custodians of indigenous knowledge systems (IKSs). These indigenous knowledge systems may appear simple to outsiders but they represent mechanisms to ensure minimal livelihoods for the rural resource-poor people in India. However, farmers' needs, priorities and innovations are not always considered while developing and disseminating technologies (Rajasekaran and Martin, 1990).

Understanding farmers' knowledge allows a framework of reference for posing technical and scientific questions in research. It also provides the basis for evolving technological options that are not imposed as alien 'packages' which contradict existing practices (Scoones, 1989). For instance, technological interventions with respect to agroforestry must be based on the principles of ethnobotany, agro-ecology and farmer' experiments on home gardens (Rocheleau, 1987). Therefore, identifying, documenting and incorporating indigenous knowledge systems into agricultural extension organizations is essential in order to achieve sustainable agricultural development.

A recent study was conducted in three villages of the Union Territory of Pondicherry (India). Indigenous knowledge systems were recorded using farmer participatory methods such as participant observations and unstructured interactions (Rajasekaran, 1992). The findings of the study revealed that IKSs can provide a frame of reference for strengthening agricultural extension programmes and have led the researchers to the development of a framework for incorporating IKSs into agricultural extension organizations. This article focuses on the development of the framework.

Framework development
The need for researcher-farmer involvement has been given high priority in the recent farming systems research/extension literature. However, it is difficult for research station scientists to conduct research involving farmers all the time due to the insufficient human resource capacity of regional research stations (Rajasekaran and Martin, 1990; Warren, 1991). For instance, there is only one research station in the Pondicherry region, which is expected to cater to all agricultural research needs of the entire region. There are approximately twenty scientists working in this station. This number is far too low when compared to the number of farming communities in the region. Keeping this low researcher-farm family ratio in view, the framework advocates the use of academically well-trained and 'research minded' extension personnel to identify, record and validate farmer experiments.

Recent statistics show that most of the divisional-level subject matter specialists (SMSs) are post-graduates in different disciplines such as agronomy, soil science, entomology and plant breeding. The advanced knowledge they acquire during a government-paid post-graduate training period is rarely exploited (Rajasekaran and Martin, 1990). It would be advisable if they use their academic training along with their field experience as SMSs for validating farmer experimentation. They should spend at least one day in a week on activities such as problem identification, recording relevant IKSs and presenting the problems and IKSs to the technology development consortium.

Recording the indigenous knowledge systems (IKSs) of farmers forms the first step of developing and disseminating sustainable agricultural technologies. How do farmers try to overcome their problems using their own knowledge? For instance, informal exchange of rice seeds from farmer-to-farmer is used as a strategy by farmers to solve the growing demands of quality rice seeds in the study villages. The SMSs in coordination with agricultural officers should record IKSs.

Farmer experiments
There are farmers who are always experimenting and involved in informal research and development activities (Biggs, 1990). Roling and Engel (1992) warned that 'to look at farmers only as users neglects the important fact that farmers are experimenters and that farmers have developed most of the technology used on the farm today'. Specific extension programmes should be targeted towards strengthening what farmers are already experimenting with. Farmer experimenters are those farmers who conduct experiments in order to evaluate certain indigenous technical practices in their own way. Validating farmer experiments is an extension process in which SMSs encourage farmers to replicate their own experiments in their own environment in order to understand experiments in the socio-cultural and agro- ecological environments and to determine the impact of the experiments on productivity, profitability and sustainability of the agricultural system.

During bi-weekly training programmes, separate sessions should be allotted to develop extension programmes for validating farmer experiments. The various steps involved in the process of developing the extension programmes are selecting 'research minded' village extension workers, identifying 'research minded' farmers who are already involved in farmer experiments and establishing programmes for validating farmer experiments.

Selection of farmers is one of the crucial activities during the process of validating farmer experiments. The various steps involved are:

1. Understanding the rationale behind farmer experimentation. Examples are testing varieties for yield increase, blending local and external inputs, avoiding risk by adjusting sowing and harvesting periods, and testing new varieties for local adaption.
2. Recording the mode of conducting experiments. For instance, some farmers conduct varietal trials by raising local and high yielding varieties in two different plots. Others establish experiments by planting the local and new varieties in alternate rows.
3. Identifying farmers' evaluation criteria. The criteria used by farmers to evaluate their own experiments differ from farmer to farmer and also for the same farmer, from crop to crop. The physical stand of the crop and the way it bears the earheads is one of the major criteria for rice farmers in the Eastern Visayas region of Philippines (Tung, 1992). In the study villages, farmers randomly uproot one or two groundnut crops and shake the pods by holding them close to their ears. If they hear any sound, it indicates that the pods are filled.

Experimenter workshops should be conducted immediately after validating farmer experiments. The village extension workers should facilitate the experimenter workshops by involving farmer experimenters as resource persons. The SMSs should act as semi-silent observers during these workshops. This process is a way of empowering and respecting village-level extension workers and farmers. Farmer experimenters should be encouraged to share their experiences while conducting the experiments. They are expected to answer specific questions raised by other participant farmers. After the formal discussion, the SMSs should wrap up the workshop by sharing their experiences during the process of validating farmer experiments. The village extension worker should act as a facilitator by bringing farmers to the subject of discussion when conflicts arise and also monitor the time.

Finally, farmer experimenters with inputs from other farmers should evaluate the technologies that have been tested during the farmer experimentation procedure in terms of their contribution to productivity of crops and associated livestock, sustainability of the agricultural system, complexity (e.g., ease of experimentation) and labour intensity. They are expected to arrive at any one of the following decisions:

1. Drop the technological option that has been tested.
2. Technological option needs long-term research.
3. Technological option is ready for further dissemination.

Compton (1989) stated that extension personnel blanket the countryside. This enormous human resource capacity should be effectively utilized for dissemination technologies to distant locations and other villages. In spite of the continuous debate regarding the effectiveness of the Training and Visit (T&V) extension system, the T&V stands as the single major source for formal technology dissemination in many developing countries. The T&V system of extension has sought to operationalize a strong and regular link between research and extension, and between extension and farmers (World Bank, 1990). The salient features of the T&V such as monthly zonal workshops, biweekly training programmes, village extension workers contact with farmers and maintaining a low extension worker-farm family ratio can be effectively utilized. The potential of the T&V system of extension in increasing agricultural productivity has been clearly demonstrated (Antholt, 1992; Feder, Slade and Sundaram, 1986).

Monthly zonal workshops are the important points where farmer experimenters as original innovators of technologies need to be recognized. It is essential for agricultural extension personnel to listen to the farmer experimenters whose raw materials (IKSs) contributed to the development of finished products (technological options). Encouraging the farmer experimenters by offering cash prizes is one of several ways of providing recognition and compensation for their contribution to the development of technologies. Such rewards also encourage their colleagues to share their knowledge by participating in the process of developing technological options.

The SMSs receive technologies from zonal workshops and relay them to their village- level extension workers without tailoring these technologies to the agro-ecological and socio-cultural conditions of their own division (Rajasekaran and Warren, 1994). Once the technological options are disseminated to extension personnel, it is their responsibility to screen those options by considering the following factors:

1. SMSs should select those technological options that fit into agro-ecological environments of their division.
2. SMSs should work with village-level extension workers in understanding the socio-cultural factors that have a negative impact on selected technological options.

1. Technologies delivered by the existing research-extension system are fixed packages and rarely provide any options to farmers. The system expects the farmers to adopt an entire package. On the other hand, the technologies that are developed using the proposed framework provides diversified technological options which enable farmers to choose using their own decision-making system.
2. Presently technologies rarely build on IKSs of farmers. In the new approach, technological options presented to farmers originate from the farmers' own knowledge.
3. Under the conventional system, technologies come from only one source, the research stations. In the suggested system, the technological options are developed using diversified sources such as extension agents, NGOs, farmers, and research stations in active participation with 'research minded' farmers.

Conclusion
Incorporating indigenous knowledge systems into agricultural and extension education programmes will result in understanding the 'emic' perspectives of local people, bridging the communications gap between outsiders and insiders, recognizing the accomplishments of local farmers, helping outsiders familiarize themselves with local conditions, and increasing the participation of farmers and their organizations in integrating, utilizing and disseminating what already exists.

Dr. B. Rajasekaran
Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network
2250 Pierce Road
University Center
Michigan 48710
USA
Tel: +1-517-797 2700
Fax: +1-517-797 2622

Dr. R.A. Martin
Department of Agricultural Extension
Iowa State University
Ames
Iowa 50011
USA

Dr. D.M. Warren
CIKARD
318 Curtiss Hall
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa 50011
USA
Tel: +1-515-2940938
Fax: +1-515-2946058
E-mail: dmwarren@iastate.edu

References
Antholt, C. (1992) 'Agricultural extension in the 21st century: lessons from South Asia', pp. 203-216 in W.M. Rivera and D.J. Gustafson (eds) Agricultural extension: worldwide institutional evolution and forces for change. New York: Elsevier Science Publishing Company.

Biggs, S. (1990) 'A multiple source of innovation model of agricultural research and technology promotion', World Development 18(11):1481-1499.

Compton, L. (1989) 'Strategies and methods for the access, integration, and utilization of indigenous knowledge in agriculture and rural development', pp. 21-32. in D.M. Warren, L.J. Slikkerveer and S.O. Titilola (eds) Indigenous knowledge systems: implications for agricultural and international development. Studies in Technology and Social Change Series No.11. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, Technology and Social Change Program.

Feder, G., R. Slade and A.K. Sundaram (1986) 'The training and visit extension: an analysis of operation and effects', Agricultural Administration and Extension 21:33-59.

Mundy, P. and L. Compton (1991) 'Indigenous communication and indigenous knowledge', Development Communication Report 74(3):1-3.

Rajasekaran, B. and R.A. Martin (1990) 'Evaluating the role of farmers in training and visit extension system in India.' Paper presented at the Tenth Farming Systems Research/Conference. East Lansing, Michigan, USA.

Rajasekaran, B. (1992) A framework for incorporating indigenous knowledge systems into agricultural research and extension organizations for sustainable agricultural development in India. Ph.D. dissertation. Ames: Iowa State University.

Rajasekaran, B. and D.M. Warren (1994) 'Indigenous rice taxonomies and farmers' rice production decision-making systems in South India.' in D.M. Warren, L.J. Slikkerveer and D. Brokensha (eds) Indigenous knowledge systems: the cultural dimensions of development. (in press)

Rocheleau, D. (1987) 'The user perspective and the agroforestry research and action agenda.' Paper presented at Workshop on Farmers and Agricultural Research: Complementary Methods. Sussex: University of Sussex, Institute of Development Studies.

Roling, N. and P. Engel (1992) 'The development of the concept of agricultural knowledge information systems (AKIS): implications for extension', pp. 125-138 in W.M. Rivera and D.J. Gustafson (eds) Agricultural extension: worldwide institutional evolution and forces for change. New York: Elsevier Science Publishing Company.

Scoones, I. (1989) Patch use by cattle in dryland Zimbabwe: farmer knowledge and ecological theory. ODI Pastoral Development Network Paper No. 28. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Tung, L. (1992) 'Farmer experimentation', On Farm Research Notes 11:2.

Warren, D.M. (1990) 'Indigenous knowledge systems and development.' Background paper for Seminar Series on Sociology and Natural Resource Management. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.

Warren, D.M. (1991) 'The role of indigenous knowledge in facilitating the agricultural extension process.' Paper presented at International Workshop on Agricultural Knowledge Systems and the Role of Extension, Bad Boll, Germany

Warren, D.M. (1992) 'Indigenous knowledge and sustainable development: a review of critical research areas and policy issues.' Paper presented at the International Symposium on Indigenous Knowledge and Sustainable Development, Silang, Cavite, The Philippines.

World Bank (1990) Agricultural extension: the next step. Policy and Research Paper No. 13. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.