لغزش، خیانت، و سازگاری خلاق: درسهایی از ارزیابی رویکرد توسعه بازار مشارکتی در کوه های آند

Participatory approaches are frequently recommended for international development programs, but few have been evaluated. From 2007 to 2010 the Andean Change Alliance evaluated an agricultural research and development approach known as the “Participatory Market Chain Approach” (PMCA). Based on a study of four cases, this paper examines the fidelity of implementation, the factors that influenced implementation and results, and the PMCA change model. We identify three types of deviation from the intervention protocol (lapses, creative adaptations, and true infidelities) and five groups of variables that influenced PMCA implementation and results (attributes of the macro context, the market chain, the key actors, rules in use, and the capacity development strategy). There was insufficient information to test the validity of the PMCA change model, but results were greatest where the PMCA was implemented with highest fidelity. Our analysis suggests that the single most critical component of the PMCA is engagement of market agents – not just farmers – throughout the exercise. We present four lessons for planning and evaluating participatory approaches related to the use of action and change models, the importance of monitoring implementation fidelity, the limits of baseline survey data for outcome evaluation, and the importance of capacity development for implementers.

Participatory approaches are often recommended to improve the efficiency and sustainability of international development programs or to contribute to local capacity development and empowerment (Chambers, 2010 and World Bank, 1996). Participatory approaches have a long history in agricultural research and development (R&D), beginning with cropping and farming systems research in the 1970s and evolving to a broad array of participatory approaches for rural assessment, plant breeding, natural resource management, and market chain development (Devaux et al., 2009, Collinson, 2000 and Scoones and Thompson, 2009). Despite the extensive interest in and experimentation with participatory approaches over nearly a half-century, few of these approaches have been systematically evaluated and there is little evidence of their effectiveness and benefits (Johnson et al., 2003 and Martin, 2009).

In the work reported on here, we applied evaluative thinking to assess the implementation and outcomes of a participatory approach in the field of agricultural R&D. While common in evaluation practice, the use of action and change models had not to our knowledge been rigorously applied in this field. So although we are publishing this paper in a journal on evaluation and program planning, we believe it will also be of interest to agricultural R&D professionals. Good quality of implementation of participatory approaches is vital to increase the probability that they can achieve their intended results. But what counts as “good” and how can this be achieved without stifling the creativity and adaptation needed for a participatory approach to work at all? The distinction we draw between creative adaptations, lapses, and true infidelities – grounded in the action model and making the link to outcomes in the change model – helps answer this tricky question. We believe this kind of thinking is of broader relevance both to evaluators and to practitioners of agricultural R&D.