Integrating Agroecology and Participatory Action Research (PAR)

19 Pages·2017·0.45 MB·English

sustainability
Article
Integrating Agroecology and Participatory Action
Research (PAR): Lessons from Central America
V.ErnestoMéndez1,*,MarthaCaswell1,StephenR.Gliessman2,3andRoseannCohen2
1 AgroecologyandLivelihoodsCollaborative(ALC),DepartmentofPlantandSoilScienceand
EnvironmentalProgram,UniversityofVermont,Burlington,VT05405,USA;[email protected]
2 CommunityAgroecologyNetwork(CAN),SantaCruz,CA95064,USA;[email protected](S.R.G.);
[email protected](R.C.)
3 DepartmentofEnvironmentalStudies,UniversityofCalifornia,SantaCruz,CA95064,USA
* Correspondence:[email protected]
AcademicEditors:ManuelGonzálezdeMolina,GloriaGuzmanandMarcA.Rosen
Received:3February2017;Accepted:24April2017;Published:28April2017
Abstract: The last decade has seen an increasing advancement and interest in the integration of
agroecology and participatory action research (PAR). This article aims to: (1) analyze the key
characteristicsandprinciplesoftwocasestudiesthatintegratedPARandagroecologyinCentral
America; and (2) learn from the lessons offered by these case studies, as well as others from the
literature,onhowtobetterintegratePARandagroecology.KeyprinciplesidentifiedforeffectivePAR
agroecological processes include a shared interest in research by partners, a belief in collective
power/action, a commitment to participation, practicing humility and establishing trust and
accountability. Importantlessonstoconsiderforfutureworkinclude: (1)researchprocessesthat
didnotstartasPAR,canevolveintoit;(2)farmer/stakeholderparticipationinsettingtheresearch
agenda, from the outset, results in higher engagement and enhanced outcomes; (3) having the
rightpartnersforthedesiredoutcomesiskey;(4)intentionalandexplicitreflectionisanessential
component of PAR processes; and (5) cross-generational collaborations are crucial to long-term
benefits. KeychallengesthatconfrontPARprocessesincludetheneedfortimeandresourcesover
longerperiods;thecomplexityofmulti-actorprocessfacilitation;andinstitutionalbarrierswithin
theacademyanddevelopmentorganizations,whichpreventshiftinginvestmenttowardsintegrated
PARagroecologicalprocesses.
Keywords: community-based research; farmer cooperatives; transdisciplinary research; coffee;
ElSalvador;Nicaragua;Mexico
1. Introduction
The field of agroecology has gained considerable recognition in the last decade and is now
viewedbroadlyasanapproachencompassingadiversityofperspectives. Thesecanvaryintermsof
academiccontent,researchmethods,andpracticalandpoliticalapplications[1]. Basedontheworkby
Gliessman(2015)[2]andMéndezetal. (2016)[3],wedefineagroecologyasanapproachthatseeksto
integrateecologicalsciencewithotheracademicdisciplines(e.g.,agronomy,sociology,history,etc.)and
knowledgesystems(e.g.,local,indigenous,etc.) toguideresearchandactionstowardsthesustainable
transformationofourcurrentagrifoodsystem. Thisdefinitionembodiesatransdisciplinary-oriented
agroecology,integratingdifferentknowledgesystemsinasearchforsolutionstothechallengesposed
bycurrentagrifoodsystemissues[4,5]. Italsosupportsthenotionthatagroecologyisanapproach
thatexpressesitselfasascience,apracticeandasocialmovement[6],andthatitismosteffective
whenthesethreedimensionsconverge. Theagroecologicalprincipleofintegratingfarmer/localand
scientificknowledgerepresentsoneofthecoreintersectionsofscienceandpracticeinagroecology.
Sustainability2017,9,705;doi:10.3390/su9050705 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2017, 9, 705 2 of 19
Sustainability2017,9,705 2of19
and practice in agroecology. It also provides a natural setting for Participatory Action Research
I(tPaAlsRo).p Vroavriiadnetssa onf athtuer PalAsRet atipnpgrfooarcPha hrtaivciep gaatoinryedA icntciorneaRseedse laergcihti(mPAacRy) .aVnadr iaapnptsliocafttihoenPs AinR aa gprporwoainchg
hnauvmebgeari noefd acinacdreemasiecd fileelgditsi,m inacclyuadnindga gpepoligcraatpiohnys [in7]a, egcroolwoginyg [n8]u, medbuercaotfioanca [d9e],m tihcefi heeldaslt,hin sccliuednicnegs
g[1e0o]g arnadph tyhe[ 7s]o,ceicaol lsocgieyn[c8e]s, e[1d1u]c. ation[9],thehealthsciences[10]andthesocialsciences[11].
WWhheenn uusseedd iinn ccoommbbiinnaattiioonn wwiitthh aaggrrooeeccoollooggiiccaall pprriinncciipplleess,, PPAARR ooffffeerrss aa pprraaccttiiccaall aapppprrooaacchh ffoorr
bbrriinnggiinngg ffoorrwwaarrdd tthhee eexxppeerrttiissee ooff nnoonn--rreesseeaarrcchheerrss——iinncclluuddiinngg ssmmaallllhhoollddeerr ffaarrmmeerrss aanndd ootthheerrss wwhhoo
hhaavvee ddeeeepp kknnoowwlleeddggee ooff ppllaaccee,, ccoonntteenntt aanndd pprraaccttiicceess——aanndd wwhhoo bbeeccoommee aaccttiivvee ppaarrttnneerrss wwiitthh tthhoossee
ttrraaiinneedd mmoorree ffoorrmmaallllyy iinn rreesseeaarrcchh aanndd eexxppeerriimmeennttaall ddeessiiggnn.. IIddeeaallllyy,, tthhee rreessuulltt ooff tthhiiss ccoollllaabboorraattiivvee
wwoorrkk iiss kknnoowwlleeddggee tthhaatt hhaass bbeeeenn ccoo--ccrreeaatteedd aanndd tthhaatt iiss aaccttiioonnaabbllee.. IInn rreecceenntt yyeeaarrss,, aa ggrroowwiinngg nnuummbbeerr
ooff aaggrrooeeccoollooggiiccaall rreesseeaarrcchheerrss hhaavvee eemmbbrraacceedd PPAARR ttoo ccoonndduucctt tthheeiirr iinnvveessttiiggaattiioonnss [[1122]].. OOnnee ooff tthhee
ggrreeaatteesstt ssttrreennggtthhss ooff PPAARRi sist hthaatti tit“ “.…..rreelliieess oonn ‘‘ccoommpplleexxiittyy tthhiinnkkiinngg’’——nnoonn--lliinneeaarr,, ccoonnttiinnggeenntt aanndd
ccoonntteexxtt--ssppeecciifificca pappproraocahcehsersa trhaethrethr anthraend urcetdiouncitsitomniostd emlso.”d[e1l3s].”. P[A1R3].d iPstAinRg udisishteinsgituseislfhbeys pitusresluf inbgy
apuutrhseunintigc acoumthmenittmic ecnotmamnditmcoenntrt iabnudti ocnonstfrriobmutrioesnesa frrcohma nredsneaornc-hre asnedar nchonp-arretsneearrsc,ha spawretnllearss,s aese kwinelgl
tarsa nsesefokrinmga ttrioannsafloarcmtiaotniosntaol aadctdiorensss tios saudedsroefssc oisnscueersn otfo ctohnecepranr ttnoe trhsei npathrtenperrso cines tsh[e1 4p]r.oTcehses P[1A4R].
aTphper PoAacRh adpepscrroiabcehd dinestchriisbpedap iner tihnicsl puadpeesri tienrcaltuivdeesc yitcelreastiovfer ecsyecalercsh o,fr reeflseecatriochn, arnefdleaccttiioonn a(nFdig aucrteio1n),
a(Fnidguisreg r1o),u anndde disi gnraoubneldieefdt hina tat bheisliteyf ptheaotf trheisse tayrpche hofa sreaseroalrechto hpalsa ay ,rnoolet oton lpylainy,fi nnodt ionnglyso ilnu tfiionndsintgo
dsoalyuttioodnas ytoc hdaalyle tnog deasylo cchaalllyle,nbguetsa llosocatlolya, dbdurte aslsscoo tmo padledxrgeslosb caolmispsuleexs g[1lo].bal issues [1].
PPAARR hhaass bbeeeenn ddeessccrriibbeedd aass aann eemmeerrggeenntt pprroocceessss.. IItt iiss nnoott ssoommeetthhiinngg tthhaatt yyoouu aallwwaayyss aasssseerrtt wwhheenn
bbeeggiinnnniinngg,, bbuutt iinnsstteeaadd aa pprrooggrreessssiioonn tthhaatt ccaann bbee aacchhiieevveedd wwiitthh tthhee rriigghhtt iinntteennttiioonnss aanndd ddeeddiiccaatteedd
aaccttoorrss [[1155]].. HHoowweevveerr,, tthhee pprroocceessss rreeqquuiirreess iinntteennttiioonn aanndd ffaacciilliittaattiioonn,, aanndd mmaannyy rreesseeaarrcchheerrss iinntteerreesstteedd
iinn uussiinngg aa PPAARR aapppprrooaacchh aarree tteemmpptteedd ttoo sskkiipp tthhee iinniittiiaall sstteepp ooff ‘‘tteessttiinngg tthhee wwaatteerrss’’ dduuee ttoo bbuuddggeettaarryy
rreessttrriiccttiioonnss aanndd//oorr lliimmititss ooff ttiimmee. .WWee ffiinndd tthhee tteerrmm ‘‘pprreeflfleeccttiioonn’’,, uusseedd bbyy sscchhoollaarrss ffooccuussiinngg oonn
eexxppeerriieennttiiaall lleeaarrnniinngg [[1166,,1177]],, aass aa uusseeffuull ddeessccrriippttoorr ooff tthhiiss iinniittiiaall ssttaaggee.. FFiigguurree 11 sshhoowwss tthhee pprreefflleeccttiioonn
ssttaaggee aassa pae rpioerdioodf poref pparraetpioarnaatinodnp alanndn inpglatnhnaitnigs crthitaicta lisf orcrbiutiicladli nfgortr ubsut,iledsitnagb litsrhuisntg, eexsptaebctlaisthioinnsg,
aenxpdercetfiantiionngst,h aenrde sreeafrinchinqgu tehseti orensse.aArcnho tqhueersatdiojunsst. mAennottfhreorm adprjuevstimouesnPt AfrRomdi apgrreavmiosuiss tPhAeRre dcoiaggnriatimons
tish athtere rfleeccotgionnitaionnd tshhaatr irnegfleschtoiounld abned isnhtearrsinpger sshedouthldr obueg ihnotuerts,pemerpsehda stihzrionuggthhoatunt,e eitmheprhtahseizriensge atrhcaht
nnoeirththeer athctei ornesceyacrlcehs anroerc tohme palcettieonw cityhcoleust tahries ccoommpploentee nwt.itAhfotuert tthheisp croomcepssoniseinnti.t iAatfetedr, trhefle epcrtoiocnesasn ids
sinhiatriaintegdo, crceuflrectotioinnt earnpdr esthraersineagr ochccaunrd tod ienstiegrnpraectt iroense,aarncdh tahnedn daegsaiignnt aocrteioflne,c atnodn trheesunl atsgaainnd toid reenflteifcyt
nonew redsuirletcst aionnds .identify new directions.

FFiigguurree 11.. TThhee iitteerraattiivveeP PaarrtitcicipipaatotoryryA ActciotinonR eRseesaercahrc(hP A(PRA)cRy)c cleyc(mle o(dmifioeddifaiendd aenxdp aenxdpeadnfdreodm fBroamco nBaectoanl.,
2et0 0a5l.,[ 1280]0)5. T[1h8e]).i mThage eiminacglue dinecsluadperse fla epcrteioflnecptihoans ep—hawseh—erwehpearret npearrstndeervs edloepvealorpe laa trieolnastihoinps—hiapn—d
saenvde rsaelveitrearla ittieornastioonfsc yofc lceyscolefs roefs eraesrcehar,crhe,fl reecftleiocntioann danadc taicotnio.n.D Darakrkererc coololorrss rreeflfleecctt aa pprrooggrreessssiivvee
ddeeeeppeenniinngg ooff tthhee pprroocceessss aass iitt eevvoollvveess.. RReeflfleeccttiioonnss ccaann bbee iinntteerrnnaall——wwhhiicchh oonnllyy iinncclluuddeess tthhee ppaarrttnneerrss
iinnvvoollvveedd——bbuutt aallssoo eexxtteerrnnaall,, wwhheenn tthheerree iiss aa rreeaacchhiinngg oouutt ttoo ootthheerrss oouuttssiiddee ooff tthhee PPAARR iinniittiiaattiivvee ttoo
sshhaarree aanndd//oorr ddiissccuussss tthhee pprroocceessss..
Sustainability2017,9,705 3of19
Fordecades,PARhasbeenpositivelyassociatedwithagroecology,dueinlargeparttoitssupport
forscienceforthepeople,andongoingdialoguesofknowledgeandemergentpropertiesofsystems[19].
However,PARalsostruggleswithseveralchallenges,includingdifferinglevelsofparticipationfrom
specificpartners,aprocessthatrequiresalotoftimeandresources,butwithalimitedreach(i.e.,small
scale),issuesofpowerimbalances(i.e.,whocontrolstheprocess),andothers[18,20,21]. Realtrials
ofscientist/farmercollaborationsplayoutwhenPARandagroecologyareusedintandem,which
inevitablyincludeschallengesofphysicalaccess,differentobservationaland/orexperimentalstyles,
time constraints and power differentials [18,20]. The use of PAR by individuals who have only a
passinginterestinplacesortopicshasalsobeencriticized,notingthatthose“... withoutthetimeor
abilitytocollaboratewithfarmers(have)littlechanceofsolvingagronomicproblems.”[20]. Despite
thesecriticisms[20],PARisalsolaudedforleadingtoarticulatingproblemsandpotentialsolutions
that acknowledge situational perspectives [22], while also demonstrating a utility for helping to
understandissuesacrossmicro-,meso-andmacro-scales[7,23]. Agrowingnumberofagroecological
researchershavechosentoembracePARfromthebroaduniverseofparticipatoryresearchapproaches,
which span diverse academic disciplines and research methodologies [7,8,10,11]. This makes it
importanttocriticallyassess,learnandshareaboutthelimitationsofandpotentialforthisintegration.
Theobjectivesofthisarticleareto: (1)reviewsomeofthekeycharacteristicsandprinciplesofPAR
processes;(2)discusschallengesandopportunitiesforintegratingagroecologyandPAR,usingtwo
casesthatexemplifymultiplePARcycles;(3)extractanddiscusslessonsfromthesecasestudies;and
(4)proposerecommendationsforbetterintegratingPARandagroecologyinfutureinitiatives.
2. CharacteristicsandPrinciplesofPAR
2.1. PARCharacteristicsandPrinciples
Given the diversity of interpretations of PAR, we first want to explain how we perceive this
complexprocess,anditsphasesofresearch,reflectionandaction. Tobegin,webelievethataPAR
processcanevolveinalmostanycircumstancewhereresearchersandnon-researchersdecidetoengage
inaninvestigation,whichhastheaimtobetterunderstandorresolveanissueofinteresttoallthe
partiesinvolved. Inaddition, therearedifferent‘pointsofentry’. Ideally, apotentialPARprocess
wouldbeginwithastageofpreflection,asweproposedintheintroduction. However,PARprocesses
arefrequently‘impure’andmessy, andcanbeginatanyofthestagesofthecycle(i.e.,preflection,
research, reflection or action). Sometimes these processes will evolve into PAR, and other times
theywillfallshort. Hence,determiningifaprocessismeetingthebasicrequirementsofPARisnot
straightforward.WhatseemstodeterminehowthePARprocessevolvesandthenatureofitsoutcomes
islargelyaresultofthecharacteristicsandprinciplesthatparticipantsuseandapplyintheirspecific
situation[12]. InourworkasresearchersandscholarswehavesoughttoengageinPARasmuch
aspossible,andwehaveexperiencedbothPARprocessesthatweredeep,rewardingandthatmet
expected PAR principles, and others that did not. From these experiences, we have identified the
followingkeycharacteristicsthatseemtodistinguishsuccessfulPARprocesses:
1. PAR is a complex, negotiated process, where each partner articulates potential contributions,
advocatesforspecificinterestsandnamestangiblebenefitsthattheyhopetoobtainfromthe
process. Throughtheseongoingnegotiations,actorsmustactivelyworktoidentifyandname
implicitbenefits,inadditiontoconfrontingtraditionalpowerimbalancesrelatedtorace,gender
andclass,amongothers.
2. PARprocessesrarelyfollowapredictabletimeline,andoftenresultinperiodswherefocusismore
heavilydirectedtowardoneofthecomponentsofacycle(i.e.,research,reflectionoraction).Some
stakeholdersmayseethefruitsoftheirlaborearlierthanothers,butthegoalistocommunicate
openlyandcollaborateforlongenoughthateachpartyrealizestheirdesiredbenefit(s).
Sustainability2017,9,705 4of19
3. Patience,flexibilityandaccountabilityarekeytoidentifyingandassessingemergentfeatures. Each
contribute toward PAR processes surviving the changing interests and/or agenda(s) of the
partnersinvolved.
4. Long-termcollaborationscannotbesustainedwithoutsignificantinvestmentsoftimeandeffort
(requiring sufficient resources). This often points toward institutional and/or organizational
connectionsthatfacilitatethesuccessionofactiveparticipantswithoutlosingforwardmomentum.
SuccessfulPARprocessestendtobeguidedbythefollowingkeyprinciples:
1. Sharedinterestinresearch—PARfacilitatestheidentificationofappropriatesolutions(oratleast
reasonableresponses)toreal-lifeproblems,throughdiversemethodologiesandwithtriangulation
frommultipleperspectives. Partnerswhoarenotconvincedthatresearchcancontributetotheir
interestswillrarelylastlonginaPARprocess.
2. Beliefincollectivepower—PartnersbelievethatengaginginthePARprocessisawaytoachieve
endsthatgobeyondwhatisrealizedthroughotherapproachesandthereisanintrinsicvaluation
ofeachpartners’potentialcontribution.
3. Commitmenttoparticipation—Beyondjustshowingup,allpartnersshareownershipoforhave
contributingrolesinasmanyphasesoftheresearchaspossible—startingwithdefiningresearch
questions,throughdatacollection,analysisofresults,andeventuallyengaginginactionsthat
representco-createdsolutions.
4. Humility—Spacetohonorthedepthandacknowledgethelimitationsofeachpartners’knowledge
isfundamentaltotransdisciplinaryworkwherecontextual,practicalandtechnicalexpertiseare
eachvalued.
5. Trustandaccountability—Partnersrecognizethatactions,notwords,arewhatestablishastrong
base for ongoing collaboration, and intentional design includes opportunities for partners to
shareleadershipandmechanismsforresolvingconflict.
6. Communication—Partnersamplifytraditionallymarginalizedvoicesandperspectives,acknowledge
biases,establishanexpectationfortransparencyandprioritizedisseminatingresultsinmultiple
formatstoincreaseaccessibility.
2.2. ChallengesandConflictinPARProcesses
PARprocessesrepresentspaceswhereindividualsandorganizationswithdifferentbackgrounds
andhistoriesinteract(i.e., farmersandresearchers, NGOsanduniversities), or‘engage’, whichat
somepointoranotherwillusuallyleadtosomedegreeofconflict[24]. Inaddition,PARworkcan
betransformational,inbothpositiveandchallengingways,attheindividuallevel,whichcanleadto
bothpersonalandinter-personalconflicts[25]. Severalauthorshaveoutlinedfrequentlyencountered
issuesthatPARpractitionersshouldbevigilantabout,andwhichcanhelptobothpreemptdifferent
typesofconflicts,aswellasfindwaystoresolvethem. Theseincludeanawarenessandexamination
ofthepresenceof‘invisibleactors’,tensionsbetweenacademicsandnon-academicsinagendasetting,
anddoingnoharmwhenfacedwiththe‘dirtylaundry’broughtbysomeofthepartners[26]. PARis
alsoaprocessfraughtwithpowerdynamics,whichrelatesnotonlytothegender,classandraceofthe
partners,butalsototheinternaldynamicsofbothresearcherandnon-researchercommunities[7,14,25].
Asinanysocialprocess,dealingeffectivelywithexistingoremergingconflictsisessentialforPARto
succeed. Inthisregard,itishardtoproposeuniversalstrategies,aseachcontextwillbringaspecific
set of conflicts that will need to be addressed in a unique way. However, we believe that some of
theprincipleswehaveoutlinedintheprevioussection,andthearticlesdiscussedinthisparagraph,
providesomeguidanceonhowtoengagewithsomeofthesepervasivechallenges.
3. IntegratingAgroecologyandPAR
AnupsurgeofprojectsthatattempttointegratePARandagroecologyhasmadeitmoreimportant
tocriticallyanalyzethisapproach. Méndezandcolleagues[1]discussedthealignmentofPARand
Sustainability2017,9,705 5of19
agroecologicalprinciples,includingvaluingdifferenttypesofknowledgesystems,payingattention
tolocalcontext,andactingatmultiplespatialandsocio-politicalscales. Therearemanyexperiences
integrating PAR with agroecology in a variety of contexts, which have been documented in the
academicliterature. Forexample,Dlottandcolleaguesincorporatedthisapproachintotheirworkon
pestmanagementwithpeachfarmersinCalifornia[22]. InSouthernSpain,researchersassociated
with the agroecology graduate program at the International University of Andalucía (UNIA), the
UniversityofCórdoba(UCO),andthePablodeOlavideUniversity(UPO),havecarriedoutlong-term
PAR and agroecology-oriented processes with a variety of farmers [19,27], focusing on issues of
ecological production, certification and markets. The Community Agroecology Network (CAN)
has collaborated on PAR processes with Santa Clara University and the University of Chapingo,
orientedtowardsfoodsecurityandsovereigntywithcoffeefarmersinnorthernNicaragua[28,29]and
Mexico[30],respectively. InMalawi,acollaborativeincludingAfrican,U.S.andCanadianuniversities
andnon-governmentorganizationshasusedthePARapproachtoassessagroecologicalmanagement
asacontributiontoruralhouseholdsaffectedbyHIV/AIDs[31,32].
ThefollowingsectionselucidatehowsomeofthePARcharacteristicsandprinciples,aswellas
thechallengesofintegratingagroecologyandPAR,playedoutintwolong-termcasestudiesinCentral
AmericaandMexico.
4. CaseStudy1: AgroecologyandPARwithSmallholderCoffeeFarmersinElSalvador
4.1. Overview
ThePARprocessoutlinedinthissectiontookplacebetween1999and2013,andalthoughitisin
hiatusrightnow,itmightberesuscitatedinthefuture. Theprocessstartedasthedoctoraldissertation
of the first author of this article, subsequently referred to as the ‘lead researcher’ [33]. It had an
explicit agroecology focus and evolved into a PAR process over time. This follows the trajectory
ofthosewhodescribePARasanemergentprocess, whichmeansitisnotsomethingthatyoucan
assertatthebeginning,butinsteadaprogressionthatcanbeachievedwiththerightintentionsand
dedicatedactors[15]. Theresultsofthisworkhavebeenreportedinnumerouspublications,including
manuscriptsmoreecologicallyfocused[34],othersmoreinterdisciplinary[35,36],andyetothersthat
explicitlyaddressedthePARcomponent[18,35]. TheprocesstookplaceinthemunicipalityofTacuba,
locatedwithinthewesterncoffeegrowingregionofElSalvador. ThePARprocessmainlyinvolved
threesmallholdercoffeefarmercooperatives,althoughotherfarmersalsoparticipated,aswellasa
diversegroupofresearchandnon-researchactors(see[30,31]fordetaileddescriptionsofthesite).
Thegeneralobjectiveoftheoriginalresearchwastoassesswhethersmall-scalecoffeefarmers
andcooperativesofElSalvadorcoulddevelop/maintainstrategiesthatsupportedbothbiodiversity
conservation(morespecifically,nativetrees)andhouseholdlivelihoodstrategies. Theleadresearcher,
withouttheparticipationofthefarmers,setthisobjective. Inotherwords,thepreflectionphasewas
notexplicit,buttookplaceduringphase1oftheresearch,asthedifferentpartnersweredeveloping
relationships and building trust (Figure 2). What is important to note is that the initial research
objectivesweredevelopedwithlimitedparticipationfromfarmers. However,astheleadresearcher
was committed to PAR principles, this initiative evolved into a PAR process over time. To better
understandtheprocess,wehavedivideditintothreephases(Figure2),butitisimportanttoconsider
thatthisdivisionrepresentstheperspectiveoftheleadresearcher. Ifotherpartners(e.g.,farmers)were
todescribeit,theymightdoitdifferently,andtheirinterpretationwouldbejustasvalid. Thesephases
aredescribedinmoredetailinsubsequentsections.
Sustainability2017,9,705 6of19
Sustainability 2017, 9, 705 6 of 19

FigurFeig 2u. rTeh2e. Tthhreeteh preheapsheass oefs tohfet hPeaPrtairctiipciaptaotroyry AAccttiioonn RReesseeaarrcchh( (PPAARR)p) rporcoecssesws iwthisthm samllhaollldheorldcoefrf eceoffee
farmefarrsm iner TsaincuTabcau, bEal, SEallSvaalvdaodro. r.
4.2. A4p.2p.lAicpaptiloicna/tIinonte/Ignrtaetgiroanti oonf PofAPRA Ranadn dAAggrrooeeccoollooggiiccaall PPrriinnccipiplelses
1) (S1h)areSdh ainretderienstte rienst rienseraersecahr—chT—hTeh elelaeda drerseeseaarrcchheerr ppuurrssuueedd hhisisr erseesaeracrhcha gaegnednadoan oang raogecrooleocgoyl,ogy,
biodiversityandlivelihoods,withoutmuchinputfromfarmerpartnersatthebeginningofthe
biodiversity and livelihoods, without much input from farmer partners at the beginning of the
process. Giventhatfarmerswerenotapartofsettingtheinitialresearchobjectives,theywerenot
process. Given that farmers were not a part of setting the initial research objectives, they were
asengagedintheprojectandmoreinterestedinnegotiatingdifferenttypesofsupportthatthe
not as engaged in the project and more interested in negotiating different types of support that
leadresearchercouldprovide,suchasnetworking,capacitybuildingandhelpingthemgettheir
the lead researcher could provide, such as networking, capacity building and helping them get
farmscertifiedasorganicorfairtrade. Astheprocessevolved,farmerswereabletore-directthe
their farms certified as organic or fair trade. As the process evolved, farmers were able to re-
researchtowardsfoodsecurity,whichhadbecomeanissueofhigherrelevanceatthetime.Inturn,
direct the research towards food security, which had become an issue of higher relevance at the
theresearchteamwasabletocontributeitsagroecologicalperspectivetodevelopingfarming
time.a lItenr ntautrivne, s,thweh erreesaesaorcthhe rteparmoje cwtsaisn tahbeler egtoio ncofonctruisbeudteo nitms oaregrcooencvoelnotgioicnaall appeprsropaecchtievse to
deve(leo.pg.i,nugs infagrsmyinnthge taicltienrpnuattsivfoesr,p rwodhuercetiaosn ).otWhehre npfraormjecetrss wine rethaeb leretogicohno ofsoectuhseerde seoanr chmore
convtehnetmioen,athl eaypbpercoaamcehemso (ree.gin.,v uolsvinedg isnytnhtehreetsieca irnchpuptrso cfeosrs .production). When farmers were able
(t2o) chBoeoliseef itnheco rlleescetiavrecpho wthere—mAe,l tthhoeuyg bhetchaemleea dmroerseea irncvhoerlvheadd ianb tehliee freinsecaorllcehc tpivreocpeosws.e r,farmers
2) Beliefw iner ecoilnlietcitailvlye spkoewpetric—alA. Tlthhisosuhgihft etdhew lheeandf arremseearrscwheerre haabdle ato baetltiaeifn itna ncgoilblelectbievnee fiptoswfreorm, ftahremers
process,suchasorganiccertificationandlearningaboutthefactorsaffectingfoodsecuritylevels
were initially skeptical. This shifted when farmers were able to attain tangible benefits from the
inthedifferenthouseholds. ItisimportanttorecognizethatthecooperativesectorinElSalvador
process, such as organic certification and learning about the factors affecting food security levels
hashadatumultuoushistory,affectedbyissuesofcorruptionandmistrust,whichalsohindered
in the different households. It is important to recognize that the cooperative sector in El Salvador
farmerconfidenceincollectiveprocesses. Manyofthecooperativemembersareverydistrustful
has had a tumultuous history, affected by issues of corruption and mistrust, which also hindered
ofexternalactorsandthismadeithardertoestablishasenseofcollectivepower.
farmer confidence in collective processes. Many of the cooperative members are very distrustful
(3) Commitmenttoparticipation—Inthisinstancefullparticipationincreasedastheprocessevolved,
of external actors and this made it harder to establish a sense of collective power.
andonceestablished,bothfarmersandresearchersbecamemorefullycommitted. Thatsaid,a
3) Commcuitltmuerento ftop pataerrtnicailpisamtioinn—fusIend tthhies pinroscteasnscteh rfouullg phoaurtti.cFiparamtieorns hinadcrheaadsevde rays ftehwe epxrpoecreiesnsc eesvooflved,
and ohnavcein egsftualbllpisahrteicdi,p batoiothn finarimniteirasti vaensdw rietsheeaxrtcehrnearsl abcetocarsm,seo mthoeirrec foumllmy ictmomenmttiottebdei.n Tghaactti vsaeid, a
cultupraer toicf ippaantetsrnwaalisssmom ineftiumseesda tmheb ipguroocuessasn tdhrinocuognhsiosutetn. tF.aFromreexras mhpalde ,haatdti mveesryth feeyww eoxuplderbieences
of havveirnyge afguellr tpoaprtairctiipciaptaioteni nina ivnairtiieattyivoefsa cwtiivtihti eesxatenrdnaatl oatchteorrsti,m seos tthheeyir wcaonmtemditthmeernest etaorc hbeing
activtee apmarttoicdipoamnotss twofatsh esowmorekt.imPaerst icaimpabtiiognuoanuds tahnedle vinelcoofnasvisatielanbtl. eFroesro uexrcaemswplaes, aarte gtiumlaersly they
negotiatedissuethroughoutthePARprocess.
would be very eager to participate in a variety of activities and at other times they wanted the
(4) Humility—Humilitywasakeyprincipleforthisprocessthroughout. DuringPhase1,thelead
research team to do most of the work. Participation and the level of available resources was a
researcherwasverytransparentandhumbleintermsofacceptingalackofknowledgeofthe
regularly negotiated issue throughout the PAR process.
contextandrealitiesthatfarmersfaced,andawillingnesstolearnfromfarmers. Thisopened
4) Humility—Humility was a key principle for this process throughout. During Phase 1, the lead
thedoorfordeepeningarelationshipoftrust. Duringlaterstages,asdecision-makingledto
researcher was very transparent and humble in terms of accepting a lack of knowledge of the
discussionanddebates,humilitywasaprincipletobeintentionallyrememberedandpracticed.
context and realities that farmers faced, and a willingness to learn from farmers. This opened the
It was easier to maintain this between researchers and farmers, than between farmers from
doord fifofre rednetecpoeonpienrga tiav erse.laAtlitohnosuhgihp houfm tirluityst.m Dayunriontgb elaatnere xsptaligcietsp, rainsc idpeleciosfioang-rmoeackoilnoggi claeld to
discupsrsaicotnic ea,nidt idseimbaptleicsi,t hwuhmenilivtyal wuinasg ath perdinifcfieprelen ttoty bpee sinotfeknntioownlaeldlyg erehmeledmbbyedriefdfe raenndt apcrtaocrtsi.ced.
It waFsa remaesriesrw tioll smeladionmtasinha trheitsh ebiretkwnoewenle dregseewaricthheorust saidnedrs fwarhmoearcst,a nthda/no rbbeetlwieveeenth feayrbmrienrgs afrom
differseunpte rciooroupnedraetrisvtaensd. iAngltohropuegrhsp hecutimveil.ity may not be an explicit principle of agroecological
practice, it is implicit when valuing the different types of knowledge held by different actors.
Farmers will seldom share their knowledge with outsiders who act and/or believe they bring a
superior understanding or perspective.
5) Trust and accountability—Trust and accountability was a principle brought to the process from
the onset. It started with the lead researcher communicating a commitment to pursue a
relationship with farmers through a process that was grounded in trust, and where people held
themselves accountable. This intentionality and commitment to trust and accountability was
well-received by farmers but they were clear that it was something that had to be proven by
Sustainability2017,9,705 7of19
(5) Trustandaccountability—Trustandaccountabilitywasaprinciplebroughttotheprocessfromthe
onset. Itstartedwiththeleadresearchercommunicatingacommitmenttopursuearelationship
withfarmersthroughaprocessthatwasgroundedintrust,andwherepeopleheldthemselves
accountable. Thisintentionalityandcommitmenttotrustandaccountabilitywaswell-received
byfarmersbuttheywereclearthatitwassomethingthathadtobeprovenbyconcreteactions
andovertime. Allactorsconstantlyrevisitedthisthroughouttheprocess. Oneareathatcould
havebeenimprovedwastodefineclearaccountabilitymechanisms. Inthiscase,itwasloosely
assessedbytakinginventoryoftangibleactionsoroutcomes,ratherthananexplicitmonitoring
oftheprocessthatexaminedifpartnersweredoingwhattheywerecommittingtodo.
(6) Communication—A commitment to clear and constant communication was a strength of this
project. Thismeantthatenergyandresourceswereinvestedinassistingfarmerswholivedfar
awaytobeabletocometomeetings(i.e.,providingtransportationandmeals),andproviding
accesstoaphoneintheofficemaintainedbyresearchersinthetownofTacuba. Animportant
firststepwasfortheleadresearchertospendaconsiderableamountoftime(thefirsttwoyears)
livinginthetown. Thisallowedforconstantandconsistentconversationsthatledtofindingthe
bestmodesofcommunicationamongdifferentpartners.
5. Timeline
5.1. Phase1(1999–2003)
Thefirstphaseoftheprocessinvolvedexploratoryresearchtoestablishparticipatingpartners
and objectives, as well as a subsequent phase of in-depth research on livelihoods and biophysical
characteristicsoftheshadecoffeeplantations. Theleadresearcherreachedouttotheleadersofthe
threecooperativestoactascollaboratorsintheresearchprocess. Thesitehadbeenselectedforits
ecologicalimportanceasabufferzonetoanationalpark,andbecauseofthepresenceofnumerous
smallholdercoffeefarmersandcooperatives. TheleadresearcherhadtrainingandinterestinPAR,and
fromthebeginningopenedupadialoguetodiscusswaysinwhichtheresearchcouldbenefitfarmers.
In addition, there was an emphasis on transparency, explaining the lead researcher’s background
(e.g.,middleclass,urbanSalvadoran),andhowtheprocesswouldbenefithim(i.e.,completinghis
dissertationandcontributingtowardhisfuturecareer). Thisprovidedthefarmerswithafoundation
fromwhichtonegotiatefortheirowninterests. AlthoughtheseinitialstepsalignwellwithPAR,what
didnotfollowaPARapproachwasthattheleadresearcherdevelopedtheinitialresearchwithout
the participation of the farmers (partly, as a result of the PhD and dissertation structure/process).
Inturn,farmersoutlinedareasofsupportwheretheleadresearchercouldhelp. Thesewereindirectly
linkedtotheresearchquestions,inthesensethattheyaffectedfarmerlivelihoods,butnotnecessarily
throughbiodiversityconservationmanagement. Theareasofinterestthatthefarmersidentifiedwere:
(1)supporttobecomeorganicandFairTradecertified,includingcapacitybuilding;and(2)support
toexpandtheirnetworkswithnationalandinternationaldevelopmentorganizations,whichcould
potentiallybringagriculturalandruraldevelopmentprojectstotheircommunities. Thisperiodofthe
processtooktheplaceofpreflection,andmostlyfocusedonrelationshipbuilding. Fromaresearch
perspective,extensivedatacollectionwasundertaken,butbecauseanalyseswerejuststarting,there
werefewfinishedproductsintheformofpublicationsandpresentations.
This stage also included action-oriented activities facilitated by researchers, in the form of
capacity building on biodiversity conservation and ecosystems services, organic and Fair trade
certifications, and building cooperative unions. A key accomplishment at the end of this period
wasafarmer-to-farmerexchangewithcooperativesinNicaragua. FifteenSalvadoranfarmersand
severalresearchersvisitedcooperativesinthenortherncoffeezoneofNicaragua. Theobjectivewasto
learnaboutcertifications,coffeequalitycontrolandcooperativemodels. Ingeneral,thehighlightsof
thisphaseoftheprocesswereactionoutcomesrelatedtocapacitybuildingandadvancingtowards
organiccertificationofthecooperatives.
Sustainability2017,9,705 8of19
5.2. Phase2: SupportingActions,ContinuingResearchandSharingwithOthers(2004–2007)
Thisphasewascharacterizedbyshiftsinthesituationsofresearchers,adeepeningofacademic
outcomesandadvancesinstrengtheningfarmerorganizations.First,afterthetriptoNicaraguain2003,
farmersweremotivatedandenthusiasticinpursuingaunionamongthethreecooperatives,basedon
themodeltheyhadobservedinnorthernNicaragua. Theresearchteamsupportedthisinitiativeand
thelegalprocessadvancedsubstantially. Althoughmoralewashighintermsofthepotentialbenefits
offormingaunion,tensionsamongtheleadersofthethreecooperativeswerepresentfromtheonset.
Inaddition, allthreecooperativesattainedorganiccertificationandsupportfromseveralexternal
projectsinorganicmanagement. Thiswasperceivedbyfarmersasaverypositiveoutcomestemming
fromtheprocess.
From a research perspective, several graduate theses were undertaken with the support of
theresearchteamandvettedbythefarmercooperatives,whichresultedinpublishedmanuscripts
(one peer-reviewed article in English, several extension publications and research reports in both
EnglishandSpanish). Thishelpedtoprovidevisibilityandcredibilitytotheprocess,whichassisted
thefarmersintheirnegotiationswithNGOsanddonors,andhelpedthemtoparticipateinseveral
projects. Severalmembersoftheresearchteamalsogotinvolvedwithotherresearchanddevelopment
initiativesthatprovidedopportunitiesforinternalandexternalsharing. However,bytheendofthis
phase, two lead researchers in the process had moved outside of El Salvador for professional and
personalreasons. Thisshifthadaneffectonthefunctioningoftheprocessasthesetwopeoplehad
beenworkingwithfarmersforalmostadecade. Notwithstanding,theofficeinTacubaremainedopen,
andthemorestablepositionobtainedbytheleadresearcherattheUniversityofVermont(UVM)inthe
U.S.allowedforanincreaseinresources. Theseincludedcoveringthecostsofmaintainingtheoffice
andstaff,fundinggraduatestudentprojectsandlaunchinganundergraduatestudyabroadcourse,
whichprovidedrevenueforthecooperatives.
5.3. Phase3: ChangingDirection,AcademicandActionOutcomesandProcessHiatus(2008–2013)
ThisstagesawatruetransformationoftheresearchintoaPARprocess.Asthespikeinglobalfood
grainpricesconfrontedfarmersin2008,theybecameinterestedinfurtherexploringtheissueoffood
security. Theresearchteamrespondedbyre-directingresearchandreachingouttolearnandinteract
withothereffortsfocusingonfoodsecurityinseveralcoffeeregionsofMesoamerica. Twodoctoral
studentsfromUVMfocusedtheirdissertationsonthistopic[37,38],andnewcollaborationswithwork
inNicaraguaandMexicoemerged.Researchoutcomesfromtheseeffortsincludedasignificantnumber
andwidevarietyofpublicationsinEnglishandSpanish,includinganeditedbookonagroecology,
livelihoodsandthecoffeepricecrisis[39]. Theresearchstemmingfromthisperiodhadamoredirect
applicationtotheissueoffoodsecurity,asinvestigationscoveredcausesandpossiblealternativesfor
farmerstobetterdealwiththisissue. Inaddition,agroecologywasatthecoreofthefoodproduction
research,includingtopicssuchastheperformanceoflocalcornandbeanlandraces[38],thecostsof
syntheticinputs[40],andthepossibilityoftransitioningfromconventionalcornandbeanproduction
tomoreagroecologicalalternatives.
Thisphasewasalsorichinactionoutcomes,albeitnotwithoutconflict. Thefarmerswereable
tolegalizetheirunionofcooperatives—theAssociationofOrganicCoffeeProducersofWesternEl
Salvador(ACOES)—butintheprocessthelargestoftheorganizationsdecidedtopullout,leaving
theunionwitharelativelysmallnumberoffarmersandcoffeevolume. Thiswasahardblowtoan
initiativethathadtakenyearstobuild. Onamorepositivenote,ACOESwasabletoestablishadirect
relationshipwithaprogressivecoffeeroasterintheU.S.andCanada. Coffeewassoldatveryfavorable
pricesfortwoyears. Again,thiswasateameffortbetweenfarmersandresearchersthattookalottime
andenergy,astherewasnoexperienceoftheexportprocess,whichwasverycomplicated.
Thestepsthatledtoahiatusintheprocessstartedin2011. Fundingfortheresearchteamwas
decreasing, which resulted in the closing of the office in Tacuba. In addition, ACOES decided to
stopsellingtheircoffeetotheroasterthathadbeenrecruitedearlier;adecisionthatwashardonthe
Sustainability2017,9,705 9of19
researchers,giventhattheyhadinvestedconsiderabletimeandefforttodevelopthisrelationship. Itis
importanttonotethatthedistancethatexistedbetweenthefarmersandtheleadresearcherwastaking
itstollonrelationships,whichaffectedthelevelsoftrustandtransparencyintheprocess. In2012,
aformerUVMstudentwhohaddonehisundergraduatethesisinTacubaandhadbegunworking
with a progressive coffee roaster in the eastern U.S., sought out the lead researcher to explore the
possibilityofbuyingcoffeefromACOES.Forthenexttwoyears,andwithaperceptionofinterest
andenthusiasmfromACOES,theroasterandtheleadresearchervisitedTacubaandexploredthe
developmentofthisrelationship. Unfortunately,aftermucheffortfromallpartiesthefarmersdecided
nottomoveforward. Thesefinalactionsledtoahiatusintheprocess,withtheleadresearcherfeeling
abreachoftrustintherelationship,aswellaslackingthenecessaryresourcestocontinuetheprocess.
5.4. LessonsLearned
• Thiscasestudyshowsthat,overthelong-term,aresearchprocessthatdidnotnecessarilystartas
PARcanbetransformedintooneifthereisintentionandcommitmentfromthepartners.
• A key part of this process was the establishment of open and transparent negotiations. This
allowedforbothresearchersandfarmerstopursuegoalsandbenefitsofinterest. Sometimes
thesegoalswerenotthesame,butthebenefitsobtainedbyeachpartnerexceededthecostsof
timeandresourcestocontinuetosupporttheprocessasawhole.
• Whenfarmerswereabletoparticipateindecidingtheresearchthemesandcontributetoresearch
planning,theyweremuchmoreengagedintheresearchandthepotentialresultingactions.
• Itisimportanttohavetherightpartnersthatalignwellwithdesiredoutcomes. Althoughthe
outcomesofthework,over14years,wereconsiderableintermsofacademicoutputandtangible
benefitsforfarmers(actions),thisprocesswasmissingakeypartnerthatcouldmoreconsistently
supportfarmersinimplementingtheactionsandinitiativesemergingfromtheprocess. This
additionalactorwouldhaveideallybeenanorganization‘ontheground’(i.e.,alocalNGOor
agovernmentextensionunit), whichcouldprovideaccompanimentasfarmersimplemented
newpracticesandworkedasanewassociation. Researcherswerelimitedintermsoftimeand
resourcestobeabletomaintainapresencewiththelevelofstabilityandfocusonimplementation
thatseemedtoberequired.
• Reflectionisveryimportantandneedsexplicitintentionandattention. Inthisprocess,reflection
wasimplicitandsomewhatadhocinpractice. Makingitmoreexplicitandintentionalmayhave
servedtobetterevaluateanddirecttheprocess.
• Althoughthiswasalong-termprocesswithaconsiderableinvestmentoftimefromtheresearch
team,thereisuncertaintythatitwasasexpensiveasmightbeperceived. Thispointstoaneedto
betteranalyzethecostsofPARprocesses,asmanyquestionthevalidityofPARduetobeingtoo
slowandtooexpensive.
6. CaseStudy2: TheCommunityAgroecologyNetwork’s(CAN)AgroecologyandParticipatory
KnowledgeProductionandExchangeinMexicoandNicaragua
6.1. Overview
The Community Agroecology Network (CAN) is an international non-profit organization
committedtosustainingrurallivelihoodsandenvironmentsthroughcollaborativeresearch,education,
capacitybuilding,andlocallyinformeddevelopmentstrategies[41]. Agroecologyisattheheartof
CAN’sworktoproduceknowledgeanddevelopsociallyjustandecologicallysoundpracticesthat
createamoresustainablefoodsystem. CANoperatesasanetwork,partneringwithcommunity-based
organizations, farmers’ cooperatives, nonprofits and universities. Together, CAN and its network
partnerspursueavisionofcommunitiesthatexperiencefoodsovereignty,resiliencetoclimatechange,
sustainablerurallivelihoods,andparticipationacrossgender,generations,ethnicityandsocialclass
(seehttp://www.canunite.org).
Sustainability2017,9,705 10of19
CAN engages in participatory action research (PAR) to facilitate collaborations between
farmers/farmworkers,community-basedorganizationsandscientiststocollectivelyidentifyproblems
andactionagendasthroughareflectionprocess. Thisrequireslong-terminterculturalrelationships
withlocalpartnerorganizationsbasedonmutualhumility,trust,accountabilityandlearning.Thinking
with-andnotfor-communitiesallowsroomforexperimentationandleadstocontext-specificstrategies
thataremorelikelytobesustainableandscalable. SuccessfulactionsfromeachPARprocessareshared
throughoutCAN’snetworkthroughpeer-to-peerandfarmer-to-scientistlearningexchanges.
Thecasestudydiscussedinthissectionfocusesonafive-yearPARinitiative(2011–2015)with
coffee-growing communities in San Ramon, Nicaragua. The Youth Leadership and Education for
SustainableAgricultureandFoodSovereigntyProject(referredtoasYLFSProject)wasacollaboration
betweenCAN,theUnionofCooperativesofSanRamon(UCASanRamon)inNicaragua,andthe
NGOVinculaciónyDesarrolloAgroecológicoenelCafé/AgroecologicalNetworksandDevelopment
inCoffee(VIDA)inMexico. Theprojectaimedtoalleviatefoodinsecurityandseasonalhungerby
strengthening livelihoods among 234 coffee farming families and building sustainable local food
systems across 12 coffee-growing communities. The project design positioned youth and women
asleadersoftheinitiativethroughcapacitybuildingandempowerment. Furtherstrengtheningthe
objectivesoftheYLFSProject,coffeefarmersinSanRamonandVeracruzjoinedCAN’salternative
coffeetrademodel,AgroEco®Coffee. AgroEco®Coffeeisamuch-shortenedcoffeevaluechainthat
promiseshigherreturnstofarmersfocusedonsolidarity,participationandtransparency. Allsupply
chainactors(farmers,cooperatives,importerandroaster)sitatthenegotiatingtabletosetpriceseach
year. CANfacilitatesrelationships,providescapacitybuildingandmonitorstheimpactsofAgroEco®
Coffee. It is not a certification, but rather a long-term commitment by all actors to support each
otherinthetransitiontoanagroecologicalproductionandtrademodel. Thistransitionissupported
by the “Sustainable Agriculture Fund” and the “Women’s Unpaid Labor Fund,” included in the
pricepaidbythecoffeeroaster,andinvestedbasedonthecollectivedecision-makingoffarmersand
women,respectively.
Inthecasestudydiscussed, wehighlighttwoexamples: theintegrationofvegetable-focused
homegardens into crop production systems to improve household dietary diversity and diversify
women’s income, and the development of AgroEco® Coffee’s Women’s Unpaid Labor Fund,
whichrecognizeswomen’sreproductiveandproductivelaborincoffeeproduction.Bothexamples
demonstrate the challenges, lessons learned and positive outcomes when integrating PAR and
agroecologicalprinciples.
6.2. Application/IntegrationofPARandAgroecologicalPrinciples
(1) Sharedinterestinresearch—CANpursuespartnershipswithresearchersandlocalorganizationsto
conductcollaborativeresearchfocusedonthedevelopmentofevidence-basedactionableresults.
Partnersshareaninterestinaddressinginjusticesinthefoodsystemandworkingtowardfood
sovereignty. PARbeginsbyopeningadialogueandorganizingintentionalspacesforfocused
discussionwithvariousstakeholders,inordertodetermineresearchagendasandmethods,so
thatresultswillberelevantandscalable.
(2) Belief in collective power—CAN functions as a network and a learning organization. It brings
together researchers, local organizations and the communities they serve to share lessons
learned from the ground-up. It recognizes and values different ways of knowing, and
promotes intercultural exchange of knowledge and practices as a key tool to achieving food
systemtransformation.
(3) Commitmenttoparticipation—Smallholderfarmingfamiliesandfarmworkersareengagedwith
CANandlocalorganizationsincollaborativeresearchprocessesthatbuildcapacityandidentify
solutions connected to their particular context and aspirations. In order to achieve broad
participation,PARshouldintegratemethodsforaddressingpowerrelationsanddiversitywithin
andacrossstakeholdergroups. Thegoalistodemocratizeknowledgeproductionbymaking