Rethinking participatory action research in renewable resource management (original) (raw)

Due to the work of Funtowicz and Ravetz, agricultural scientists increasingly recognise the high complexity, diversity, uncertainty, and the high stakes involved in Renewable Resource Management (RNM). Ecological systems as well as social systems are dynamic and interact at various system levels leading to highly complex, non-linear, divergent processes and the emergence of new phenomena. These system dynamics cannot be controlled so adaptive management is needed: reflexive social systems are able to learn and co-evolve in a self-organising manner. Agricultural scientists are called to engage in participatory action research because system dynamics are uncertain so the knowledge difference between scientists and lay people is less relevant, local people have more contextual knowledge about the specific system dynamics, and local people's livelihoods depend (partly) on renewable resources so they have high stakes in the research and the identified solutions. More and more agricultural scientists respond to the challenge and develop methodologies for information sharing and learning such as participatory mapping, participatory scenario analyses, etc. The key question is: do these efforts actually lead to the intended effect of adaptive management: reflection, self-organisation and institutional change for more sustainable and equitable use of renewable resources? To answer this question, a participatory role-playinggame and simulation experiment, implemented by Companion Modelling (ComMod) practitioners in northern Thailand was studied. The applied methodology, the espoused-and tacit theory-of-change are described based on ComMod documents and articles. Analysing the results with the participants and the designers, it is concluded that the methodology and underlying theories were insufficient to achieve the intended effect. The ComMod approach primarily focused on learning: the exchange of perspectives to attain a rich picture and mutual understanding. This learning, coupled with the participatory, iterative and multi-level character of the process, was supposed to trigger inclusive negotiation and decision-making. Interviews with the participants revealed that, at the individual level farmers learned about farm and ecological dynamics. Instead of copying other people's farm strategies they now reflect on, and try, new farm practices and strategies. The games and simulation models stimulated mutual understanding and cooperative thinking about collective problems. However, the 12 participants noted they were not able to transfer these insights to fellow villagers. People needed first hand experience with the ComMod activities to attain similar insights. As a consequence, village level decision-making did not attain the critical mass and momentum needed for collective action. Meanwhile, higher-level administrators/politicians avoided involvement and commitment to the local level learning process. To create change, people have to effectively deal with competing interests, discourses and power dynamics. The theories applied by ComMod did not provide adequate guidance. When launching a participatory action research, process designers need to pay attention to aspects such as empowerment, mobilisation of constituencies and coalitions, and multi-level negotiation.