Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Organizational learning through participatory research: CIP and CARE in Peru

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Participatory research (PR) has been analyzed and documented from different points of view, with emphasis on the benefits generated for farmers. The effect of PR on organizational learning has, however, received little attention. This paper analyzes the interaction between a research and a development institution, the International Potato Center (CIP) and CARE in Peru, respectively, and makes the case that PR can contribute to creating a collaborative learning environment among organizations. The paper describes the evolution of the inter-institutional collaborative environment between the two institutions for more than a decade, including an information-transfer period (1993–1996), an action-learning period (1997–2002), and a social-learning period (2003–2007). Several lessons learned from each period are described, as are changes in institutional contexts and stakeholders’ perceptions. The case shows that research and development-oriented organizations can interact fruitfully using PR as a mechanism to promote learning, flexibility in interactions, and innovation. Interactions foster the diffusion of information and the sharing of tacit knowledge within and between organizations, which in turn influences behavior. However, the paper also argues that long-term inter-organizational interactions are needed to facilitate learning, which can be used to influence the way organizations implement their interventions in a constantly changing environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In its new vision, CIP indicates that agricultural research can contribute to the Millennium Development Goals and Targets (MDGs and MDTs respectively) defined by the international community under the leadership of the United Nations. Among the eight goals and 18 targets in the list, CIP agreed to prioritize its contribution to reduce poverty (Target 1), hunger (Target 2), under-five mortality rate (Target 5), and maternal mortality rate (Target 6), to contribute to the integration of principles of sustainable development into country policies (Target 9), to improve the lives of slum dwellers (Target 11), to address the special needs of less developed countries (Target 13), and to contribute to make available the benefits of new technologies (CIP 2004).

  2. Alternatives to control both pests included elimination of volunteer plants, nocturnal hand-picking of adult weevils, turn-over of soils in infestation sources, use of sheets to pile potatoes during harvesting and sorting, harvest on time, use of chickens as larva predators, use of diffused light stores, trenches around stores or fields, vegetative, chemical or physical barriers, biological control agents, and pheromones (Cisneros et al. 1995).

  3. Another way of looking at changes in roles can be described using the terms provided by Lundvall et al. (2002). During the information-transfer period, the perceived roles of “pioneers” (researchers) and “imitators” (extension workers and farmers) prevailed. During the action-learning period, roles shifted to “adaptationists” (researchers and extension workers) and in some cases to “complementors.” During the social-learning period, the roles of “adaptationists” and “complementors” became clearer, but “mixed strategies” (changing and combining roles) for innovation according to circumstances have also being happening.

Abbreviations

CIP:

International Potato Center

FFS:

Farmer field schools

PR:

Participatory research

References

  • Bazán, M., R. Castillo, C. Fonseca, A. Lagnaoui, J. León, W. León, R. Nelson, R. Orrego, O. Ortiz, M. Palacios, E. Salazar, C. Silva, J. Tenorio, and C. Valencia. 2002. Guía para facilitar el Desarrollo de Escuelas de Campo de Agricultores: Manejo Integrado de las Principales Enfermedades e Insectos de la papa. Lima: CARE-Peru and International Potato Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, S. 1981. Institutions and decision making in agricultural research. Agricultural Administration Discussion Paper. Series No 5. London: Overseas Development Institute.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, S., and H. Matsaert. 2004. Strengthening poverty reduction programmes using an actor oriented approach: Examples from natural resources innovation systems. In Innovations in innovations: reflections on partnership, institutions and learning, ed. A. Hall, B. Yoganand, V.R. Sulaiman, R.S. Raina, C.S. Prasad, G.C. Naik, and N. Clark, 177–206. Andhra Pradesh, India: Crop Post-Harvest Programme (CPHP), International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), and National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (NCAP).

  • Braun, A., G. Thiele, and M. Fernandez. 2000. Farmer field schools and local agricultural research committees: complementary platforms for integrated decision-making in sustainable agriculture. AgRen. Network Paper No 105. London: Overseas Development Institute.

  • Brown, J.S., and P. Duguid. 1991. Organizational learning and communities of practice: towards a unified view of working, learning and organization. Organization Science 2(1): 40–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buck, A. 2001. Participatory evaluation of farmer’s perceptions about impact from Farmer Field Schools: case study in the Province of San Miguel, Peru. BSc. Thesis, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

  • CARE-Peru. 2000. Curso introductorio al manejo integrado de plagas y enfermedades de la papa. Lima: CARE-Peru, USAID, PRONAMACHCS, and CIP.

    Google Scholar 

  • CARE-Peru. 2005. Haciendo realidad nuestros derechos: Aprendizajes de la aplicación del enfoque de desarrollo basado en derechos. Lima: CARE-Peru and Oxfam GB.

    Google Scholar 

  • CARE-Peru. 2006. Escuela de campo de agricultores de chirimoya. Manual de facilitadores. Lima. CARE-Peru and USAID/Peru.

  • Chiri, A., H. Fano, F. Cama, and W. Dale. 1996. Final evaluation of the integrated pest management for Andean communities (MIP-Andes) project. Internal report CARE. Lima: CARE-Peru.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiri, A., M. Pareja, H. Fano, and M. Ordinola. 1995. Mid-term evaluation, integrated pest management for Andean communities (MIP-ANDES). Internal report CARE. Lima: CARE-Peru.

    Google Scholar 

  • CIP. 2004. The CIP vision: preserving the core, stimulating progress. Lima: International Potato Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • CIP. 2006. Project: integrating and scaling-up technologies for resource poor potato growers (TAG-652-CIP). 2005 Progress Report to IFAD. Lima: CIP.

  • Cisneros, F., J. Alcázar, M. Palacios, and O. Ortiz. 1995. A strategy for developing and implementing integrated pest management. Lima, Peru. CIP Circular 21(3): 2–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, S., and S. Fujisaka. 2004. Spatial dimension of scaling up and out. In Scaling up and out: achieving widespread impact through agricultural research, ed. D. Pachico, and S. Fujisaka, 53–63. Economics and Impact Series 3. Cali: CIAT.

  • Douthwaite, B. 2002. Enabling innovation. A practical guide to understanding and fostering technological change. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel, P. 1997. The social organization of innovation: a focus on stakeholder interaction. Wageningen: Royal Tropical Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fano, H., O. Ortiz, and T. Walker. 1996. Peru: inter-institutional cooperation for IPM. In New partnerships for sustainable agriculture, ed. L.A. Thrupp, 85–98. Washington: World Resources Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry, W.E., S.B. Goodwin, A.T. Dyer, J.M. Matuszak, A. Drenth, P.W. Tooley, L.S. Sujkowski, Y.J. Koh, B.A. Cohen, L.J. Spielman, K.L. Deahl, D.A. Inglis, and K.P. Sandlan. 1993. Historical and recent migration of Phytophthora infestans. Chronology, pathways and implications. Plant Disease 77: 653–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, K. 1999. La escuela de campo para agricultures (ECA): un proceso de extensión grupal basado en métodos de educación no formal para adultos. Rome: Global IPM Facility.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godtland, E., E. Sadoulet, A. de Janvry, R. Murgai, and O. Ortiz. 2004. The impact of farmer-field-schools on knowledge and productivity: a study of potato farmers in the Peruvian Andes. Economic Development and Cultural Change 53(1): 63–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groeneweg, K., A. Versteeg, and J. Chavez-Tafur. 2004. Más nos han enseñado, mucho hemos aprendido: El proyecto GCP/PER/036/NET, manejo integrado de plagas en los principales cultivos alimenticios en el Perú y el impacto logrado en los agricultores. Lima: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurung, B., and H. Menter. 2004. Mainstreaming gender-sensitive participatory approaches. The CIAT case study. In Scaling up and out: achieving widespread impact through agricultural research, ed. D. Pachico, and S. Fujisaka, 257–285. Economics and Impact Series 3. Cali: CIAT.

  • Halding-Herrgard, T. 2000. Difficulties in diffusion of tacit knowledge in organizations. Journal of Intellectual Capital 1(4): 357–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A., V.R. Sulaiman, N. Clark, and B. Yoganand. 2003. From measuring impact to learning institutional lessons: an innovation systems perspective on improving the management of international agricultural research. Agricultural Systems 78(2): 213–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A., B. Yoganand, V.R. Sulaiman, and N. Clark. 2004. Post-harvest innovations in innovations: a synthesis of recent cases. In Innovations in innovations: reflections on partnership, institutions and learning, ed. A. Hall, B. Yoganand, V.R. Sulaiman, R.S. Raina, C.S. Prasad, G.C. Naik, and N. Clark, 29–50. Andhra Pradesh: Crop Post-Harvest Programme (CPHP), International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), and National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (NCAP).

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, N., N. Lilja, and J. Ashby. 2003. Measuring the impact of user participation in natural resource management research. Agricultural Systems 78(2): 287–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaimowitz, D., M. Snyder, and P. Engel. 1990. A conceptual framework for studying the links between agricultural research and technology transfer in developing countries. In Making the link. Agricultural research and technology transfer in developing countries, ed. D. Kaimowitz, 227–267. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuby, T. 2003. Innovation is a social process: what does this mean for impact assessment in agricultural research? In Agricultural research and poverty reduction, ed. S. Mathur, and D. Pachico, 59–70. Economic and Impact Series 2. Colombia: CIAT.

  • Lilja, N., J. Ashby, and N. Johnson. 2004. Scaling up and out the impact of agricultural research with farmer participatory research. In Scaling up and out: achieving widespread impact through agricultural research, ed. D. Pachico, and S. Fujisaka, 25–36. Economic and Impact Series 3. Cali: CIAT.

  • Leeuwis, C. (2004). Communication for rural innovation. Rethinking agricultural extension. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B., B. Johnson, E.S. Andersen, and B. Dalum. 2002. National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Research Policy 31: 213–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundy, M. 2004. Learning alliances with development partners: a framework for scaling out research results. In Scaling up and out: achieving widespread impact through agricultural research, ed. D. Pachico, and S. Fujisaka, 221–233. Economic and Impact Series 3. Cali: CIAT.

  • Menter, H., S. Kaaria, N. Johnson, and J. Ashby. 2004. Scaling up. In Scaling up and out: achieving widespread impact through agricultural research, ed. D. Pachico, and S. Fujisaka, 9–23. Economic and Impact Series 3. Cali: CIAT.

  • Nelson, R.J., R. Orrego, O. Ortiz, M. Mundt, M. Fredrix, and N.V. Vien. 2001. Working with resource-poor farmers to manage plant diseases. Plant Disease 85(7): 684–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science 5(1): 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okali, C., J. Sumberg, and J. Farrington. 1994. Farmer participatory research. Rhetoric and reality. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz, O. 1997. The information system for IPM in subsistence potato production in Peru: experience of introducing innovative information in Cajamarca Province. PhD Dissertation, University of Reading, Reading.

  • Ortiz, O. 2001. La información y el conocimiento como insumos principales para la adopción del MIP. Revista MIP-Costa Rica 61: 12–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz, O. 2006. Evolution of agricultural extension and information dissemination in Peru: an historical perspective focusing on potato-related pest control. Agriculture and Human Values 23: 477–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz, O., J. Alcázar, W. Catalán, W. Villano, V. Cerna, H. Fano, and T. Walker. 1996. Economic impact of IPM practices on the Andean Potato Weevil in Peru. In Case studies of the economic impact of CIP-related technology, ed. T. Walker, and C. Crissman, 15–32. Lima: International Potato Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz, O., J. Alcázar, and M. Palacios. 1997. La enseñanza del manejo integrado de plagas en el cultivo de la papa: La experiencia del CIP en la Zona Andina del Perú. Revista Latinoamericana de la Papa 9/10(1): 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz, O., K.A. Garret, J.J. Heath, R. Orrego, and R.J. Nelson. 2004. Management of potato late blight in the Peruvian highlands: evaluating the benefits of farmer field schools and farmer participatory research. Plant Disease 88(5): 565–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. 1966. The tacit dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prain, G., G. Thiele, O. Ortiz, and D. Campilan. 2006. Rootcrops in agricultural societies: what social research has revealed. In Researching the culture in agri-culture: social research for international development, ed. M.M. Cernea, and A.H. Kassam, 166–193. London: CABI Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priou, S., O. Barea, H. Equise, and P. Aley. 2004. Capacitación e investigación participativa para el manejo integrado de la marchitez bacteriana de la papa. Experiencias en Perú y Bolivia. Peru: International Potato Center, PROINPA, and DFID.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pumisacho, M., and S. Sherwood, ed. 2005. Guía metodológica sobre ECAs. Escuelas de campo de agricultures. Ecuador: CIP-INIAP-World Neighbors.

  • Reddy, K.P. 1986. Extension systems interaction with research and client systems: an intersystem analysis. Journal of Extension Systems 2(2): 36–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, R., and R. Booth. 1982. Farmer back to farmer: a model for generating acceptable agricultural technology. Agricultural Administration 11: 127–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roper, L. 2002. Achieving successful academic-practitioner research collaboration. Development in Practice 12(3–4): 338–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selener, D. 1997. Participatory action research and social change. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. 2001. The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace. Journal of Knowledge Management 5(4): 311–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stathers, T., S. Namanda, R.O.M. Mwanga, G. Khisa, and R. Kapinga. 2005. Manual for sweetpotato integrated production and pest management farmer field schools in sub-Saharan Africa, 1–168. Kampala: International Potato Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiele, G., E. van de Fliert, and D. Campilan. 2001. What happened to participatory research at the International Potato Center? Agriculture and Human Values 18: 429–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thrupp, L.A. 1996. Overview. In New partnerships for sustainable agriculture, ed. L.A. Thrupp, 1–38. Washington: World Resources Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Fliert, E., and A.R. Braun. 1999. Farmer field schools for integrated crop management of sweet potato. Field guides and technical manual. Lima: CIP, Research Institute for Legume and Tuber crops, and UPWARD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts, J., R. Mackay, D. Horton, A. Hall, B. Douthwaite, R. Chambers, and A. Acosta. 2003. Institutional learning and change: an introduction, 1–89. ISNAR Discussion Paper No. 03-10. The Hague, Netherlands: International Service for National Agricultural Research.

  • Zuger, R. 2003. Do participatory interventions empower people? Paper presented at the 19th Annual Q Conference, Kent State University, Canton.

  • Zuger, R. 2004. Impact assessment of farmer field schools in Cajamarca: an economic evaluation. Social Sciences Working Paper No 2004-1. Peru: International Potato Center.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for the support of management and field staff of both CIP and CARE and for the participation of farmers. The views expressed here are, of course, our own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Potato Center, Apartado 1558, Lima 12, Peru

    Oscar Ortiz, Ricardo Orrego, Willy Pradel & Jesus Alcazar

  2. CARE-Peru, Cajamarca, Peru

    Guillermo Frias & Renee Castillo

  3. Sustainable Development Area, South America Regional Office, SAMRO-Oxfam América, Lima, Peru

    Raul Ho

  4. Consortium for Sustainable Development of the Andes (CONDESAN), Lima, Peru

    Hector Cisneros

  5. The McKnight Foundation Collaborative Crop Research Program, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

    Rebecca Nelson

  6. Municipality of Baños del Inca, Cajamarca, Peru

    Mario Bazán

Authors
  1. Oscar Ortiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guillermo Frias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raul Ho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hector Cisneros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rebecca Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Renee Castillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ricardo Orrego
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Willy Pradel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jesus Alcazar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Mario Bazán
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oscar Ortiz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ortiz, O., Frias, G., Ho, R. et al. Organizational learning through participatory research: CIP and CARE in Peru. Agric Hum Values 25, 419–431 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-007-9108-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-007-9108-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation