8.4 Informal surveys: features, types and uses

Contents - Previous - Next

8.4.1 Common Features

All informal surveys have five important features or distinguishing characteristics, which are illustrated in Table 8.1 :

• There is direct FSD worker-farmer interaction because the interviews are conducted by the FSD workers themselves, with FSD workers learning directly from farmers. Existing information and direct observation are also important sources of information in an informal survey. Special efforts are made to meet those (e.g., women, poorer people' more isolated people, etc.) who otherwise tend to be missed.
• Interviews basically are unstructured and semi-directed. As a result, learning is rapid and progressive with a flexible use of methods to explore relevant issues as they arise with Improvisation, iteration, and probing. Questionnaires are not used, although FSD workers often use topic guidelines to make sure all relevant topics, on a given subject, are covered. Written notes sometimes are taken during the interviews, but the emphasis is on dialogue and questioning to obtain information.
• The data collection process is dynamic and iterative, because FSD workers evaluate the data collected and reformulate data needs on a regular basis (i.e., often daily). More than one method or source of information often is used to cross check and confirm data and to improve approximations. Also, efforts are made not to find out more than is required and not to make, because of expense, inappropriately precise measurements.
• The interviews often are conducted by an interdisciplinary team with each discipline contributing to the identification of problems and identifying and evaluating potential and actual solutions. These take into account factors influencing both the technical and human environment within which farmers operate (see Section 4.2).
• Informal surveys don't permit statistical analysis, because they are undertaken without a formal sampling procedure, do not involve obtaining responses to a standard set of. questions, etc.

TABLE 8.1 : COMPARING GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FORMAL AND INFORMAL SURVEYS

In FSD, informal surveys have developed as a result of:

• Increasing realization by scientists that a relationship with the farmer based on treating her/him as a person with whom one could interact constructively was much more fruitful than one based on treating her/him as a object from whom one collected data to be analyzed independently.
• The increasing need by scientists to become acquainted with, and learn from, farmers.
• The need to find a method for rapidly obtaining technical and socio-economic information to help researchers in developing relevant improved technologies,
• The need to identify a cost-effective survey procedure.

There is no question that the popularity and use of informal surveys will continue to grow in the future. However, at least four critical factors will be important in determining whether this approach will be successful or not.

• Human Resources. Informal surveys will give reliable findings only if the interdisciplinary team of researchers/FSD workers is familiar with the techniques; possess interviewing, observational, and analytical skills; and can work well together in the field.
• Flexibility in Decision Making. Informal surveys can provide timely information for improved understanding throughout the research process. However, benefits from these inputs will be achieved only if the FSD programme can be structured in a flexible enough manner to permit, and react to, the input of new information as specific FSD activities proceed. FSD certainly should be able to respond in this manner, but on station research is likely to be less flexible,
• Intended Use of Information. Informal surveys are particularly appropriate whenever open-ended learning is needed or desired, but will not be appropriate when data are required over a long period of time or when more precise and statistically reliable data are needed from a large number of units. However, informal surveys can be used to better design and complement/supplement other data collection methods.
• Intended Audience. The results of informal surveys, because of their lack of statistical validity and heavy reliance on attitudinal/qualitative information, are inherently unlikely to hold much appeal to those used to relying on, and working with, quantitative data and statistical techniques (e.g., station-based scientists, planners, etc.). However, one way of often reducing such scepticism is to elicit the support of such individuals before undertaking such surveys and, if possible, persuade them to participate directly in their implementation as one of the interdisciplinary team members, Under such circumstances, they not only have an opportunity to make a contribution in theta. own right but also have a vested interest in the results, which, consequently, are likely to be more acceptable.

8.4.2 Types: General

In recent years, there has been an methodological explosion in terms of how to undertake informal surveys. Very simplistically, these new survey methods can be classified into two mayor groups:

• Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) Surveys, which sometimes are called a variety of other names including sondeos, rapid reconnaissance surveys, and/or exploratory surveys. These often are undertaken with individual respondents, although a number of respondents occasionally might be interviewed at the same time.
• Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) Techniques. such as mapping, seasonal diagramming, matrix ranking and scoring, etc. These usually are done with groups of respondents.

In considering the two types of informal surveys, a number of points can be made' for example:

• The philosophy, approaches, and methods of RRA began to develop into a coherent and identifiable form in the late 1970's, whereas most of the PRA techniques developed later.
• RRA often is considered extractive in the sense that outside professionals go to rural areas, obtain information, and then take it away to process and analyze. PRA, on the other hand, is participatory in the sense that its role is more to facilitate the collection, presentation, and analysis by the farmers themselves.
• RRA and PRA have a number of features in common such as those indicated above (see Section 8,4.1 ). However PRA has a number of features that have not been prominent in RRA including:

• Getting the farmers themselves to do the investigation, analysis, and presentation, with the outsiders simply playing a facilitating role.
• Outsiders emphasizing self-critical awareness (i.e., examining their behaviour) so that they play a truly facilitative rather than interventionist role, including that of relaxing and not rushing the farmers.
• Outsiders using their own best judgement at all times rather than relying on a manual or a rigid set of rules, and learning to welcome any errors as an opportunity to do better.
• Greater sharing of information among farmers and between farmers and outsiders,

• Although RRA and PRA differ in approach, the distinction is becoming increasingly blurred, because much of the methodology is shared. However, in this manual, RRA is distinguished from PRA in the sense that they are considered as semi- structured interviews. This often has been viewed as the 'basic foundation, of good RRA. It means having a mental or written checklist but is open-ended in approach, allowing following up on unanticipated issues and/or responses.

8.4.3 RRA: Uses and Implementation

Over the years, properly executed RRA surveys have proved to be low-cost ways of obtaining information and opinions from farmers; of tapping the indigenous knowledge and wisdom that exists on agricultural matters; and of developing a rapid understanding of farmers' circumstances, practices and problems,

A large body of literature is becoming available on the techniques of RRA. A particularly useful overview is given in Khon Kaen L 1987]. Three organizations that regularly produce information and results from the application of RRA are the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) in the UK; the Forest, Trees and People (FTP) Network organized jointly by the Community Forestry Unit in FAO and the International Development Research Centre (lDRC), SUAS in Sweden; and the Information Centre for Low External Input Agriculture (ILEIA) in the Netherlands. CIMMYT was one of the earliest CGIAR institutions responsible for demonstrating the value of informal or RRA surveys in FSD activities, while the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) at the University of Sussex, UK, also played an important role in advocating RRA during the early days..

BOX 8.1: RRA IS USEFUL IN SELECTING REPRESENTATIVE RESEARCH AREAS

In Botswana, such surveys were extremely useful in initiating activities of two of the FSD teams. There was concern about the potentially high logistical costs of interviewing farmers spread over large areas. Therefore, RRA-type surveys were undertaken in the two areas to ascertain whether the needs of different types of farmers in each area could be captured by confining the bulk of the teams' activities to working with a cross-section of farmers in three villages in each region. It was concluded that the variation in the farming systems within the selected villages -- which had different characteristics, such as size, settlement patterns, accessibility to the urban area, etc. -was as great as the variation throughout the region as a whole. Thus, research efforts could be concentrated geographically.

RRA-type surveys can serve five main functions in FSD-type work:

• The Feasibility Survey. RRA surveys can be useful in planning a project in a region, particularly in cases where relatively little is known such as obtaining an understanding of the target area and in selecting the research area (see Sections 5.3 and 5.4) (Box 8.1).
• Reconnaissance Surveys to Prepare Formal Surveys. The objective of these surveys is to quickly obtain basic information for designing and executing formal surveys or more in-depth investigations that may lead to on-farm experimentation. Such surveys help in developing an understanding of the area and can help ensure that the formal questionnaire is designed in a manner understandable (e.g., in terms, standards of measurement used, etc.) and relevant to farmers' circumstances and sensitive to local issues, etc. Such formal surveys, as follow ups to informal surveys, are firmly entrenched in the methodologies of some institutions. See, for example the so-called formal verification surveys advocated by CIMMYT [Byerlee et al, 1980]. However, questions are now being asked whether in an era of increasingly limited research resources, this is really necessary, because it often simply verifies what is already known .
• Informal Surveys for the Direct Planning of On-Farm Trials. The formal survey stage is skipped and on-farm experiments are undertaken on the basis of an informal survey, which identifies problems that need to be addressed. For example, FSD work in the ploughing/planting area may evolve out of the informal surveys supplemented later with data derived from studies and formal surveys.
• Informal Group Interviews on Selecting, Monitoring, and Evaluating On-Farm Trials. Conventionally, much of the literature emphasizes the use of RRA techniques in the planning stages of FSD work. However, such techniques also have been used in the monitoring and evaluation of on-farm trials, particularly those at the FMFl level. Research-oriented farmer groups provide a particularly good forum for such interaction (see Section 9.8.6).
• Assessing Impact and Adoption. The recent increased emphasis on looking at the impact of research resources in terms of success and problems of adoption provides another potential role for RRA type surveys. As yet, this has been done rarely, but it could provide a quick and cost efficient way of feeding back issues to station-based researchers and to planners. Such surveys also could provide valuable insights in the design of more formal surveys addressing adoption.

A number of decisions and actions must be undertaken in implementing RRA type surveys. Important points to consider are:

• The major objectives of the survey need to be determined. These should be finalized after taking into account the needs and inputs of the relevant authorities and interested parties (e.g., FSD, extension/development and station-based personnel).
• The size and composition of the survey team needs to be decided. Usually, the size of the team should be determined by the objectives or focus of the survey. The more complex the objectives and the more complex the technical and human environment (see Section 4.2), the more desirable a larger team would be. In general, both technical and social scientists and, whenever possible, both men and women, should be included in teams. It is also desirable to include women on the teams to ensure that gender issues are taken into account. Also in some societies, it may be imperative to have women on the team to interview women in the survey area, Inclusion of extension/development and station-based personnel sometimes can be useful both in terms of the potential contribution they can make and the professional benefits they can receive as a result of interaction between disciplines and with farmers,
• Background information relating to the objectives and area to be surveyed need to be assembled and digested, Such information can be obtained from: reviewing secondary data -- both published and unpublished -- acquiring maps, and interviewing key informants, These are knowledgeable personnel such as local government officials, leaders, extension, and development staff who have good background information relating to the objectives and the area to be studied, The amount of time required for obtaining and digesting background information will be minimal, if the FSD team is already working in the area,
• If it is the team's first time to work in the area, then approval to undertake the survey must be obtained from the appropriate authorities, This often means obtaining the support of regional and district agricultural officials and leaders in the villages.
• It is desirable to produce interviewing guidelines, These can be divided into two groups: content and process.

• Content. These are topical lists to help interviewers address topics and aspects of a topic that they might otherwise omit, The list should arise out of a consensus among team members and should consider the objectives, background information, and prior knowledge of the area, Making the list provides an ideal opportunity for promoting team building, because it allows each team member to contribute to the list, emphasizing topics relevant to his/her own interests/discipline, As a result, survey priorities are established before going to the field, and the team begins to operate as a single unit. If possible, the topical outline should be tested prior to going to the field. However, this list should not be considered binding. Sometimes, team members may not want to pursue all the topics on the list in order to obtain more detailed information on a particular aspect.
• Process. In addition to deciding on the topics to be addressed in the survey, it is also important to agree on the appropriate interviewing procedures before starting the survey. Topics that might be useful to agree on before going to the field include: how to approach the farmer in terms of introduction; interaction, encouraging single or group interviews, length of interview, etc.; how to handle translation and sensitive topics; and how to avoid asking biased questions.

• Interviewing procedures, of course, will be somewhat location-specific. Some points that are important to take into account, in addition to those mentioned earlier (see Section 8.2) include:

• If the team is large, it is a good idea to break it up into groups of two - consisting ideally of a technical and social scientist -- to conduct interviews with a range of farmers, These farmers usually are selected in an informal manner; for example, every fifth farmer who is met or a certain number of farmers who have particular characteristics, such as being female and head of a household or who hire draught animals,
• Rotating team members on a daily basis gives each person a chance to work with and learn from other team members, thereby facilitating the exchange of ideas and helping to establish better communication among team members. It is also a good idea for the team to get together as a whole, on a frequent basis (e.g., daily), to review tentative hypotheses and compare and discuss observations and conclusions that have arisen. Also, at this point, some notes should be made, if not done earlier, to avoid points being forgotten at a later date. Such discussions can help stimulate team members' thinking and result in a modification of the topical outline for further interviews.
• At the end of the survey, which usually will not last more than a week, a written report should be prepared by team members reflecting a consensus on the hypotheses, findings -- which usually will include information on farmers' attitudes, constraints, and indigenous knowledge -- and recommendations for future action.

A great deal of FSD work has involved using informal survey methods (e.g., see Box 8.2), which include one or more of the elements discussed above. Obviously, once familiarity with the area and individual farmers has been established, many short cuts can be made in the implementation procedure, although it is always important to bear in mind some basic principles (e.g., use terms farmers can relate to, develop a collegiate or partnership type relationship with farmers, etc.). RRA type survey techniques have been used in many situations, for example:

• Consultations with individual farmers on their farms concerning the practices they are using, the trials in which they are participating, etc.
• Farmer field days in which farmers played prominent roles.
• Farmer groups (i.e., both research- and extension-oriented) where farmers out-number the outsiders (i.e., researchers and extension staff), and, as a result, often express their views quite vigorously.

These forums provide important opportunities for learning from the farmer in order to help in planning, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating formal surveys, studies, and trials. Because a good deal of this information is not documented formally, the significance of this informal interaction in shaping thoughts and actions tends to be forgotten. indeed, it is probably true to say that many strategies developed in on-farm trials over the years have been stimulated in such discussions (see Box 8.3).

BOX 8.2: UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE AND LIMITATIONS OF RRA SURVEYS

RRA surveys, in many different versions, have been used in FSD as quick and cost-effective means of obtaining a broad overview of technical and human constraints and potentials within a farming system, McCracken and Conway [1988] list five features of all good RRA surveys: iterative (i.e. between disciplinary perspectives); innovative (i.e., fit the situation); informal; interactive; and involving appropriate members of the target community.

In the medium altitude zone of Kirinyaga District of Kenya, an exploratory RRA survey was carried out with the primary extension agents of the areas in which an FSD team was doing research [Franzel, 1992]. The purpose was to use these agents as informants to obtain a comprehensive picture of the situation even more rapidly than could be done by interacting with farming members of the community. This RRA survey did provide the comprehensive information and was rated quite cost-effective. However, the FSD team members recognized that the chance that bias (i.e., perspectives different from those of farmers) would exist among agents and go unnoticed, and that the false results might be worse than no survey information at all.

A team working in Marit village of Plateau State, Nigeria, compared findings obtained through RRA surveys and those obtained through an Intensive Residential Study (IRS) [Merit Team, 19931. Most of the key issues discovered during the IRS were confirmed by the RRA: problems with soil fertility, water quality, income potential for the young in agriculture, rural electricity, marauding livestock, and others. Priorities for the elaboration of projects in the community -- these priorities naturally would correspond to the problem areas -- also were well identified by the RRA survey. At a general level, RRA proved effective at identifying issues. However, the Marit Team found that RRA could not be relied on to reach the same level of understanding as IRS for more subtle relationships and values, For example, the RRA identified problems that informants thought could be corrected by outside inputs (e.g., fertilizer, seeds, etc.) but not those problems that surfaced over time in IRS that would require 'inside, solutions (e.g., mismanagement of funds). In terms of values, the RRA survey results reflected more 'promodernization, thinking, whereas the IRS revealed certain traditional values that the RRA did not. These included such value issues as matrimonial happiness, respect, etc.

The RRA survey is an important tool in FSD work. It provides the broad perspectives necessary to correctly orient FSD activities. However, RRA surveys should not always substitute for further in-depth appraisal.

8.4.4 PRA: Types and Uses

As indicated earlier (see Section 8.4.2), PRA techniques are evolving rapidly. As a result, it is impossible to provide an exhaustive description of the different methods, because it would become dated very quickly. A large number of papers are being published currently on new techniques and refinements to existing methods and should be consulted by those interested. Particularly useful sources of information are the same ones cited for RRA earlier (Section 8.4.3), namely IIED, FTP Network, IDS, and ILEIA. In addition, Clark University in the USA has produced a number of informative publications in this area, while a number of CGIAR institutions have done some innovative work using PRA techniques. Those with particularly noteworthy work in this area include ICLARM, ICRAF, and CIMMYT.

BOX 8.3: FARMER-INITIATED STRATEGIES CAN IMPROVE THE PRODUCTIVITY OF RESEARCH

• In one part of Southern Africa, it was observed that many farmers recognized high potential sites on their fields where soils were deeper, had a relatively high clay fraction, and tended to be at the bottom of slopes. These characteristics create conditions conducive to high water retention, important in that drought-prone environment, Consequently, some farmers used strategies to take advantage of these high potential sites. As a result, FSD researchers also accepted the potential payoff from targeting strategies towards these high potential sites by implementing trials on manure and phosphate application.
• A couple of FSD teams did a lot of trial work on double ploughing to increase infiltration of water in the soil profile thereby improving the length of time planting can be done under optimal soil moisture conditions (see Section 10.8). Because, at times, the traditional ploughing/planting system can be effective if soil moisture conditions are satisfactory, farmers in one village indicated that they could reduce the cost of the first ploughing in a double ploughing system by doing it when the soil moisture conditions were not suitable for planting, therefore, not sacrificing potential production. This observation encouraged the FSD team to rethink ideas on the double ploughing strategy as a substitute for the traditional system. It is now viewed as an option that farmers can pursue for increasing the potential number of days in which planting can be done on subsequent rains.

The objective here is to give, by way of illustration, summaries of four techniques that appear to have particular potential in FSD type activities.

Before doing so, four important points to note about the use of PRA techniques are as follows:

• All involve having a group of respondents who together, after discussion, come to a consensus on the subject being considered. Thus, care must be taken that the respondents selected for the exercise are knowledgeable about the subject being discussed, and where results are likely to differ by recommendation domain, gender, etc., that those in a specific group are of the same 'type' or 'class'.
• They can be used effectively where the level of literacy is low. Lack of reliance on the written word appears to positively influence memory or visual retention. Such information can be transmitted effectively to others in pictorial form through drawing outlines on the ground supplemented with different objects or symbols reflecting different things/events/orders of magnitude, etc.
• Because the respondents are the major 'actors' in the activity and primarily interact amongst themselves, they can become very enthusiastic in, and derive considerable enjoyment and satisfaction from, undertaking the exercise.
• For those who doubt the results of a particular exercise, it can be repeated with another. group of respondents who have similar attributes, and the results compared.

Four examples of PRA techniques and their potential uses, are as follows:

• Mapping. Examples are of farms, residences, and/or points of major interest (e.g., wells, cooperative, etc.) in a village, Names of individuals farming each plot of land can be identified, and characteristics of households living in each residence (e.g., gender of household head, size of household, type of traction used, whether traction is owned or borrowed, etc.) can be obtained, The potential value of such an exercise is obvious in providing a low-cost and quick way of assembling a sampling frame from which stratified random samples can be selected for formal surveys (see Section 8,5.3).
• Trend Analysis. This involves use of a historical perspective and provides a way of relating changes (e.g., crops and their varieties, customs, land use and practices, ecological, etc.) and their causes to specific major events, which, in turn, can be related to specific years. Such trends, together with information relating to their causes, can obviously be useful inputs into addressing ecological sustainability issues, designing solutions that will overcome undesirable trends, providing some idea on how desirable trends can be encouraged, etc.
• Seasonal Diagramming. Examples are many and can include: amount and distribution of rainfall; specific operations by crop: level and distribution of labour (e.g., overall, by gender, etc.) by crop and livestock enterprise, total agriculture, off-farm, domestic household related; level and composition of food consumption through the year; level and composition of animal fodder through the year, etc. In these examples, levels are expressed in relative terms through comparing one part of the year with another (e.g., the longer the vertical line in relation to another, the greater is the level or amount compared with the other). When households are very close to the survival level, the they are likely to be more vulnerable to seasonal fluctuations, such as in food supplies, and less likely to be able to supplement their labour supplies at times of peak labour demand. Therefore, seasonal diagramming potentially can be very important in highlighting problems that need to be addressed by FSD teams and in helping to evaluate the value or relevance of potential solutions.
• Matrix Scoring and Ranking. Once again, there are many examples where this method can be applied. Possibilities are farmer assessment of: different varieties of crops, livestock, fodder crops, trees; treatments in an RM-RI trial; types of soil; methods of soil and water conservation, etc. The idea is to encourage and enable farmers to debate, decide, and weight the characteristics of the different alternatives and perhaps also indicate what they ideally would like to have. The weighting is constrained? forcing them to make judgements and trade-off decisions. The procedure is as follows [Chambers, 1992A]:

• Decide what you want ranked or scored (e.g., varieties of sorghum, different treatments in a tillage trial, etc.).
• Find one or more (preferably more than one) informants who are knowledgeable and willing to discuss -- preferably from the same recommendation domain.
• Decide with them which items (i.e., under the first point above) to rank or score -- for example, if they know nothing about a particular variety, it should not be included.
• For each in turn, ask them what is good about it, what is bad about it, what else (i.e., any other point that is relevant in ranking/scoring) -- their ideas, not yours!
• List the criteria and make negative ones positive, For example, 'attracts pests' becomes 'does not attract pests'.
• Ask informants to rank or score each one (i.e., 1 = best, 2 = second best, etc. or score each out of 10, 5 or 3). This could be done visually with a matrix drawn on the ground and asking farmers to select their preferences, for example, by distributing I () identical objects (e.g.? bean seeds) between the various choices.
• At the end, ask the informants to rank them according to their preference if they could have only one. At that time they are aggregating the different criteria according to some weighting system. In fact it might also be useful to ask them to rank the importance of the different criteria. This could be done in a way Chambers calls a 'wish list, by distributing the objects according to the relative importance of the different criteria. This could provide very useful information for researchers, especially if the criteria are in potential conflict with each other.

An illustration of one such test of the approach used in India is given in Box 8.4.

Additional points that Chambers emphasizes are:

• Don't use your criteria. If you do so, clearly separate them from theirs.
• Don't lecture -- listen and learn!
• Probe for farmer criteria.
• Follow up on points of interest.
• Try different sorts of people -- who often are in different recommendation domains.
• Experience has indicated ranking is all right up to about seven items, whereas scoring is all right for any number of evaluation criteria.

BOX 8.4: MATRIX SCORING CAN BE VERY USEFUL IN RANKING EXERCISES

The following example of four women in India ranking the characteristics of different trees was provided by Chambers [1992A].

a. In the table, the '=' means the different tree , were ram ted equally in terms of the specific criterion.

This is one of the most exciting of the PRA techniques in the sense that it has tremendous potential for obtaining farmer assessment during design and testing activities (Box 8.5) and possibly even relating to adoption in the dissemination stage. However, as implied above, this has? not been exploited to date. Also the techniques

PRA techniques are facilitating the move to practical implementation of FSD with a 'natural resource systems focus' (see Section 3.3). Staff at ICLARM have played a leadership role in applying PRA techniques to addressing such sustainability-related issues (e.g., see Lightfoot, Bottrall et al [1991] and Lightfoot, Noble et al [1991]).

In a sense, these PRA methods provide a way of quantifying qualitative type data and, therefore, potentially could be more appealing to technical scientists not associated with FSD teams, This is particularly likely to be the case once they have observed these methods in operation. These methods as well as adding an extra dimension to RRA-type surveys during descriptive/diagnostic work (e.g., see Box 8.6), could, as mentioned above, be important during the other stages of

FSD work in evaluating technologies. For example, a possible application of the matrix scoring and ranking method would be in farmer assessment of technologies tested in farmer groups. This could take the place of an end-of-season formal survey (see Section 9.8.6).

Contents - Previous - Next