In order to address the technology needs of farmers in regions with poor and diverse resource endowment and ecological conditions, it is suggested that adaptive research should be designed to link farmers directly with research. As a result, a variety of on-farm programmes have been instituted within research systems. A number of methodological approaches have been developed, such as FSR, cropping systems research, production systems research, farmer-back-to-farmer, farmer-first-farmer-last, on-farm research with a systems perspective, etc. The focus common to all these FSR and extension approaches is that the farmer is seen as the client of research. These approaches also emphasize setting research priorities and designing technical solutions based on the constraints identified, with active involvement of farmers at the various stages of the research process (Merrill-Sands 1988).
Farming systems research
FSR has been a popular approach, adopted to improve the research-extension linkage. FSR systematically identifies and defines client groups, diagnoses priority constraints within their farming systems, and feeds this information into the priority setting and planning processes of the research system (Merrill-Sands, 1988). An important and successful FSR approach - one that put heavy emphasis on user orientation - is on-farm, client-oriented research (OFCOR).
On-farm, client-oriented research
OFCOR involves 'a set of methods integrating trials, formal and informal surveys and a variety of farm-level activities, which range from the diagnosis and ranking of problems, through the design, development, adaptation and evaluation of appropriate technologies to solve them' (Merrill-Sands, 1988: 1). It complements and depends upon experiment station research. It has also been called 'on-farm adaptive research' or 'farming systems adaptive research' (Byerlee, Harrington and Winkelmann, 1982; Collinson, 1982; Gilbert, Norman and Winch, 1980; Norman, 1982). The research functions include a service function, an adaptive research function and a feedback function (Merrill-Sands, 1988).
The service function involves broad-scale on-farm screening, testing and evaluation of technologies developed on-station, and transfer of station-based research to the farm. Adaptive research consists of diagnosis of farm-level constraints and adaptation of existing technology to a particular set of agro-ecological or socio-economic conditions through farm research. The feedback function involves channelling information from farming system descriptions, farm-level diagnosis or adaptive research to on-station research.
OFCOR uses several mechanisms to link existing on-station research with the extension services. These linkage mechanisms include joint problem diagnosis and collaborative priority-setting and planning exercises; joint programming and review meetings; joint decision making on release of recommendations; periodic joint visits to the field; formal collaboration in trials and surveys; assignment of responsibility for coordination to a specific individual or group; formal guidelines for allocating time to collaborative activities; specific allocation of funds for collaboration; and facilitation of informal consultation.
OFCOR linkages with the extension service have taken several forms (Ewell, 1989). In places where formal linkages to extension are weak or extension itself not fully functional, OFCOR is seen as an alternative diffusion mechanism. Often informal cooperation is extended by extension workers to OFCOR personnel at the field level in securing cooperation of local leaders, identifying collaborators, organizing field days, etc. Extension staff also participate as technicians in the research programmes of OFCOR. In some cases, OFCOR staff have been involved in rural development projects. Participation of senior extension specialists as scientists in OFCOR programmes is also common. The activities of these scientists include on-farm demonstrations, field days, in-service training for extension workers, and preparation of training materials. There are also formal operational linkages between OFCOR and extension programmes, and the T&V system is one example.
Based on case studies conducted using a common analytical framework in nine countries (Bangladesh, Ecuador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Nepal, Panama, Senegal, Zambia and Zimbabwe), Merrill-Sands (1988) concluded that institutionalization of OFCOR or FSR has been effective. However, serious problems exist 'in sustaining methodological dynamism, innovation and a broad research agenda addressing farmers' needs' (Merrill-Sands, 1988: 19). The methods and procedures used to involve farmers in the research process becomes routine, and hence farmers lose enthusiasm. Also, maintaining a broad research agenda with an interdisciplinary perspective has been difficult owing to lack of funds and trained personnel. The ability of OFCOR to strengthen the link between researchers and farmers is affected by problems in sustaining farmer involvement throughout the research process, problems in selecting farmer cooperators who are representative of identified client groups, and problems in systematically synthesizing and using information obtained from farmers (Merrill-Sands, 1988).
Case studies have revealed that the adaptive and applied research functions have been most successfully implemented; the success of the service function has varied from case to case; and the feedback and support functions have been least implemented. This is because the adaptive and applied research functions are easier to institutionalize than the support and feedback functions. The demarcation of responsibilities between OFCOR and on-station research can be made easily in the case of applied and adaptive research, and the institutional changes required are more modest.
Three types of problems have been identified in acceptance and improvement of the feedback and support functions. First, because these functions involve influencing the research agenda of other scientists and scientific programmes, they can provoke conflicts of interest, power and scientific judgment. Second, since both feedback and support functions depend on interaction among researchers and on joint planning, they involve shifts in researcher's work programmes, areas of responsibility and decision making autonomy. Third, benefits accruing from the collaboration entailed in the feedback and support functions, which are somewhat intangible and realized only in the long term, are often perceived as greater for the institution than for the researcher.
Linkage issues in farming systems research
Since many farming system research and extension (FSR&E) activities are still parts of special projects, the question of institutionalization of FSR&E practices and procedures is a major issue. Case studies have shown that OFCOR programmes have been fairly successful at diagnosis and at improving the quality of information available on farmer's conditions. Nevertheless, on-farm research cannot be substituted for developing linkages with extension for the transfer of technology to farmers.
For institutionalizing OFCOR, the issues that need to be addressed are organizational and managerial, relating to the integration of on-farm and experiment station research and linkages between OFCOR and extension.
Subject-matter specialists
Fielding subject-matter specialists is another mechanism adopted to improve the effectiveness of extension and strengthen the linkage between research and extension. Subject-matter specialists provide a two-way link between researchers and extension workers. They provide technical guidance and support to extension staff, develop extension recommendations, and provide training to extension officers and field staff. They work closely with researchers in conducting on-farm research, evaluating improved technologies for dissemination, and preparing extension materials based on field results. Availability of qualified subject-matter specialists is a problem in many countries.
Training and Visit System
The T&V system was introduced to improve the effectiveness of extension. It involves continuous training of the field staff and regular visits to the field at frequent intervals. The field staff visit the field at least every two weeks and are responsible solely for extension activities. During their visits, the field staff spend at least one day in training and visiting contact farmers. The field staff are given training by researchers or subject-matter specialists on the most important practices that farmers will be undertaking during next week or fortnight. The field staff get feedback on the problems of farmers and communicate them to researchers. This approach has been successful in irrigated rice and wheat growing regions of India. The need for a large number of trained staff makes it difficult to use this approach in diverse and less well endowed regions.
