PurposeWorking with livestock farmers in Kenya, Uganda, and Ethiopia, we explored how extension can better support actor-oriented, collaborative learning. We focused on locally-led adaptation solutions already working for livestock farmers affected by climate change, using positive deviance (PD). Our main research question was whether PD theory can be adapted to identify positive deviants whose uncommon solutions are a response to climate change.Design/Methodology/ApproachUsing qualitative research methods, we identified PD livestock farmers who were more successful in adapting to climate change and securing their livelihoods. From an initial sample of 112 local innovators, we selected 27 positive deviants across the three countries.FindingsThe PD approach effectively identified farmers with high potential for scaling locally-led adaptation practices and farmer-led innovations. However, we observed that climate change is not always the primary concern for these farmers, as other factors can sometimes take precedence.Practical ImplicationsOur locally-led adaptation focused approach to PD has strong potential to support research, farmers, and extension services in building climate resilience in East African livestock farming.Originality/ValuePositive Deviants succeed not just because of external project support but due to their own ingenuity and drive for change. Their ability to innovate - shaped by life histories and unique experiences - offers valuable learning opportunities for others in similar situations. A holistic AR4D approach is needed to better reflect the realities of East African farmers and promote adaptive, collaborative learning.

This study explored the potential of the Positive Deviance (PD) theory to support an approach focused on improved management of adaptation knowledge of livestock keepers to improve climate resilience in their communities through social learning. In the Ethiopian Highlands, frost, hail, and shifting rainfall patterns have rendered crop farming unreliable. Farmers increasingly rely on short-term livestock investments such as sheep fattening, as an adaptation strategy. The study was conducted in two districts in the Ethiopian Highlands. Using a mixed-methods approach, 34 local innovators were identified through participatory workshops and interviews, and four positive deviant pioneer households were selected for an in-depth study. Monthly data were collected on sheep weight, body condition scores, feed, and grazing practices, complemented by semi-structured interviews and farmer-to-farmer field days. The iterative learning process enabled pioneer households to better understand the power of their own knowledge, improve their practices and share knowledge through farmer-to-farmer interactions, fostering mutual learning and changing their self-perception to that of community facilitators. Findings highlight the importance of integrating the PD theory into an approach supporting local extension for developing technologies with farmers. By focusing on farmer-led innovations and their ability to adapt and implement existing technologies, this approach offers a promising pathway for reframing how research and extension services engage with farmers’ climate action-related knowledge and innovations in highland farming systems.

Climate change has an enormous impact on farming communities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Two prominent responses to support governments and communities in responding to this are locally-led adaptation (LLA) and climate-smart agriculture (CSA). LLA and CSA rarely overlap, partly because LLA is more process-oriented, and CSA is more technology-oriented; additionally, they are situated in different actor-networks. Hence, there are few literatures addressing both at the same time, even though both operate in the field of climate change. With this review, I aim to elicit potential synergies between the two topically related concepts to understand what motivations become apparent when scientists use either LLA or CSA as conceptual framing in their publications; how LLA or CSA can be adapted conceptually to be more needs- and place-oriented as opposed to being driven by international donor communities and political agendas; and finally, if there is any benefit in seeking overlap between LLA and CSA. For this purpose, I conducted a systematic literature review combined with qualitative data analysis with NVivo. Following elimination through screening, most of the remaining articles were focused only on LLA; therefore, most of the review addresses LLA and then eliciting overlap and potential synergy in the final part of this article. The review of 29 studies showed that the most frequently addressed themes in LLA literature are power and agency, governance, and motivations for change, whether driven by donors, place, or local needs. Despite strong rhetorical support for LLA, implementation often falls short, with many interventions still reflecting top-down, externally driven processes that contradict LLA principles. While some case studies demonstrate that locally grounded governance systems can enable more effective adaptation, questions remain about the scalability, legitimacy, and conceptual clarity of LLA, particularly in relation to frameworks like CSA. To ensure LLA contributes meaningfully to adaptation and complements CSA, greater attention must be given to governance, locally defined priorities, and the socio-political realities of decision making. Moving forward, bridging the divide between global frameworks and local agency requires critical reflection on language, power, and the role of external actors in shaping adaptation pathways.

Participatory action research (PAR) puts high emphasis on the interaction of the research participants. However, with the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020, the central role of researchers in participatory research processes had to be questioned and revisited. New modes of PAR developed dynamically under the new circumstances created by the pandemic. To better understand how Covid-19 changed the way PAR is applied, we analyzed PAR in agricultural research for development carried out in the Programme for Climate-Smart Livestock Systems (PCSL) implemented by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) at five research sites in Kenya, Ethiopia, and Uganda. To understand how PAR changed in a component on adaptation research in the PCSL we facilitated a reflexive study with livestock keepers and researchers to document their experiences of PAR during the Covid-19 pandemic. The analytical framework focuses on highlighting the core characteristics and the underlying ethos of PAR in this case study. The lessons learnt in the process of adapting to the realities of doing participatory research in the middle of a pandemic provide important arguments for further amalgamating the PAR philosophy into similar research designs. The onset of the pandemic has led to a further decentering of the researcher and a shift of the focus to the citizen, in this case the local livestock keeper, that made it more participatory in the stricter interpretation of the term. Letting go of controlling both narrative and implementation of the research will be challenging for researchers in many research fields. However, this shift of power and this transformation of research methodologies is inevitable if the research should remain relevant and impactful. Ultimately, the transition into a Covid-19 future and the awareness that similar pandemics could dramatically interrupt our lives any time, will have an impact on how projects are designed and funded. More long-term funding and less pressure on providing immediate results can build community trust and ownership for research at a local level.

Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D) provides the interface for the meeting of farmers and scientists. This is a meeting of different social worlds, contesting agendas, cultures of cooperation and networks of actors. Like in other disciplines, scientists in AR4D have developed their own culture of science. However, the role of their culture of science in the negotiations and encounters with farmers' social worlds is rarely discussed. Analysing AR4D with a theoretical framework based on Science and Technology Studies (STS) helps us to highlight important issues of power and access in AR4D. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate how the introduction of certain technologies has interacted with the lives of people in an AR4D project in Ethiopia, and to highlight the potential and limitations of applying STS to AR4D. We interviewed farmers, scientists, extensionists, policy makers and donors associated with an AR4D project in the Ethiopian Highlands using qualitative social research approaches. Akrich's theory on scripts provided the theoretical framework for analysis. Our findings provide examples for the re-inscription of technology and access in an AR4D project, leading to trade-offs and shifting of power between different actors. We conclude that understanding AR4D as part of a network of actors with its own culture of science provides an essential learning ground. We recommend STS to be applied more widely in AR4D to explore the nature of these networks to highlight what makes technology work for users in the long term.

The original article has been corrected. Unfortunately, the original publication contained a mistake in one of the author names. The correct name is Kibruyesfa Sisay.

No Access9.2.3 Transforming research? A critical reflectionBirgit HabermannBirgit Habermannhttps://doi.org/10.7767/9783205201731-065SectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail About Previous chapter Next chapter FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Download book cover ISBN: 978-3-205-79690-9 eISBN: 978-3-205-20173-1HistoryPublished online:August 2018 PDF download

PurposeReflections on negotiation processes between farmers and scientists in research projects provide insights into issues of participation, power and equity. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how actors chose places to meet, negotiate and represent technologies.Design/methodology/approachThe research involved semi‐structured interviews and participant observation with farmers, scientists, government agricultural advisors (extensionists), policymakers, and staff of development organisations involved in a research for development project in Western Shewa, Ethiopia from 2009 to 2011. It combines theories from social studies of science as well as development studies.FindingsUsing blueprint approaches in research projects will not yield sustainable results. Participation must go beyond consultation or trying to educate farmers. Social relations are at the core of cooperation between farmers and scientists and require much more attention. Powerful choices on modes of representation and communication technologies as well as unilateral decisions on places have important implications for the way decisions are eventually made and by whom.Originality/valueThis approach to studying research for development projects from social studies of science perspectives adds new insights into debates on participation and power in technology transfer and multicultural cooperation in rural development.

Ethiopia is undoubtedly making enormous development progress, particularly in terms of infrastructure, education and improved livelihoods. Yet there is growing disagreement on what constitutes good or appropriate development for Ethiopia. There is firm belief in the role of the developmental state built on economic growth, but there are doubts whether economic growth has led to more equity. Society is torn between maintaining traditional values and embracing the value changes that flow from increasing engagement in the globalised system and, while new, wealthier actors are appearing on the national scene, the poor still do not sufficiently benefit from development progress. As global shocks impact on Ethiopia to a greater or lesser extent, these interplay with an already vibrant and increasingly diverse struggle to imagine what development means for Ethiopia.

Development research has been through many stages over the past few decades and during this time has experienced fluctuating appreciation by development practice. There is an increasing gap between different ways of doing development research. For some, the purpose of development research is primarily to influence policies, and in order to do this development research has to reframe its whole approach, language, and methodology. Others maintain that development research needs to distance itself, maintain an analytical and even critical approach towards development practice, and become an academic discipline in its own right.

Acknowledgement: The workshop has been funded by the Austrian Federal Ministry for Education, Science and Culture (BMBWK), and the Austrian Development Cooperation (OEZA) (funding for Austrian Alumni as workshop presenters). We thank the Austrian Exchange Service (OeAD) for facilitating the participation of Austrian Alumni from Kenya, Uganda and Nepal, and the Austrian Academy of Sciences for hosting the event. Members of the organising committee were Birgit Habermann (KEF), Ruth Haselmair (KEF), Michael Hauser (DEVFORUM), Karla Krieger (BMLFUW), Margarita Langthaler (ÖFSE), and Nikos Tzaferis (VIDC); the committee was kindly endorsed by BMBWK, the Austrian Exchange Service (OeAD) and the Austrian Development Cooperation (OEZA).