On 14 May 2024 Prossy Isubikalu defended her PhD. dissertation titled "Stepping-stones to improve upon functioning of participatory agricultural extension programmes. Farmer Field Schools in Uganda" at Wageningen University, The Netherlands.

The copyright of this publication is with the publisher. As such the book is not available electronically. If you wish to receive a copy of the dissertation, please contact Prossy Isubikalu ( This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it )

Summary of the dissertation:

This thesis deals with Farmer Field Schools (FFS) in Uganda. FFS is a grassroots learning and application device for technological improvements in agriculture, primarily aimed at resource-poor farmers. It is rooted by background in pest management (IPM) but is also a group learning approach based on doing. The specific role of FFS is to provide a practical framework through which generative, adaptive and observation-based learning can develop, specific to local problems and opportunities. This thesis analyses the functioning of FFS within the wider set of programmes, organisations and institutions aimed at crop improvement, i.e. the agricultural innovation system. The FFS is studied with technographic methods. Technography is a systematic description and analysis of the interaction of human agents, tools, techniques and technical processes, i.e. it is the study of instrumentality within the broader field of ethnography. FFS claims to be able to form new technical knowledge "in situ" through a modified self-help approach (using local resources of time and energy). The introduction of FFS in Uganda fits within a wider national and international development agenda, an agenda driven by Poverty Reduction Strategic Plans/Papers (PRSP) and the (wider) Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) that put emphasis on community participation in development activities. There is concern that the increasing levels of poverty in the developing world, Africa in particular, are attributed to powerlessness, social exclusion and lack of opportunity of the masses (especially the rural poor) in actively influencing programmes or projects that affect their lives.

After a general introduction of the topic, major issues and research approach in chapter one, the thesis continues with an empirical analysis of five FFS projects, operating in the districts of Soroti, Busia, Tororo, Kumi, Iganga (eastern Uganda), Mukono and Kiboga (central Uganda) formed the empirical cases underlying this study. The main highlights of findings generated through an intensive and prolonged contact with the field from January 2003 through December 2005 are presented in common themes, identified across the five projects. This not only minimises repetition across projects and districts but it also gives a clearer view on the processes that determine the performance of FFS. The main findings are organised in four empirical chapters.

Chapter two displays an analysis of the national and international development strategies in relation to the introduction of FFS in Uganda, i.e. a political economy of donors, agricultural institutes and other actors in agricultural research and extension services. The focus is on the actors and their roles in the operation or implementation of Ugandan FFS. Actors, activities and roles at international, national and local levels were analysed. Because of the participatory background of FFS, interest was how farmers or the local levels got actively engaged in FFS activities at all levels. In spite of the participatory background, FFS did not translate well in the Ugandan context. The local level actors did not take active part in the identification and prioritization of problems addressed in FFS interventions. Decisions were already made from above (by donors and researchers) with traditional structures and functioning remaining strong in shaping interactions and focus of FFS. Farmers had no negotiation capacity/power to influence the agenda towards addressing their interests given that objectives, problems, and technology were pre-defined from above. This contradicted the basis of FFS where farmers� participation was to influence technology development. The implementation process was top-down with farmers remaining at the receiving end and researchers remaining at the giving end. This turns FFS into a platform where researchers promote their mandates and interests rather than actually addressing farmers� interests.

Chapter three further zooms in on mobilisation of actors and instruments. Technology is a central element around which actors are mobilised. From a technographic perspective, technology typically involves a nexus of human agents, tools, instruments and processes, and associated knowledge. In order to arrive at how the nexus of technology and society in rural Uganda advanced, specific types of technologies or interventions covered under FFS in Uganda, the rationale for choice of specific technological intervention points, and the mobilisation process involving facilitators and farmers were analysed. Findings suggest that FFS is adapted to disseminate what is already in stock rather than to develop technologies that suit current local realities. Choice of existing technologies based on the criteria of major cash or food crop as opposed to in-situ technology development and mobilisation of specific elite farmers capable of showing results all point towards stimulating effective adoption of introduced technologies. The process through which facilitators were prepared did not translate into building competence of extension workers in understanding and analysing local contexts in which the technologies were to be introduced but strengthened the technology transfer model. The orientation towards dissemination of technology in stock rather than participatory technology development and discovery based learning fitted the top-down instructional biases of research and extension institutions. Mobilisation of farmers perceived to be hard-working maintained the conventional community mobilization method that extension workers used to ensure success of a project. Focus on elites raises a fundamental issue about the inclusiveness and relevance of introduced technologies to the farming system of the targeted community. The tendency is to increase marginalization of the already disadvantaged category of people in a community.

Chapter four examines how FFS interventions fitted or matched the local contexts within which they were introduced. What goes on in the local farming practices with respect to the crops targeted in FFS, social system or practices of the farmers and farmers� response to FFS interventions were analysed. According the findings, FFS interventions did not match well the local farming and social system of the communities in which they were introduced. Although farmers are keen learners, constantly looking out for opportunities to improve upon their way of life, they do not, in all circumstances, take up technological inputs from external sources. The main reason lies in the difference of focus. Whereas researchers are more interested in improved yields and resistance to pests (targeting commercial orientation), farmers (especially subsistence oriented, who form the majority) are more interested in palatability and compatibility with local available resources like labour, time, land, cost as well as daily practices. Besides, farmers face various problems and their perception of priority issues vary. What is observed as a problem or solution in a researcher�s perception is not necessarily the problem or solution in farmers� perspective. For instance, farmers perceived health and income generating activities as issues of higher priority yet through FFS, low crop yields was the issue. Gender, has a general and cultural dimension. Inspite of more women than men in FFS, the men dominated most discussions and activities in FFS. Yet most agricultural activities were carried out by women. The patrilineal system where men own household assets and are the main decision makers in the home affects operation and impact of FFS.

In chapter five a closer look is given to organisational features on the ground and how that relates to other local initiatives and structures higher up in the FFS organisation. This chapter gives an analytic description of features known as agro-ecosystem analysis, energizers, field tours, field visits and field days, as a major tool for keeping up an appearance of close and effective interaction between the lower and higher level structures. It also describes the linkage or integration of FFS with other local structures and activities. In spite of the centrality of Agro ecosystem analysis (AESA) in the local or internal organisation of FFS, the process and objective of AESA was not internalised or clearly understood by farmers and facilitators. The integration process of FFS with other outside actors was unidirectional and not two-way, with lower levels being accountable to higher levels and not vice versa. The nature of the reporting system translated reports into technical documents, resulting in a narrow technical accountability to researchers and funders. The field days turned out to be activities where project implementers sought back-up from higher authorities, to justify existence and funding. Field tours and visits were perceived differently by the two levels. The aim at the higher level was to expose farmers to other technologies while farmers seized on trips to broaden their social horizons. When using different methods to integrate lower levels and higher levels there is need for a clear objective and strategy to reshape FFS into a participatory model serving interests or concerns at both levels.

The final and concluding chapter comes with an overall identification of FFS in the Ugandan context as resulting from the technographic approach used in this thesis. The key lesson, addressed to researchers, is to put into consideration farmers� perceived priority issues besides project objectives if FFS is to realise the expected people based development. This implies the need for actors, especially at higher levels, to revisit and change the institutional thinking and functioning in a way that creates space for farmers� as active players for their own destination and hence development. The need to understand and analyse local contexts (what farmers locally do and think in farming and social practices) is important if new interventions are to be useful to the people for whom it is intended.

In general, although FFS makes a better, more creative and challenging connection between scientists, extensionists and farmers than was achieved under the earlier extension systems it replaced, findings in this study lead to a general conclusion that the way in which FFS was implemented has failed adequately to re-orient agricultural extension systems in Uganda towards being effective and responsive to local people�s problems.