systems research - the IDRC Digital Library - International ...

Institutionalization is used in a broad sense to reflect the need for the creation of
long-term programs on FSR rather than short-duration projects. The word
institution in its sociological sense refers to the relationships between actors to
achieve certain things.
FSR means many things to many people. However, FSR claims and aims to
serve the farmer through assistance in problem solving. Impacts are by definition
location-specific; however, the justification for FSR is often couched in terms of
contributing to the achievement of national goals. It is often said that FSR is a way
to get researchers into the field or a way to get the researchers to reach senior
officials. It is acce ted that FSR is adaptive in nature, yet it is recognized that the
adaptive nature o its organizational form and management is less strong.
F
The macro - micro context
The major strength of FSR is that it gives priority to the farmer and seeks to help
solve the problems encountered by farmers. It addresses area-specific problems, the
solutions for which cannot necessarily be applied to larger areas. Given the fact that
FSR is practiced and funded in the context of national development plans and
research and development programs, it is hardly surprising that the goals of FSR
activities are fitted into national objectives. This may carry a contradiction between
FSR, which focuses on individual problem solving, and national programs that seek
to reach national targets.
Most cbuntries represented at this workshop adhere to national self-
sufficiency goals with regard to major staples (Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka,
Bangladesh, and the Philippines). As the majority of cases show, FSR activities
fitted national goals to expand production of rice as well as individual goals of
farmers, which could be stated as expansion of income. Therefore, the existence of
national targets is not necessarily in contradiction with individual goals and the
derived goals of FSR. However, it remains questionable whether on-farm research,
as presented, can really be termed FSR in the pure sense because, by necessity, a
priori project goals were derived from national goals. However, several successful
adoptions, notably those in Indonesia and Thailand, benefited the farmers by
increasing nonrice income and cutting cost, respectively, but they did not expand
rice production.
Tl~e
need to justify location-specific activities such as FSR in national terms
is clear, but it is equally clear that attempts to pinpoint expected impact in national
terms are by necessity somewhat forced. In fact, even location-specific impacts are
difficult to substantiate. These observations point to the need for a priori
recognition of the consequences and complexities accompanying FSR in the context
of national plans and programs.