102 Participatory Processes
manners and of that respect for and interest in people and what they have to show
and say which makes for free and open communication.
Even good manuals and training for farmer-first methods and manners cannot
by themselves guarantee good results. After institutions, incentives and interac-
tions, there remains personality. Personal styles and aptitudes differ. The contrast
between the closed blueprint approach to development and the open learning
process (Korten, 1980, 1984) parallels the contrast between TOT and farmer first.
Some people are more at home with blueprints, with fixed plans and rules, and
with clear ideas of what is expected and what will be officially rewarded. For them,
the TOT mode fits better. Others are more at ease with learning processes, with
open-ended exploration, with deciding for themselves how to proceed as they go
along, and with the reward of knowing in themselves that they have done well.
They will be better with the farmer-first mode.
A Pluralist Strategy
For farmer-first reversals, pluralism is one key to effective action. Individuals have
different inclinations, aptitudes and opportunities, and these change over time.
Organizations have different potentials, and these vary between countries, regions
and environments, and also change. There is no standard situation and no one
formula, but there are questions of where to start.
Besides NARSs, the obvious natural leaders at first sight are the International
Agricultural Research Centres. They are seen as prestigious sources of innovation,
and they set standards for agricultural research. They train many of the more able
national scientists. Their publications are easily available and widely consulted.
They do, though, have disadvantages. At least one centre (ICRISAT) has a man-
date which is said to impede on-farm and with-farmer technology generation. The
number of non-economist social scientists is everywhere low, and sometimes deri-
sory. Many of the centres’ staff do not speak local vernaculars and so cannot listen
directly to farmers. Excellent facilities, normal professional aspirations and high sta-
tus frontiers such as biotechnology, combine to hold scientists at the central research
stations and out of contact with farmers. To their credit, CIP (the International
Potato Centre) in Peru and CIAT in Colombia have pioneered and popularized
farmer-first methods and some staff at the International Rice Research Institute
(IRRI) in the Philippines are active. But the numbers of staff involved are still small,
and it remains to be seen how far and fast they and others can go. For the present,
the powerful influences of the international centres mostly reinforce the conven-
tional TOT paradigm. The centres are still more of the problem than of the solution.
But they need not remain so. With a new vision and understanding, they could lead
in developing, improving and spreading the farmer-first approach and methods.
Agricultural universities and faculties, and management institutes which train
scientists and extensionists, are another focus for change. Some universities are