Alliance for Enhancing Agroecological Practices among Organic Farmers in Tanzania: Perceptions, Opportunities, and Challenges of the SAT-SUA Farmer Centred Research Programme.

Alliance for Enhancing Agroecological Practices among Organic Farmers in Tanzania: Perceptions, Opportunities, and Challenges of the SAT-SUA Farmer Centred Research Programme.

Athman Kyaruzi Ahmad, Alexander Wostry, Kenneth Mapunda, Janet Maro, Kizito Mwajombe

Agricultural extension and Community Development, Sokoine University of Agriculture, 3002, Morogoro, Tanzania

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.905000499

Received: 13 May 2025; Accepted: 21 May 2025; Published: 25 June 2025

ABSTRACT

The study examined the perception, opportunities and challenges of a research programme geared towards farmers who have taken participatory action research to support agroecological practices among small organic farmers. The study, which followed a mixed methodology, was conducted in Mvomero district and the Morogoro municipality. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and analysis of documents and content. The sample included all farmers, pastoralists, students and staff of the SUSA who had taken part in the programme. The sample size was 136 respondents. The findings show that more than 90 per cent of respondents were positive about the use of participatory action research (PAR) as a methodology for the design and implementation of collaborative agroecological research. Attitudinal scores of 4.05 to 4.75 (farmers) and 4.22 to 4.85 (students) on a scale of 5.0 were recorded. Respondents highly rated the potential of PAR in integrating formal (general) and local knowledge, strengthening the thinking of the student of the development system and fostering cooperation and empowerment. Moreover, the solutions developed and implemented were more realistic and more feasible to share. Time-consuming, high costs of organisation and planning, high demand for facilitation and coordination skills, power and imbalance at the start of the process were identified as major challenges. The study recommends strengthening and institutionalising the partnership and assessing the overall impact of the programme and its adaptability to other settings and contexts. Lastly, future studies should consider longitudinal designs to evaluate the long-term impact of SAT-SUA’s approach, providing more robust evidence of sustainable change.

Keywords: Partnership, Agroecology, Perception, Challenges, Opportunities, Organic Farmers, Participatory Action Research

INTRODUCTION

In most developing countries, including Tanzania, achieving food security and poverty reduction for smallholder farmers remains challenging. Despite the recorded achievements of the agro-industrial production system, its negative impact on natural, social and human capital, as well as on the future production potential of the agroecosystem, is well documented (Glassman, 2004, 2007; Altieri, 2002). At the global level, therefore, policymakers are calling for the championing adoption of sustainable farming systems as a complement to other measures to achieve fair food access (Ndoli et al., 2021). Moreover, there is a consensus among scholars that we need to transform our food production systems by adopting an agri-environmental approach (Therond et al.). 2017).

Agroecology, based on a set of principles and elements, is a transformative path to sustainable food systems (Altieri, 2002; HLSV, 2011). It is designed to be an integrated approach to safeguarding production resources and enhancing food and nutrition security, food sovereignty and justice (Putnam et al., 2013). In practice, it has highlighted the creation of agroecosystems that are productive and resource-efficient and that are culturally sensitive, socially fair and economically viable (FAO, 2015; Hatt et al., 2016; Levidow et al., 2014; Gliessman, 2007). Studies (Putnam et al., 2014; Levidow et al., 2014; FAO, 2015; Ndoli et al., 2021) confirm that agroecological methods are linked to strengthening sustainable food security. Organic farming is one of the sustainable agricultural systems founded on agroecological principles (Reginald & Watcher, 2016; Muhie, 2023).

Efforts to promote organic farming in Africa are on the rise following the 2007 ICOA FS in Italy; while the history of organic farming in Tanzania dates back to the 1980s, the national organic programme is a milestone. This led to the creation of Sustainable Agriculture Tanzania (SAT) in 2011, which focuses on promoting agroecological farming on four pillars: research, dissemination, implementation and networking. Its philanthropic activities, which support community-led innovation, are based on the philanthropic approach. These efforts have also contributed to the development of NEOAS (2023-2030) and to the review of the curricula of the Ministry of Agriculture training institutions (MATIs) to incorporate the principles of organic farming. However, it is recognised that agroecology is highly knowledge-intensive and context-sensitive, based on collaborative approaches by actors based on the farmer’s contextual understanding and experimentation. It aims to integrate environmental science with other academic disciplines and knowledge systems (e.g. undocumented (local, Indigenous, formalised, etc.), guiding research and measures for the sustainable transformation of agricultural systems (HLPE, 2019; Fazey et al., 2020).  To promote agroecology, research, education, and extension systems must move from focusing on a single discipline, increasing yields and applying top-down technology transfer models to the creation of knowledge-based practices that have an impact on society while preserving the resource base.

Our (authors’) experience with university practice and conventional agricultural research shows the disconnect between academic research, student learning and agricultural practices. Although higher education institutions (HEIs) play a key role in training professionals to manage and shape food systems, researchers and educators conceptualise and address food system challenges as separate and disconnected issues. However, in a real sense, they are interrelated. It is argued that such a lack of focus or a silo-like approach may be one of the factors behind the low uptake of agricultural technologies by farmers in Tanzania. Indeed, navigating the complex and multiple challenges of food systems in the face of dwindling resources and the constraints of climate change requires a bridge between education, research and farmer practices. A partnership between universities and communities contributes to rural sustainability (Marcela et al., 2024). In the case of Tanzania, there are few empirical studies of initiatives linking education, research and farmer practices. The SAT-SUA FCR initiative, which is the focus of this study, was launched in 2014 to close the gap between.

This paper is based on reflection (Schön, 1983), examines the SAT-SUA FCR initiative to provide insight into the experience and impact of the crisis. It looks at how stakeholders perceive the programme (the experience), the opportunities offered, and the challenges involved in its implementation. According to McTaggart (1997) and McNiff (2002), reflection practice is essential to improve learning by examining and solving problems in a spiral-like fashion. The findings of this study will help to (a) enhance the initiative by strengthening links between farmers, educators and researchers and (b) create and inspire acceptance of participatory, decentralized and bottom-up practices for integrating local agroecological knowledge in research and learning to improve food production systems (Kerr et al., 2023).

The Farmer-Centred Research Programme[1] by SAT and SUA

Since its establishment, SUA has been the leading university in Tanzania in the provision of courses in agriculture and community development and research in the same fields (https://susa.ac.tz). Conversely, SAT, a non-government organisation, established in 2011, promotes agroecological farming among smallholder farmers and other stakeholders. Bound by its four core pillars of research, dissemination, application and networking, and based on participatory research, SAT has supported community-led innovation to increase organic cultivation in Tanzania. Since 2011, SAT has had a network of more than 70,000 farmers (producing horticultural crops, including spices) and pastoralists in more than two agroecological zones in Tanzania. This has been done through various programmes, including the farmer-centred research programme, which is the focus of this paper.

The FCR programme aims to promote dialogue between scientists and farmers by creating channels to pool local knowledge with scientific knowledge, thus increasing the pool of academic knowledge. It is also important to better understand the limitations of the practice and to adapt or revise it to meet the needs and opportunities of farmers. Identifying the problem, designing, conducting research and evaluating products (innovation) are carried out in cooperation. This is done by drawing lessons from both academic and indigenous knowledge systems to understand the topic better. The FCRP is implemented in a cyclical way (Figure 1), implemented annually. The cycle starts with a rural assessment exercise, where SAT experts help farmers identify and prioritise problems. The most important issues are shared, discussed and improved by farmers, students and researchers in a one-day workshop on participatory research design (WPRD). Following interactive discussions, researchable topics and research groups are set up to address selected issues.

WPRD attracts both undergraduate and graduate students from the College of Agriculture of   SUA to write concept papers, which are examined; the best concepts are selected for the development of full research proposals. Subsequently, proposals are submitted to stakeholders, including farmers and livestock producers, for further refinement. Following approval, the students carry out the research in cooperation with the farmers and livestock holders. Students collect data, analyse and present mid-term results and outcomes to the stakeholder forum for discussion and validation. Newly identified issues are dealt with in the same way during the next FCRP cycle.

Since its inception in 2014, over 500 undergraduate and postgraduate students have participated in the WPRD and about 170 (120 undergraduate and 50 postgraduate) students have conducted research with farmers and pastoralists. A total of 25 SUA researchers /instructors have been engaged to guide students.

Figure 1: SUA-SAT collaborative research framework cycle.

They play a facilitator role while students and beneficiaries are co-researchers. The main areas of research are horticulture, crop production, improving soil fertility, seed, crop and livestock disease control, marketing, soil protection, increasing the productivity of organic spices, food safety, land use planning and conflict management between farmers and pastoralists. By contrast, around 400 farmers and pastoralists attended the seminars, and 320 cooperated with students in the participatory research. In doing so, they all learn together, guided by the values of mutual respect, adaptability, humility, trust and an integrated approach to problem-solving (see Walker, 1993; Brydon-Miller, 1997).

The role of PAR in knowledge development and dissemination

PAR is a research process involving stakeholders, in which the existing problem (both perceived and experienced) is examined, modified and improved together, thus moving from the question ‘I ask you. Your answer to the question ‘We examine’ (Reason and Bradbury, 2008). Current global experience shows that the shift in the agenda from research to co-creation calls for new ways of thinking and doing research and development. The central issue in this emerging shift in thinking is the need to revisit the traditional concept of reinvestigation. This is the idea of R&D as a two-way learning process, encompassing a variety of activities to create a variety of knowledge products and to disseminate and exploit them. Once again, from technology development to social institution building, cooperation between local capacities, resources and innovation, drawing on a variety of knowledge sources, is the key. In addition, from thinking about research from local systems to global science, providing tools and information to support the choices and actions of different types of users.

We require a holistic perspective of the biophysical and social spheres in agriculture and natural resource management.

Rudman et al. (2018) argue that transforming research, the current practices and structures should be founded on participatory, systematic, dynamic, and open-mindedness and attempt to challenge the existing power and organisational structures.

It follows that since PAR is practice-led, it bridges theory and practice by leveraging the strengths of the two to facilitate community members to co-discover, co-design and implement solutions in partnership. Critical is that it allows participants to explore possibilities for transforming the practice through the integration of participation (life in society and democracy), action (engagement with experience and history), and research (soundness in thought and the growth of knowledge. With PAR, the research process is as important as the outcomes (Freire, 1970; Fals Borda, 2001; Bhana, 1999; Pain and Francis, 2003; Kemmis and McTaggart, 2005; Rahman, 2008; Reason & Bradbury, 2008; Noffke & Somekh, 2009; Chevalier and Buckles, 2013; Ahmad, 2016; Chambers, 1997). The focus is on changing practices rather than merely observing without influencing practices (Coghlan & Brannick, 2005, 2014). Knowledge generation is viewed as an active process that relies on the social context, and the relevance of the outcome is dependent on the social relations among participants; thus, practical knowing (Tezcan-unable et al., 2018; Humphries et al., 2015; Sachet et al., 2021; Guzmán et al.,2022). Cognizant of the above, we find this approach a good candidate in the context of our work.

The SAT-SUA partnership under the FCRP focuses on promoting agroecological practices in pursuit of generating practical solutions to pressing issues to improve the livelihoods of organic farmers/livestock, and their communities. With its strong link to the experiential learning perspective (Reason and Bradbury, 2008), the choice of approach suggests that research and development can no longer be an exclusive domain of scientists. Nevertheless, a joint process necessitates the engagement of a wider range of players. It redefines the role of the beneficiaries from being mere recipients to actors who provide key inputs to the process (Gibbons et al., 1994). The approach addresses the shortcomings rooted in the conventional agricultural research and extension system of producing technologies that lack relevance and ignore users’ contexts. Also concentrating on producing and disseminating knowledge and solutions with little attention to agroecology principles and elements. According to Nix et al. (2019), it is essential to integrate academic disciplines, the community, and relevant stakeholders in the co-creation of evidence to formulate effective solutions to challenges.

Evidence shows that classical research in agroecology emphasises the value and necessity of participatory methods focusing on developing social capital within rural communities and between agencies (Gliessman, 2007; Altieri, 2002). This is informed by the fact that organic farming systems are also based on the functional dynamic interaction between soil, plants, animals, humans, ecosystems, and the environment (ibid) and hence, participation has become the new orthodoxy in agricultural research and extension. Thus, making PAR an appropriate approach that enables credible research outcomes to be delivered in a highly relevant manner (Biggs, 1989; Coghlan & Brannick, 2014; Humphries et al.,2015). Despite the established potential of the PAR approach, further promotion requires the user to have a positive perception and a better understanding of the approach. Therefore, the study aimed to evaluate the SAT-SUA partnership for enhancing agroecological practices among organic farmers, focusing on respondents’ perceptions, opportunities, and challenges.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The study was conducted in Mvomero, Morogoro Rural Districts and Morogoro municipality, where the SAT-SUA-initiated FCRP is implemented. The study area is in the eastern part of Tanzania, with an altitude ranging from 300 to 2600 meters above sea level. Farming and livestock keeping are the main economic activities in the study area. Vegetables, fruits and cereals like maize and paddy and spices (black pepper, cinnamon, ginger, turmeric, cloves, cardamom, and vanilla) are the crops grown in the area, and cattle, goats, sheep, and poultry are livestock kept. A mixed-methods research approach was adopted. The selection of the approach was because the integration of the techniques guarantees a more comprehensive utilisation of data than that offered by a single approach. The approach helps to answer a broader range of questions relative to the research topic and allows for conclusions to be supported by stronger evidence obtained from the field. The sampling frame included all farmers, pastoralists, students, and SUA staff who participated in the FCRP between 2014 and 2020.

A proportional sample was drawn from each category of participants involved in the program, and the sample was 136, of which 106 were farmers and pastoralists, while 35 were students and SUA researchers. A semi-structured interview guide was used to obtain general farmers’ and students’ perceptions, opportunities, and challenges on the programme. A Likert scale was used to measure stakeholders’ perceptions. Focus group discussions were conducted to collect data on specific action research enterprises introduced for specific needs. Key informant interviews were conducted with SAT officials and SUA researchers. Various documents from SAT and SUA were analysed as secondary data. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive results such as means, percentages and frequencies were generated. Qualitative data were transcribed and analysed using the content analysis method (Creswell, 2022).

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY AND DISCUSSION

Key Organic farming Enterprises and research focus areas.

Figure 2 shows that about 41% of farmers were engaged in crop production enterprises, 19% were engaged in livestock enterprises, and 40% were engaged in both crop and livestock enterprises. For the crop enterprise, cereals, vegetables, and spices were the main crops, and farmer respondents produced more than one crop on the following combination: cereals and vegetables, cereals, vegetables, and spices, as well as cereals and spices. For livestock enterprises, cattle, goats, sheep, and poultry were the main livestock kept. Livestock was either a combination of cattle, sheep and goats or cattle and goat. Poultry was common to both crop-farming households and livestock keepers.

Figure 2. Organic farming enterprise students researched, and farmers engaged.

A look at the enterprises that students focus on in their research indicates that 70% researched crop enterprises focusing on soil fertility and conservation, crop pests and diseases control, seed production, spice production, food safety and marketing topics. Besides, 30% focused on livestock enterprises, focusing on pasture management, livestock parasite and disease control, marketing (milk), land use plans and conflict management topics.

Stakeholders’ perception of methodological approach in agroecological research.

Overall data (Table 2) shows that most respondents (95.3% of farmers and 90.0% of students) had a positive perception of the research design of the program, and only 4.7% and 10% of the farmers and students’ respondents, respectively, had a negative perception. The perception was measured using a Likert scale, with 18 attitudinal statements for students and 17 for farmers. Study findings summed the scores rated on a 1 to 5-point scale, indicating that 16 out of 17 statements for farmer respondents had a mean score ranging from 4.05 to 4.75, and 15 out of 18 statements for student respondents had a mean score ranging from 4.22 to 4.85. The scores demonstrate a positive perception of respondents on the FCRP methodological and PRA in designing and implementing research to enhance agroecology practice in Tanzania.

Further, to unpack which aspects of the PAR approach the respondents scored highly, findings show that, for student respondents (Table 2a), the first highly ranked statement (with a 4.85 mean score) was’ PAR provides opportunities for integrating mainstream scientific knowledge with indigenous knowledge in solving farmers’ problems.’

The second-highest ranked statement (with a 4.78 mean score) was ‘PAR has the potential to empower both farmers and researchers in terms of knowledge and skills needed to address the challenges identified in the process.’ The third-ranked statement (with a 4.70 mean score) was ‘PAR provides space for collaborative identification of priority needs’ and ‘PAR provided an opportunity for me to practice what I learned theoretically in class.’

Figure 3. Farmers’ and students’ perception of Participatory Action research.

On the other hand, results further show that for farmer respondents (Table 2b), the first highly ranked statement (with a 4.78 mean score) was ‘Given a chance, I will engage in PAR.’ The implication is that farmer respondents perceived PAR as important as a whole. The second-highest ranked statement (with 4.75) was ‘PAR provide space for collaborative identification of priority needs, and the third-ranked statement (with 4.74 mean scores) was’ PAR provides opportunities for integrating academic and Indigenous knowledge’ and ‘PAR provides space for collaborative identification of real needs.’

Table 2a: Farmers’ perception of the PAR approach (n=106)

Further analysis of data shows a slightly different perception between student and farmer respondents. For instance, in the PAR aspect, student respondents ranked first, and farmer respondents ranked third. It can be assumed that students were focusing more on learning, and they are aware of the concept of knowledge, while for the farmers, their primary focus is to solve immediate problems.

The PAR aspect that was ranked third by students was ranked second by farmer respondents.

The two PAR aspects ranked third by farmer respondents were not among the three PAR aspects ranked by students. This indicates a differentiated attitudinal orientation of the two categories of respondents towards PAR. Moreover, analysis of the data indicates that the PAR aspects scored lowly by farmers were (a) on statements such as ‘PAR approach is easily applicable to farmers’ (3.46 mean score) and (b) ‘with the PAR approach dissemination of research results is made easy’ (2.70 mean score). Statements lowly ranked by students were (a) ‘with PAR approach dissemination of research results are shared in the process, so there is no need for a separate arrangement for dissemination’ and (b) ‘PAR as a research strategy is time-consuming.’

Table 2b: Students’ perception of the PAR approach (n=30)

An explanation could be that four years of implementation, i.e. from the start of the SAT-SUA collaboration to the time the assessment was conducted, could be a relatively short period to allow respondents to realise the full potential of the approach in all aspects. Townsend (2013) reminds us that action research processes take time to mature and allow the realisation of intended outcomes, and hence are criticised for being very demanding in terms of time (Townsend, 2013; Ponzio et al., 2013).

Besides, all categories of respondents perceived the PAR approach positively. This may be because the process observed the two basic tenets of action research (Stern, 2019): the integration of diverse values of affected stakeholders (in this case, farmers) into the research and planning process at the very beginning of the process (WPRD) and the integration of stakeholders’ values and realities throughout the research process as shown on Figure 1. According to Ahmad (2016), to ensure meaningful engagement and bottom-up generation of knowledge, solid mapping of the practice and provision of communicative space for stakeholders to envision the future they aspire for democratically are very crucial. Reflecting on the processes of FCRP, we see that the dialogic process and planning of actions hinged on contextual realities, and the provided communicative space for diverse perspectives to form a course of action was critical. This view is also in line with Fryer et al., (2019) findings. Discussing seven myths of organic agriculture and food research, the author informs that one of the myths is that research priorities are defined in collaboration with practitioners.

Respondents highly ranked the PAR potential in integrating formal knowledge (generic) and local knowledge represented by farmers. The implication is that respondents perceive that when integrated, the knowledge systems complement each other, and the result goes beyond the limits of each type standing alone. As Ponzio et al. (2013) put it, such knowledge systems may be interfaced through ‘creative interplay’. They add that farmer participatory research, in principle, aims to operate at the interface between knowledge systems. This is especially important for agroecology and organic agriculture, which are not well-rooted in conventional research. Mendes et al. (2017) add that farmer-centred research is characterised by a shared interest in research by partners, a belief in collective power/action, a commitment to participation, practising humility and establishing trust and accountability.

Reflecting on university educational practices in Tanzania, knowledge development has been split up into small disciplinary pieces. This observation concurs with Lieblein et al. (2012), who assert that academic institutions are not paying more attention to the link between research and teaching or the link between theory and practical situation improvement in society. Thus, university education is characterised by a lack of ‘holism’ and diversity. Indeed, students highly ranked the aspect that PAR provide space for mutual learning and ‘dialogue of knowledge’ is a strong signal calling for the transformation of higher educational, research and innovation communication systems (extension).

For educational practices, there is, therefore, a need to shift from a narrow, focused education system to a more inclusive, integrative, and diverse knowledge system. Therefore, in the process, students are engaged from systems thinking perspectives to transdisciplinary work while fostering their collaborative skills by including non-academic stakeholders in the research process (Fryer et al., 2019). Thus, their values, experiences, realities, and voices are taken on board, leading to rejection of the linear and technocratic thinking in favour of a more critical and holistic approach. This orientation in the context of agroecological practices is very pertinent since transdisciplinary is linked with action research (Reason and Bradbury, 2008) and is a key strategy in organic farming (Freyer et al., 2019).

Interestingly, respondents’ positive perception of PAR as a strategy for fostering collaboration between academic and non-academic organisations for enhancing agroecological practices seems promising towards a journey of promoting transdisciplinary research and an action-oriented learning approach. Studies (FAO, 2018; Levidow et al., 2014; IFOAM, 2006) affirm that action-oriented, integrative, and participatory approaches are increasingly proving appropriate ways to address multiple and often conflicting social, environmental, and economic sustainability goals of different interest groups. This is especially important because education, research and extension in farming are and will remain the vehicles to achieve sustainability in the modern food system (Ponzio et al., 2013). Conclusively, the findings point out that respondents perceived PAR as a valuable and important tool for generating knowledge in the quest for researching solutions aimed at improving organic farming. This can likely make education foster not only knowledge but also curiosity, resilience and the ability to think independently.

Opportunities for promoting agroecology accrued from FCRP as perceived by respondents.

Stakeholders’ capacity building and empowerment

The core business of the university is knowledge development (research) and human resource development. However, during the implementation of the FCRP, respondents experienced that the interaction provided opportunities for learning key issues, including organic farming concepts and skills, and how to relate and communicate with various stakeholders. Others are research skills, especially PAR and farmer-centred research approaches. Respondents reported that they developed deep reflection, critical observation, and dialogue-based communication, thus realising the power and role of local knowledge entrusted to farmers as well as the ‘power’ of working together. As testified by a student participant

 “Yes, in the process, I learned many things. Most importantly, how to reflect (deep reflection), make observations during data collection, and engage in dialogue-based communication. I have realised the rich knowledge farmers have.”

In addition, student respondents indicated that they learned various research skills in the process.

On the other hand, farmers also acknowledged having realised their inherent potential and contribution in the process of searching for solutions to their problems, as revealed by the following extract.

“In the past, I thought a researcher was someone who had an extremely high formal education. Maybe a white man [laughter]? Nevertheless, I have come to realise that I can also be a co-researcher in addressing the challenges that I am facing. That is what I have learnt.” (A farmer participant)

The extracts show that, unlike the usual conventional research approaches, the PAR research-based collaboration provided rich experiences that helped the development of critical skills that were difficult to develop and, sometimes, neglected in conventional learning and research systems. For example, deep reflection, communication, and collaboration are important skills to be able to connect theoretical aspects and problem-solving in a real situation consciously.

That is, putting theoretical learning into the right perspective and being able to improvise when interacting with the concrete situation out there. According to Lieblein et al. (2012), these are also important agroecological skills. Along the same line of thinking, a participant remarked:

“I have learned how to interact with people of different backgrounds, including farmers and to fruitfully engage with them in a dialogue to widen the area of research for agriculture improvement.” (Student respondent)

“This research has helped me know that some of the plants around me can be used for controlling pests and diseases. In the past, we were seeking solutions from chemicals to treat our plants. In addition, this research has helped me come out and become part of the solution to the challenges I face. As farmers, we do not make use of our extension workers. They may have some knowledge of organic farming, but we need to go to them and see how they can help us. I suggest that we make use of the extension workers because they are here to serve us.” (Farmer Respondent).

According to the extracts, the students used the time to practice what they had learned in class. Since research activity was integrated into educational activity, learning encompassed both results and the research process. Moreover, farmers have realised that there are untapped resources in their backyards that could solve some of their problems. Most importantly, the failure to use available extension agents is a key factor in building the social capital and confidence needed to foster the development and diffusion of agricultural technologies (Olarinde et al., 2017). The FCRP, therefore, offered an opportunity to strengthen their knowledge, skills and values. In addition to acquiring technical skills, they have developed a sense of self-worth, agency and mutual respect between them. This is key to democratising the research process and fostering social transformation.

Increasing appropriateness of research results, technologies, and solutions.

The findings show that participants viewed PAR as a process that provided an opportunity for collaborative analysis of context, problem, and planning of action in consideration of end-users’ institutional, ecological, and socio/economic systems. In place of this, the solutions (research results) developed were appropriate for the local systems and realities, unlike when the process is devoid of understanding of the structures and conditions that confront the end-users. From a phenomenological perspective, this position aligns well with Merleau-Ponty (1962), who said that our relation to nature is primarily a doing, not a knowing, relationship and our consciousness and ability to think are based on our already being and acting in the world.

The following narrative from one of the lecturers further validates the position:

“In this process, I have realised that a participatory way of solving organic farming-related problems facing farmers is a better way to go than sitting in the office and designing solutions for problems in the real world out there.”

This means that a research system that does not provide meaningful context and experience for researchers to engage with others in the development of solutions can lead to inappropriate solutions. This may be the reason why, despite the large number of technologies developed by conventional research systems, farmers have adopted fewer technologies.

Thus, the joint production of the knowledge model underlines the need to move from ideas about one-way “knowledge transfer” to mechanisms that will facilitate “knowledge exchange” in networks (Röling and Jiggens, 1998). In addition, the democratic participation of end-users helps to reconcile values and preferences, as well as create ownership of problems and solution options (Lang et al., 2012).

Other comments made by respondents:

“For the first time, I have practically understood that research is about understanding the phenomenon as one would normally say, but through my participation in WPRDs, it ends up with a double gain, making a real contribution.” (Student respondent)

“In the past, researchers were visiting us and conducting some studies on cloves and black pepper. However, once they completed their research, they did not give us any feedback and solutions were not provided. Now, SAT and the researchers from SUA are collaborating with us ‘shoulder to shoulder’ to find solutions for our problems, and we are getting the results of our research. We are grateful that we are getting solutions, and that research is helping us.” (Farmer Respondent)

Reflecting on the above extracts, it seems that during the process, the participants developed knowledge that understanding a real problem and situations of the technology end-users is crucial in searching for a relevant solution, as opposed to grounding your research on hypothetical assumptions. The finding augurs well with that of Lieblein et al. (2012), who argue that practical knowledge is what is needed to deal with unique cases in society. Organic farming is a unique case in conventional agricultural research systems, at least in Tanzania.

Along the same line, a student researcher commented:

“There are more good results in the PAR research approach as compared to those that do not involve the farmers as equal partners in research.”

Taking all of the above into account, it is clear that the FCRP has provided ample opportunities to develop appropriate solutions according to the context, problems and needs of farmers. It has used a democratic space to share and discuss real farmers’ problems and to develop a plan to solve them authentically. Moreover, in this process (which is based on an interdisciplinary or trans-disciplinary approach), stakeholders have been able to identify and confirm the dominant and unquestioned knowledge held by farmers (who were historically considered to lack knowledge and a relevant scientific culture). According to Merck and Beermann (2015), transdisciplinary teaching is rare in higher education. Valley et al. (2018) and that this represents a key barrier to reforming the food system. Coops et al. (2015) add that a strict disciplinary approach dominant in higher education risks leaving students unprepared to address the complexities of modern food systems.

Sharing Costs and resources for learning and Conducting Research

Respondents considered that the FCRP seemed promising in terms of sharing research costs among key players. This is important because the participatory research approach has been identified as being costly (Brydon-Miller, 1997). More importantly, higher education institutions such as SUA have well-trained human resources to complement the efforts of non-academic organisations such as the SAT. Cooperation in support of agroecological research, therefore, provides an opportunity to pool resources. Moreover, despite the decreasing research funding of research organisations in Africa, engaged and informed farmers are willing to share the resources needed to satisfy research requirements.

The collaborative initiative is a learning platform with more impact.

Reflecting on the collaborative initiative processes, as revealed in the FGDs and interviews, respondents viewed the process as a learning platform and that it had more impact due to (i) increased awareness among stakeholders of the power of PAR to provide a discursive space to understand the issue under consideration, and (ii) the acceptance of the PAR research strategy by the SUA system as an alternative to the conventional research system in Tanzania.

Increased awareness of students on the power of farmers

In conventional research, academic researchers see themselves as superior in all dimensions to other participants (in this case, farmers) and are treated as research subjects and, therefore, as a dichotomy between researchers and researchers (Råheim et al., 2016). As the following extract clearly shows, the students have recognised the creativity and experience of the farmers and the need to involve them as co-researchers. This is a strong indicator that university students who are future researchers have respect and confidence in farmers. This is important to fully integrate the knowledge, needs and priorities of farmers in finding solutions to problems and issues that are relevant to them, their communities and their systems (Nielsen and Nielsen, 2006).

The following extract from student interviews supports this view.

“Farmers are creative and experienced, so their ideas should always be integrated during research. Class knowledge is not enough to solve a variety of problems faced in the field unless you have more experience and information, which you get from the victims themselves.”

“I have learned how to interact with farmers and the proper way of engaging them to widen the research scope for the improvement of Organic Agriculture. Collaborating with the farmers is so educational.”

On the other hand, farmer participants felt valued and honoured in the process. The following extract demonstrates the position:

“This research, I can tell you, is like father, mother, and children. We felt we were a family. SAT saw that we had some challenges; they brought very committed young people who took our problems as their own. We together developed solutions. We can see our voice in the results. We do not want to go back to the old type of research; we want this one that engages us from the beginning to the end because it can change our lives.

The above extracts have had the effect of increasing awareness of the need to cooperate in this process. With them, the sense of complementarity between the participants enables knowledge to be created and solutions to be developed and put into practice. This is a shift from a reductionist approach to a holistic one in which coexistence is the key value and will be beneficial for agroecological education and research (Merck and Beermann, 2015).

The ‘power’ of PAR in providing discursive spaces for understanding the problem being addressed and sharing results for validation.

Understanding the problem to be addressed is the first and key step in addressing it properly (Nielsen and Nielsen, 2006). This is in contradiction with the conventional research paradigm and does not provide the structures and space to involve stakeholders in the problem-definition process (Parton and O’Byrne, 2000). In this case, respondents realised the power of PAR in this regard:

 “Yes, this [meaning PAR] is ideal and real research that helps to unbind all corners of the problem through a participatory approach. Also, it exposes the fact that despite the knowledge gap between local farmers and researchers, there are still many unknown facts to researchers that are well known by farmers.” (Student participant).

A farmer participant commenting on one of the research works done by the student commented:

“The researcher has done us justice because she worked on things we had agreed on. That is why I am saying this type of research is vastly different. We are also getting feedback in the meeting of spice growers in our village; even though samples were taken from some of us, all of us have learnt what we need to do in terms of drying and storage. This is the main difference between other researchers and this participatory research. Research of this kind does not lie; it gives real results and provides answers to the specific problems to be addressed.”

Another farmer commenting on the difference between the research and previous ones said:

“You know, other types of research that are done here are quite different. Previously, we were getting college students who were carrying out their research. They were coming, but they were very keen on selecting areas with infrastructure. I mean, they were going to places they could reach and leave on the same day. Here at Tawa village, they were coming to the market to interview farmers, but some of them were not real farmers. You see!” (Farmer participant).

This extract shows that respondents consider collaborative research to be more realistic, as it involves a collective understanding of the problems and realities facing farmers.

The solutions thus developed are ultimately more practical than those identified based on remote assumptions.

The position is further affirmed by the following extract from one of the interviewed farmers:

PAR is the best approach to use in solving community challenges. As we research the problems as identified by the community and find the solution together while relating to what we have collected as data.”

“We are proud that we have been producing black pepper, but our products have been fetching exceptionally low prices because of poor quality. Today, we have been told that we should not dry our black pepper on the ground but on a raised platform and we should dry it and preserve it well. I believe that with this knowledge, we will be able to make it. It is possible to make more money and educate our children if we follow the recommendations of this research.”

Acceptability of PAR research strategy by the Sokoine University of Agriculture system

This extract shows that respondents consider collaborative research to be more realistic, as it involves a collective understanding of the problems and realities facing farmers. The solutions thus developed are ultimately more practical than those identified based on remote assumptions. The relevant university authorities have accepted four continuing postgraduate students following the approach and their research proposals. As a result of lessons from the SAT-SUA collaboration, a new PhD programme in agroecology has been launched at the university (https://www.sua.ac.tz/programme/phd-agroecology). In addition, most of the research reports produced by both undergraduates and graduates in the process scored high. One instructor remarked:

“I find my student better understanding his research work when compared to those following a conventional approach.”

In addition, several publications of the results have been done in scientific journals, e.g. Shango et al. 2020,2021, Ngenzi et al. 2022 and Mdegela et al.  2022. The publications are a testimony to the acceptability of the process and approach in the scientific community. Generally, the implication of the preliminary results on the impact of the initiative confirms a similar finding of the potential of PAR as empowering, liberating, and consciousness-raising for individuals, as it provides critical understanding and reflection on social issues and collaboration (Greenwood and Levin, 2007; McTaggart, 1997). On the other hand, it was important to impart relevant skills to students, such as critical thinking, problem-solving, communication and collaboration important in living in contemporary society.

Challenges perceived about the FCRP by respondents.

When asked about the problems they perceived in the FCRP approach, respondents identified cooperation as a problem in terms of time, high organisational and planning costs and coordination, imbalance in the process at the start and conflict with the university academic timetable.

Despite its emphasis on participation, participatory action research is fundamentally influenced by complex power relations, which influence all stages of the study, from planning and collecting data to interpreting and disseminating them. Despite efforts by PAR to democratize knowledge production and foster cooperation between researchers and practitioners, differences in education, access to resources, language skills, and institutional authority often lead to unequal power relations. Because they usually have more control over funding, scheduling, and methods, researchers can unintentionally silence community input and limit real ownership of the process. Cooke and Kothari (2001) warn that participatory approaches could inadvertently reinforce existing hierarchies and turn them into new tyrannies, hiding their dominance under the guise of inclusion. Moreover, the maintenance of epistemic hierarchies occurs when academic knowledge takes precedence over local, experiential, and indigenous modes of knowledge (Fricker, 2007; Chilisa, 2012). These differences have the potential to undermine the emancipating aims of PAR if researchers do not take an ethical and reflective approach that actively redistributes power and validates different sources of knowledge. It follows that power imbalance in PAR is not merely a methodological flaw but a structural and epistemological challenge. So, whilst the processes can create inclusivity, they cannot create ‘sameness’ between the primary academic researchers and co-researchers.

 It is our view that embracing the power dynamics by placing value on the different skills and unique epistemological insights that co-researchers have is critical.  Indeed, context-sensitive and culturally responsive practices, as well as critical awareness of power, are needed to prevent action research from reproducing the very inequalities it seeks to eliminate. We agree with Banks et al (2013) who argue that recognising and addressing the imbalances in PAR requires researchers to be self-critical, ethically grounded and contextually responsive.

As for time, it may be true that the involvement of actors, and sometimes different philosophies, perspectives, experiences, and experiences, can take time, but it gets better as the process progresses. However, this constraint needs to be understood, and therefore, strategies for managing it need to be developed. Ahmad (2016) reminds us that the cooperation efforts built around the PAR require sufficient time and resources for facilitation, capacity building, joint planning, action and reflection.

On the other hand, changing organisational culture is time-consuming and should be done incrementally. In the present case, the view that the initiative is incompatible with the academic calendar of universities is relevant, as it is designed based on a traditional method of learning, knowledge development and communication. Flexibility and dynamism are vital to enable learners to develop the skills to cope with complex social issues (Reason and Bradbury, 2008). Moreover, this is even more true for complex agroecological processes, which require synergies and systemic thinking and researchers to be flexible, dynamic, and inclusive.

Final remarks and looking forward.

This study examined the Farmer-Centred Research Programme (FCRP), a joint effort between Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA) and Sustainable Agriculture Tanzania (SAT) that aims to close the knowledge gap between research and practice by utilising farmer-led, participatory research. To identify and prioritise farmers’ issues, the FCRP uses a cyclical process that starts with rural appraisals. Farmers, students, and researchers then work together to refine these issues into researchable topics.

The study found that participants praised the program’s foundational Participatory Action Research (PAR) approach, highlighting its ability to promote empowerment, improve the relevance of the solutions, and disperse training and research expenses. Along with creating discursive spaces for shared learning and validating outcomes within the academic system, the program also helps participants recognise their roles and influence concerning one another.

Nonetheless, issues like power disparities, institutional rigidity, and time and resource limitations were identified. Notwithstanding these drawbacks, the FCRP shows excellent promise as a paradigm for comprehensive, problem-focused agricultural research that can substantially contribute to food security. Lastly, future studies should consider longitudinal designs to evaluate the long-term impact of SAT-SUA’s approach, providing more robust evidence of sustainable change.

REFERENCES

1. Ahmad, A.K. (2016). Participatory Action Research for engaging schools and communities to enhance relevant learning: the use of ‘farm’ as a pedagogical resource in Tanzanian rural primary schools. PhD thesis at Norwegian University of Life Sciences. Thesis number 2016:54 ISSN 1894-6402 ISBN 978-82-575-1374-0
2. Altieri, M. (2002). Agroecology: the science of natural resource management for poor farmers in marginal environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 93(1-3): 1-24.
3. Altieri, M. A; Funes-Monzote, F.R. and Petersen, P (2012). Agroecological efficient agricultural systems for smallholder farmers: contributions to food sovereignty. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 32, 1-13.
4. Anderson, C. R., Bruil, J., Chappell, M. J., Kiss, C., and Pimbert, M. P. (2019a). From transition to domains of transformation: getting to sustainable and just food systems through agroecology. Sustainability, 11:5272. Doi: 10.3390/su11195272
5. Banks, S., Armstrong, A., Carter, K., Graham, H., Hayward, P., Henry, A., … & Strachan, A. (2013). Everyday ethics in community-based participatory research. Contemporary Social Science, 8(3), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2013.769618
6. Bhana, A. (1999). Participatory action research: A practical guide for realistic radicals. In: M.B. K. Durrheim (Ed.), Research in practice: Applied methods for the social science (pp. 221-238). Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.
7. Biggs, S.D. (1989). Resource-poor farmer participation in research: a synthesis of experiences from nine National Agricultural Research Systems. In: On-farm (client-oriented) research (OFCOR) Comparative Study Paper, International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR), Netherlands. p 3-37.
8. Brydon-Miller, M. (1997). Participatory action research: Psychology and social change. Journal of Social Issues, 53(4), 657–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00042
9. Chamber, R. (1997). Whose Reality Counts: Putting the First Last, Intermediate Technology Publications, London.
10. Chevalier, J.M. and Buckles, D. (2013) Participatory Action Research: Theory and Methods for
11. Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. Sage.Engaged Inquiry. Routledge, Abingdon-on-Thames.
12. Coghlan, D and Brannick, T. (2005). Doing action research in your organisation (2nd Ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
13. Coghlan, D. & Brannick, T. (2014). Doing Action Research in Your Organisation. London: Sage.
14. Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (Eds.). (2001). Participation: The new tyranny? Zed Books.
15. Coops, N; Marcus, J; Frank, E; Kellet, R; Mazzi, E; Munro, A; Nesbit, S; Riseman, A; Robinson, J; Schultz, A and Sipos, Y (2015). “How an entry-level, interdisciplinary sustainability course revealed the benefits and challenges of a university-wide initiative for sustainability education”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 16 (5): 729-747
16. Fals Borda, O. (2001). Participatory (action) research in social theory: Origins and challenges. In P. Reason and H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 27–37). London: Sage.
17. (2015). Final Report for the International Symposium on Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition. 18 and 19 September 2014, Rome, Italy.
18. FAO (2018) Final report for the 2nd International Symposium on Agroecology. Scaling up Agroecology to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. 3 – 5 April, FAO Headquarters, Rome
19. Fazeya, I, Niko S., Guido., C…Hannah R.Y(2020). Transforming knowledge systems for life on Earth: Visions of future systems and how to get there. Journal of Energy Research & Social Science, 70, 101724.
20. Feldman, A., & Rowell, L. (2019). Knowledge democracy and action research – an exchange [Special issue]. Educational Action Research, 27(3).
21. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum Books.
22. Freyer, B., Aversano-Dearborn, V., Winkler, G. et al. (2019). Correction to Is There a Relation Between Ecological Practices and Spirituality? The Case of Benedictine Monasteries. J Agric Environ Ethics 32, 355–356 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-019-09770-HYPERLINK “https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-019-09770-7″7
23. Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
24. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, London: Sage.
25. Gliessman, S. R. 2007. Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food systems. CRC, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.
26. Greenwood, D. J. and Levin, M. (2007). Introduction to Action Research. Social Research for Social Change (2^nd). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
27. Guzmán Luna A, Bacon CM, Méndez VE, Flores Gómez ME, Anderzén J, Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho M, Hernández Jonapá R, Rivas M, Duarte Canales HA, and Benavides González ÁN (2022) Toward Food Sovereignty: Transformative Agroecology and Participatory Action Research with Coffee Smallholder Cooperatives in Mexico and Nicaragua. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 6:810840. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.810840
28. Hatt, S., Artru S., Brédart D., Lassois L., Francis F., Haubruge E., Garré S., (1), Stassart P. M., Marc Dufrêne M., Monty A., and Fanny Boeraeve F. (2016). Towards sustainable food systems: the concept of agroecology and how it questions current research practices. A review. Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ. 20(1): 215-224
29. Humphries S., Rosas J.C., Gómez M., Jiménez J., Sierra F., and Gallardo O…Mérida B. (2015). Synergies at the interface of farmer–scientist partnerships: agricultural innovation through participatory research and plant breeding in Honduras. Agric. Food Secur. 4: 27. doi:10.1186/s40066-015-0046-0
30. IFOAM (2006). Principles of Organic Agriculture. Bonn: International Federation of Organic
31. Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 559-603). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32. Kerr, B. R., Postigo, J. C., Smith, P., Cowie, A., Singh, P. K., Rivera-Ferre, M., Tirado-von der Pahlen, M. C., Campbell, D., & Neufeldt, H. (2023). Agroecology as a transformative approach to tackle climatic, food, and ecosystemic crises. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 62, 101275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101275
33. Lang, D.J; Wiek, A., Bergmann, M, Stauffacher, M; Martens, P.; Moll, P.; Swilling, M and Thomas, C (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(Suppl).
34. Levidow, L; Pimbert, M and Vanloqueren, G (2014) Agroecological Research: Conforming—or Transforming the Dominant Agro-Food Regime? Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 38(10): 1127-1155.
35. Lieblein, G.T; Breland, A; Francis, C and Østergaard, E (2012) Agroecology Education: Action-oriented Learning and Research, The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 18(1): 27-40,
36. McNiff, J. (2002). Action research: Principles & practice. London: Macmillan.
37. McTaggart, R. (1997). Reading the collection. In R. McTaggart (Ed.), Participatory action research (pp. 1-12). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
38. Méndez, V.E.; Caswell, M.; Gliessman, S.R.; Cohen, R. (2017). Integrating agroecology and participatory action research (PAR): Lessons from Central America. Sustainability, 9, 705.
39. Merck J, Beermann M (2015) The Relevance of Transdisciplinary Teaching and Learning for the Successful Integration of Sustainability Issues into Higher Education Development. In: Leal Filho W, Brandli L, Kuznetsova O, Paco AMFd (editors). Integrative Approaches to Sustainable Development at University Level, World Sustainability Series. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, pp 19–25.
40. Merleau-Ponty M (1962) Phenomenology of perception (trans: Smith C). Kegan Paul, London
41. Muhie, S. H. (2023). Concepts, principles, and application of biodynamic farming: a review. Circ. Econ. Sustain. 3, 291–304. Doi: 10.1007/s43615-022-00184-8
42. Ndoli A, Mukuralinda A, Schut AG … Frédéric B. (2021) On-farm trees are a safety net for the poorest households rather than a major contributor to food security in Rwanda. Food Secur 13:685 699. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s12571-020-01138-4
43. Nix, E., Paulose, J., Shrubsole, C., Altamirano-Medina, H., Belesova, K., Davies, M., Khosla, R., & Wilkinson, P. (2019). Participatory Action Research as a Framework for Transdisciplinary Collaboration: A Pilot Study on Healthy, Sustainable, Low‐Income Housing in Delhi, India. Global Challenges, 3(4). https://doi. org/10.1002/gch2.201800054
44. Noffke, S. and Somekh, B. (2009). Handbook of Educational Action Research. London: Sage.
45. Olarinde, L; Binaml, J; Fatunbi, F.A; Diagne, A; Adekunle, A and Ayanwale, A (2017). Participatory research demonstration and its impact on the adoption of improved agricultural technologies in the Savannas of West Africa, African Crop Science Journal, 25, (Supplement s1):21 – 41.
46. Pain, N and Francis, P (2003). Reflections on Participatory Research, Area, 35(1): 46-54.
47. Parton, N., and O’Byrne, P. (2000). Constructive social work: Towards a new practice.
48. Plumecocq G, Debril T, Duru M, Magrini M, Sarthou, J.P. and Therond, O. (2018). The plurality of values in sustainable agriculture models: diverse lock-in and coevolution patterns. Ecol Soc 23. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09881-230121
49. Ponzio, C., Gangatharan, R. and Neri, D., (2013^a). The potential and limitations of farmer participatory research in organic agriculture: A review, Advanced Journal of Agricultural Research 1 (3):030-037
50. Ponzio, C, Gangatharan, R. and Neri, D. (2013^b). The potential and limitations of farmer participatory research in organic agriculture: A review. African Journal of Agricultural Research Review 8(32):4285-4292,
51. Putnam H., Godek W., Kissmann S, Pierre J.L., Humberto S., Dzul A., Calyx de Dios, H and Gliessman S.R. (2014) Coupling Agroecology and PAR to Identify Appropriate Food Security and Sovereignty Strategies in Indigenous Communities, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 38(1):165–198.
52. Råheim, M;  Magnussen, L.H; Ragnhild Johanne Tveit Sekse, R.J.T; Lunde, Å; Jacobsen, T and Astrid Blystad, A (2016). Researcher–researched relationship in qualitative research: Shifts in positions and researcher vulnerability. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Health and Well-being. DOI: 3402/the. v11.30996
53. Rahman, M. (2008). Some trends in the praxis of participatory action research. In P. Reason and H. Bradbury (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice (pp. 49-62). London: Sage.
54. Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2008). The Sage handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2^nd). London: Sage.
55. Reganold, and Wachter (2016): Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century; Nature Plants 2016/02/03/online; http://go.nature.com/2qQH9
56. Röling, N and Jiggens, F (1998) Learning: Shifting paradigms in education and extension studies, The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 5:3, 143-161, DOI: 1080/13892249885300281
57. Rudman, H; Bailey-Ross, C; Kendal, J; Mursic, Z; Lloyd, A; Ross, B and Kendal, R, L (2018) Multidisciplinary exhibit design in a Science Centre: a participatory action research approach, Educational Action Research, 26:4, 567-588, DOI:10.1080/ 09650792.2017.1360786
58. Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.
59. Stern, T. (2019). Participatory action research and the challenges of knowledge democracy. Educational Action Research, 27(3), 435-451
60. Tezcan-Unala, B; Winston, K and Qualter, A. (2018). Learning-oriented quality assurance in higher education institutions, Quality in Higher Education doi.org /10.1080/ 13538322.2018.1558504
61. Therond O, Duru M, Roger-Estrade J, Richard G (2017) A new analytical framework of farming system and agriculture model diversities. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 37:21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0429-7
62. Townsend, A. (2013). Action research: the challenges of understanding and changing practice. Maidenhead, Berkshire: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.
63. Valley, W., Wittman, H., Jordan, N. and Ahmed, S. (2018). An emerging signature pedagogy for sustainable food systems education, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems Vol 33 (5): 467-480
64. Walker M. (1993) Developing the Theory and Practice of Action Research: a South African case, Educational Action Research, 1(1):95-109, DOI: 10.1080/0965079930010106
65. Sachet E, Mertz O, Le Coq J-F, Cruz-Garcia GS, Francesconi W, Bonin M and Quintero M (2021) Agroecological Transitions: A Systematic Review of Research Approaches and Prospects for Participatory Action Methods. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5:709401. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.709401

FOOTNOTES

[1]  Farmer Centred Agroecology Research (FCAR) is a research platform that produces solutions for small-scale farmers practising agroecological farming methods. It decentralises the research process and puts the farmers at the centre. FCAR was initiated in 2014 through a formal collaboration between SAT and SUA (the Sokoine University of Agriculture in Morogoro) to foster dialogue between scientists and organic farmers by creating channels for fusing local knowledge with conceptual thinking.