ABSTRACT

Purpose

Assessment of agricultural advisory services is crucial to improve their quality and effectiveness. Farmer Field Schools (FFS) have been adapted to meet context specific needs in crop or farm management. This article investigates whether the diversity of FFS interventions is reflected in the assessment methods used to evaluate them.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Through a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature we identified 180 articles and selected 34 that assessed FFS. Implementation was characterised based on farmers’ participation and FFS topics. Assessment methods were analysed using a causal chain of inputs, outputs, outcomes, and impacts.

Findings

Our results showed three types of FFS: (1) technology transfer; (2) consultative participation at cropping system level; and, (3) consultative or collaborative participation at farm level. Fifteen studies did not describe FFS implementation at all. Out of the 34 assessments, 23 focused on inputs (knowledge) and outputs (changes in practices, agricultural or economic performance) for farmers. Only six studies assessed long-term impacts of FFS.

Theoretical implications

We found a paradox between the shift from a technology transfer to a participatory advisory services paradigm, and the implementation and assessment of FFS, which do not mirror this shift. Assessment methods remain based on assumed technology transfer, which is not suitable for the evaluation of participatory approaches and their results, including in terms of capacity to innovate.

Practical implications

Assessing FFS as a collective and farmer-centered experiential learning approach requires appropriate evaluation methods that account for the diversity of contexts, FFS implementation, and the changes they generate.

Originality/Value

The diversity of FFS has rarely been analysed to date. This article proposes a typology to go beyond FFS as a catch-all term and to guide their assessment.

中文翻译：

---

农民田间学校的多样性在多大程度上反映在他们的评估中？文献综述

摘要

目的

农业咨询服务的评估对于提高其质量和有效性至关重要。农民田间学校 (FFS) 已经过调整，以满足作物或农场管理方面的特定需求。本文调查 FFS 干预措施的多样性是否反映在用于评估它们的评估方法中。

设计/方法论/方法

通过对同行评审文献的系统审查，我们确定了 180 篇文章并选择了 34 篇评估 FFS 的文章。实施的特点是基于农民的参与和 FFS 主题。评估方法使用输入、输出、结果和影响的因果链进行分析。

发现

我们的结果显示了三种类型的 FFS：（1）技术转移；(2) 种植制度层面的协商参与；(3) 农场层面的协商或合作参与。15 项研究根本没有描述 FFS 的实施。在 34 项评估中，有 23 项侧重于农民的投入（知识）和产出（实践、农业或经济绩效的变化）。只有六项研究评估了 FFS 的长期影响。

理论意义

我们发现了从技术转移到参与式咨询服务范式的转变与 FFS 的实施和评估之间的矛盾，这并没有反映这种转变。评估方法仍然基于假定的技术转让，这不适合评估参与式方法及其结果，包括创新能力方面的评估。

实际影响

将 FFS 作为集体和以农民为中心的体验式学习方法进行评估，需要适当的评估方法，以考虑环境的多样性、FFS 的实施及其产生的变化。

原创性/价值

迄今为止，鲜有分析 FFS 的多样性。本文提出了一种类型学，以超越 FFS 作为一个包罗万象的术语并指导他们的评估。