An Indigenous Strategy for Intensifying Shifting Cultivation in Southeast Asia: A Shrub-based (Tecoma stans) Managed Fallow in West Timor

This study contributed to a set of case studies designed to investigate farmer-generated strategies for intensifying the fallow phase of shifting cultivation systems in upland Southeast Asia. In this study, I documented an indigenously developed, managed fallow system in West Timor, Indonesia, based on Tecoma stans L. (Bignoniaceae), an invasive, fast-growing shrub. Farmers indicated that T. stans fallows rejuvenated soils for maize cropping within five years. The fallows also produced fuel wood, light construction material, vegetable stakes, and some fodder for cattle. My findings indicated that the T. stans fallow served as both a more effective and a more productive fallow, based on Cairns? typology. In addition, I examined the political, economic, and social contexts of farmers using T. stans fallows. I thereby identified ways in which farmers attempted to enter the market system as well as constraints to their efforts. Finally, I reflected on a framework and characterization template created specifically for documenting indigenous strategies for intensifying managed fallows. The framework and template were useful in guiding the study such that it addressed a diversity of biophysical, political, economic, and social factors. It facilitated the development of an integrated representation of the resources and constraints of small farmers so that informed intervention strategies could be developed. Use of the framework also presented the possibility for more thorough comparisons of fallow systems and the broader contexts in which they occurred across sites in Southeast Asia

The value of 'dialogue events' as sites of learning: an exploration of research & evaluation frameworks

In this article, we draw from our experiences as UK and US-based 'dialogue event' practitioners and researchers/ evaluators to suggest that these existing evaluative criteria are insufficient to explore the role and value of ISI-based 'dialogue events'. Instead, we suggest that it may be productive to research and evaluate these ISI-based 'dialogue events' as sites of learning. Secondly, however, we show through a discussion of our own research frameworks that understanding these 'dialogue events' as sites of learning does not intuitively provide a framework for understanding what counts as success for these efforts. Instead, research on the role of 'dialogue' within the educational literature – and the connections between 'dialogue' and competing understandings of the nature of science and society – offers a multiplicity of approaches to defining the terms and goals of these events. Finally, we identify two broader implications of researching and evaluating these 'dialogue events' as sites of learning for ISIs and all efforts to increase public engagement with science and technology

Public Participation in Scientific Research: a Framework for Deliberate Design

Members of the public participate in scientific research in many different contexts, stemming from traditions as varied as participatory action research and citizen science. Particularly in conservation and natural resource management contexts, where research often addresses complex social–ecological questions, the emphasis on and nature of this participation can significantly affect both the way that projects are designed and the outcomes that projects achieve. We review and integrate recent work in these and other fields, which has converged such that we propose the term public participation in scientific research (PPSR) to discuss initiatives from diverse fields and traditions. We describe three predominant models of PPSR and call upon case studies suggesting that—regardless of the research context—project outcomes are influenced by (1) the degree of public participation in the research process and (2) the quality of public participation as negotiated during project design. To illustrate relationships between the quality of participation and outcomes, we offer a framework that considers how scientific and public interests are negotiated for project design toward multiple, integrated goals. We suggest that this framework and models, used in tandem, can support deliberate design of PPSR efforts that will enhance their outcomes for scientific research, individual participants, and social–ecological systems

The Value of “Dialogue Events” as Sites of Learning: An Exploration of Research and Evaluation Frameworks

In the past five years, informal science institutions (ISIs), science communication, advocacy and citizen action groups, funding organizations, and policy-makers in the UK and the USA have become increasingly involved in efforts to promote increased public engagement with science and technology (PEST). Such engagement is described as taking place within the context of a “new mood for dialogue” between scientific and technical experts and the public. Mechanisms to increase PEST have taken a number of forms. One of the most visible features of this shift towards PEST in ISIs is the organization and staging of adult-focused, face-to-face forums that bring scientific and technical experts, social scientists, and policy-makers into discussion with members of the public about contemporary scientific and socioscientific issues related to the development and application of science and technology. A significant aspect of the literature on efforts to increase PEST has focused on the development of a unifying evaluative framework for determining what counts as success for PEST mechanisms, and how success (or lack thereof) can be empirically measured. In this article, we draw from our experiences as UK-based and US-based “dialogue event” practitioners and researchers/evaluators to suggest that these existing evaluative criteria are insufficient to explore the role and value of ISI-based “dialogue events.” Instead, we suggest that it may be productive to research and evaluate these ISI-based “dialogue events” as sites of learning. Secondly, however, we show through a discussion of our own research frameworks that understanding these “dialogue events” as sites of learning does not intuitively provide a framework for understanding what counts as success for these efforts. Instead, research on the role of “dialogue” within the educational literature—and the connections between “dialogue” and competing understandings of the nature of science and society—offers a multiplicity of approaches to defining the terms and goals of these events. Finally, we identify two broader implications of researching and evaluating these “dialogue events” as sites of learning for ISIs and all efforts to increase PEST

Discussing dialogue: Perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy

While theoretical work and empirical research have examined science policy informing "dialogue events," dialogue events that do not seek to inform public policy are under-theorized and under-researched, even though they are common and growing in popularity in the UK. We describe how, from a critical perspective, it may initially appear that such events cannot be justified without returning to the deficit model. But with this paper, we seek to open up a discussion about these non policy-informing events by arguing that there are in fact further ways to understand and frame them. We deliberately draw on different literatures and seek to make use of practitioner expertise within our discussion, in order to display several perspectives on the value of non-policy dialogue on science as sites of symmetrical individual or small-scale learning—rather than institutional learning—through social processes