Stakeholder engagement strategies in agricultural extension program design: Lessons from participatory rural appraisal

Introduction

What happens when agricultural extension programs are designed without meaningful input from the farmers they aim to serve? Evidence from across sub-Saharan Africa suggests that top-down approaches to extension service delivery frequently miss their targets, resulting in low adoption rates and wasted resources [1] . In Ghana, where agriculture employs about 52% of the labor force and contributes roughly 19.7% to GDP, the stakes of getting extension program design right are particularly high [2] . Participatory rural appraisal emerged during the 1980s and 1990s as a family of methods intended to shift power from external experts toward local communities [3] . Robert Chambers argued that farmers possess detailed knowledge of their own circumstances that outsiders cannot replicate through conventional survey methods [4] . PRA tools such as resource mapping, seasonal calendars, and wealth ranking exercises were designed to tap into this local expertise. Yet the record of PRA implementation in agricultural extension is mixed. Several researchers have documented cases where participatory exercises became ritualistic rather than genuine consultations [5] . Elite capture remains a persistent challenge [6] , and women frequently face barriers to meaningful participation even when physically present at meetings [7] . Ghana's extension system has moved from a unified public system toward a more pluralistic model involving NGOs and private sector actors since the early 2000s [8] . The Ministry of Food and Agriculture endorsed participatory approaches but provided limited guidance on which PRA tools work best under different conditions [9] . This research addressed that gap by comparing six PRA tools across diverse community settings in two regions. The objectives were to assess tool effectiveness in generating actionable information, examine factors influencing participation rates, and identify practical recommendations for extension officers [10] .

Theoretical Framework

This research drew on Arnstein's ladder of citizen participation [11] and Pretty's typology of participation [12] to frame the analysis. Arnstein's model distinguishes between tokenistic participation and genuine empowerment where citizens share decision-making authority. Pretty extended this thinking to rural development, identifying seven levels from manipulative participation to self-mobilization. The research also incorporated social learning theory, which posits that knowledge generation through participatory processes creates shared understanding between extension agents and farming communities [13] .

Material and Methods

Material

The research was conducted between March and August 2022 in the Greater Accra and Ashanti regions of Ghana. Eight farming communities were purposively selected based on distance from district extension offices, cropping system diversity, and population size. Structured questionnaires were administered to 287 farming households selected through stratified random sampling. Additionally, 18 focus group discussions were organized with separate groups for men, women, and youth. Twelve key informant interviews targeted district agricultural officers and community leaders. The Greater Accra sites represented peri-urban farming with average plot sizes of 0.8 hectares, while Ashanti sites were in the forest-savanna transition zone with larger farms averaging 2.3 hectares. Mean annual rainfall ranged from 810 mm to 1,340 mm across the two regions [14] .

Methods: Six PRA tools were tested across all communities: focus group discussions, community resource mapping, seasonal calendars, transect walks, problem ranking matrices, and Venn diagrams. Each tool was implemented by trained facilitators following standardized protocols developed with the University of Ghana's Department of Agricultural Extension. Effectiveness was measured through a composite score combining information quality ratings, participant satisfaction surveys, and the proportion of outputs incorporated into extension program plans. Participation rates were calculated as the percentage of invited members who actively contributed, distinguished from mere attendance. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and thematic analysis via NVivo 12 software. Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Ghana Ethics Committee (Protocol EC-038/21-22, approved February 2022). Women's active engagement rose from 41.8% in mixed sessions to 76.5% in gender-segregated groups (p=0.001).

Results

Youth showed a similar jump from 38.6% to 67.3% (p=0.003). Men's participation remained stable regardless of group composition. The gap between effectiveness and participation was smallest for focus group discussions (5.8 percentage points) and Venn diagrams showed consistently low scores on both dimensions, suggesting additional facilitation support may be needed. www.extensionjournal.com The flowchart highlights the iterative nature of the approach, with feedback loops connecting participatory monitoring back to earlier stages of community engagement and program co-design.

Discussion

The findings confirm that not all PRA tools are equally effective for extension program design. Problem ranking matrices outperformed other tools partly because they required relatively less literacy and allowed direct comparison of community priorities in a visible format. This aligns with observations by Chambers [4] that the most effective participatory methods make abstract concepts concrete and accessible. The 34.7% increase in women's active participation in segregated sessions is consistent with broader literature on gender barriers in agricultural knowledge systems [7] . But it raises practical questions about integrating separate outputs from gender-disaggregated sessions into coherent program designs. In three communities, extension officers reported difficulty reconciling divergent priorities from men's and women's groups. Venn diagrams' poor performance appears linked to their abstract nature requiring participants to conceptualize institutional relationships as overlapping circles.

Communities with lower formal education found this challenging. However, when preceded by concrete storytelling about organizational interactions, participation improved noticeably [15] . Training emerged as a crosscutting factor: communities where facilitators had at least 40 hours of pre-session training showed effectiveness scores averaging 12.3 points higher than those with untrained facilitators, reinforcing arguments by Leeuwis [16] about facilitation quality.

Limitations

References

1. Ragasa C, Mazunda J. The impact of agricultural extension services in the context of a heavily subsidized input system: The case of Malawi. World Development. 2018;105:25-47.
2. Ghana Statistical Service. Ghana Living Standards Survey Round 7 Report. Accra: GSS; 2019.
3. Chambers R. Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Challenges, potentials and paradigm. World Development. 1994;22(10):1437-1454.
4. Chambers R. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. London: Intermediate Technology Publications; 1997.
5. Cornwall A. Unpacking participation: Models, meanings and practices. Community Development Journal. 2008;43(3):269-283.
6. Platteau JP. Monitoring elite capture in communitydriven development. Development and Change. 2004;35(2):223-246.
7. Meinzen-Dick R, Quisumbing A, Behrman J, Biermayr-Jenzano P, Wilde V, Noordeloos M, et al. Engendering agricultural research, development and extension. Washington DC: IFPRI. 2011.
8. Antwi-Agyei P, Dougill AJ, Stringer LC. Barriers to climate change adaptation: Evidence from northeast Ghana. Regional Environmental Change. 2015;15(7):1517-1529.
9. Directorate of Agricultural Extension Services. National agricultural extension policy. Accra: Ministry of Food and Agriculture; 2020.
10. Davis K, Nkonya E, Kato E, Mekonnen DA, Odendo M, Miiro R, et al. Impact of farmer field schools on agricultural productivity and poverty in East Africa. World Development. 2012;40(2):402-413.
11. Arnstein SR. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 1969;35(4):216224.
12. Pretty JN. Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development. 1995;23(8):12471263.
13. Reed MS. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation. 2008;141(10):2417-2431.
14. Danso-Abbeam G, Ehiakpor DS, Aidoo R. Agricultural extension and its effects on farm productivity and income: Insight from Ghana. Agriculture and Food Security. 2018;7(1):74.
15. Kumar S. Methods for Community Participation: A Complete Guide for Practitioners. London: ITDG Publishing; 2002.
16. Leeuwis C. Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking Agricultural Extension. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 2004.