Technical ReportPDF Available

Inclusive Agriculture 2017: Project Summary

Authors:

Abstract

The project aimed to work with a community of people with disability (PwD), in rural Cambodia, to co-design technology that gives them better access to agricultural livelihoods. Participants were aged between 17 and 80 years old and had a range of impairments such as hearing, vision, mobility and cognition.
Kampong Chhnang, Cambodia 2017
Project Summary
Andrew Drain
60 participants
11 designers
4 workshops
3 projects
June 2017 - January 2018
INCLUSIVE AGRICULTURE
Inclusive Agriculture
The Inclusive Agriculture Project aimed to work with a community of people
with disability (PwD), in rural Cambodia, to co-design technology that gives
them better access to agricultural livelihoods. Participants were aged between
17 and 80 years old and had a range of impairments such as hearing, vision,
mobility and cognition.
Aims & Objectives
1. Improve ability of people with disability to access
agricultural livelihoods
a. Creation of new technology for use in the community
b. Development of innovation and problem solving skills in
the participants (creative capacity building)
c. Improved social inclusion for people with disability in the
community
2. Increase organizational knowledge about the challenges
faced by people with disability in rural Cambodia
OVERVIEW
© Andrew Drain, 2018
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
4.0 International License. You may share the material in any format and
adapt the material for any purpose, however you must give appropriate
credit, indicate if changes were made, and share the material under the
same Creative Commons licence.
Partners
Massey University is a university, based in Wellington, Palmerston
North and Auckland, New Zealand. The School of Engineering &
Advanced Technology were involved in this project. Our contribution
was supported by the New Zealand Aid Programme and the Asia New
Zealand Foundation.
www.massey.ac.nz
Engineers Without Borders Australia is a member-based, community
organisation that creates social value through humanitarian engineering.
Our contribution was supported by the Australian Government through
the Australian NGO Cooperation Program (ANCP).
www.ewb.org.au
Light For The World is promoting the inclusion of people with a disability
in education, in the labour market and in all other aspects of society, with
a focus on developing countries. We work to create innovative solutions
that empower people with disability to engage in wider society and have
the opportunity for a meaningful life.
www.lightfortheworld.nl
Agile Development Group is a business with experience in grassroots
community development, international development, international
business, social enterprise development and corporate social
responsibility.
www.agiledg.com
Correspondence
For further information, please contact a.drain@massey.ac.nz
OVERVIEW
Design Process
The project used a ve stage design process, known as the Adapted Making Framework, to structure planning, workshop activities and evaluation. The
stages were Creative Capacity Building, Pre-Design, Generative Design, Evaluative Design and Post Design (Sanders & Stappers, 2014).
For ease of understanding, a more descriptive, step-by-step, design process was also adopted. This drew inspiration from the design process used by the
MIT D-Lab (Taha, 2011). The diagram on the right shows both processes and how they align.
To access the participatory design handbook developed for this project please see:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326357229_Participatory_Design_Handbook_Inclusive_Agriculture_Cambodia_2018
METHODOLOGY
Project Formation and
Planning
Creative Capacity Building
Community Re-visit
Generative Design
Evaluative Design
Post Design
Pre-Design
Project Stages
Research Methodology
The project was monitored and evaluated as part of a PhD research thesis
by Andrew Drain. The researcher used a qualitative, multi-case study
design to investigate the role of creative capacity building and designer-
participant collaboration in eective participatory design.
The research resulted in the following data being collected:
19 designer interviews
32 participant short interviews
9 participant long interviews
59 designer eld diary entries
100 pages of observational notes from workshops and
planning sessions
380 photos from workshops
Workshop documents (models, prototypes, posters,
templates)
3 technology evaluations
4 workshop reection documents
For further research generated from this project please see:
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Participatory-Design-in-rural-Cambodia
METHODOLOGY
PROJECT STAGES
Creative Capacity Building
The rst stage involved conducting four training sessions with participants.
These sessions aimed to introduce important concepts for innovation and
problem solving and align these concepts with existing local practices.
Sessions
Session 1: What is design? - A group discussion about problem-solving
concepts and examples of how the community already uses these concepts
in their everyday lives
Session 2: The design process and mango picker - A presentation of the
design process, discussion about each stage and a practice activity designing
a mango picker product
Session 3: The banana boost - A practice activity using paper and cardboard
to design a new structure for holding bananas above ood waters
Session 4: Transition to Pre-Design - A group discussion about how this
process could now be used to address challenges in the local community
Insights
Designer - “They [participant] think, ‘oh they’re already old’, they’re not
going to think, they cannot come up with all this type of thing”
Designer - “They already did design, but they do not follow the design process
that we had. Most of them, when we talk about the design process, they
don’t understand. But when we come up with an example, they understand
because that is the work that they have already done before”
Designer - “Currently, if they create it and it does not work they throw it away”
PROJECT STAGES
Pre-Design
This stage involves the use of activities which probe for information
and insights about the user, their environment and potential problems
to address. The goal of this stage is to collaboratively formulate the
opportunities which the project will focus on, to ensure buy-in from
the involved community and to gain insights to help inform the rest of
the project.
Insights
It is dicult for mobility-impaired individuals to pump and carry water each
morning
People with disability spend a large amount of time each day sitting idly,
waiting for their carer to return home from work
It is dicult for elderly people to complete the tasks required to farm rice and
other vegetables
People with disability aspire to ll their days with meaningful work and to
contribute to their family’s livelihoods
Project Briefs
Project 1. The design of a solution to assist the elderly in direct
seeding rice seed onto a eld
Project 2. The design of a solution to assist mobility impaired
individuals to prepare their elds before sowing
Project 3. The design of a solution to allow the visually impaired,
to engage in small-scale chicken farming
PROJECT STAGES
Generative Design
This stage is focused on generating concepts that address the
opportunities identied in the pre-design stage. This can be done
through investigating existing solutions, both locally and internationally,
understanding participant aspirations and working with participants
to generate ideas and prototypes. These prototypes can be used to
experiment and combine ideas to form new more detailed concepts.
Insights
The traditional process for sowing rice seed (broadcasting) is labour-intensive
and dicult for people with disability to do
Some families already engage in farming, however, it is currently too dicult
to involve their family members with disability
Participants had heard of novel technologies but had no access to them in
their local area
Concepts
Project 1. A low cost drum seeder to allow mobility and vision
impaired individuals to sow rice seed more eectively
Project 2. A cart that can attach to an existing ox-drawn plough
to allow mobility impaired individuals to plough their
elds more eectively
Project 3. Modications to a chicken coop to enable vision impaired
individuals to navigate the coop, and interact with
chickens more eectively
PROJECT STAGES
Evaluative Design
This stage is focused on testing ideas, getting feedback about prototypes
and selecting the concepts that seem to best meet the needs of the
community. This can be done through co-constructive prototyping,
testing and evaluation.
Insights
Participants had strong construction skills but relied on designers for creative
input and technical decisions
Participants were highly motivated to create, test and rene prototypes
independently
Male participants tended to dominate construction activities, with female
participants engaging more during feedback and renement activities
Prototypes
Project 1. A low cost drum seeder to allow mobility and vision
impaired individuals to sow rice seed more eectively
Project 2. A cart that can attach to an existing ox-drawn plough
to allow mobility impaired individuals to plough their
elds more eectively
Project 3. Modications to a chicken coop to enable vision impaired
individuals to navigate the coop, and interact with
chickens more eectively
PROJECT STAGES
Project 1.Project 2.Project 3.
Post Design
This stage is focused on implementation of developed solutions, support
and ne-tuning after implementation and monitoring of long-term
adoption and eectiveness.
Insights
Participants who were dominant during construction activities were also
motivated to own the prototypes and continue independent improvements
Participant - “I have a plan with four people. I was the one who initiated the
idea to make a tool. Then, we mentioned to the group that we wanted a rice
seeding tool”
Certain technical aspects of the prototypes still required renement.
Participants felt unable to rene some of these aspects independently due
to complexity
Project Success
Project 1. A low cost drum seeder was developed and transferred
to a motived participant for further development.
Minor renements required
Project 2. A cart that can attach to an existing ox-drawn plough
was created and transferred to a motived participant
for development. Once prototyped, the intended use
changed, resulting in major renements being required
Project 3. Planned modications to a chicken coop were
terminated due to lack of buy-in from participants
wider family
PROJECT STAGES
EVALUATION
Overview
The evaluation of the Inclusive Agriculture Project focused on both the
technology created and the empowerment of the participants. Both
components are described below.
Technology
The evaluation of technology focused on four criteria:
1. Whether the technology met the requirements developed
during the project
2. Whether the community was satised with the solution
3. Whether the technology was likely to be adopted by the
community
4. Whether the technology had potential to scale to other locations
Empowerment
The evaluation of empowerment focused on the creative capacity built
in the participant group. Creative capacity was dened as the following
six competencies:
1. An ability to express contextual insights
(shorthand: contextual insights)
2. An ability to express design critique(design critique)
3. An ability to generate insightful ideas (ideas)
4. An ability to create insightful prototypes (prototypes)
5. An understanding of the design process (design process)
6. A motivation to contribute (motivation)
A description of each competency is provided on the right.
1. An ability to express contextual insights
Participant is able to contribute information about their general
geo-socio-cultural environment and their specific daily lives.
2. An ability to express design critique
Participant is able to provide feedback when presented with a specic
concept (idea, prototype or nal product).
3. An ability to generate insightful ideas
Participant is able to expand on ideas presented by a facilitator and
generate own ideas independently.
4. An ability to generate insightful prototypes
Participant is able to build basic prototype when directed by a facilitator
and independently.
5. An understanding of the design process
Participant understands the current stage of the design process and is
aware of the rationale behind the use of each design activity.
6. A motivation to contribute
Participant is engaged and is likely to continue involvement throughout
the project and continue to work independently after project completion.
EVALUATION
Technology - Project 1
The design of a solution to assist the elderly in direct seeding
rice seed onto a eld
Eectiveness
Requirement Achieved?
Must drop seeds 25cm apart Yes
Must be pulled by one elderly user TBA
Must be usable in ooded elds TBA
Seed dispensing must work in dirty environment Yes
Must hold 12 kg of seeds Yes
Easy to transport to farm Yes
Must be constructed and maintained locally TBA
Must be aordable by community members Yes
Universal design Yes
Community Satisfaction
Community members like the design and
continue to rene it outside of the workshop.
However, the frame needs to be rened to ensure
rigidity in use
EVALUATION
Very dissatised
Dissatised
Neither
--- Satised ---
Very satised
Technology - Project 1
Adoption of Technology
Timeframe Achieved?
End of project transfer of ownership Yes
Short-term adoption TBA
Long-term adoption TBA
Generalizability
Area Appropriate? Detail
Local Yes Local farmers use the same farming
processes and have the same
resources available locally
National Yes Small plot farmers most likely use
the same farming processes and
have similar resources available
locally
Other: Small TBA Dependent on local farming
plot farmers processes
in rural
communities
in developing
countries
EVALUATION
Technology - Project 2
The design of a solution to assist mobility impaired individuals
to prepare their elds before sowing
Eectiveness
Requirement Achieved?
Must be attachable to any existing plough No
Must be able to be pulled, along with plough, by two ox TBD
Must be usable in muddy elds TBD
Must be able to stand, kneel or sit on the cart No
Must maintain users level of plough control No
Easy to transport to farm Yes
Must be constructed and maintained locally Yes
Must be stable during use TBD
Universal design characteristics of the environment TBD
Community Satisfaction
Feedback shows that the product could be useful
but requires renement. Community members
showed strong engagement with the process and
are motivated to continue renement
EVALUATION
Very dissatised
Dissatised
---Neither---
Satised
Very satised
Technology - Project 2
Adoption of Technology
Timeframe Achieved?
End of project transfer of ownership Yes
Short-term adoption TBA
Long-term adoption TBA
Generalizability
Area Appropriate? Detail
Local Yes Local farmers use the same farming
processes and have the same
resources available locally
National Yes Small plot farmers most likely use
the same farming processes and
have similar resources available
locally
Other: Small TBA Dependent on local farming
plot farmers processes
in rural
communities
in developing
countries
EVALUATION
Technology - Project 3
The design of a solution to allow the visually impaired, to
engage in small-scale chicken farming
Eectiveness
Requirement Achieved?
Must reduce occurrence of errors when entering the Yes
existing chicken coop
Must improve the time taken to enter the existing TBD
chicken coop
Must improve the satisfaction of the entry process to Yes
the existing chicken coop
Must maintain required functional components of Yes
existing chicken coop
Must retro-t to existing chicken coop Yes
Must be constructed and maintained locally Yes
Universal design Yes
Community Satisfaction
Family decision makers worried about risk of
damage during modication and therefore
rejected the design. Access for a people with
disability was not perceived as valuable enough
for the associated risk.
EVALUATION
Very dissatised
---Dissatised---
Neither
Satised
Very satised
Accessible Chicken Coop
Exploratory Idea Generation 1
Andrew Drain
Accessible Chicken Coop
Exploratory Idea Generation 2
Andrew Drain
Technology - Project 3
Adoption of Technology
Timeframe Achieved?
End of project transfer of ownership No
Short-term adoption TBA
Long-term adoption TBA
Generalizability
Area Appropriate? Detail
Local No The highly custom nature of the
project means the challenges
identied may not be present in
other households
National No The highly custom nature of the
project means the challenges
identied may not be present in
other households
EVALUATION
Creative Capacity Building
Each of the six creative competencies have been graded based on analysis of all available data. A ve-point Likert scale ranging from very poor to very
good was used to guide all data collection and analysis. A single grade for each competency was synthesized from all available data. These grades are
presented using a spider diagram for each of the project stages. This visualization is meant to communicate the quality of collaboration at each project
stage. Collaboration is impacted by a range of factors including designer and participant ability and relationship, workshop environment and activity
planning.
EVALUATION
Baseline
Participant group initial creative capacity before the Inclusive
Agriculture Project
Pre-Design
Note: If competency was not demonstrated in a stage it is shown in grey
Creative Capacity Building
EVALUATION
Generative Design Evaluative Design
Note: If competency was not demonstrated in a stage it is shown in grey
Creative Capacity Building
EVALUATION
Post Design
Note: If competency was not demonstrated in a stage it is shown in grey
Creative Capacity Building
Once each project stage was evaluated, the six creative competencies can be viewed longitudinally, to show their changes over time. The following
section shows each of the six competencies along with annotations highlighting interesting ndings.
EVALUATION
1. Contextual Insights 2. Design Critique
Note: If competency was not demonstrated in a stage it is shown with a dotted line
This section represents the change
that occurred across the Creative
Capacity Building sessions
Design critique was a strength of
the collaboration throughout the
project. It increased slightly during
project reection in Post Design
Large increase during the
early stages of the project.
Due to trust being built
between designer and
participant and participants
understanding their role in
the project
CCB
CCB
Insight: Participants were strong at
providing feedback about existing
solutions already implemented in
dierent countries
Creative Capacity Building
EVALUATION
3. Ideas 4. Prototypes
Note: If competency was not demonstrated in a stage it is shown with a dotted line
Prototypes was a strength of
the collaboration throughout the
project. It began strong and did not
show signs of improvement over
time
Insight: Participants were strong
when using traditional tools and
construction techniques, but required
guidance when using power tools
Ideas was a weakness of the
collaboration early in the project
and remained challenging
throughout the project
Some improvements were
evident during the project
view during Post Design.
This was due to the
development of a strong
understanding of the
problem and technology
details.
CCB
CCB
Creative Capacity Building
EVALUATION
5. Design Process 6. Motivation
Note: If competency was not demonstrated in a stage it is shown with a dotted line
Design Process was improved
through the Creative Capacity
Building sessions
Motivation improved steadily
across the project as the technology
became tangible and participants
realised the value of the project
Design Process was
more challenging during
the divergent and creative
activities involved in idea
generation Motivation was more
challenging for Project 3
due to the project being
focused on a specic
individual and not the
wider group
Insight: Participants were more
engaged when activities used hands-
on or visual methods as opposed to
discussion and written methods
CCB
Participant Enjoyment
Participant feedback was gathered throughout the project using both anonymous feedback and one-on-one interviews.
Anonymous feedback (ve-point Likert scale voting)
Anonymous feedback was gathered from all participants at the end of each day of workshops
FREQUENCY TABLE: Participant feedback
One-on-one interviews
One-on-one interviews were conducted with 16 of the participants at various stages before, during and after the project
Participant responses during interview after project completion
Interviewer - “Do you think we have any weaknesses that you want to suggest we should adjust? Regarding the seminars, their teaching, their attentiveness, and
materials
Participant 1 - No, I don’t think there is any weakness. I am totally satised
Participant 2 - No, I don’t. I don’t have any things I don’t satised or like. I completely satisfy
Participant 3 - I have said that I am happy and satised because making such tool is what I have wanted long ago
Participant 4 - I feel that it’s modern and very good
EVALUATION
CCB
Pre-
Design
Gen.
Design
Eval.
Design
Post
Design
Day 1
Day 1
Day 2
Day 1
Day 2
Day 1
Day 2
Day 1
TOTAL
Very happy
24
22
33
42
37
43
33
35
269
Happy
6
20
0
1
2
2
5
2
38
Neutral
4
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
7
Unhappy
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
3
Very unhappy
1
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
5
Collaboration Enablers
Projects which benet all involved
participants enhance motivation
Evident when comparing project 1 and 2 with project 3. Project 3 was
focused on a specic individual and their property. The participants began
the project with good levels of motivation; however, this decreased during
the evaluative design stage.
Technical training sessions enhance
participant prototyping and motivation
Most participants were not experienced with tools such as electric drills,
angle grinders and drop-saws. This resulted in only the more condent
participants using them. Running a formal technical training would ensure
all participants have the opportunity to learn about the tools safely before
using them during the project.
Small group sizes enhance ability to
express opinion
CODING TABLE: Opinion competency vs. group size
Very poor Poor Fair Good Very Good
Large group 0 6 1 4 0
Small group 0 4 4 15 1
Designer - “I think they’re not really there to talk with the big group, because
when we ask them into the big group, some of them they feel very shy and
they said they’re not there to talk in front of the whole group
EVALUATION
Collaboration Enablers
Through the analysis of all available data, several important enablers
were identied for eective designer-participant collaboration during
participatory design.
A strong relationship between designer
and participant enhances collaboration
Designer (During CCB) - So from the rst time we went we are strangers,
because our team, it is the rst time for them. They feel not condent to say
it out
Designer (During Evaluative Design) - I feel the participants they feel very
closely to us and our teams, and they feel condent, but for the rst time,
they are a bit silent after, we explain more, they can understand
Making-style activities enhance participant
motivation
CODING TABLE: Motivation competency vs. activity style
Very poor Poor Fair Good Very Good
Enacting 0 1 4 14 3
Making 0 4 5 37 19
Telling 0 12 6 26 5
Designer - “Making things in this session helped people think through their
ideas better and also helped facilitators understand them better. Allowed for
probing questions about solutions
EVALUATION
Collaboration Trade-os
Engaging a larger number of participants
vs. engaging specic people with disability
It is important to have a variety of and balance between making, telling
and enacting-style activities. This balance will provide an opportunity for
all participants to contribute their ideas and opinions and ensures the
strengths of all participants are utilised and supported
Eectiveness of nal solution vs. true
community-led design
There are times in which the participants will direct the project towards
less technically-eective solutions. Reect on the objectives of the
project; is empowerment, and creative capacity building the goal, or is
the development of scale, innovative technology the goal?
Eciency of design process vs. true
community-led design
Participatory design is slow. It involves the collaboration of many people,
some of whom have never been part of a design project before. The
activities used vary in complexity and can sometimes feel overly-simple
for an experienced designer. Ensure the project has planned for slower
progress than a traditional project. The value of this in more meaningful,
appropriate solutions and the empowerment of participants.
EVALUATION
Thank you!
Special thanks to all participants, designers and
supporters of the Inclusive Agriculture Project 2017
Designers and support staff:
Melissa McCreery, Ian Jones, Longhan Choeun, Dalen Kong,
Khim Bun, Sokmeas Uy, Natalia Krokowska, Nick Williams,
Nora Chum, Emily Ward, Sreypov Oung, David Curtis,
Virak Kheng & Andrew Drain
... In our research, capacity to participate was defined using six criteria shown below. An overview of specific capacity assessments for the six cases can be found in each of the project summary reports (Drain, 2018a;2018b). All data collection tools are provided in a project handbook (Drain & McCreery, 2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
Participatory design (PD) is the process of expert designers and participants from impacted communities working together to create appropriate solutions. As PD practitioners strive to implement more effective, ethical projects, a focus must be placed on designer-participant collaboration, and the factors that influence this collaboration. Existing studies provide value in explaining the level of participant engagement in collaboration, and the way to evaluate this collaboration. However, a high-level conceptual model is needed to clearly understand the factors most influential to collaboration and how they inter-relate. This article presents the PD Collaboration System Model as a tool for planning and evaluating PD projects. The model was developed through systematic literature review and the completion of two projects (involving six first-hand case studies), undertaken with people with disability in rural Cambodia. The model consists of the following components: designer and participant knowledge, activities (for making, telling, and enacting), design environment and materials, society and culture, and the participants’ capacity to participate.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.