51  Download (0)

Full text


The copyright © of this thesis belongs to its rightful author and/or other copyright owner. Copies can be accessed and downloaded for non-commercial or learning purposes without any charge and permission. The thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted as a whole without the permission from its rightful owner. No alteration or changes in format is allowed without permission from its rightful owner.







Permission to Use

In presenting this thesis in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree from Universiti Utara Malaysia, I agree that the Universiti Library may make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for the copying of this thesis in any manner, in whole or in part, for scholarly purpose may be granted by my supervisor(s) or, in their absence, by the Dean of School of Technology Management and Logistics. It is understood that any copying or publication or use of this thesis or parts thereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and to Universiti Utara Malaysia for any scholarly use which may be made of any material from my thesis.

Requests for permission to copy or to make other use of materials in this thesis, in whole or in part, should be addressed to:

Director of Postgraduate Studies Unit, College of Business Universiti Utara Malaysia

06010 UUM Sintok Kedah Darul Aman




Participatory monitoring (PM) has increasingly been adopted in Farmer Field School (FFS) approaches. However, one of the biggest challenges is data management, as it is often led by externals without farmers’ involvement. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate perceptions and identify influential factors that enable farmers' and master trainers’ participation in PM. It eventually aimed to propose a framework for participation in PM using the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) – Farmer Field School program in West Malaysia. A qualitative case study research design was employed in which the population was selected through a purposeful sampling technique. Then, the data collection through semi-structured interviews occurred from October 2020 until April 2021 in three locations. The thematic analysis method was used for data analysis. The findings revealed that the farmers' and master trainers’ perception was favourable, particularly regarding the phase of data collection and the use of digital applications to monitor field-level results. Indeed, the use of WhatsApp improved decision-making of SRI related innovations. The influential factors that enable participation in monitoring SRI-FFS were identified in the extrinsic factor of characteristics, the intrinsic factors of perception, knowledge, and attitudes. The results indicate that perception and knowledge influenced positive attitudes. Furthermore, the results revealed that the indicators of commitment and trust strengthened the influential factor of attitudes by integrating social values and practices like collective work and mutual assistance. This study concludes by proposing a framework that shows the interplay between the perception, knowledge, and attitudes that determine participation in PM. Additionally, its significance lies in the demonstration that PM is an effective tool to enhance farmers' decision-making as agricultural extension agents, thus promoting agrobiodiversity-based farming and innovation in FFS community. Future research can broaden the geographical scope, and deepen the understanding of the data analysis and use.

Keywords: participatory monitoring, rice farming, perception, knowledge, attitudes



Pemantauan penyertaan (PP) semakin diterima pakai dalam program Sekolah Ladang Petani (SLP). Walau bagaimanapun, salah satu cabaran terbesar ialah pengurusan data, kerana ia sering diterajui oleh pihak luar tanpa penglibatan petani.

Dengan itu, kajian ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji persepsi dan mengenal pasti faktor - faktor yang mempengaruhi penglibatan petani dan jurulatih induk dalam PP.

Seterusnya, kajian ini bertujuan untuk mencadangkan kerangka kerja untuk penglibatan dalam PP menggunakan program Sistem Intensifikasi Padi (SIP) – Sekolah Ladang Petani di Malaysia Barat. Kajian kualitatif menggunakan reka bentuk kajian kes dimana populasi dipilih melalui teknik persampelan bertujuan.

Kemudian, pengumpulan data melalui temu bual separa berstruktur dijalankan dari Oktober 2020 hingga April 2021 di tiga lokasi. Kaedah analisis tematik digunakan untuk analisis data. Hasil kajian menunjukkan bahawa persepsi petani dan jurulatih induk adalah baik, terutamanya mengenai fasa pengumpulan data dan penggunaan aplikasi digital untuk memantau keputusan peringkat lapangan. Ternyata, penggunaan WhatsApp menambah baik dalam membuat keputusan bagi inovasi SIP.

Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi penglibatan dalam pemantauan SIP-SLP telah dikenal pasti dalam faktor ciri ekstrinsik, faktor intrinsik persepsi, pengetahuan dan sikap. Keputusan analisis menunjukkan persepsi dan pengetahuan mempengaruhi sikap positif. Tambahan pula, keputusan membuktikan indikator komitmen dan kepercayaan mengukuhkan faktor pengaruh sikap melalui penyepaduan nilai dan amalan sosial seperti kerja kolektif dan kerjasama. Kajian ini membuat kesimpulan dengan mencadangkan kerangka kerja yang menunjukkan interaksi antara persepsi, pengetahuan dan sikap yang menentukan penglibatan dalam PP. Di samping itu, kepentingan kajian menunjukkan bahawa PP adalah alat yang berkesan untuk meningkatkan pembuatan keputusan oleh petani sebagai ejen pengembangan pertanian, sekali gus menggalakkan pertanian berasaskan agrobiodiversiti dan inovasi dalam komuniti SLP. Kajian akan datang boleh diperluaskan skop geografinya, dan mendalami pemahaman analisis serta penggunaan data.

Kata kunci: pemantauan penyertaan, pertanian padi, persepsi, pengetahuan, sikap




First and foremost, I would like to say thanks to my Supervisor Associate Prof. Dr.

Zakirah Othman for guiding me throughout the research work. Her knowledge, encouragement and patience were essential for the continuation of my study.

Apart from my Supervisor, I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Dr. Shahimi bin Mohtar and the rest of my faculty team: Dr. Ahmad Shabudin bin Ariffin, Dr.

Suria binti Musa, Associate Prof. Dr. Noor Hidayah binti Abu and Associate Prof.

Dr. Nurul Azita binti Salleh for the inspiration and the insightful suggestions.

Particularly, I would like to thank Associate Prof. Dr. Noorulsadiqin Azbiya binti Yaacob and Associate Prof. Dr. Che Wan Jasimah binti Wan Mohamed Radzi for their valuable comments on the thesis.

I also wish to thank Dr. Anizan Isahak and Dr. Anni Mitin and the Malaysian Agroecology Society for Sustainable Resource Intensification (SRI-Mas) that supported and encouraged my participation in the SRI-FFS program.

I would also like to thank Kapten Zakaria and “Kakak” Siti Khadijah, and all the other farmers who welcomed me in their homes and guided me toward a better understanding of their culture and worldview. They gave me the motivation and moral support to accomplish my goals.

In the end, I am deeply grateful to my mother Simonetta and my father Giovanni, my husband Abdul Azim, my family and friends who remembered me in their prayers.


Table of Contents

Permission to Use ... ii

Abstract ... iii

Abstrak ... iv

Acknowledgement ... v

Table of Contents ... iv

List of Tables ... x

List of Figures ... xi

List of Appendices... xii

List of Abbreviations ... xiii


1.1 Background of the Study ... 1

1.2 Problem Statement ... 5

1.3 Research Questions ... 7

1.4 Research Objectives ... 8

1.5 Scope of the Study ... 9

1.6 Definition of Key Terms ... 10

1.7 Organisation of the Thesis ... 11


2.1 Introduction ... 12

2.2 Participatory Monitoring ... 12

2.2.1 Influential Factors in Participatory Monitoring ... 17 Perception ... 18 Intrinsic Factors ... 19

2.3 Participatory Monitoring in Farmer Field School... 20

2.3.1 Learning Process in Farmer Field School... 20

2.3.2 Key Elements of Participatory Monitoring in Farmer Field School ... 26

2.3.3Leading Issues of Participatory Monitoring in Farmer Field School ... 33

2.4 Underpinning Theory ... 36

2.5 Summary ... 42


3.1 Introduction ... 43



3.2 Research Design ... 43

3.3Population and Sample Size ... 44

3.4 Study Locations ... 46

3.4.1 SRI-FFS Sri Lovely ... 46

3.4.1 SRI-FFS Sri Learning Centre ... 47

3.4.2 SRI-FFS Merbau ... 48

3.5Ethical Considerations... 49

3.6 Data Collection Methods and Procedures ... 50

3.6.1 Semi-Structured Interviews ... 51

3.6.2 Pilot Interview... 53

3.6.3 Translation ... 54

3.6.4Document Review ... 55

3.7 Data Analysis Procedures ... 56

3.7.1 Data Analysis Procedures for Semi-structured Interviews ... 56 First Cycle Coding Methods ... 57 Preparatory Coding Methods ... 59 Cycle Coding Methods... 60

3.7.2 Data Analysis Procedures for Document Review ... 61

3.8 Cross Case Analysis ... 62

3.9 Validity and Reliability ... 63

3.9.1 Internal Validity ... 63

3.9.2External Validity ... 65

3.9.3 Reliability ... 65

3.10 Summary ... 66


4.1 Introduction ... 68

4.2 Respondents’ Profile ... 68

4.2.1 Farmers’ Profile ... 69

4.2.2Master Trainers’ Profile ... 70

4.3 External Setting ... 70

4.4 Monitoring Methods and Tools... 71

4.5 Intrinsic Factors ... 74

4.5.1Intrinsic Factors of Perception and Knowledge ... 75

(11) Perception and Knowledge in SRI-FFS1... 77 and Knowledge in SRI-FFS2... 80 Perception and Knowledge in SRI-FFS3... 83

4.5.2 Intrinsic Factors of Attitudes ... 84 Attitudes in SRI-FFS1 ... 85 Attitudes in SRI-FFS2 ... 86 in SRI-FFS3 ... 88

4.5.3 Key Indicators of Perception ... 91

4.5.4 Key Indicators of Knowledge ... 92

4.5.5 Key Indicators of Attitudes ... 94

4.6 Summary... 96


5.1 Introduction ... 98

5.2Extrinsic Factors ... 98

5.2.1 Profile... 98

5.2.2 External Settings ... 99

5.2.3 Monitoring Methods and Tools... 101

5.3 Intrinsic Factors ... 105

5.3.1Cross-case Analysis of Perception and Knowledge among SRI-FFS ... 105 Learning... 106 Personal Development... 107 Connection ... 107 Basic Knowledge ... 108 ... 109 Data Management ... 110

5.3.2 Cross-case Analysis of Attitudes among SRI-FFS... 111 Commitment ... 111 Trust ... 113 ... 115 Time ... 116 Recognition... 117

5.4 Framework for Participation Decision in Participatory Monitoring in SRI-FFS in West Malaysia ... 119



5.5 Summary... 124


6.1 Introduction ... 126

6.2Revisiting the Research Questions ... 126

6.2.1 Perception of Farmers and Master Trainers Towards Participatory Monitoring ... 127

6.2.2 The Influential Factors Towards the Participation in Participatory Monitoring ... 128

6.2.3 Framework for Participation Decision in Participatory Monitoring ... 131

6.3Theoretical Contribution... 132

6.4 Methodological Contribution ... 134

6.5 Practical Contribution ... 134

6.6 Limitations of the Study... 135

6.7Recommendation for Further Research... 136

6.8 Concluding Remarks ... 137



List of Tables

Table 2.1 The Five Principles of Participatory Monitoring ... 16

Table 2.2 Farmer Field School Implementation Worldwide... 23

Table 2.3 Farmer Field School Implementing Agencies Worldwide ... 25

Table 2.4 Participatory Planning, Learning and Monitoring... 29

Table 2.5 Participatory Monitoring Matrix ... 32

Table 3.1 List of Respondents ... 45

Table 3.2 The Distribution of Respondents ... 46

Table 3.3 Farmer Field School Expert Reviewer ... 52

Table 3.4 Expert Reviewers ... 53

Table 3.5 Preparatory Cycle for Farmers ... 59

Table 3.6 Preparatory Cycle for Master Trainers... 59

Table 3.7 Coding for Farmers... 60

Table 3.8 Coding for Master Trainers ... 60

Table 3.9 Indicators and Respondents ... 62

Table 4.1 Respondents’ Profile ... 69

Table 4.2 Participatory Monitoring Data Collection in SRI-FFS for Training of Trainers ... 73

Table 4.3 List of Key Indicators of Extrinsic and Intrinsic Factors... 96

Table 5.1 Summary of the Key Elements for PM in SRI-FFS in West Malaysia... ...120



List of Figures

Figure 2.1. The Traditional Research and Extension Model and the Farmer Field

School Model... 21

Figure 2.2. Farmer Field School Learning Process ... 22

Figure 2.3. Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991) ... 37

Figure 2.4. Conceptual Framework for the Uptake of Agricultural and Agroforestry Innovations, from Meijer et al. (2015) ... 39

Figure 2.5. Participation Capacity Framework, from Natalia et al. (2021)... 40

Figure 2.6. Initial Conceptual Framework ... 41

Figure 3.1. The Research Processes ... 44

Figure 3.2. View of One Paddy Field at SRI-FFS1 during Planting (personal collection)... 47

Figure 3.3. Sunflowers and Other Plants at SRI-FFS2 (personal collection) ... 48

Figure 3.4. Rice Farmer Harvesting in SRI-FFS3 (personal collection)... 49

Figure 3.5. The Semi-structured Interview Process ... 51

Figure 3.6. Coding Process, adapted from Saldaña (2013)... 57

Figure 4.1. Code Landscaping of Structural Codes ... 76

Figure 5.1. Framework for Participation Decision in Participatory Monitoring in a System of Rice Intensification – Farmer Field School in West Malaysia ... 123


List of Appendices

Appendix A Letter of Recommendation for Data Collection and Research Work ....


Appendix B Participant Invitation Letter (English) ... 156

Appendix C Participant Invitation Letter (Malay) ... 159

Appendix D Farmer Field School Expert Panel... 163

Appendix E Interview Validation Rubric for Expert Panel ... 164

Appendix F Interview Protocol and Questions... 166

Appendix G Methodological Recommendations for Cross-language Qualitative Research ... 168

Appendix H Example of Transcript Data ... 170

Appendix I Example of Summary Interview... 171



List of Abbreviations

12MP Twelfth Malaysia Plan

CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere

EPU Economic Planning Unit of the Prime Minister’s Department FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FFS Farmer Field School

GEF Global Environment Facility

ICT Information and Communications Technology IPM Integrated Pest Management

IPR Interview Protocol Refinement

IVREP Interview Validation Rubric for the Expert Panel

MT Master Trainer

NGO Non-governmental Organization NPBD National Policy on Biological Diversity

NRE Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Malaysia PCF Participation Capacity Framework

PM Participatory Monitoring

SGP Small Grant Programme

SRI System of Rice Intensification

SRI-Mas Malaysian Agroecology Society for Sustainable Resource Intensification

TPB Theory of Planned Behaviour

UNDP United Nations Development Programme



1.1Background of the Study

Monitoring is an essential instrument to make informed decisions throughout the ongoing implementation of a programme. Monitoring is traditionally defined as “a continuing function that uses systematic collection of data on specified indicators to provide major stakeholders of an ongoing development intervention with indications of the extent of progress and achievement of objectives and progress in the use of allocated funds” (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2010). However, beyond the conventional scope, monitoring has increasingly been adopted with a participatory approach to actively include a more diverse group of stakeholders and use of resources more efficiently. Documented experiences of participatory monitoring (PM) dates back to the early 1970s and its concepts have been adopted in the policy-making field of wide-ranging donors and international organisations since the 1980s (Estrella & Gaventa, 1998). As opposed to the traditional top-down methods, PM practices stem from a joint learning and negotiation between stakeholders in a reciprocity and participatory relationship (Wilmsen et al., 2008). The social learning process through a bottom -top approach embedded in participatory methods ensure community needs are met and remain relevant to the priorities and actual situations of the local people (Estrella & Gaventa, 1998; Jacobs et al., 2010).

In the agricultural sector, several participatory approaches have emerged in recent years. In light of the two paradigms in agriculture extension, namely, technology transfer or top-down approach and local adaptation by farmers or bottom-up




Abbot, J., & Guijt, I. (1998). Changing views on change: Participatory approaches to monitoring the environment (SARL Discussion Paper 2). International Institute for Environment and Development.

Adventist Development and Relief Agency. (2019). Farmer Market School. Generic training manual (ADRA 2017, revised version 2019).

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

Allahyari, M. S., & Sadeghzadeh, M. (2019). Agricultural extension systems toward SDGs 2030: Zero Hunger. In W. Leal Filho, A. M. Azul, L. Brandli, P. G.

Özuyar, & T. Wall (Eds.), Zero Hunger. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (pp. 41-52). Springer.

Asiabaka, C. C., Mureithi, J. G., & Owens, M. E. (2003). Participatory monitoring and evaluation methodology development of Farmer Field Schools (FFS) for scaling up the adoption of integrated nutrient management technologies and information. Proceedings of the AIAEE 19th Annual Conference, 76–89.

Asian Development Bank. (2012). Strengthening participation for development results: An Asian Development Bank guide to participation. documents/strengthening-participation-development-results

Bakiman, B. K. (2019). DRC farmers in “Schools Without Walls” learn to increase harvest. Reiief Web. congo/drc-farmers-schools-without-walls-learn-increase-harvest

Ballard, T., Bello, T. K., & Dalla Valle, F. (2010). Monitoring and evaluation toolkit for Junior Farmer Field and Life Schools. FAO.


Borges, R., & Lansink, A. (2016). Identifying psychological factors that determine cattle farmers ' intention to use improved natural grassland. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 89–96.

Bourne, M., Bruyn, L. L., & Prior J. (2020). Participatory versus traditional agricultural advisory models for training farmers in conservation agriculture:

A comparative analysis from Kenya. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 27(2), 153–174.

Braun, A. R., Okoth, J. R., Khaamala, H., & Khisa, G. S. (2007). Building FFS network in East Africa. LEISA Magazine, 23(1), 18–19.

Campbell, L. M., & Vainio-mattila, A. (2003). Participatory development and community-based conservation: Opportunities missed for lessons learned?.

Human Ecology, 31(3), 417–437.

Castillo-Montoya, M. (2016). Preparing for interview research: The interview protocol refinement framework. Qualitative Report, 21(5), 811–831.

Charatsari, C., Lioutas, E. D., & Koutsouris, A. (2020). Farmer field schools and the co-creation of knowledge and innovation: The mediating role of social capital. Agriculture and Human Values, 37, 1139–1154.

Chaya, M., Halwart, M., Fredrix, M., van de Berg, H., & NonoWomdim, R. (2018).

Assessing the quality of Farmer Field School programmes. FAO.

Chikoti, M. (2019). Farmers benefiting from market-oriented farming. Malawi 24. farming/

Chimoita, E., Dennis Maina, G., Opiyo Olila, D., & Onyango, J. P. G. (2015). The



role of Farmer Field Schools approach in improving tea production among smallholding in Kenya. Universal Journal of Agricultural Research, 3(1), 4–


Chuluunbaatar, D., & Yoo, J. (2015). A shift in global perspective. Institutionalizing Farmer Field School. FAO.

Cleveland, M., & Cleveland, S. (2018). Building engaged communities—A collaborative leadership approach. Smart Cities, 1(1), 155–162.

Costa, D. C., Pereira, H. S., Marchand, G. A. E. L., & Silva, S. C. P. (2018).

Challenges of participatory community monitoring of biodiversity in protected areas in Brazilian Amazon. Diversity, 10(3), 61–72.

Danielsen, F., Jensen, A. E., Alviola, P. A., Balete, D. S., Mendoza, M., Tagtag, A., Custodio, C., & Enghoff, M. (2005). Does monitoring matter? A quantitative assessment of management decisions from locally-based monitoring of protected areas. Biodiversity and Conservation, 14(11), 2633–2652.

Dawson, N., Martin, A., & Sikor, T. (2016). Green revolution in Sub-Saharan Africa: Implications of imposed innovation for the wellbeing of rural smallholders. World Development, 78, 204–218.

de Dieu Nsabimana, J. (2019, July 3). Farmers pledge to sustain gains under JICA’s

SMAP project. The New York Times. under-jicas-smap-project

Dias, A. C. E., Cinti, A., Parma, A. M., & Seixas, C. S. (2020). Participatory monitoring of small-scale coastal fisheries in South America: Use of fishers’

knowledge and factors affecting participation. Reviews in Fish Biology and


Fisheries, 30(2), 313–333.

Dickinson, J. L., Shirk, J., Bonter, D., Bonney, R., Crain, R. L., Martin, J., Phillips, T., & Purcell, K. (2012). The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(6), 291–297.

Dong, L. (2019). Farmer field schools as a successful approach to poverty reduction in Guangxi, China. Global Farmer Field School Platform. events/en/c/1194672/

Du, P., Abubakar, A. L., Ketelaar, J. W., & Stankus, A. (2016). Knowledge exchange on the promotion of efficient rice farming practices, Farmer Field School curriculum development and value chain (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report No. 1181).

Ebewore, S. (2020). Management of cocoa black pod disease by farmers in Edo state, Nigeria: The role of farmer field school. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 10(2), 528–540.

Economic Planning Unit. (2021). Twelfth Malaysia Plan 2021-2025. Percetakan Nasional Malaysia Berhad.

Esau, K. (2019). Capturing citizens' Values: On the role of narratives and emotions in digital participation. Analyse & Kritik, 40(1), 55–72.

Essiet, D. (2019). Boosting agriculture through Farmer Field Schools. Agriculture.

Estrella, M., & Gaventa, J. (1998). Who counts reality?. Participatory monitoring and evaluation: A literature review (ISD Working Paper 70). Institute of Development Studies. participatory-monitoring-and-evaluation-a-literature-review/



Estrella, M., Blauert, J., Campilan, D., Gaventa, J., Gonsalves, J., Guijt, I., Johnson, D. A., & Ricafort, R. (2000). Learning from change: Issues and experiences in participatory monitoring and evaluation. Intermediate Technology Publications.

Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4.

Evans, K., Flores, S., & Larson, A. M. (2019). Participatory monitoring in forest communities to improve governance, accountability and women’ s participation. Small-scale Forestry, 18(2), 165–187.

Evans, K., Guariguata, M. R., & Brancalion, P. H. S. (2018). Participatory monitoring to connect local and global priorities for forest restoration.

Conservation Biology, 32(3), 525–534.

Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., Ballard, H. L., & Sturtevant, V. E. (2008). Adaptive management and social learning in collaborative and community-based monitoring: A study of five community-based forestry organizations in the western USA. Ecology and Society, 13(2). 130204

Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., Sturtevant, H. L. B., & Sturtevant, V. E. (2008).

Adaptive management and social learning in collaborative and community- based monitoring: A study of five community-based forestry organizations in the Western USA. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 4.

Fielding, K. S., Terry, D. J., Masser, B. M., & Hogg, M. A. (2008). Integrating social identity theory and the theory of planned behaviour to explain decisions to engage in sustainable agricultural practices. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 23–48.


Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2005). Facilitators’ FFS manual. Regional integrated pest management programme in the near east.

FAO. manual-regional-integrated-pest-share4devinfo

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2014). Farmer Field and Farm Business Schools. Manual for preparation and establishment of Farmer Field and Farm Business Schools. FAO. Field-and-Farm-Business-Schools-Manual-GCPSRB001HUN-1.pdf

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2016). Farmer Field School guidance document. Planning for quality programmes. FAO. school/en/

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2017). Discovery-based learning in land and water management. A practical guide for Farmer Field Schools. FAO.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2019a). Farmers taking the lead - Thirty years of farmer field schools. FAO.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2019b). Introduction to farmer field schools. A reader for institutions of higher learning. FAO.

Fryer, C. E. (2019). An approach to conducting cross-language qualitative research with people from multiple language groups. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences (Vol. 5, pp. 1653–

1674). Springer.



Garcia, C. A., & Lescuyer, G. (2008). Monitoring, indicators and community-based forest management in the tropics: Pretexts or red herrings?. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17(6), 1303–1317.

Groeneweg, K., & Tafur, J. C. (2003). Evaluation in FFS: A burden or a blessing?.

Leisa Magazine, 16–17.

Groeneweg, K., Buyu, G., Romney, D., & Minjauw, B. (2006). Livestock farmer field schools: Guidelines for facilitation and technical manual. International

Livestock Research Institute (ILRI).

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research.

In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105–117). SAGE.

Guijt, I., & Gaventa, J. (1998). Participatory monitoring & evaluation: Learning from change. IDS Policy Briefings 12. IDS.

Guo, M., Jia, X., Huang, J., Kumar, K. B., & Burger, N. E. (2015). Farmer Field School and farmer knowledge acquisition in rice production: Experimental evaluation in China. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 209, 100–


Hilhorst, T., & Guijt, I. (2006). Participatory monitoring and evaluation: A process to support governance and empowerment at the local level (Guidance Paper).

Royal Tropical Institute.

Isahak, A., Othman, Z., Mitin, A., Hidayah, N., Hashim, R., Mazlan, N., Salleh, N.

A., Agnese, F., & Ghazali, R. (2021). Upscaling agrobiodiversity-based rice farming systems through the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in Malaysia.


Jacobs, A., Barnett, C., & Ponsford, R. (2010). Three approaches to monitoring:

Feedback systems, participatory monitoring and evaluation and logical frameworks. IDS Bulletin, 41(6), 36–44.

Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H.

Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation.

Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 125 (pp. 13–31). John Benjamins.

Jennett, C., & Cox, A. (2018). Digital citizen science and the motivations of volunteers. The Wiley Handbook of Human Computer Interaction, 2, 831–


Jomo, K. S., Tan, Z. G., & Jarud Romadan Khalidi, J. R. (2019). Achieving food security for all Malaysians. Khazanah Research Institute.

Kananura, R. M., Ekirapa-kiracho, E., Paina, L., Bumba, A., Mulekwa, G., Nakiganda-busiku, D., Nay, H., Oo, L., Kiwanuka, S., & George, A. (2017).

Participatory monitoring and evaluation approaches that influence decision- making: Lessons from a maternal and newborn study in Eastern Uganda.

Health Research Policy and Systems, 15(107), 56–73.

Kaur, L., & Mann, S. (2019). Participatory monitoring and evaluation in extension programmes. Asian Journal of Home Science, 14(2), 458–462.

Khisa, G., Mengesha, A., Duveskog, D., Mutungi, P., Okoth, J., Nalyongo, W., Nega, S., Garnier, K., & Kimani, A. (2014). Pastoralist Field Schools.

Training of facilitators manual. FAO.

Khonje, V. (2019). Malawi: Fisheries department hails Farmers’ Field Schools 24 June 2019. AllAfrica.

Knook, J., Eory, V., Brander, M., & Moran, D. (2018). Evaluation of farmer



participatory extension programmes. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 1–17.

Knook, J., Eory, V., Brander, M., & Moran, D. (2020). The evaluation of a participatory extension programme focused on climate friendly farming.

Journal of Rural Studies, 76, 40–48.

Kusters, K., Buck, L., de Graaf, M., Minang, P., van Oosten, C., & Zagt, R. (2018).

Participatory planning, monitoring and evaluation of multi-stakeholder platforms in integrated landscape initiatives. Environmental Management, 62, 170–181.

Lairing, N., Witteveen, L., Busa, Y., Bagenda, A., & Bagenda, M. (2021). Co- constructing principles for Digital Farmer Field School Enrekang design in South Sulawesi – Indonesia. E3S Web of Conferences, 306.

Maleksaeidi, H., & Keshavarz, M. (2019). What influences farmers ' intentions to conserve on-farm biodiversity?. An application of the theory of planned behavior in Fars province, Iran. Global Ecology and Conservation, 20, 1–13.

Malik, M. N. (2017). Farmer's Field School (FFS) tanaman padi [PowerPoint slides]. Persidangan Padi Kebangsaan.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Designing a qualitative study. SAGE.

Meijer, S., Catacutan, D., Ajayi, O., & Sileshi, G. W. (2015). The role of knowledge, attitudes and perceptions in the uptake of agricultural and agroforestry innovations among smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 13(1), 40–54.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass.


Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research. A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.

Mfitumukiza, D., Barasa, B., Nankya, A. M., Dorothy, N., Hellen, A., Siraj, B., &

Gerald, K. (2017). Assessing the Farmer Field School’s diffusion of knowledge and adaptation to climate change by smallholder farmers in Kiboga District, Uganda. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, 9(5), 74–83.

Mgoba, S. A., & Kabote, S. J. (2020). Participatory monitoring and evaluation of community-based water projects in Tanzania: An experience from Chamwino District in Dodoma Region. The East African Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 1(2), 1–10.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. (2016). National policy on biological diversity 2016-2025.

Mohamad Nasri, N., Nasri, N., & Abd Talib, M. A. (2019). Cross-language qualitative research studies dilemmas: A research review. Qualitative Research Journal, 21(1), 15–28.

Morales-Abubakar, A. L., & Fredrix, M. (2018). Global workshop on impact assessment and monitoring and evaluation of Farmer Field School

programmes [Video]. Global Farmer Field School Platform. events/en/c/1155111/

Murphy, H., Sanusi, A., Dilts, R., Yuliatingsih, S., Djajadisastra, M., & Hirschhorn, N. (2015). Health effects of pesticide use among Indonesian women farmers.

Journal of Agromedicine, 6(3), 61–85.

Nakano, Y., Tsusaka, T. W., Aida, T., & Pede, V. O. (2015). The impact of training on technology adoption and productivity of rice farming in Tanzania: Is Farmer-to-Farmer extension effective? (JICA-RI Working Paper). JICA



Research Institute.


Natalia, A., Singh, C., & Pilegaard, C. (2021). A policy tool for monitoring and evaluation of participation in adaptation projects. Climate Risk Management, 33, 1–11.

Nkurunziza, M. (2019, August 5). Study recommends improved efforts to stamp out fake seeds. The New Times. recommends-improved-efforts-stamp-out-fake-seeds

Norton, G. W., & Alwang, J. (2020). Changes in agricultural extension and implications for farmer adoption of new practices. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 42(1), 8–20.

Onyango, R. (2018). Participatory monitoring and evaluation: An overview of guiding pedagogical principles and implications on development.

International Journal of Novel Research in Humanity and Social Sciences, 5(4), 428–433.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2010). DAC’S Glossary of key terms in evaluation and results-based management. esultsBasedManagement.pdf

Poliakoff, E., & Webb, T. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists' intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication, 29, 242–263.

Prager, K., & Creaney, R. (2017). Achieving on-farm practice change through facilitated group learning: Evaluating the effectiveness of monitor farms and discussion groups. Journal of Rural Studies, 56, 1–11.


Pratt, O. (2019). Training of 20 professors from Pwani University as master trainers (Kenya). Global Farmer Field School Platform. field-schools/news-events/detail-events/en/c/1192626/

Qu, S. Q., & Dumay, J. (2007). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8(3), 238–264.

Quizon, J., Feder, G., & Rinku, M. (2001). Fiscal sustainability of agricultural extension: The case of the Farmer Field School approach. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 8(1), 13–24.

Rajalahti, R., Woelcke, J., & Pehu, E. (2005). Monitoring and evaluation for World Bank agricultural extension projects: A good practice note. The World Bank.

Ratcliffe, J. W. (1983). Notions of validity in qualitative research methodology.

Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 5(2), 147–167.

Regmi, S., Bhusal, J. K., Gurung, P., & Ehsan, S. D. (2019). Learning to cope with water variability through participatory monitoring: The case study of the mountainous region, Nepal. Meteorology Hydrology and Water Management, 7(2), 49–61.

Rogers, E. M., Singhal, A., & Quinlan, M. M. (2019). Diffusion of innovations 1. In D. W. Stacks, M. B. Salwen, & K. C. Eichhorn (Eds.), An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research (3rd ed., pp. 415–434).


Rossman, G. (2015). Participatory monitoring & evaluation. _ME.pdf

Roy, D., Farouque, M. G., & Rahman, M. Z. (2015). Effectiveness of Farmer Field School for soil and crop management. International Journal of Sciences:


151 Basic and Applied Research, 20(2), 1–11.

Sail, R. M. (2010). Empowering of agricultural extensionists: A case study of frontline extensionists of one agricultural extension agency. International Conference on Agricultural Extension (AGREX '10), 1166-1199.

Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE.

Shaffril, M. H. A., Asmuni, A., & Ismail, A. (2010). The Ninth Malaysian Plan and agriculture extension officer competency: A combination for intensification of paddy industry in Malaysia. International Social Science Research, 3, 450–458.

Shah, J.A., Asmuni, A., & Ismail, A. (2013). Roles of extension agents towards agricultural practice in Malaysia. International Journal on Advanced Science Engineering Information Technology, 1, 59–63.

Simon, M. K. (2016). Survey/Interview validation rubric for expert panel - VREP. ew_questions_to_measure_co-


review_them/attachment/59d6259279197b8077983e1a/AS:31816581117132 9@1452868048595/download/Expert-


Squires, A. (2009). Methodological challenges in cross-language qualitative research: A methodological research review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 277–287.

Swanson, B. E., & Rajalahti, R. (2010). Strengthening agricultural extension and advisory systems: Procedures for assessing, transforming, and evaluating extension systems (Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper 45).

The World Bank.


Swanson, B. E., Bentz, R. P., & Sofranko, A. J. (1997). Improving agricultural

extension. (Reference Manual). FAO. agricultural extension FAO.pdf

Thiao, D., Westlund, L., Sambe, B., Diaw, H., Deme, M., Mbenga, A., & Diop, M.

(2019). A perception-based participatory monitoring and evaluation approach to foster effective co-management of the marine protected areas in Northwest Africa. Ocean and Coastal Management, 175, 1–16.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2016). Designing effective monitoring and evaluation of education systems for 2030: A global synthesis of policies and practices.

Valizadeh, N., Bijani, M., Karimi, H., Naeimi, A., Hayati, D., & Azadi, H. (2020).

The effects of farmers’ place attachment and identity on water conservation moral norms and intention. Water Research, 185, 116–131.

van den Berg, H., Phillips, S., Dicke, M., & Fredrix, M. (2020). Impacts of farmer field schools in the human, social, natural and financial domain: A qualitative review. Food Security, 12(6), 1443–1459. 020-01046-7

van den Berg, H., Phillips, S., Poisot, A. S., Dicke, M., & Fredrix, M. (2020).

Leading issues in implementation of farmer field schools: A global survey.

Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 27(3), 341–353.

Verbrugge, L. N. H., Ganzevoort, W., Fliervoet, J. M., Panten, K., & van den Born, R. J. G. (2016). Implementing participatory monitoring in river management:

The role of stakeholders’ perspectives and incentives. Journal of

Environmental Management, 195, 62–69.

Villasenor, E., Escobar, F., Guariguata, M. R., Porter-Bolland, L., & Moreno-



Casasola, P. (2016). Characteristics of participatory monitoring projects and their relationship to decision-making in biological resource management: A review. Biodiversity & Conservation, 25(11), 2001–2019.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society. Harvard University Press.

Waddington, H., Snilstveit, B., Hombrados, J., & Vojtkova, M. (2014). International initiative for impact evaluation Farmer Field Schools: A systematic review.

(Campbell Systematic Review 6). The Campbell Collaboration.

Wang, X., Zhang, J., He, K., & Li, W. (2021). Place attachment, environmental cognition and organic fertilizer adoption of farmers: evidence from rural China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(30), 41255–


Wehn, U., & Almomani, A. (2019). Incentives and barriers for participation in community-based environmental monitoring and information systems: A critical analysis and integration of the literature. Environmental Science and Policy, 101, 341–357.

White, S. C. (1996). Depoliticising development the uses and abuses of participation.

Development in Practice, 6(1), 6–15.

Wilmsen, C., Elmendorf, W., Fisher, L., Ross, J., Sarathy, B., & Wells, G. (2008).

Partnerships for empowerment. Participatory research for community-based natural resource management. Routledge.

World Bank. (2003). Reaching the rural poor: A renewed strategy for rural

development. The World Bank.

World Bank. (2017). ICT in agriculture: Connecting smallholders to knowledge, networks, and institutions. The World Bank.


Yazan, B. (2015). Three approaches to case study methods in education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake. The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 134–152.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. SAGE.

Young, A., & Temple, B. (2014). Qualitative research and translation dilemmas.

Qualitative Research, 4(2), 161–178.



Appendix A

Letter of Recommendation for Data Collection and Research Work


Appendix B

Participant Invitation Letter (English)

Dear Participant:

I am Federica Agnese doing a Ph.D. at Universiti Utara Malaysia. I am conducting a study on participatory monitoring in Farmer Field School in West Malaysia. The study’s findings of the study will be developed as a participatory monitoring for agrobiodiversity Farmer Field School in West Malaysia. You are selected for this interview since you participated in a training project on organic and agrobiodiversity-based farming organized by the Malaysian Agroecology Society (SRI-Mas) in 2018 and 2019. So, I believe you will contribute significantly with your experience and perspectives to my research.

Following the interviews, we may contact you for a further follow up regarding this research. You could also contact me at the number below for further follow -up. A copy of this consent letter with my contact details is provided for your keeping.

Part of the interview process, audio recording is carried out, with the consent of the Respondent, for the sole purpose of anonymous review and verification by the Researcher. The information shared or answers obtained in this interview will not be linked to personal information of the Respondent.

Mr. Abdul Azim is a translator, and today he will help me with the translation.

Thank you for accepting to be interviewed.

Many thanks,

Federica Agnese (Researcher)

Consent Agreement

By signing below, I agree that: (1) I have read and understood the Participant Information Sheet, (2) questions about my participation in this study have been answered satisfactorily, and (3) I am taking part in this interview voluntarily.

Name of Participant:

Participant’s Signature: _



157 Respondent Information Sheet

Project Title

Participatory Monitoring for Agrobiodiversity Farmer Field School in West Malaysia.

Purpose of the interview

This interview is conducted as part of the requirements under the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) project at the Universiti Utara Malaysia. The main objective of the interview is to explore the perception and perspective on factors influencing the implementation of participatory monitoring in agrobiodiversity Farmer Field School Programs in West Malaysia.

Time Commitment

The interview is made of two main questions and sub-questions and it will take approximately one hour.

Rights of the respondent

The Respondent of this interview has the rights to:

- stop being a part of the interview at any time without explanation.

- ask that any data you have supplied to that point been withdrawn or destroyed.

- omit or refuse to answer or respond to any question that is asked - have questions about the interview.

- ask questions about this information sheet at any time.


Part of the interview process, audio recording is carried out, with the consent of the Respondent, for the sole purpose of anonymous review and verification by the Researcher. The information shared or answers obtained in this interview will not be linked to personal information of the Respondent.


Confidentiality Statement

All responses are given as part of the interviews, and documents will be treated with utmost confidentiality and will be available only to the researcher and supervisor of the research. Under no circumstances will your name or any identifying characteristics be disclosed.

Both the participant and the researcher will sign this confidentiality statement to ensure that the data obtained will be only used for the above research and will not be disclosed to any other person or be used for other purposes.

For further information

My Supervisor and I will be glad to answer your questions about this study at any time.

You may contact her at and me at



Appendix C

Participant Invitation Letter (Malay)

Peserta yang dihormati:

Saya Federica Agnese, pelajar project Doktor Falsafah (Ph.D.) di Universiti Utara Malaysia. Saya sedang menjalankan kajian pemantauan serta-sama dalam projek Sekolah Lapangan Petani (Farmer Field School) di Malaysia Barat. Hasil kajian akan dikembangkan bagi tujuan membangun kerangka pemantauan serta-sama untuk Sekolah Lapangan Petani agrobiodiversiti di Malaysia Barat. Anda dipilih untuk temubual ini kerana anda telah terlibat dalam sebuah projek latihan berkenaan pertanian agrobiodiversiti yang dianjurkan Persatuan Agroekologi Malaysia (SRI- Mas) pada tahun 2018 dan 2019. Oleh itu, saya percaya anda akan memberikan sumbangan yang bermakna dengan pengalaman dan pandangan anda dalam penyelidikan saya.

Setelah temubual ini, kami mungkin akan menghubungi anda untuk langkah susulan penyelidikan ini.

Encik Abdul Azim akan membantu saya hari ini dalam menterjemahkan temubual ini. Terima kasih kerana sudi ditemubual.

Terima kasih.

Federica Agnese (Penyelidik)

Pernyataan Persetujuan

Dengan menandatangani di bawah, saya bersetuju bahawa: (1) saya telah membaca dan memahami Lembaran Maklumat Responden, (2) soalan-soalan mengenai penyertaan saya dalam kajian ini telah dijawab dengan memuaskan, dan (3) saya mengambil bahagian dalam temubual ini secara sukarela.

Nama Peserta:


Tandatangan Peserta:



161 Lembaran Maklumat Responden

Tajuk Projek

Pemantauan Serta-sama untuk Sekolah Lapangan Petani Agrobiodiversiti di Malaysia Barat.

Matlamat Temubual

Temubual ini dijalankan sebagai sebahagian dari keperluan projek Doktor Falsafah (Ph.D) di Universiti Utara Malaysia. Tujuan utama temubual ini ialah untuk menerokai sisi pandang terhadap faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi pelaksanaan pemantauan serta-sama dalam project Sekolah Lapangan Petani agrobiodiversiti di Malaysia Barat.

Komitmen Masa

Temubual ini terbahagi kepada dua soalan utama beserta pecahan-pecahan soalan dan akan mengambil masa lebih kurang satu jam.

Hak Responden

Responden temubual ini berhak untuk:

-berhenti mengambil bahagian dalam temubual ini tanpa sebarang penjelasan.

-meminta mana-mana maklumat yang telah diberikan ditarik balik atau dihapuskan.

-tidak menjawab atau membalas mana-mana soalan yang ditanya, -bertanya soalan tentang temubual ini.

-bertanya soalan tentang lembaran maklumat ini.

Kerahsiaan/Tanpa Nama

Sebagai sebahagian dari proses temubual ini, rakaman suara akan dibuat dengan persetujuan Responden, dengan satu-satunya tujuan untuk dibuat penilaian dan rujukan oleh Penyelidik secara rahsia atau tanpa dikenali. Maklumat yang dikongsi atau jawapan yang diberi dalam temubual ini tidak akan dikaitkan dengan maklumat peribadi Responden.

Penyataan Kerahsiaan

Semua maklumbalas yang diberikan adalah sebahagian daripada temubual, dan semua dokumen akan diperlakukan dengan kerahsiaan sepenuhnya dan hanya akan


tersedia untuk penyelidik dan penyelia kajian. Dalam apa-apa keadaan sekalipun nama anda atau apa-apa ciri-ciri kenalpasti tidak akan diberikan.

Responden dan Penyelidik akan sama-sama menandatangani pernyataan kerahsiaan ini untuk memastikan maklumat yang diperolehi hanya akan digunakan untuk tujuan kajian di atas dan tidak akan diberi kepada mana-mana pihak lain atau digunakan untuk tujuan lain.

Untuk maklumat lanjut

Saya dan penyelia saya dengan senang hati akan menjawab soalan anda mengenai kajian ini pada bila-bila masa.

Anda boleh menghubungi penyelia saya di alamat emel dan saya di



Appendix D

Farmer Field School Expert Panel

The Farmer Field School was developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in 1989 in Indonesia. This first attempt aimed to extend Integrated Pest Management techniques in South East Asia, where the impact of the Green Revolution was at its greatest. Because of the success of such program, the FAO began to collaborate closely with local governments and support national projects everywhere else in the world.

In order to support the growing FFS global community, in 2017 FAO decided to set up a Global Farmer Field School Platform ( with the objectives to: (1) Facilitate the exchange of knowledge, expertise, and information among all the different practitioner in the FFS community of practice;

(2) help document and improve the visibility of FFS achievements globally; and (3) promote the quality of the field school through the harmonization and collaboration among the different FFS community members.

In the Global Farmer Field School Platform, it is specifically indicated that different types of FFS experts are as follow: master trainers, project coordinators, project formulators and evaluators. It moreover indicates that there are thirty-three different technical areas of FFS expertise.

Master trainers

FFS master trainers require thorough and extensive experience and education on FFS project organization and implementation.

Project coordinators and formulators

The implementation of FFS widely spread and numerous organizations partnered with FAO in its design. The Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE) started Farmers’ Field and Business Schools strongly increased the access to land for women’s farming, agricultural yield, and women leadership positions.

The Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacific (PANAP) began Farmer Field School in Malaysia and reduced chemical pollution to land and water. The Malaysian Agroecology Society (SRI-Mas) is currently establishing Farmer Field School in Malaysia with the aim of upscaling agrobiodiversity and sustainable rice farming practices. Overall, the organizations followed the guidelines and experience learnt by FAO.


FAO employed a number of researchers to undergo impact evaluations over time.

FAO particularly collaborated with Wageningen University (the Netherland) to review the status and impact of FFS programs. Among the key experts on impact assessment of FFS, Dr Henk van de Berg carried out several studies, among which A Synthesis of 25 Impact Evaluations in 2004 and Global FFS Review in 2018.


Appendix E

Interview Validation Rubric for Expert Panel

Adapted from Simon (2016) Criteria Operational

Definitions Score

1=Not Acceptable (major modifications

needed) 2=Below Expectations (some modifications needed)

3=Meets Expectations (no modifications needed but could be improved

with minor changes) 4=Exceeds Expectations (no modifications needed)

Please use the comments and suggestions

section to recommend


1 2 3 4

Clarity The questions are direct and specific.

Only one question is asked at a time.

The participants can understand what is being asked.

There are no double-barreled questions (two questions in one).

Wordiness and

Length Questions are concise.

All questions are needed.


Wording Questions are asked using the affirmative (e.g., Instead of asking,

“Which methods are not used?”, the researcher asks,

“Which methods are used?”) Overlapping

Responses No response covers more than one choice.

All possibilities are considered.

There are no


165 ambiguous


Balance The questions are unbiased and do not lead the participants to a response. The questions are asked using a neutral tone.

Use of Jargon The terms used are understandable by the target


There are no clichés or hyperbole in the wording of the questions.

Appropriateness of Responses


The choices listed allow participants to respond appropriately.

The responses apply to all situations or offer a way for those to respond with unique situations.

Use of Technical

Language The use of

technical/academic language is

minimal and appropriate.

Questions are easy to understand.

Relationship to

Problem The questions are sufficient to resolve the problem in the study.

The questions are sufficient to answer the

research questions.

The questions are sufficient to obtain the purpose of the study.


Appendix F

Interview Protocol and Questions


The main aim of this interview is to understand the interviewee’s perception and perspective on participatory monitoring in Farmer Field School in West Malaysia.

Accordingly, there are no right or wrong answers for the upcoming questions.

Instead, it reflects the interviewee’s perception and perspective with the subject of this study as it is conceived by him/her.


The interview questions concern the participatory monitoring in Farmer Field School. At the end of each FFS activity, for example Training of Trainer (ToT), participants were asked to fill forms and participate in WhatsApp groups. We will use terms such as questionnaires, WhatsApp groups, online forms, and monitor during the interview.

1.0 How do you perceive a participatory monitoring system in an FFS program?

In this question, I would like to know what you understand and how do you regard participatory monitoring. In brief, what do you think about participatory monitoring?

2.0 What factors could influence your capacity to be involved in sharing or reporting progress throughout the training program?

In this question, I would like to know what circumstances or facts would influence you to participate in the monitoring of an FFS program?

● For example, having an internet connection is an influential factor for participation in monitoring through WhatsApp.

● Or, for example, having time to track progress or report to the team.

3.0 Thank you for all your valuable information, is there anything else you would like to add?


167 Garis panduan temu ramah separa berstruktur


Tujuan utama temubual ini adalah untuk memahami sisi pandang responden mengenai pemantauan serta-sama dalam Sekolah Lapangan Petani di Malaysia Barat. Oleh yang demikian, tidak jawapan yang benar atau salah bagi soalan -soalan yang akan dikemukakan. Sebaliknya, ia mencerminkan sisi pandang responden terhadap sasaran kajian ini sebagaimana yang difahami oleh beliau.


Soalan-soalan dalam temubual ini adalah berkenaan dengan pemantauan serta -sama dalam project Sekolah Lapangan Petani (FFS). Pada penghujung setiap aktiviti FFS, contohnya Latihan Pelatih atau Training of Trainer (ToT), para peserta telah diminta mengisi borang-borang dan juga menyertai kumpulan WhatsApp. Bagi tujuan temubual ini, kita akan gunakan istilah-istilah seperti soalselidik, kumpulan WhatsApp, borang online, dan pemantauan.

1.0 Bagaimanakah pandangan anda terhadap sistem pemantauan serta-sama dalam project FFS?

Dalam soalan ini, saya ingin mengetahui apa yang anda faham dan bagaimana tanggapan anda tentang pemantauan serta-sama. Secara ringkasnya, apa pendapat anda tentang pemantauan serta-sama?

2.0 Berdasarkan pengalaman anda, apakah faktor yang boleh mempengaruhi kemampuan anda untuk serta-sama memantau perkembangan hasil projek FFS organik tersebut?

Dalam soalan ini, saya ingin tahu apakah faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi anda untuk serta-sama memantau projek FFS?

● Contohnya, kemudahan capaian internet adalah satu faktor yang mempengaruhi kemampuan untuk pemantauan serta-sama melalui WhatsApp.

● Atau contohnya, masa yang diperlukan untuk mengikuti perkembangan atau memberi maklum balas kepada kumpulan.

3.0 Terima kasih atas semua maklum balas anda yang berharga. Adakah apa-apa tambahan yang ingin anda berikan?


Appendix G

Methodological Recommendations for Cross-language Qualitative Research

Adapted from Fryer (2019)

Core elements Criteria

Conceptual equivalence (1) Provided a rationale for why the analysis occurred in the chosen language, especially if it was not the same language as participants.

(2) Developed a translation lexicon for multi-language studies to ensure conceptual equivalence.

(3) Validated translation by a qualified bilingual individual not directly involved with data collection or the initial translation.

Translator or interpreter credentials

(1) Described the translator’s qualifications or previous experience with translation.

(2) Described the

competency. researchers’ level of language (3) Described the researchers’ or translators’ identity in

contrast to the participants.

Role of interpreter

translator or (1) Described the translator’s or interpreter’s role in the study.

(2) Described at what point(s) during the research process they used translation services.

(3) Identified who conducted the analysis and in what language it took place.

(4) Provided a rationale for using multiple translators, if the study took place in only one language.

Research approaches (1) Selected appropriate research methods.

(2) Pilot tested the translated interview guide before conducting the test.

(3) Indicated the country of origin of all participants in the study, even if they came from linguistically similar regions.

(4) Stated the use of translators may have affected the results in the limitation section or other appropriate


169 section.

Socio-cultural matching (1) Described the settings of where the research took place.

(2) Described matching in terms of gender and races between the researcher, interpreter and research participants.

(3) Stated matching is not possible in the limitation section.

Core Elements Criteria

Participant checking (1) Provided copies of transcripts to participants to comment after the interview.

(2) Described briefly in participants' comments.

(3) Reviewed or modified according to participants’


Source: Squires (2009)




Related subjects :