CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 189Agriculture, Land Use, Rural DevelopmentEducation and Art IntegrationAgricultural Innovations and Practices

Integrating Agroecology and Participatory Action Research (PAR): Lessons from Central America

Open access
Méndez, V., Caswell, Martha, Gliessman, Stephen, Cohen, Roseann·2017·Sustainability
DOI 10.3390/su9050705
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The last decade has seen an increasing advancement and interest in the integration of agroecology and participatory action research (PAR). This article aims to: (1) analyze the key characteristics and principles of two case studies that integrated PAR and agroecology in Central America; and (2) learn from the lessons offered by these case studies, as well as others from the literature, on how to better integrate PAR and agroecology. Key principles identified for effective PAR agroecological processes include a shared interest in research by partners, a belief in collective power/action, a commitment to participation, practicing humility and establishing trust and accountability. Important lessons to consider for future work include: (1) research processes that did not start as PAR, can evolve into it; (2) farmer/stakeholder participation in setting the research agenda, from the outset, results in higher engagement and enhanced outcomes; (3) having the right partners for the desired outcomes is key; (4) intentional and explicit reflection is an essential component of PAR processes; and (5) cross-generational collaborations are crucial to long-term benefits. Key challenges that confront PAR processes include the need for time and resources over longer periods; the complexity of multi-actor process facilitation; and institutional barriers within the academy and development organizations, which prevent shifting investment towards integrated PAR agroecological processes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/su9050705

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is a lack of empirical research on participatory approaches to agroecological transition, especially in larger territories.

    “However there is a notable lack of empyrical research on participatory approaches to processes of agroecological transition, especially in larger territories.”

    From Exploring the contradictions of scaling: action plans for agroecological transition in metropolitan environments (2020) · cites this paper as Méndez et al. 2017

    The Introduction (page not available) says participatory action research can have a limited reach and operate at a small scale, which supports the concern about larger territories. It does not establish a notable lack of empirical research on participatory approaches to agroecological transition. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Méndez et al. (2017) identify that participation of the agrarian sector or other actors in defining objectives and designing research from the start leads to greater involvement and reinforces the results of both research and action.

    “the participation of the agrarian sector or other actors in defining objectives and designing research from the start leads to greater involvement and reinforces the results of both research and action”

    From Exploring the contradictions of scaling: action plans for agroecological transition in metropolitan environments (2020) · cites this paper as Méndez et al. (2017)

    The case-study lessons state that farmers who helped decide research themes and plan research were much more engaged in the research and potential resulting actions. But §4.1 says farmers had limited participation in setting the initial objectives, and the paper does not establish that participation from the start strengthens the results of both research and action. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • How participatory and agroecological approaches fit together operationally, how methodological proposals are put into practice, and how they may be applied in different social contexts are under-explored in agroecology studies.

    “Nevertheless how these two approaches-participatory and agroecological-fit together in an operative way, how methodological proposals are put into practice, and how these may be applied in different social contexts and processes are all territories still sorely under-explored in studies of agroecology”

    From Exploring the contradictions of scaling: action plans for agroecological transition in metropolitan environments (2020) · cites this paper as Méndez et al. 2017

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says it is important to assess and share lessons about integrating PAR and agroecology, and the paper examines that integration through two cases. The Discussion (page unavailable) describes a growing body of work across settings, but the copy does not say that operational fit, implementation of methodological proposals, and application across social contexts are all sorely under-explored. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Context reflects the situated nature of agroecological initiatives.

    “Context reflects the situated nature of agroecological initiatives (Méndez et al. 2017, Barrios et al. 2020).”

    From A heuristic framework to portray agroecological transition initiatives in reflexive arrangements, illustrated with a conservation agriculture network in Denmark (2025) · cites this paper as Méndez et al. 2017

  • Méndez et al. (2017) identify that intentional and explicit reflection is key.

    “intentional and explicit reflection is key”

    From Exploring the contradictions of scaling: action plans for agroecological transition in metropolitan environments (2020) · cites this paper as Méndez et al. (2017)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Méndez, V.E., Bacon, C.M., Cohen, R., Gliessman, S.R., Eds.; CRC Press/Taylor and Francis: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016; pp. 1-22.
  2. Gliessman, S.R. Agroecology: The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems, 3rd ed.; CRC Press/Taylor & Francis: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015.
  3. Méndez, V.E.; Bacon, C.M.; Cohen, R.; Gliessman, S.R. Agroecology: A Transdisciplinary, Participatory and Action-Oriented Approach; CRC Press/Taylor and Francis: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016.
  4. Ruiz-Rosado, O. Agroecology: A discipline leading towards transdiscipline. Interciencia 2006, 31, 140-145.
  5. Greenwood, D.J.; Levin, M. Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1998.
  6. Fals-Borda, O.; Rahman, M.A. Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly with Participatory Action-Research; The Apex Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991.
  7. Jones, L.; Bjelland, D. International experiential learning in agriculture. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Association for International Agricultural and Extension Education, Association for International Agricultural and Extension Education, Dublin, Ireland, 23-29 May 2004; pp. 963-964.
  8. Selener, D. Participatory Action Research and Social Change; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 1997.
  9. Méndez, V.E., Bacon, C.M., Cohen, R., Gliessman, S.R., Eds.; CRC Press/Taylor and Francis: Bocan Raton, FL, USA, 2016; pp. 193-216.
  10. Méndez, V.E. Traditional Shade, Rural Livelihoods, and Conservation in Small Coffee Farms and Cooperatives of Western El Salvador. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, USA, 2004.
  11. Bacon, C., Méndez, V.E., Gliessman, S.R., Goodman, D., Fox, J.A., Eds.; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2008; pp. 207-236.
  12. Bacon, C., Méndez, V.E., Gliessman, S.R., Goodman, D., Fox, J.A., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2008; pp. 311-336.
  13. Putnam, H.; Gliessman, S.R. Nicaragua: Beneficial forest microorganisms in coffee production. In Replacing Chemicals with Biology: Phasting Out Highly Hazardous Pesticides with Agroecology; Watts, M., Williamson, S., Eds.; Pestucide Action Network Asia and the Pacific: Pulau Pinang, Malaysia, 2015; pp. 142-144.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Méndez, V., Caswell, M., Gliessman, S., & Cohen, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Vermont (US)
  • University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
  • Community Agroecology Network (US)
Corresponding author
Méndez, V.
ORCID
Venue
Sustainability
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2017-04-28
Volume
9
Issue
5
Pages
705
ISSN
2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/su9050705
OpenAlex
W2608267215
Cited by
188
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 1
FWCI
30.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • ScholarWorks -A service of University of Vermont Libraries (University of Vermont) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Art Integration
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
Keywords
agroecology, participatory action research, research integration, farmer participation, research agenda setting, trust and accountability, institutional barriers, Central America

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review