76
exists among FSR/E practitioners as to the general meanin>
Socioeconomic criteria may be just as important as adueo h emrcmedto oan
agroclimatic variables in delineating domains. Thus and use of the term recommendation domain.
resulting domains are often not amenable to geographi- On-Farm Variability and Conventional Recommendation Domai.
cal mapping because farmers of different domains may be
interspersed in a given area. The emphasis by Byerlee et al. (1980) upon "farmers,
not fields" as the sole basis for the delineation of recL:
Using this definition, neighboring farm households mendation domains is not always warranted because of the
might be placed in different recommendation domains because variability found in some field situations. Cornick and
of differences in availability of family labor. In socie- Alberti (1985) cite the case of farmers in the community
ties where women cultivate different crops than those of Quimiaq in the mountains of Ecuador who manage different
the men, female farmers could comprise a recommendation cropping patterns in different agro-ecological zones, a
domain separate from male farmers even if they are from the product of altitude, temperature, and rainfall variation o,,
same household. the mountain slopes. Not only does each farm cross agroecological zones, but the cropping patterns found in each
Expanding upon the Definition of Recommendation Domain field vary greatly from year to year. For example, depend
ing upon a farmer's perception of trends and yearly change:.
Perrin et al. (1976) originally conceived of the notion in climatic conditions, bean or fava bean intercrops will
of recommendation domains as an aid to researchers for be assigned to maize fields located at varying elevations
targeting the development of technologies to specific along the slope.
audiences. The concept has been expanded since then to alondter slope. hoshodvribesae e
inclde nuber f aditonalsitatins ad prpoes.Gender and intra-household variables are often include a number Of additional situations and purposes, neglected in the process of defining a recommendation
Some of the most common applications of recommendation domain because of the relatively more difficult and tiur
domains include the following'gleaned from current consuming task of collecting and analyzing data on thesL
literature on the topic: variables. Existing information on gender and household(
variables often offers few useful insights for defining
(1) making policy decisions; recommendation domains when compared to the secondary dat.
(2) identifying priority issues for research; available on agroecological characteristics. In additici,
(3) specifying clientele for developing recommenda- the gender and household data that may exist may be unobtions; tainable locally. Nevertheless, superficial understandin,
(4) selecting representative sites and farmer- of these variables or the transfer of erroneous assumptio.
cooperators; without continued investigation can hamper design and deli
(5) focusing analysis of surveys and on-farm trials; very of appropriate technology.
(6) orienting extensionists to groups of similar
farmers; Refining the Concept of Domains
(7) transferring adapted technology to appropriate
farmers; and, The argument here is that the issue of targeting in
(8) enhancing equitable distribution of FSR/E benefits. FSR/E has become confusing because the definition of the
As Harrington and Tripp (1985) point out, the domain term "recommendation domain" has been stretched to cover
concets a lto anveTry stag5e ointt the on-farm eah too many situations and too many different purposes. Fat,:
concept is vital to every stage of the on-farm research ing systems practitioners must develop a common understaui
process. However, it is apparent from reviewing the ing of how the use and definition of "domains" change as
literature on the subject that the definition of "recommen- the farming systems sequence progresses from initial chatdation domain" not only changes at each stage, but also acterization through proi,.erit .Lagnosis, testing, adz.x
varies according to the individual who applies it as well fia
as to the end result. The wide variability among farmers tion, evaluation, and ally, to the delivery of the new
and farms, and the dynamic nature of the farming systems technology to farmers.
development sequence, contribute to the confusion that It is essential to account for the heterogeneity in
deveopmnt equnceconribte o th cofuson hatfarming systems, even while delineating relatively