People in general resist change, especially from outside or forced change.  Allowing participation or collaboration gives time for interaction, and see first hand reasoning and benefit of change.  Such as if farmers or foresters see the benefits to leaving forested or vegetated stream buffers, it makes more sense to give up some production to keep fish habitat, stream stable (less soil loss, sedimentation and gullying, and stream boundary shifts), cleaner water for various uses, less outside regulation, societal benefit perhaps, etc.  If societal benefits, perhaps offsetting some taxes or providing better roads or services may be a good interchange for conservation or trying new techniques.

PAR offers a platform for a joint 'solution' search to the existing problem by both facilitators and beneficiaries. It also allows input from both the facilitators and beneficiaries of change --- generating consensus, offering opportunity of learning from all actors, offering opportunity to clarify unknown aspects of the research, in putting existing knowledge and practices to obtain max benefits of the desired changes.

Finally PAR ensures ownership of the desired changes in agricultural policies --- as opposed to imposed policy changes.

There has been more positive response and increased innovation uptake by the targets of the innovation development when they are involved in the process particularly when a choice is to be made among alternatives. They also own the process which engender sustainability.

I was involved on a women's advisory group to ag policy change. Women need to be heard when it comes to ag policy, perhaps separately so they are not overpowered, but it is difficult for them to make the time, therefore involving them requires providing child care, and perhaps value-added (WIIFM) opportunities, whether a learning seminar, skills building or a 'treat' to compensate for the day away, where there will be no one to pick up the slack caused by their absence.

farmers participation in research activities is of utmost importance because at the field level, there are numerous problems  come across while executing a simple technology. On the other hand, the recommendations made by the researchers are some times forced on the farmers to adopt them but farmers are reluctant because they do not see direct benefit e.g. natural resource management techniques. However farmers participation in generation of technologies is must.

It is good to have participatory approach yet there is time in agricultural research implementation of the approach varies with type of engagement. 

Most of the time policy advisory or  changes are not the matter one specific angles for instance "participatory action research" or "Bio tech development research"  yet what need a policy change a kind of holistic approach that can address in every part of  issue; here issue may not take policy matter for instant like scaling out of technologies rather what matters is an innovation approach that can address  the specific niche with holistic intervention or  partial development.

Every approach or methodological system developed does not necessarily has to change the policy rather has to be implemented effectively and efficiently then if the idea is the winner then policy makers are assumed ration so that they will have the probability to buy the effective and efficient methodological approach.

For me though I love the idea inbound in the Participatory Action Research yet what matters is not the principle rather the way it reach the final consumers of the technology; furthermore, I believe that every research in agriculture has its own steps to be in participatory Ex PVT NVT  Key informant discussions  Gender mainstreaming etc

So, Every research needs a participatory action approach all over the universe not only in "ing" countries yet it has to consider the political, cultural, social and ethical and other consideration of the existed country because implementing participatory action research may not bring the assumed development as per sec        

As you know we use PRA to study the community in general and then we make a comprehensive survey according to the aim of the research, then  after analyzing the results, the researcher gives the best recommendations to that community, but who will accept these ideas and go through. The stakeholders who are responsible to make actions, don't make any responses to the searchers recommendations!!!

Very nice question Madam Mastewal Yami, if you do not mind I would refer you to our publications of the some of the work we have done for over 15 years in the highlands of Eastern Africa  see the links. These will help you understand some processes

Chapter District Institutional and Policy Innovations

Chapter Institutional Change and Scaling Up

Thanks everyone for your time and the very useful insights on the use of PAR to facilitate change in development interventions and participatory decision-making processes (including policy processes). Thanks Kenneth for the documents, really appreciated. Yes, the efforts by the AHI (African highland initiative) and CCAA (Climate change adaptation in Africa) programs are great examples to illustrate the underlying theoretical and practical implications of PAR as a process aiming to bring change.

In a State like Kerala in India, where farming is not generally profitable due to factors such as high labour wages, low market value of the produce etc., the only option is to involve farmers in various stages of agricultural research right from planning what all should be studied up to the stage of monitoring or evaluation of the results.  This can probably help in making some of these farmers to adopt improved techniques being reserached

Further, in the field of irrigation management transfer under projects, it is imperative to have participatory action research since the farmers are affected by many institutional as well as technical constraints in irrigation management.  .Hence, it is absolutely necessary to create a better sense of ownership of the irrigation system among the farmers through such action research.

The socio-economic/institutional/ agronomic data base generated out of such research would be more appropriate and usable