Field Research Using the ICLAD Research Approach
Field work can be tricky because of the overwhelming needs a population might face. Researchers, development professionals, and policy- and law-makers need tools and training to keep their focus on the issue at hand. In my case, agrarian reform policies in Brazil constitute an intricate mechanism that involves various sectors of the society at the federal, state, and local levels. My training at ICLAD offered me direction and skills necessary to make a thorough assessment of the policies I examined.

At first, I left Boston intending to investigate allegations that the relationship between federal government employees and the agrarian reform beneficiaries was strictly a top-down one. Shortly after my arrival I learned that the subject of my study, the agency's team responsible for providing technical assistance to beneficiaries, was not operational. While the situation raised questions about the direction of the research, it reaffirmed what ICLAD teaches: one cannot come up with a solution until one understands the causes of the problem. In my case, I knew poverty persisted in the settlements, but some of my hypotheses proved false when I arrived.

What I set out to investigate was not even there. Therefore, I was tempted to see lack of a team of technical assistants as the single cause of the problem within the settlements (inadequate technical assistance), and I wanted to believe that hiring such a team would be the solution to the problem. Superficially speaking, that made sense, but the training at ICLAD pushed me to look beyond the mere appearance of the problem. Inquiring about "why people behave the way the do considering existing laws and policies," I started to investigate why the agency was not in compliance with the current agrarian reform policies.

Determining whose and what behaviors comprise the problem is one among many challenges a researcher might face while using this problem-solving methodology. Because of my training, I realized the need for and the value of facts to make a compelling argument to convince a rational skeptic that I understand the problem and that my solution is cogent. As part of my training at ICLAD, I learned the value of quantitative and qualitative evidence to tell my story. I needed to make a compelling case to my audience, but I also had to provide proof of what I observed. I was able to do that by using documents from the agency, traveling to settlements, and interviewing the people I felt were the main players. Through those documents I was able to show that many settlements did not have a Plan for the Development of the Settlement, a requirement clearly stated in the policy. Settlements that did have the Plan had received very little assistance to make the goals in the Plan materialize. In short, there were many missing parts and those that were not missing did not work.

ICLAD's ROCCIPI analysis was not only one of the best tools I had with me but also one of the most challenging. The categories helped me asked questions germane to my research and look at many aspects of the problem I was investigating. However, coming up with hypotheses for these categories often proved difficult since there seemed to be an infinite number of reasons to explain the problematic behaviors I observed. But in the end, I realize the value of formulating these hypotheses because they set the stage for the researcher's questions and dictate the direction of the research.

 

Previous Page  ::  Next Page