In recent decades increasing attention has been paid to the idea of sustainable development and in particular to sustainable agricultural practices. Studies in the seventies, eighties and nineties indicated that many resource-poor farmers were practising low external input sustainable practices by virtue of their resource-poor status. Despite this status these farmers were developing sustainable practises that enabled them to survive even the harshest conditions. It was believed that an understanding of their local practices and associated knowledge, called indigenous technical knowledge by conventional scientists, could provide agricultural development workers with a greater understanding of how to achieve sustainable agricultural development. This awareness would ensure the optimal and sustainable use of local livelihood sources. Following this interest a number of complementary research methods were developed to generate and record indigenous knowledge. Many of these methods fall within the participatory research paradigm of the Social Sciences. Using one of the earlier complementary methods, Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), this study considers its value as a method to collect indigenous knowledge about the local cultivation and use of indigenous vegetables in a parish in Uganda. The basic RRA tools are described and the position of RRA within the participatory research paradigm is discussed, indicating that the method probably has a lower-middle of the road position when placed on a continuum of participation. In this study the use of the method enabled the generation of information relating to the context in which agriculture was practised in the parish; specifically the production and use of plants known as indigenous vegetables. At the same time the tools enabled a broad understanding of indigenous knowledge regarding the production, associated practises and beliefs, as well as the use of indigenous vegetables in the parish. This information included technical and socio-cultural information indicating that indigenous knowledge is not only about technical knowledge. In recent years debate has emerged with regard to the value, use and misuse of indigenous knowledge. The debate has questioned the ability of various participatory complementary methods to accurately generate and record this knowledge. One of the main concerns is that most of these methods, like those associated with the quantitative and qualitative paradigms, tend to have inherent biases which detract from their value. Reflection on the use of RRA in the Ugandan study indicated that it was subject to a number of contextual constraints, namely: the assumption and treatment of indigenous knowledge as a stock of knowledge which can neatly conform to scientific categorisation; the unawareness of the powerladen interactions in which knowledge is generated; the consequences of local power struggles on the generation of knowledge; the significance that the presence of researchers during the knowledge generating process has on the resultant knowledge; the relevance of the time, timing and location where knowledge is generated; and the effect that local social differences, such as gender, age, wealth, class, etc. have on who has access to what sort of knowledge. More recently developed and refined methods such as Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and Participatory Technology Development (PTD) include some tools and strategies that overcome some of these constraints. However, these methods are often subject to similar constraints, given the context in which they are used. In the final analysis, the use of the RRA method in Uganda is considered to be a useful tool for collecting contextual data and indigenous knowledge given the circumstances in which it was used. These circumstances included financial constraints, a lack of skills in the complementary methods within the research team, insufficient time and other resources. These hindrances are common in many agricultural development contexts. Based on the results of the study it is recommended that where circumstances permit it, participatory methods such as PRA and PTD should be used. However, users must remain aware that these methods can suffer from some contextual constraints if they are not used with care and if this use is not regularly reflected upon. Despite a number of shortcomings, the use of the RRA method indicated that it is a suitable method in certain contexts. It also indicated that indigenous knowledge is extremely important for agricultural development, but that care must be taken as to how it is generated, understood, recorded and subsequently used. The data generated by means of the RRA method enabled some preliminary reflections on the current understanding of indigenous knowledge. These were reflections on the following: it is a system of knowledge; it originates in and is exclusive to a particular location; it has the ability to include knowledge developed in other locations; and it is deeply entwined within the context in which it is developed. In conclusion a number of possible areas for future research on indigenous knowledge and participatory methods are identified which will allow us to develop a deeper understanding of the value of participatory methods and the significance of indigenous knowledge.

Back to top