This is Huu-Nhuan Nguyen again. Thank for the active discussion from participants of the conference. I would like to discuss more about how the findings of impact assessment should be communicated among actors. From the question topic 4.7 on ' Communicating the epIA findings' in the conference background document, I realized that existing impact assessments seem to aim at reporting epIA findings to donors and policy makers rather than farmers and agricultural extension networks. Therefore, in this message, I want to focus more on how to communicate epIA findings to relevant stakeholders. As I discussed in Message 33, if we could define clearly who the target users of the findings are, we then could design an appropriate strategy to communicate impact findings and have suitable data collection strategies (quantitative or qualitative or a combination). In addition, when relevant stakeholders understand well about the objective of impact assessment, impact findings are more useful for development. I agree that we need to have evidence to report to donors or funding agencies about the effectiveness of a research program and draw lessons for better future investments. At the same time, research impact could not be sustained if farmers are not interested in doing so. Dr. Shams Fawki El-Shamy (Message 39) also emphasized the involvement of small-scale farmers in the process of epIA. If we only focus on research donors and policy-makers, we may ignore the expectation of farmers. In addition, local extension actors (e.g., field researchers, extension workers, farmer groups, NGOs) (both formal and informal) often play key roles not only in carrying out research but also in sustaining impacts, especially in poor and remote regions. As Anna Augustyn (Message 47) observed, although these above groups are "directly/indirectly concerned with the impact of agricultural research, there is less chance to involve them all fairly into participatory research process". The question is how to communicate impact findings with farmers and extension actors? In my opinion, the best way is to involve local stakeholders actively in impact assessment and impact sharing processes. By involving these above groups in impact assessment, we could gain co-creation of knowledge about impact. This will lead to a shift from "telling impact findings by outsiders" to "learning and sharing impact among all stakeholders". As a result, the expectation of both donors and key stakeholders and beneficiaries are achieved. Communicating epIA findings with local stakeholders should be flexibly conducted due to the differences in the nature of research as well as available times and financial resources. To local stakeholders, communicating the epIA could be done right after, or a short period after, impact assessment processes. It could be carried out on fields or at the most convenient places for the participation of different stakeholders. However, simple and understandable languages should be carefully used when communicating impact findings due to different levels of education or relevant skills of key stakeholders. For example, I conducted one impact assessment of agricultural research for development (AR4D) project in the Northwest Highlands of Vietnam where a majority of target participants are ethnic minority groups and many of them can speak but cannot read the national language. I found out that using structured interview questions does not work in this social context. Instead, using local available materials (e.g., maize seed, stones) and photo stories helps the local community to participate actively in discussion and sharing information about impact. After each impact assessment activities, impact findings were reported back to local stakeholders for further discussion and feedback that helps to increase high validity of impact findings. To donors and policy-makers, after getting sharing and feedback from key stakeholders and beneficiaries, conventional written type, video, or publication could be produced. However, it is always a challenge that the impact findings as perceived by local stakeholders could be different from donors' expectations or perspectives. The other potential problem as identified by Mfegue Crescence Virginie (Message 32) is that if local stakeholders believe that impact assessment is carried to implement new projects, they tend to provide "biased answers to any impact questionnaire" rather than what they think. Finally, impact findings are sometimes driven by hard requirements of donors and political power leading to failure in communicating impact findings to meet interests of different groups. I am looking to get your further discussion and experience about the issues in communicating epIA findings, especially for trans-disciplinary AR4D projects in the context of the least developed regions. Nguyen Huu Nhuan PhD Candidate University of Queensland, Australia Mobile:+61 450 268 689 Email: huunhuan.nguyen (at) uqconnect.edu.au ; nguyennhuan1977 (at) gmail.com [To contribute to this conference, send your message to [log in to unmask] For further information, see http://www.fao.org/nr/research-extension-systems/res-home/news/detail/en/c/217706/ ]. ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the Impact-L list, click the following link: https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=Impact-L&A=1