Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T08:03:53.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ASSESSING A DEMONSTRATION FARM APPROACH FOR TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS IN PASTORAL LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION SYSTEMS OF NORTHERN PATAGONIA: PARTICIPANTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF STAKEHOLDER ROLES AND INNOVATIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2017

MARKUS FRANK ,
MARCOS H. EASDALE  and
BRIGITTE KAUFMANN
MARKUS FRANK*
Affiliation:
German Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Agriculture (DITSL), 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Organic Agriculture, University of Kassel, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany
MARCOS H. EASDALE
Affiliation:
Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA) EEA Bariloche, 8400 Bariloche, Argentina Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), 2290 Buenos Aires, Argentina
BRIGITTE KAUFMANN
Affiliation:
German Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Agriculture (DITSL), 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany Social Ecology of Tropical and Subtropical Land-Use Systems, Institute of Agricultural Sciences in the Tropics (Hans Ruthenberg-Institute), University of Hohenheim, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany
*
§Corresponding author. Email: m.frank@ditsl.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Using a qualitative case study design, a demonstration farm approach implemented in northern Patagonia, Argentina, was assessed to examine differences in perceptions between participating stakeholder groups regarding their roles and how these affect the collaboration process. Moreover, differences in stakeholder perceptions regarding positive impacts and constraints of the implemented innovation (supplemental feeding of small ruminants) were assessed, as one exemplary innovation to improve low-external-input pastoral livestock systems. Three cases of demonstration farm projects were selected and a total of 31 semi-structured and narrative interviews were carried out with participating livestock keepers, extension workers and scientists. Together with information gained by employing visual tools and participant observation, data was analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results reveal that major decisions regarding the collaboration process were taken by scientists in advance, hence, livestock keepers' participation was used to meet predetermined objectives, which is characteristic to the concept of functional participation. While scientists seemed to transfer the control principles of on-station research to the on-farm situation, extension workers recognised the need for replacing teaching by the aim of creating learning opportunities. Here, incongruences in role understanding indicate an overall lack of joint role definition and the need of balancing power differences. Livestock keepers' perceptions of the supplemental feeding strategy highlight substantial management constraints for implementation, which were not recognised by scientists and extension workers, nor were they captured by the monitoring system implemented. We recommend furnishing the demonstration farm approach with principles, methods and tools of collaborative learning, to create a change in actors' understanding of roles and to induce a shift towards increased transdisciplinarity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 54 , Issue 5 , October 2018 , pp. 774 - 793
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Austin, E. J., Deary, I. J., Edwards-Jones, G. and Arey, D. (2005). Attitudes to farm animal welfare: Factor structure and personality correlates in farmers and agriculture students. Journal of Individual Differences, 26 (3):107.Google Scholar
Bendini, M. and Tsakoumagkos, P. (1994). Campesinado y Ganadería Trashumante en Neuquén. Neuquén, Argentina: National University of Comahue.Google Scholar
Carbonell, C. T., Marinissen, A. and Lauric, A. (2012). Estrategias de extensión: Diseño de unidades demostrativas reales en campos de productores para mejorar la producción y sustentabilidad en regímenes semiáridos (Sudoeste Bonaerense), Buenos Aires, Argentina: National Institute for Agricultural Technology (INTA). Online source retrieved from: http://inta.gob.ar/sites/default/files/script-tmp-inta-mejorar_produccion_sustentabilidad_en_regimenes_.pdf.Google Scholar
Dalley, D. E., Pinxterhuis, J. B., Hunter, M., Geddes, T. and Tarbutton, I. (2014). A co-development approach to investigating wintering options on dairy farms in southern New Zealand. In Farming Systems Facing Global Challenges: Capacities and Strategies, 559–567 (Eds Aenis, T., Knierim, A., Riecher, M. C., Ridder, R., Schobert, H. and Fischer, H.). Conference Paper for the 11th European IFSA Symposium, 1–4 April 2014, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? Collaborative-Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches, 1:1–15.Google Scholar
Easdale, M.H., Aguiar, M. R., Román, M. and Villagra, E. (2009). Comparación socio-económica de dos regiones biofísicas: Los sistemas ganaderos de la provincia de Río Negro, Argentina. Cuadernos de Desarrollo Rural 6 (62):173–198.Google Scholar
Frank, M. (2015). Assessment of an on-farm experimentation and extension approach for innovation in smallholder livestock production systems - a case study of multi-stakeholder demonstration farms in the Neuquén Province, Argentina. MSc. thesis, University of Göttingen and University of Kassel, Germany.Google Scholar
Giraudo, C. G. (2011). Suplementación de Ovinos y Caprinos. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Ediciones INTA.Google Scholar
Groot, A. E. (2002). Demystifying Facilitation of Multi-actor Learning Processes. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen University.Google Scholar
Hall, A. (2007). The origins and implications of using innovation systems perspectives in the design and implementation of agricultural research projects. United Nations University. Online source retrieved from: www.merit.unu.edu/publications/wppdf/2007/wp2007-013.pdf.Google Scholar
Harwood, J. (2013). Has the green revolution been a cumulative learning process? Third World Quarterly 34 (3):397–404.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, V., Gerster-Bentaya, M., Christinck, A. and Lemma, M. (2009). Rural Extension Volume 1: Basic Issues and Concepts. Eschborn, Germany: Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ).Google Scholar
Jovchelovitch, S. and Bauer, M. W. (2000). Narrative interviewing. LSE research online. Retrieved from: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/2633.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, B. A. (2011). Second-order cybernetics as a tool to understand why pastoralists do what they do. Agricultural Systems, 104 (9):655–665.Google Scholar
Landini, F. (2015). Different Argentine rural extensionists' mindsets and their practical implications. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 21 (3):219–234.Google Scholar
Mayring, P. and Fenzl, T. (2014). Qualitative inhaltsanalyse. In (Eds Baur, N. and Blasius, J.) Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung, 543–556. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Mckee, A., Guimaraes, M. H. and Pinto-Correia, T. (2015). Social capital accumulation and the role of the researcher: An example of a transdisciplinary visioning process for the future of agriculture in Europe. Environmental Science & Policy, 50:88–99.Google Scholar
Meijer, S. S., Catacutan, D., Ajayi, O. C., Sileshi, G. W. and Nieuwenhuis, M. (2015). The role of knowledge, attitudes and perceptions in the uptake of agricultural and agroforestry innovations among smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 13 (1):40–54.Google Scholar
Peuckert, R. (1992). Grundbegriffe der Soziologie, 252–256. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.Google Scholar
Pretty, J. N., Guijt, I., Thompson, J. and Scoones, I. (1995). Participatory Learning and Action: A Trainer's Guide. London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development.Google Scholar
Restrepo, M. J., Lelea, M. A., Christinck, A., Hülsebusch, C. and Kaufmann, B. A. (2014). Collaborative learning for fostering change in complex social-ecological systems: A transdisciplinary perspective on food and farming systems. Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 10 (3):38–59.Google Scholar
Richards, P. (1985). Indigenous Agricultural Revolution: Ecology and Food Production in West Africa. London, UK: Unwin Hyman Ltd.Google Scholar
Röling, N. (2006). Conceptual and Methodological Developments in Innovation. Cali, Colombia: Centre for tropical agriculture (CIAT).Google Scholar
Russell, D. B. and Ison, R. L. (2000). The research-development relationship in rural communities: An opportunity for contextual science. In Agricultural extension and rural development: Breaking out of knowledge transfer traditions, 10–29 (Eds Ison, R. and Russell, D.). UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmitz, H. (2005). Partizipation und Partnerschaft: Bauern, Forscher und Berater in Brasilien. Weikersheim, Germany: Margraf Verlag.Google Scholar
Villagra, S. (2014). Campos demostradores como herramienta de desarrollo en la región sur de Río Negro: Evaluación del primer año. Revista Presencia, INTA, Argentina 61:46–50. Online source retrieved from: http://inta.gob.ar/documentos/revista-presencia-nb0-62.Google Scholar