Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Within the current research, some answers were given as a response to these
challenges. In particular, the development of a
common glossary
was important. Scientists
involved in the FarmPath project included economists, sociologists and human
geographers. Development of a clear conceptual framework and glossary were essential to
the translation of project objectives into field research. These terms also formed the
foundation of the conceptual framework; definitions can, thus, be found in Darnhofer (this
volume).
In order to engage stakeholders in the research process, National Stakeholder
Partnership Groups (NSPGs) were formed in each study country, consisting of local
stakeholders and end-users of the research effort. These groupings were identified at the
outset in order to provide immediate input into the selection of case studies, with further
members added later, in order to reflect on the specific case studies of initiatives and
farming models chosen for each field research team. The NSPGs were fundamental to the
research process, identifying initial visions for regional sustainability of agriculture at their
first meetings, providing contextualization to the literature review on young people in
agriculture, identifying initiatives and providing access to stakeholders for interviews,
acting as the first and final participants in the regional scenario building exercises ,
identifying key policy and governance issues and assisting with the development of policy
recommendations from research findings. Members of the NSPGs were able to maximize
opportunities for dissemination of information to the broader stakeholder community
throughout the project. Central to the NSPGs were representatives of local and regional
stakeholder groups including farming organizations, retailers, processors, consumer groups,
certification organizations and government agencies. The inclusion of micro, small and
medium-sized enterprises was also encouraged in each NSPG.
Working with stakeholders requires specific skills in group facilitation and
communication. To enable the effective participation of stakeholders in the research
process, internal training was provided and external facilitators hired for key events, in
order to support the transdisciplinary interaction. The research teams also engaged in
reflexive assessment of their interactions through NSPG meetings, as well as collecting
feedback on the meetings themselves, to ensure that the process was mutually beneficial.
Operationalizing the core concepts of the multi-level perspective
The need for an elaborated use of principles for “bounding and measuring niches, regimes
and landscapes” which are then concretized into precise criteria has been vigorously argued
in the literature (Smith
et al.
, 2010:446). Several reviews of the MLP perspective have
noted that the basic concepts have not been consistently applied, or indeed consistently
developed theoretically (Genus and Coles, 2008; Smith
et al.
, 2010). Inconsistent
theoretical definitions of the regime, in particular, have been a source of criticism of the
MLP (Markard and Truffer, 2008; Smith
et al.
, 2010). In historical analysis, the regime can
be defined retrospectively based on the structures which appear to have been of greatest
significance to the transition - albeit this reflects post-hoc rationalization of events.
Depending on the nature of the function associated with the regime, some authors equate
regime with sector (e.g. Raven, 2007 considers waste and energy regimes, equating them
with the waste management and energy production sectors), whereas others, notably Geels
(2002, 2004) emphasize that regimes are defined by rules, and utilize examples from within
Search WWH ::
Custom Search