Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
fertility management (ISFM) is minimal. Thus, Knowler and Bradshaw (2007) con-
cluded that a new approach would need to be developed to conduct further research
on ISFM technology adoption. Future research efforts should focus on obtaining
locally meaningful results rather than striving for universal understanding of factors
influencing adoption. This will require efforts tailored to local conditions to promote
the diffusion of ISFM.
In this chapter, we consider these findings as a point of departure for an exami-
nation of the factors that contribute to the spread of sustainable soil management
practices in networks of small farmers. We analytically distinguish between two
phases in the process of agricultural innovation leading to changes in soil man-
agement practices. The first phase involves framing the problem, its context, and
the consequent choices faced by small farmers (both men and women who make
technological choices in the process of agricultural production). The second phase
addresses farmer decision making with respect to those choices. Most previous work
has emphasized this latter phase, leaving unquestioned how choices are framed.
Here, we examine conditional factors shaping the overall process, paying particular
attention to how technological problems and solutions are framed from the outset.
We present the evolution of perceptions of innovations and their diffusion, and we
conclude by suggesting that new approaches to systematic collaboration and stake-
holder negotiation incorporating agricultural innovation systems, platforms, or
networks provide a solid foundation for moving forward (Biggs 1989; Röling and
Wagemakers 1998; Sayer and Campbell 2004; Leeuwis 2008; Ekboir et al. 2009;
Moore 2009; Anandajayasekeram 2011; World Bank 2012).
Recognizing the significance of local context forces us to consider the differences
between the universal knowledge and perceptions of agricultural scientists and the
locally informed perspectives of small farmers with respect to soil management. The
issue is not the technical feasibility of scientifically sound soil management prac-
tices, but their assumed universality. The universality of these choices does not hold
in every farmer's world. Furthermore, given the knowledge-intensive and dynamic
nature of ISFM, a unilinear extension approach does not provide a mechanism for
the required learning and adaptation (Vanlauwe et al. 2006; Davis 2013). Farmer
perception of choice is not a straightforward matter either. Farmer choices based on
locally situated knowledge may appear irrational or contradictory to what is deemed
by outsiders as the farmer's best interest (Enyong et al. 1999; Sanchez 2002). Yet
farmers must choose their investments carefully to sustain livelihoods dependent
on mixed income sources and market options (Ajayi 2007). This frame-of-reference
approach allows us to consider how farmers view options in complex adaptive sys-
tems (Gunderson and Holling 2002; Colfer 2005; Moore 2009). Our objective is to
determine the most successful ways to increase sustainable choices that are mean-
ingful for farmers. This leads to a discussion of innovation platforms (IPs) as a prom-
ising method to increase chances for more positive soil management outcomes and
enhance the adaptive capacity of small farmers.
In Section 14.2, we address the differences between the perspectives of farmers
and those traditionally held by agricultural scientists and extension agents that largely
inform current practice. We then consider the economic factors in Section 14.3, ques-
tioning whether farm- or field-level modeling provides the most appropriate framing
