Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
the quality and utility of soil mapping efforts in northern Thailand. However, this
process of collaboration is often impeded by the tendency of agricultural scientists
to perceive their knowledge as superior to that of the small farmer, leading to com-
munication failures between the two perspectives (Leeuwis 2008). This finding is
consistent with a broad range of literature that illustrates the principle of homoph-
ily: similar people tend to communicate better and think alike, whereas dissimilar
people tend not to work so well together (Ruef et al. 2003; Crona and Bodin 2006;
Isaac et al. 2007; Bodin and Crona 2009).
Agricultural scientists are driven by a narrow focus on resource efficiency and
productivity and the desire to provide policy recommendations (Kolawole 2013).
Consequently, many adoption studies led by agronomists and/or economists frame
the choice between the “traditional” (perceived as inferior technology) and a new
“innovation” (perceived as superior). These educated frames of reference shape the
messages of agricultural scientists and extension agents as they seek to promote a
specific innovation among a targeted group of farmers. The choices thus framed
on the basis of such presumed farmer decision-making priorities (more on this in
Section 14.3) become the dependent variable in the adoption studies to identify the
factors that influence the innovation outcome. For the scientists, the choices are
clear—either the old practice or the new and improved one.
Kolawole (2013) provides further insight into the contrasting perceptions of small
farmers and scientists regarding soil management. A survey of 140 small farmers
and 100 scientists in southwestern Nigeria addressed perceptions of collaboration
in ISFM (Olorunfemi 2010; Quardre 2010). The study was conducted in two states,
Osun and Ondo, in Nigeria. The results from Osun (paralleling those from Ondo)
demonstrate that agricultural scientists largely ignore the knowledge and under-
standing of the smallholder. Despite the majority of small farmers having a favorable
opinion of their local knowledge, 80% of agricultural scientists believe that “small
farmers lack the requisite knowledge of soil fertility management” (Kolawole 2013).
Around 92% of scientists believe that there are no reasons why they should learn
from small farmers. In contrast, 68.5% of the smallholder farmers are of the opinion
that “scientists capitalize on their Western knowledge to suppress our knowledge
systems” (Kolawole 2013). Further supporting this finding, the study found that 78%
of scientists strongly believed that “the Western scientists' soil management options
are always the best. Hence, farmers need to accept them in good faith” (Kolawole
2013).
As Leeuwis (2008) points out, distinct “theories of knowing” emerge from differ-
ent cultures and groups of people. Farmers' adoption of improved soil management
practices is highly dependent on how the innovation is perceived within their socio-
cultural framework and consequently on the soil scientists' ability to communicate
within that framework.
14.3 ECONOMIC FACTORS SHAPING FARMER CHOICE
In addition to sociocultural frames of reference, farmers' choices are also framed
by their perception of financial outcome, income stability, and food security. Small
farmers view agricultural outputs as only part of their economic concerns. They must
