Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Appendix: Methodology
The data for this topic were collected through a combination of methods,
including participant-observation fi eldwork, semistructured interviews,
and analysis of historical documents. I chose this mix of methodologies
because my theoretical interests, especially the ecological relationships
between place, practice, institutions, and power, require very detailed
attention to both the fl ow of practical activities on the ground level and
the larger context that shapes and is shaped by this practice. Central to
my choice of these methods are two assumptions. First, practice cannot be
studied solely through what people say; one must also see what they really
do. Therefore, I chose a site for fi eldwork where I could actively participate
and observe the activities and interactions that my research subjects had
with their work and each other. This choice allowed me to see things about
extension work that I could not have read from interview transcripts or
the kind of historical documents I collected. For example, in chapter 5, I
describe advisors' use of fi eld trials to produce consent around new farm
practices and technologies. Although I learned a great deal about fi eld trials
from my interviews with advisors and growers, fi eldwork gave me insights
into aspects of the trials that did not come through in these discussions,
largely because many aspects of practice often remain transparent to the
actors themselves.
Second, just as I chose participant observation to account for some of
the limitations of oral and text-based sources of data, I chose to use these
latter methods to expand the study of practice beyond specifi c, local
actions. This situational context shapes local activities and relationships,
and so it counts for more than just a kind of background. Therefore, I have
used data from interviews and historical documents to inform both local
