IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i14p5739-d385561.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Methodological Reflections on Monitoring Interactive Knowledge Creation during Farming Demonstrations by Means of Surveys and Observations

Author

Listed:
  • Ane Kirstine Aare

    (Department of People and Technology, Roskilde University, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark)

  • Hanne Cooreman

    (Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium)

  • Cristina Virto Garayoa

    (Institute for Agrifood Technology and Infrastructures of Navarra (INTIA), 31610 Villava (Navarra), Spain)

  • Esther Sótil Arrieta

    (Institute for Agrifood Technology and Infrastructures of Navarra (INTIA), 31610 Villava (Navarra), Spain)

  • Natalia Bellostas

    (Institute for Agrifood Technology and Infrastructures of Navarra (INTIA), 31610 Villava (Navarra), Spain)

  • Fleur Marchand

    (Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium)

  • Henrik Hauggaard-Nielsen

    (Department of People and Technology, Roskilde University, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark)

Abstract

During farming demonstrations, peer-to-peer learning is known to be more effective than technology transfer when encouraging farmers to consider adopting more sustainable farming practices. Interactive knowledge creation has the potential to create a stimulating peer-learning environment focusing on the use of hands-on activities, knowledge scaffolding, discussions and negotiation. This study investigated how insight can be gained about the interactive knowledge creation that occurs during farming demonstrations by monitoring and evaluating a diverse sample of farming demonstrations in Belgium, Spain and Denmark via surveys and observations originally designed for the AgriDemo-F2F project. The study found that the selected monitoring tools provided insight about how participants experienced specific interactive knowledge creation. However, several stumbling blocks were also identified in using the proposed tools to monitor these learning processes, including the monitoring of abstract concepts and the reluctance among farmers to respond to self-administered open-ended survey questions. Based on these learning points, several proposals were made to improve the monitoring process of interactive knowledge creation. This study confirms that the improved understanding of learning practices and their impact on actual change presents a challenge, but it is essential if the adoption of sustainable farming practices is to be increased.

Suggested Citation

  • Ane Kirstine Aare & Hanne Cooreman & Cristina Virto Garayoa & Esther Sótil Arrieta & Natalia Bellostas & Fleur Marchand & Henrik Hauggaard-Nielsen, 2020. "Methodological Reflections on Monitoring Interactive Knowledge Creation during Farming Demonstrations by Means of Surveys and Observations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-26, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:14:p:5739-:d:385561
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/14/5739/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/14/5739/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lacombe, Camille & Couix, Nathalie & Hazard, Laurent, 2018. "Designing agroecological farming systems with farmers: A review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 208-220.
    2. Geels, Frank W. & Kemp, René, 2007. "Dynamics in socio-technical systems: Typology of change processes and contrasting case studies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 441-455.
    3. Joost M.E. Pennings & Scott H. Irwin & Darrel L. Good, 2002. "Surveying Farmers: A Case Study," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 24(1), pages 266-277.
    4. Guillaume Ollivier & Daniele Magda & Armelle Mazé & Gaël Plumecocq & Claire Lamine, 2018. "Agroecological transitions: what can sustainability transition frameworks teach us? An ontological and empirical analysis," Post-Print hal-02622145, HAL.
    5. Brendan Burchell & Catherine Marsh, 1992. "The effect of questionnaire length on survey response," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 233-244, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aare, Ane Kirstine & Lund, Søren & Hauggaard-Nielsen, Henrik, 2021. "Exploring transitions towards sustainable farming practices through participatory research – The case of Danish farmers' use of species mixtures," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aare, Ane Kirstine & Lund, Søren & Hauggaard-Nielsen, Henrik, 2021. "Exploring transitions towards sustainable farming practices through participatory research – The case of Danish farmers' use of species mixtures," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    2. Sylvain, Dernat & Bertrand, Dumont & Dominique, Vollet, 2023. "La Grange®: A generic game to reveal trade-offs and synergies among stakeholders in livestock farming areas," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    3. Steven J. Tepper, 1998. "Making Sense of the Numbers: Estimating Arts Participation in America," Working Papers 57, Princeton University, School of Public and International Affairs, Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies..
    4. Brem, Alexander & Radziwon, Agnieszka, 2017. "Efficient Triple Helix collaboration fostering local niche innovation projects – A case from Denmark," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 130-141.
    5. Cholez, Celia & Pauly, Olivier & Mahdad, Maral & Mehrabi, Sepide & Giagnocavo, Cynthia & Bijman, Jos, 2023. "Heterogeneity of inter-organizational collaborations in agrifood chain sustainability-oriented innovations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    6. Eastwood, C.R. & Turner, F.J. & Romera, A.J., 2022. "Farmer-centred design: An affordances-based framework for identifying processes that facilitate farmers as co-designers in addressing complex agricultural challenges," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    7. Anthony McLean & Harriet Bulkeley & Mike Crang, 2016. "Negotiating the urban smart grid: Socio-technical experimentation in the city of Austin," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(15), pages 3246-3263, November.
    8. Sirkka Koskela & Tuomas Mattila & Riina Antikainen & Ilmo Mäenpää, 2013. "Identifying Key Sectors and Measures for a Transition towards a Low Resource Economy," Resources, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-16, July.
    9. Child, Michael & Breyer, Christian, 2017. "Transition and transformation: A review of the concept of change in the progress towards future sustainable energy systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 11-26.
    10. James, Harvey S., Jr. & Henrickson, Mary K., 2007. "Perceived Economic Pressures and Farmer Ethics," Working Papers 7361, University of Missouri Columbia, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    11. Peter Andreasen, Kristian & Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2014. "Energy sustainability, stakeholder conflicts, and the future of hydrogen in Denmark," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 891-897.
    12. Darren Hudson & Karina Gallardo & Terry Hanson, 2005. "Hypothetical (Non)Bias In Choice Experiments: Evidence From Freshwater Prawns," Experimental 0503003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Erlinghagen, Sabine & Markard, Jochen, 2012. "Smart grids and the transformation of the electricity sector: ICT firms as potential catalysts for sectoral change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 895-906.
    14. Alkemade & Simona Negro & Neil Thompson & Marko Hekkert, 2011. "Towards a micro-level explanation of sustainability transitions: entrepreneurial strategies," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 11-01, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Apr 2011.
    15. Gvantsa Sekhniashvili & Zoltán Bujdosó, 2023. "Developing a Wine Tourism Destination Image Measurement Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-13, May.
    16. Fotios Katimertzopoulos & Charis Vlados, 2019. "Towards a New Approach of Innovation in Less Developed Regional Business Ecosystems," International Journal of Business and Economic Sciences Applied Research (IJBESAR), International Hellenic University (IHU), Kavala Campus, Greece (formerly Eastern Macedonia and Thrace Institute of Technology - EMaTTech), vol. 12(2), pages 33-41, December.
    17. De Lapparent, Alice & Sabatier, Rodolphe & Paut, Raphaël & Martin, Sophie, 2023. "Perennial transitions from market gardening towards mixed fruit tree - vegetable systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    18. Yong Jiang & Won Koo, 2014. "The Short-Term Impact of a Domestic Cap-and-Trade Climate Policy on Local Agriculture: A Policy Simulation with Producer Behavior," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(4), pages 511-537, August.
    19. Naomi Moy & Ho Fai Chan & Benno Torgler, 2018. "How much is too much? The effects of information quantity on crowdfunding performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, March.
    20. Steffen Roth & Jari Kaivo-Oja & Thomas Hirschmann, 2013. "Smart regions: two cases of crowdsourcing for regional development," International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 20(3), pages 272-285.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:14:p:5739-:d:385561. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.