Implications for sustainable agriculture - Springer Link

c 1997 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Agriculture and Human Values 14: 145–158, 1997.

Temporal and spatial dimensions of knowledge: Implications for sustainable agriculture Andrew H. Raedeke & J. Sanford Rikoon Rural Sociology Department, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA Accepted in revised form 20 November 1996

Abstract. Scholars have recognized the importance of local and indigenous knowledge in less industrialized countries. Few studies have been done on the diversity of knowledge communities in more industrialized countries, however, because of researcher assumptions about the spatial and temporal dimensions of local and scientific knowledge. A distinguishing feature of knowledge communities is the way that time and space are perceived. These differences are reflected in farmers’ decision-making. Depending on farmers’ knowledge orientations, they may utilize quite different criteria to determine the reliability and applicability of new information. Advocates of sustainable agriculture, and proponents of on-farm research will benefit by recognizing the diverse ways that farmers know and understand their farming systems in both less and more industrialized countries. Key words: Decision-making, Knowledge systems, Local knowledge, Sustainable agriculture Andrew Raedeke is a Research Associate in Rural Sociology at the University of Missouri. His research areas are in the sociology of agriculture and the environment. J. Sanford Rikoon is an Associate Professor of Rural Sociology. His domestic and international research emphasizes the cultural dimensions of environmental issues and policy.

Introduction Many critics question the long term sustainability of agriculture based on large scale, high input, capital intensive organization (Berry 1977; Freudenberger 1984; Jackson 1980). Scholars and advocates of alternative farming systems are now engaged in debates in regards to what may constitute more sustainable forms of agriculture (Douglass 1984; Gale & Cordray 1994). Most agree that the goal for sustainable agriculture should be the development of agricultural systems that will sustain itself over a long period of time in a manner that is economically viable, environmentally safe, and socially just. Scholars’ accounts of the central causes of agricultural problems vary somewhat between assessments they make in less and more industrialized countries. In regards to the former, critics question the transfer of high input, capital intensive farm organization from Western societies. They pay specific attention to the displacement of cultural practices situated in specific localities by more universal farming techniques. In works such as Richards’ Indigenous Agricultural Revolution (1985), researchers have attempted to validate the existence and utility of indigenous knowledge systems. The changing attitudes towards,

and relevance of, indigenous knowledge are also apparent in the number of research and development models that include farmers as active participants in everything from research design to program implementation (Chambers et al. 1989; Thompson & Scoones 1994). The affirmation of indigenous knowledge is in contrast to earlier linear development models that viewed indigenous knowledge as ‘backwards’ or at least nonmodern. Today, advocates of sustainable agriculture recognize the importance of diverse knowledge systems, including indigenous or local knowledge, for the development of sustainable agricultural systems in less industrialized countries (Altieri 1989). Advocates of sustainable agriculture in more industrialized countries have paid less attention to the potential contributions of alternative knowledge systems.1 When investigating knowledge systems in the USA, researchers typically focus away from the farmer, and onto the institutions that produce scientifically based knowledge. Critics have demonstrated that research institutions often develop technology that is not value neutral and often results in creating greater social and economic inequalities (Busch et al. 1991; Kloppenburg 1988). Farmers are then portrayed as passive recipients of knowledge generated elsewhere.

146

ANDREW H. RAEDEKE & J. SANFORD RIKOON

Researchers conducting studies at the farm level in the United States mainly address the differing paradigms of farmers, utilizing the concept of paradigm as elaborated by Kuhn in The structure of scientific revolutions (1962). They typically focused on farmers’ paradigmatic orientations pertaining to agriculture and rural life, and the relationship of these orientations to the adoption of particular agricultural practices (Allen & Bernhardt 1995; Beus & Dunlap 1990; Bultena et al. 1992). By focusing on the adoption of practices, these researchers continue to portray farmers as the recipients of practices and knowledge generated elsewhere and do not make connections between the knowledge of farmers and the development of agricultural practices. Instead, they more often emphasize the ideological or normative dimensions of farming and overlook the actual processes of knowledge construction. As a consequence the epistemological bases of diverse worldviews and the processes through which farm organization is performed or enacted as specific manifestations of knowledge are not illuminated. Furthermore, those who conduct research pertaining to agricultural production decision-making within the USA typically use models that assume the superiority of scientific knowledge developed in controlled research settings over knowledge developed through practice in less controlled settings (e.g., on farms). For example, models emphasizing the adoption and diffusion of innovations to address the decision-making process illustrate a research orientation that assumes the superiority of scientific research (Rogers 1983). Ontologically, adoptiondiffusion research assumes that there is a single objective world that may be known, and, therefore, leaves little room for alternative ways to know or understand the world (Bush 1978). The ways in which diverse patterns of decision-making may reflect diversity in the ways farmers perceive, evaluate, and incorporate knowledge are not addressed. As a result, researchers portray farmers as consumers of knowledge rather than producers of knowledge. While this has largely been the case in the United States, researchers of local knowledge in less industrialized countries have demonstrated that decision-making processes vary depending on the knowledge system employed (Gladwin 1989; Barlett 1980). The importance of local knowledge in shaping decision-making processes in less industrialized countries raises the question of whether or not heterogeneous knowledge systems also influence decision-making in more industrialized countries. In this paper, we develop a conceptual hypothesis pertaining to the existence and characterization of two knowledge communities utilized in decision-making by farmers in more industrialized countries. We accomplish this in three steps. First we review the assumptions and limitations of local/indigenous/traditional versus scientific/instrumental/rational knowledge dichotomies. Second, we propose that an examination of the spatial and tem-

poral dimensions of knowledge is necessary to demonstrate differences in patterns of knowledge construction in more industrialized countries. Third, we develop a heuristic model of the temporal and spatial dimensions of two knowledge communities utilized in decision-making.

Knowledge systems: A review and critique The way we perceive and define reality has long been a topic of philosophical and social debate. Some scholars focus on the diversity of ways in which people perceive and define reality and have attempted to delineate the social dimensions of knowledge and the way knowledge is constructed. In doing so, these researchers often use the phrase ‘knowledge systems’ to connote the different systematized and nonrandom structures, stocks, and stores of information people use to perceive, understand, and act in the world. We prefer to use the phrase ‘knowledge communities’ rather than ‘knowledge systems’. Often knowledge systems are portrayed as cohesive forms of knowledge that exist autonomously from other knowledge systems. By using the phrase knowledge communities we emphasize the dynamic networks of actors, processes of negotiation, and the diverse ways in which knowledge is constructed and performed (Richards 1993).3 Furthermore, it is possible that individuals may participate in and utilize multiple knowledge communities. Finally, the word community also reflects the idea that the boundaries between knowledge groups are not closed and that there may be considerable overlap between knowledge communities. Knowledge construction is the process of defining reality and includes the manner in which we recognize and interpret our social, cultural, and material environments. Knowledge construction thus includes social interactions, communication, and the diverse processes individuals employ to create, use, and evaluate multiple types and sources of information.3 Researchers utilizing a knowledge systems approach recognize the impact of social structures, processes, and institutions in shaping the knowledge of individuals. They also acknowledge the contributions of individuals as actors in defining and constructing knowledge based on their unique social, personal, cultural, political, historical, and ecological contexts (Long & Long 1992; Swidler 1994). While scholars of knowledge systems have provided an array of theoretical and applied contributions, research pertaining to local, traditional, and indigenous knowledge systems is the most relevant to our discussion of knowledge. Terms such as local, indigenous, or traditional knowledge have different connotations; however, they all indicate types of knowledge that culminate through the experience of social groups embedded in specific localities and cultural contexts. Scholars typically juxtapose

TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL DIMENSIONS OF KNOWLEDGE

such constructs against Western, scientific, instrumentally rational knowledge (see Altieri 1987; Brokensha et al. 1980; Richards 1985). For instance, McCorkle equates indigenous knowledge with the ‘theories, beliefs, practices, and technologies that all peoples in all times and places have elaborated without direct inputs from the modern, formal scientific establishment’ (1989: 4). Banuri & Marglin (1993) contrast modern with nonmodern knowledge systems. They suggest that modern knowledge systems are characterized by disembeddedness, universalism, individualism, objectivism, and instrumentalism, whereas nonmodern knowledge is characterized by embeddedness, locality, community, noninstrumentalism, and the lack of separation between subject and object. Recently, Browder (1995) reviewed the literature on indigenous knowledge and summarized that it is local, personalistic, derived from subjective empiricism, finite, and holistic. We suggest that investigations of local knowledge in more industrialized countries are hindered by their underlying assumptions about the spatial and temporal dimensions of scientific and local knowledge. Four assumptions are particularly problematic. First, most researchers have assumed that the spatial and temporal location of knowledge are important defining characteristic of knowledge. For example, Kloppenburg (1991) suggests that local knowledge is the result of labor processes distinct to place. Banuri & Marglin state: ‘Unlike modern knowledge, which bases its claim to superiority on the basis of universal validity, local knowledge is bound by time and space, by contextual and moral factors’ (1993: 13). If one assumes that local knowledge is bound by time and space, it becomes more difficult to determine how the knowledge system constructs time, space, or a given locality. It also becomes problematic to determine how more than one knowledge system may be used within the same locality. Second, researchers often portray scientific knowledge as existing outside of time and space (Thompson & Scoones 1994). They emphasize a Cartesian understanding of science that implies that reality is ordered and discoverable through the development and application of scientific theory and method. Scientific methodologies, in turn, are based on the discovery of generalizable principles applicable across time and space that also allow for the rational ordering of both time and space. This conception of science leads to an understanding that exists outside of the cultural and social context. However, as Latour (1979) and others demonstrate, locating science outside of time and space neglects the social nature of scientific research that situates it in very specific networks and institutions at particular times. Third, researchers tend to position science as an external agent of change associated with research establishments and expertocracies located outside of local

147

areas (Bush et al. 1991; Kloppenburg 1988). Scientific researchers are portrayed as representing ‘outside’ interests and farmers, who produce localized knowledge, are portrayed as representing ‘insider’ interests. Thompson & Scoones (1994) point out that this creates a false assumption of homogeneity among farmers and discounts the presence and interactions between different actors and networks within a locality. As a result, farmers are typically assumpted to be passive recipients of scientific knowledge. Furthermore, associating scientific knowledge with research institutions makes it more difficult to address how farmers themselves may utilize and produce scientific types of knowledge. Finally, researchers of traditional, local, and indigenous knowledge often assume a linear trajectory of knowledge associated with levels of political-economic development. The correlation of knowledge with politicaleconomic organization is most apparent in development models depicting a trajectory from traditional societies to modern societies, and in discussions of traditional versus modern knowledge. Researchers studying local and indigenous knowledge continue to conduct most of their work in less industrialized countries. Their research mainly addresses forms of knowledge that were not destroyed by the growing pervasiveness of modern instrumental rationality (Altieri 1987; Mazur & Titilola 1992). Coupling knowledge systems with levels of politicaleconomic development implies that in more industrialized countries diverse knowledge communities are no longer present and what remains is a homogeneous knowledge based on scientific systems. It is, then, difficult to see how farmers within more industrialized economies may actively be involved in the construction of alternative forms of knowledge.

The importance of time and space The limitations of previous research on local knowledge can be, in part, addressed through an examination of spatial and temporal dimensions of knowledge. Time and space represent fundamental categories of human experience and until recently were often portrayed by researchers as natural, unquestioned, unchanging structured realities. Therefore, the social dimensions of time and space have been left unexamined until recently. As noted, the ontological and epistemological basis of scientific inquiry precluded the possibility of examining the temporal and spatial basis of knowledge because positivism and science cast in the patina of universal knowledge, considered knowledge outside its temporal and spatial context. Hence, it was not until the 1970s that social scientists began examining temporal and spatial dimensions of science (Latour 1979).

148


The analytic importance of time and space for understanding social life is evident in a number of diverse theoretical perspectives. For example, it is frequently in the arenas of spatial and temporal organization that social change occurs and is often contested (Harvey 1990; Lefebvre 1991). Giddens (1984) locates time and space at the core of his social theory of structuration and argues that they are fundamental to comprehending the way social reality is constituted. He explains that an understanding of time-space is necessary in order to conceptualize the relationship between human agency and social structure. As Gottdiener indicates, Giddens’s discussion of the ‘duality of structure’ reveals that ‘space is both a medium of social relations and a material product that can affect social relations’ (1993: 132). In other words, space is not an objective reality existing outside the boundaries of social organization. The structural or objective dimensions of space cannot be separated from the actions of people. Harvey (1990) contends that the analysis of space and time provides a means to couple the material aspects of culture with issues of political economy. In The conditions of postmodernity, Harvey (1990) responds to postmodern theorists who assert that postmodernity is in part a crisis in the experience of time and space. He indicates that processes of capital accumulation can be understood in terms of temporal and spatial organization and reorganization. For example, Harvey equates the rise of modernity with a new organization of time (e.g., the work day and time clock) and demonstrates that much class struggle coincided with the societal re-ordering of time according to the work day. Social conflicts over the length of the work day and struggles to receive overtime or time-anda-half pay reflected clashes of competing constructs of the temporal environment. While Harvey and Giddens call attention to the importance of temporal and spatial organization in relationship to periods of capitalism and societal level change, others such as Bourdieu and De Certeau illustrate the importance of time and space in the organization and practice of everyday life. Bourdieu (1977) demonstrates the unique temporal and spatial organization of Kabyle society. He states, ‘The reason why submission to the collective rhythms is so rigorously demanded is that the temporal forms or the spatial structures structure not only the group’s representation of the world but the group itself, which orders itself in accordance with this representation’ (1977: 163). De Certeau (1984), through a discussion of walking in a city, illustrates how dominant spatial patterns may exist (e.g., city planning determines the location of streets and sidewalks), but indicates how individuals contribute to the spatial structure of a city through the choices they make (e.g., taking shortcuts or staying on the more known routes). His work demonstrates that spatial organization is affected by the choices people make, even in industrial

societies, which are usually considered to be organized on principles of economic and scientific rationality. While the social theorists discussed above do not directly link issues of time and space to knowledge systems, they emphasize that social organization influences perceptions of temporal and spatial organization. They also indicate that social structure and social change involve the organization and reorganization of time and space. In terms of agriculture, these theories suggest that the decisions people make are related to the way in which space and time are interpreted, organized, and acted upon.

Development of the conceptual hypothesis We draw upon a case study of nitrogen fertilizer management and upon literature pertaining to the spatial and temporal dimensions of agriculture. We intend to emphasize the conceptual dimensions of two knowledge communities as opposed to the substantive aspects of nitrogen fertilizer management (see for a discussion on nitrogen fertilizer management, Raedeke et al. 1994). We present a model of two distinct, yet overlapping, knowledge communities as a conceptual hypothesis. We will refer to them as local, experiential, subjective (LES), and local, experimental, objective (LEO) knowledge. The labels are based on the salient characteristics of the knowledge communities and will become more self-evident as the model is developed. When speaking of LES and LEO knowledge, we are referring to two processes by which knowledge is constructed and not to specific sets of practices or techniques. The case study that we use included two sets of interviews. First, in 1993 we conducted thirty semistructured, person-to-person interviews on nitrogen management techniques in a small Missouri watershed (32,000 acres). We then completed a second set of in-depth interviews with 13 farmers representing diverse farming operations and management orientations in the same watershed. We based the selection of the 13 farmers on our initial analysis of the first round of interviews, information provided by area farmers, and discussions with extension, SCS (now NRCS), and ASCS (now FSA) officials serving the area. The farm operators differed in combinations of crops (corn, soybeans, milo, winter wheat) and livestock (hogs and cattle) they raised and the ratio of owned to rented land. The farms included ranged in size from 230 acres to 4,000 acres. The in-depth interviews were all tape recorded, transcribed, and coded. Informing this essay, our goal was to discover commonalties in dimensions of knowledge construction, rather than specific or substantive aspects of nitrogen fertilizer management. Before presenting our conceptual hypothesis, we want to discuss our choice of nitrogen fertilizer management


as the focus of investigation. The unique qualities of nitrogen fertilizer make it an excellent case to investigate farmers’ use of different types of knowledge. Uncertainty in determining nitrogen application rates combined with the multiple environmental and production considerations involved in management provided a situation where we expected farmers to be more reflective about the knowledge they used to make their decisions. Nitrogen has unique management requirements in comparison to such other nutrients as phosphorus and potash. The soil can serve as a reservior for phosphorus and potash. If a farmer applies excess quantities of these nutrients one year, they remain in the soil and are available to plants the next year unless, of course, they exceed the upper range of the nutrient holding capacity of the soil. The stable nature of phosphorus and potash also facilitates the use of soil testing as a tool to determine application rates. While levels of nitrogen utilized by plants is quite precise, the amount needed usually cannot be scientifically determined at the time the application is made. Uncertainty and variability in nitrogen management are linked to both the life cycles of nitrogen and the many variables that affect its fate in soils and the environment. Since nitrogen reacts with most elements on the periodic table, it is unlikely to remain in a usable form for long periods after application. In addition to weather influencing the amount needed for a crop, other factors include soil types and variation, levels of organic matter, types of crops, crop history, tillage methods, methods of application, and the form of nitrogen applied. The description of the knowledge communities that follows is limited to those dimensions pertaining to nitrogen fertilizer management. Knowledge communities influence and reflect the organization of farms, what farmers perceive as potential management options and constraints, and where farmers look for potential alternatives. Individual participation in different knowledge communities connotes an individual’s use of different strategies and processes of negotiation as he or she encounters events and changes that extend beyond his or her immediate control. We do not suggest that one knowledge community is more legitimate than the other. Instead, we emphasize the importance of recognizing differences among farmers in the ways they understand and interpret their material, social, and cultural surroundings.

Local, experiential, subjective (LES) and local, experimental, objective (LEO) knowledge communities We offer three caveats prior to our discussion of the spatial and temporal dimensions of knowledge. First, for analytical purposes, we will discuss the different attributes of

149

spatial and temporal dimensions of knowledge separately; however, we recognize that these dimensions and attributes of knowledge are strongly interdependent and interrelated. Second, we contrast LES and LEO knowledge communities only for heuristic and explication purposes. It is equally important to recognize the dynamic, interactive, and social natures of knowledge communities. Farmers may ascribe to aspects of both LES or LEO knowledge communities, albeit with typically greater reliance on one or the other. Third, we discuss each attribute in terms of its polar characteristics. While all farm operators can be located along the continuum defined for each attribute, seldomly does a farmer express what we would consider to be full adherence to an attribute’s ideal manifestation.

Temporal dimensions of knowledge Although employing diverse theoretical and methodological orientations, Bennett (1982) and Mann & Dickinson (1978) emphasize the variation found in the organization of agricultural production resulting from the combinations of ecological, social, and economic time frames. Ecological time frames include such dimensions as seasonal change and the length of time required for crop production. Social time frames include stages of family development. Economic time frames refer to such variables as the pace of production necessary for producers to realize profits. None of these authors directly link diversity in temporal organization with knowledge systems; however, they do illustrate the multiplicity of ways in which time relates to agricultural organization. In the context of temporal dimensions of knowledge, we suggest that differences are found in orientations toward the past, present, and future (temporal fulcrum), perspectives on change, and experience of time (temporal experience). Temporal fulcrum The organization, weighting, and prioritization of knowledge varies greatly depending on how the past, present, and future inform one another. Berry (1977) and Logsdon (1994), both proponents of sustainable agriculture, discuss the importance of knowledge rooted in, and preserving elements of, the past even in more industrialized countries such as the USA. Researchers studying the development of value orientations also indicate that the balancing of past, present, and future is an important element shaping the way people define and understand the world around them. Kluckhohn & Strodbeck (1961) included a four dimensional scale of value orientations with the organization of time between past, present, and future, being one of the dimensions. Lyden (1988) used this scale to document differences between government officials, Native Americans, and loggers involved in nat-

150


Figure 1. Attributes of the temporal dimension.

ural resource use and conservation issues in the Pacific Northwest. We suggest that LES knowledge participants stress the importance of the past, with their farms embedded in multiple dimensions of past history. They weigh future goals against standards and expectations developed over time and the perceived historical contexts of the farm inform present farm decisions. When making management decisions, LES knowledge community members consider who previously farmed the land and how they managed the land. The perceived cultural and social links between current owners and past owners are particularly important for adherents of LES knowledge. Farmers with a LES knowledge orientation are informed by individual and collective experiences along with ecological variables (susceptibility to drought or flooding) when making decisions. These operators are likely to base current practices, as well as their evaluations of alternative nitrogen application rates and techniques, on past experiences with particular fields and nitrogen applications. Before the success or failure of a particular application technique or rate is determined, they evaluate it over a long period of time. Farmers depending on LEO knowledge place a greater emphasis on the future informing present decisions, an orientation much more fixed on future possibilities and the way the world might be. They evaluate new technology, information, and practices in terms of their potential to help overcome present constraints and to meet objectives linked to desired future realities. Rather than relying as extensively on past performances, those utilizing LEO knowledge focus more on the future potential of different combinations of application techniques and rates, forms of nitrogen, seed varieties, and tillage methods. In essence, they view nitrogen management practices as grounded in the development of new technologies and methods. Farmers utilizing LEO knowledge consider management techniques and application methods used in the

past as bounded and closed by the specific temporal and sociohistorical context of particular technology complexes. With the temporal ‘end’ to the use of a system comes the termination of the lessons learned under those circumstances. For example, many soil lab technicians recommend yield goals as a primary determinant of nitrogen application rates. While farmers utilizing LEO knowledge often use crop histories, they may also increase yield goals in anticipation of higher yields in the future. Their anticipation of higher yields, in turn, is often heightened when they incorporate other innovations into their farm system. The development of new seed varieties, for example, fosters optimism for higher yields and reduces the importance of relying solely on yield information gathered from previous years. Farmers using LEO knowledge view past yields as the product of past technologies and circumstances; therefore, past yields alone do not adequately reflect the potential for higher yields that may be realized through the use of new innovations. Change The second attribute of the temporal dimension of knowledge pertains to the incorporation of agricultural change. In essence, change represents the discontinuation of one practice and the replacement with another. Change, in turn, may affect the organization of the whole farm system (Benvenuti 1962; Rikoon 1992). Other researchers have demonstrated the importance of change in understanding knowledge systems. Howes & Chambers (1980) note that scientific knowledge is an open system and, therefore, is capable of recognizing alternatives and handling revolutionary change. On the other hand, they posit indigenous knowledge as a closed system, and as a consequence, individuals depending on indigenous knowledge are less able to recognize alternatives and cope with large amounts of change.


LES knowledge is based on an orientation toward temporal continuity. Farmers utilizing LES knowledge view the past as inseparable from the present. Their knowledge represents the accumulation of experiences over time. Adherents of LES knowledge construe and evaluate potential alternatives and new options on the basis of the social, occupational, and cultural dimensions of their past experiences. Individuals thus derive knowledge from their own life histories, reports passed on from one generation to the next, and/or the experiences of others in the immediate social context. When events or results of present practices are inconsistent with expectations developed from experience, farmers utilizing LES knowledge may feel that alterations are necessary, or they may revise expectations to resolve perceived inconsistencies. For example, if they notice a decline in yields where they typically raised good crops, they may alter their farming practices in that location. On the other hand, farmers with a LES orientation may view change less enthusiastically if it will involve the introduction of new technology or methods of farming that require a significant break from an existing, positively perceived farm organization. For instance, if change requires hiring someone else to apply nitrogen, these operators may be less inclined to change. They would not have as much control, or be able to utilize their experience based expertise, if they employed a custom applicator. The introduction of such changes represents a disruption in the repertoire of experience and action, and hence an unacceptably radical departure from the temporal continuity of the knowledge base of farmers utilizing LES knowledge. Farmers utilizing LES knowledge do change and they do experiment with alternatives on their farms. However, we suggest that their experimentation is framed in the context of past experiences or events. For example, a farmer with a LES orientation may notice the poor performance of nitrogen in a particular location, attempt alternative application techniques, and evaluate the alternative application techniques in comparison to past practices. A critical part of the evaluation may be on how compatible the new technique is with the farmer’s knowledge gained from past experiences, or how much it requires the farmer to abandon knowledge gained through experience. Change is possible, but the possibility of watershed events (with their capacity to ‘break’ time) are avoided by those utilizing LES knowledge. LEO knowledge is based on temporal segmentation rather than continuity. Those with a LEO orientation depend more on the replacement of knowledge than on the accumulation of knowledge through experience. They perceive the past, present, and future as very distinct and unconnected time periods; each has its own set of social, technological, and agronomic circumstances. For those utilizing LEO knowledge, the past is not as relevant to their present farm operations, particularly if the former

151

represents a different set of social, technical, or cultural circumstances. The activity of farming represents a process of change and discovery using the latest sources of technology and information. Thus, rather than adherents of LEO knowledge being concerned about change potentially severing connections with the past, they view change as a part of the very definition of farming and subject to evaluation according to specific sets of agronomic goals and outcomes. In terms of nitrogen management, farmers possessing a LEO knowledge orientation exhibit a much greater frequency of change in nitrogen application techniques and rates. Since they view time in a fragmented fashion, they are actively involved in changes to improve the agronomic performance of their farming systems. Users of LEO knowledge are concerned with how to alter nitrogen management practices in order to keep pace with other changes they have implemented or are considering in the utilization of new technology and information. They are less concerned with how changes may alter previous knowledge gained through experience. For example, many were experimenting with no-till farming methods and were actively trying new nitrogen application techniques that would maintain maximum yields with their new tillage methods. Temporal experience The third attribute of the temporal dimension of knowledge is the experience of time. Farmers participating in the LES knowledge community have a more personalized and detailed perspective of time. The personal nature of time is evident when farmers using LES knowledge describe past years in connection with the experience of specific events or in relation to people who previously farmed the land. Changes in land ownership, extremely wet or dry years, and other unique circumstances help to order time and memory among farmers using LES knowledge. They typically interlace discussions of different parcels of land with the names and activities of previous owners. These memories serve as a cultural template and a social context for present values, behavior, and decision-making as well as a legitimate form of knowledge. On the other hand, farmers with a LEO knowledge orientation utilize a more abstract perspective of time. This orientation is most evident when examining how they incorporate past events into present farm systems. In order to include past experiences in a knowledge framework largely focused on the present and future, LEO knowledge adherents use an impersonal perspective of the past. Their ‘histories’ of local farming activity are full of citations of now discontinued technologies and techniques. But in their rhetoric, they mention little about specific farm families or the social or cultural patterns that informed local behavior. Since these individuals view time in a

152


discontinuous fashion and are focused toward the future, the unique social and cultural events tied to a specific historical context are not as relevant to them. Variation in how time is experienced is exemplified by comparing the different perceptions of LES and LEO orientated farmers toward the practice of using past yield averages as a tool to determine yield goals. Although the technique does incorporate the past, farmers relying on LES knowledge find the concept of averages over time runs counter to their personal perceptions of time. To base application rates on past yield averages requires those depending on LES knowledge to decontextualize and, to an extent, abandon the culmination of unique experiences that informs their nitrogen management. On the other hand, those utilizing LEO knowledge can more easily use average yields to inform their decisions about nitrogen application rates. The use of averages provides a means to include past information while remaining focused on present and future circumstances. Averages of past yields provide a general baseline from which they can develop future expectations.

Spatial dimensions of knowledge Researchers investigating the spatial organization of agriculture have largely taken a macro perspective. For example, FitzSimmons (1986) suggests that economic concentration leads to spatial concentration in livestock production. In other words livestock are now more concentrated in specific regions. In Europe, researchers note the increased segmentation and fragmentation of agricultural space caused by the restructuring of the economy and food system (Bye & Fonte 1993). Other analysts focus on the changing social construction of rural space and emphasize the growing number of conflicts in defining and using rural space (Fitchen 1991; Greider & Garkovich 1994; Mormont 1987; Marsden et al. 1990; Newby 1990). While covering a diverse range of issues, almost all of these scholars assume that space is socially constructed and not value neutral. They also demonstrate that the social construction of space is a critical area to understand processes of change in agriculture and reconfigurations of rural areas. For example, Mormont (1987) explains that environmental disputes often are the result of conflicting values that people have toward the use of rural space. Farmers may prioritize the use of rural space according to values centered on production. Others may have a different value orientation and prioritize the organization of rural space to accommodate outdoor recreation, aesthetic appeal, or other consumptive activities. Thus different groups may have very different values and priorities about how the same space should be organized. While these researchers recognize diversity in perceptions of spatial organization,

they do not discuss the importance of spatial organization to the social construction of knowledge. Farm space Those utilizing LES and LEO knowledge vary in the conceptualization and organization of the internal space of farms. Adherents of LES knowledge have a holistic approach to their farm’s spatial organization and do not make clear distinctions between the cultural and ecological dimensions of space. While they may use scientific information, they measure it against, and interpret it through, the combination of personal, social, and cultural templates and uses attached to their farm. Farmers using LES knowledge conceptualize individual spaces in a personal fashion that may be expressed concretely in relational terms such as the ‘home place’ or ‘Dad’s ground’, or through more rich vocabularies of local place names and designations. For farmers relying on LES knowledge, changes in the organization of space thus have the potential to represent changes in their relationships to the land, to other people, and to linkages between memories and the landscape. They also view farm space as more embedded in time. Their understanding of space includes the history of past sociocultural and ecological events that have led to the present organization of their farms. Individuals relying on LEO knowledge have an impersonal understanding of space. They view their farms according to its biophysical and agronomic components, an orientation toward space facilitating the organization of space according to readily quantifiable principles. These farmers organize and manipulate space according to such measurable goals as increased yields or reduced costs. The LEO orientation also necessitates an ahistorical orientation of space. Since these operators do not perceive space as embedded in the past, they have fewer social and cultural consequences to consider as a result of the organization and alteration of space. The division of agronomic from cultural and social space and the more abstract orientation of farmers with a LEO knowledge orientation is apparent in their reliance on test plots when implementing change in nitrogen fertilizer management. Through the use of test plots, farmers attempt to pick sites that will enable them to make generalizations from representative small spaces to the rest of their fields. Their use of this method emphasizes similarities between fields based on such biophysical components as soil type and topography, rather than the uniqueness of particular fields. This method also requires the separation of personal and cultural dimensions of space from agronomic dimensions of space. Who previously farmed the land, how it was farmed, and unique qualities of a particular field are less important to farmers using LEO knowledge than the agronomic characteristics that allow generalizations between fields.


153

Figure 2. Attributes of the spatial dimension.

While farmers with a more LES orientation may also experiment with changes in practices, they are more likely to consider the unique present and past cultural, social, and agronomic characteristics of each area of their farm. Rather than attempting to place a test plot in a location that may allow for the most generalizability, they are more likely to evaluate specific practices on specific parcels of land and to take into consideration the unique qualities of that particular place. The unique qualities may include specific ecological features such as soil characteristics, or historical features such as the way the farmer or previous owners had farmed that particular field in the past. The social construction of locality The way farmers interact with one another reveals critical attributes of the different knowledge communities employed in organizing the same locality. Adherents of LES knowledge are tied to locality in a multidimensional fashion based on a configuration of space understood through personal, social, and ecological history. Farmers relying on LES knowledge incorporate information from other farmers who they consider to posses legitimate and sanctioned sources of knowledge. Among the measures of the relevancy of other farmers’ knowledge for LES knowledge community participants include whether they have historical knowledge of the area, of local farming systems, and share similar beliefs of what constitutes good farming. The neighborhood plays an important role in this process of knowledge construction by providing

a context of shared history and patterns of interaction. For adherents of LES knowledge, changes in agricultural practices reflect the reorganization of locality and the particular way of life associated with it. Those utilizing LEO knowledge are also tied to locality and collaborate with others who share in their knowledge orientation. Although locality is relevant, these farmers emphasize a uni-dimensional view of space, with the critical dimension being the incorporation of objective biophysical agronomic considerations. As a result, factors such as the collective history of the area and the cultural context of the locality are less important in determining who LEO knowledge adherents interact with, or how they utilize information from others. For example, LEO knowledge practitioners are most likely to view other farms with similar biophysical characteristics as appropriate settings to evaluate nitrogen management techniques generalizable to their own farms. If such ‘similar’ farmers utilize novel methods of managing nitrogen and demonstrate improvement (e.g., through the use of controlled test plots), their results potentially may inform nitrogen management decisions made by a farmer using LEO knowledge. Spatial structure of information The spatial structure of information is closely aligned with farmers’ perceptions about particular sources of information and the spatial relationship of these sources to individual operators. While most farmers use multiple sources of

154


information (e.g., farm magazines, extension, field days) their relationship to local sources of information reflects differences in how individuals spatially organize locality. Farmers utilizing LES knowledge have a more horizontally based information structure. They most readily use information that comes from their own farm or from other farmers whom they perceive to share their knowledge orientation. They are often skeptical about sources of information lacking the legitimacy of being developed or applied in the immediate cultural and ecological setting. Through their horizontal networks, farmers with a LES knowledge orientation emphasize the continuity between information sources and existing social patterns of land use. The boundaries of LES knowledge are further highlighted when personal experiences of LES knowledge adherents do not match the results predicted by scientific information sources, or what some would refer to as ‘book knowledge.’ Farmers utilizing LES knowledge are more likely to be further convinced of the inappropriateness of using information and technology originating from ‘scientific’ sources, rather than questioning their own role in producing unanticipated results. Adherents of LEO knowledge utilize a more vertical form of spatial integration. They view information from research institutions or otherwise connected to positions of expertise as especially legitimate. When ‘expert’ recommendations fail, these farmers are more likely to wonder what they are doing wrong, or perhaps question the applicability of a farm practice in their immediate biophysical setting, rather than to question the legitimacy of information that has been verified in a ‘scientific’ setting. For example, one farmer in our study area with a LEO knowledge orientation had heard an agronomist report that the same amounts of nitrogen were required, irrespective of the form of nitrogen used. In contrast to the agronomist’s report, he observed differences in performance depending on the form of nitrogen applied. At the time, he believed that he had probably made a mistake in application and did not question the recommendations that originated in more controlled research settings. Interestingly, more recent university research now confirms his earlier observations that different forms of nitrogen vary in their performance. Differences between LES and LEO knowledge communities are revealed in the contrasting roles that two pivotal information brokers, seed dealers and fertilizer dealers (including custom applicators), play in the spatial organization of knowledge. Farmers with a LES knowledge orientation depend on dealers’ reports of other local farmers. Through ongoing interactions, dealers have privileged access to many farms in a particular locality and consequently acquire a more detailed knowledge of other farmers’ nitrogen management and the problems they encounter. While farmers with a LES knowledge perspective value this knowledge, they are cautious of appli-

cation procedures recommended by dealers that originate from expert and typically external sources (e.g., extension, agribusiness). They often view such recommendations as being produced in circumstances that are incompatible with their own unique situations. For those depending more on LEO knowledge, the dealers are a vital conduit between their farm operation and information and technology originating from expert sources. These farmers view dealers as important because of their greater access and linkages to the latest technologies and information. The direction of the information flow is heavily from expert to practitioner. Together, dealers and this group of farmers assess the appropriateness of new innovations to their locality. This scenario is exemplified by one dealer who had done research in this study area, contacted experts in other regions, invested in appropriate equipment, and is now working with a farm operation in conducting test trials with different nitrogen application techniques and rates.

Implications for sustainable agriculture The presentation of these models is not intended to suggest that one community of knowledge is superior to the other, or that one is inherently linked to ‘better’ nitrogen management. Rather we wish to emphasize the multiplicity of ways in which knowledge is constructed and thus linked to diversity in farmers’ perceptions, understandings, and actions. The examination of the epistemological bases of farming decisions provides a framework to discover and develop research agendas, programs, and policy to facilitate more sustainable forms of agriculture in complex and heterogeneous circumstances. Understanding and addressing diversity among knowledge communities is essential for the development of more sustainable forms of agriculture. Much discussion has already occurred on incorporating scientific and indigenous knowledge (Harwood 1979; Rhoades & Booth 1982; Biggelaar 1991). However, researchers have typically equated scientific research with research establishments and indigenous knowledge with local groups of farmers. As a result, they too often assume a homogeneity both among farmers and in the ways that scientific knowledge is produced. By addressing the temporal and spatial elements of knowledge communities, researchers, and advocates of sustainable agriculture will be able to better recognize and address the interactions between LES and LEO knowledge communities within localities. They will also be better able to discern how diverse knowledge communities come into contact with one another, exist in proximity of one another, and shape the characteristics of a given locality. If sustainable agriculture researchers become too focused on the technological bases of problems in agriculture, they may lose sight of the cultural


and social systems in which sustainable practices must be incorporated and maintained. Differences in the temporal and spatial dimensions of knowledge communities lead to distinctive patterns used by LES and LEO knowledge adherents to validate and evaluate whether or not particular items of knowledge are correct or applicable in a particular context. What adherents of LES knowledge may deem as valid or relevant knowledge may be incompatible with the fundamental organization of time and space for those relying on LEO knowledge. Adherents of LES knowledge evaluate farm practices on the bases of their compatibility with existing farming experiences. Knowledge gained through the accumulation of observations and events serves as a yardstick from which new practices are evaluated. While university researchers may demonstrate the economic or environmental benefits of an innovation, a new practice may not be accepted by an adherent of LES knowledge if it is incompatible with their knowledge orientation. For example, a new practice may appear effective according to scientific data on yields or profit; however, it may be rejected if it has not been developed or practiced by those sharing in the collective history of the area. Rather than only evaluating the applicability of a new practice according to expert validation of such quantifiable measures as yield increases or economic savings, LES orientated farmers are more likely to stress the innovation’s compatibility with existing experiences, the quality of the experience and feeling of personal control, and/or the ability of new knowledge to be integrated with existing practices and knowledge. Validation of farm practices for farmers relying on LEO knowledge is based on the implementation of a methodology anchored solidly in scientific experimentation. They accrue knowledge through the process of applying a specific experimental design. For farmers utilizing LEO knowledge, precise, quantifiable, and objective measurements are necessary to determine the appropriateness of new practices. The use of weigh wagons to accurately measure yields, test, and control plots to control for certain variables, and the maintenance of accurate records are necessary and relevant to farmers relying on LEO knowledge to determine the validity of a practice. Their evaluations are based on the achievement of such specific measurable goals as improved yields or reductions in cost. If practices or new techniques are not developed in this fashion, adherents of LEO knowledge question the credibility and applicability of the new practices. In addition, it is also important to understand the relationship between knowledge and power. Social theorists have illustrated the relationship between power and the formation and legitimization of knowledge (see Foucault 1972; Rouse 1987). We have suggested that LEO knowledge is more compatible with what is considered to

155

be scientific knowledge. Therefore, if advocates of sustainable agriculture are concerned about maintaining or utilizing multiple forms of knowledge, it is likely that they will need to make additional efforts to discover and incorporate LES and other alternative knowledge communities whose processes of perception, evaluation, and validation are different from those normally linked to scientifically produced knowledge. If multiple knowledge communities exist, but are given unequal voice due to their power base, it may be important for sustainable agriculture as a social movement to develop and legitimize the voices of alternative knowledge communities (see Hassanein & Kloppenburg 1995; Rikoon 1995). This endeavor will entail recognizing the complex nature of knowledge construction and the interaction between knowledge communities and the various elements of which they are comprised. The significance of multiple knowledge communities has implications for two present trends in nitrogen management: the development of precision farming techniques and the use of on-site research trials. Precision farming utilizes computer and satellite technology to vary application rates within a field. This strategy is guided by a very abstract and objective understanding of fields and fosters a greater reliance on external sources of expertise. While the development of precision farming methods may be useful for farmers with a LEO knowledge orientation, it largely neglects LES knowledge practitioners. Adherents of LES knowledge rely on a more personal understanding of their fields and are reluctant to depend on external sources of expertise, both human and artificial. LES farmers would benefit more from research on practices that provide continuity between current farming objectives, including social, cultural, ecological, and occupational components. For example, tools or techniques to do ‘onsite evaluations’ of nitrogen performance would allow more personal control of the process of monitoring nitrogen management, thereby achieving greater efficiencies in nutrient use via a culturally familiar process. Researchers might also work in collaboration with farmers to develop visual methods to determine differences in nitrogen utilization between fields. Researchers have proposed the utilization of on-site farm trials as a means to provide research information that is more accessible to farmers and applicable to their unique ecological circumstances (Bezdicek & DePhelps 1994; Rosmann 1994). On-site research and other strategies emphasizing local applications will be more successful if they address the spatial and temporal attributes that define a particular locality. The very nature of time and space are social constructions, and therefore cannot be defined without consideration of the social bases of their organization. Placing research in a local context does not inherently address the impact this research may have on the very social construction of locality. Instead,

156


researchers are likely to consider locality only as a unique physical or ecological space, which constitutes just one dimension of locality. It is necessary to facilitate a process that will address the diversity in temporal and spatial dimensions of knowledge construction and the varieties of ways in which farmers validate and evaluate their farm practices. The identification and inclusion of adherents of both LES and LEO knowledge communities will increase the likelihood of developing research agendas relevant to their diverse farming systems. Finally, these models are presented as a conceptual hypothesis. We do not suggest that they are exhaustive nor complete. When describing LES and LEO knowledge communities, they appear to be static; however, we remind the reader that they are presented as a dichotomous model for heuristic and organizational purposes. While we have suggested that farmers utilize elements of each knowledge community, we have not suggested how this process of negotiation and interaction takes place between knowledge communities. Future research is needed to address this question. In addition, we have only stressed the conceptual elements of these models. These constructions provide a framework to investigate the existence and performance of knowledge communities in diverse settings in both less and more industrialized contexts.

Acknowledgments Funding for this research came from the Missouri Management Systems Evaluation Area (MSEA) project. The authors thank Robin Albee, Alessandro Bonanno, Karen Bradley, Nicoline De Haan, Fernando Galindo, Jere Gilles, Robert Gronski, and Kanokwan Phankasem for their comments on a earlier draft, and Joel Hartman for his extensive comments on a more recent draft. We also thank the anonymous manuscript reviewers and Richard Haynes for their insights.

Notes 1. Some notable recent exceptions to this trend include Kloppenburg (1991), who proposed that local knowledge could be an important component from which to develop more sustainable forms of agriculture, and Warren (1994), who discussed indigenous knowledge in relation to Native American, Amish, Finnish settlers, and farms belonging to organizations such as the Practical Farmers of Iowa. 2. Thompson & Scoones (1994) provide an excellent discussion about fragmentary and diffuse character of knowledge as opposed to discrete stocks of knowledge. 3. We use the term knowledge construction as opposed to knowledge production. Typically knowledge production refers to the process in which discrete and new bodies of

information are developed. Furthermore, the term knowledge production is often used when the political-economic dimensions of knowledge are being explored and usually refers specifically to scientific knowledge developed in research institutions.

References Allen, K. & Bernhardt, K. (1995). Farming practices and adherence to an alternative-conventional agricultural paradigm, Rural Sociology 60: 297–309. Altieri, M. (1989). Agroecology: A new research and development paradigm for world agriculture, in Paoletti, Stinner, & Lorenzoni (eds.), Agricultural ecology and environment (pp. 37–46). New York: Elsevier. Altieri, M., ed. (1987). Agroecology: The scientific basis of alternative agriculture. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Banuri, T. & Marglin, F.A., eds. (1993). Who will save the forests? Knowledge, power and environmental destruction. London: Zed Books. Barlett, P., ed. (1980). Agricultural decision making: Anthropological contributions to rural development. New York: Academic Press. Bennett, J.W. (1982). Of time and enterprise: North American family farm management in a context of resource marginality. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Benvenuti, B. (1962). Farming in cultural change. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum and Co. Berry, W. (1977). The unsettling of America: Culture and agriculture. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Beus, C. & Dunlap, R. (1990). Conventional versus alternative agriculture: The paradigmatic roots of debate, Rural Sociology 55: 590–616. Bezdicek, D. & DePhelps, C. (1994). Innovative approaches for integrated research and educational programs, American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 9: 3–8. Biggelaar, C. den (1991). Farming systems development: Synthesizing indigenous and scientific knowledge systems, Agriculture and Human Values 8 (1–2): 25–36. Bourdieu, P. (1997). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brokensha, D., Warren, D.M. & Werner, O. (1980). Indigenous knowledge systems and development. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Browder, J. (1995). Redemptive communities: Indigenous knowledge, colonist farming systems, and conservation of tropical forests, Agriculture and Human Values 12 (1): 17– 30. Bultena, G., Hoiberg, E., Jarnagin, S. & Exner, R. (1992). Transition to a more sustainable agriculture in Iowa. Ames, IA: Department of Sociology, Sociological Report 166. Busch, L. (1978). On understanding understanding: Two views of communication, Rural Sociology 43: 450–473. Busch, L., Lacy, W., Burkhardt, J. & Lacy, L. (1991). Plants, power, and profit. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell. Bye, P. & Fonte, M. (1993). New functions of rural space in Western Europe: A challenge for agricultural techniques,

TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL DIMENSIONS OF KNOWLEDGE International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 3: 81–95. Chambers, R., Pacey, A. & Thrupp, L.A. (1989). Farmer first: Farmer innovation and agricultural research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. De Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Douglass, G. (1984). Agricultural sustainability in a changing world order. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Fitchen, J. (1991). Endangered spaces, enduring places. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. FitzSimmons, M. (1986). The new industrial agriculture: The regional integration of specialty crop production, Economic Geography 62 (4): 334–353. Foucault, M. & Gordon, C., eds. (1972). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings. New York: Pantheon Books. Freudenberger, C.D. (1984). Food for tomorrow? Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House. Gale, R.P. & Cordray, S.M. (1994). Making sense of sustainability: Nine answers to ‘What should be sustained?’, Rural Sociology 59: 311–332. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gladwin, C. (1989). Indigenous knowledge systems, the cognitive revolution, and agricultural decision making, Agriculture and Human Values 6 (3): 32–41. Gottdiener, M. (1993). A Marx for our time: Henri Lefebvre and the production of space, Sociological Theory 11: 129–134. Greider, T. & Garkovich, L. (1994). Landscapes: The social construction of nature and the environment, Rural Sociology 59: 1–24. Harvey, D. (1990). The condition of postmodernity. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell. Harwood, R.R. (1979). Small farm development: Understanding and improving farming systems in the humid tropics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Hassaein, N. & Kloppenburg Jr, J.R. (1995). Where the grass grows again: Knowledge exchange in the sustainable agriculture movement, Rural Sociology 60: 721–740. Howes, M. & Chambers, R. (1980). Indigenous technical knowledge: Analysis, implications and issues, in D. Brokensha, D.M. Warren & O. Werner (eds.), Indigenous knowledge systems and development (pp. 323–334). Landham, MD: University of America Press. Jackson, W. (1980). New roots for agriculture. San Francisco: Friends of the Earth. Kloppenburg Jr, J. (1988). First the seed: The political economy of plant biotechnology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kloppenburg Jr, J. (1991). Social theory and the de/reconstruction of agricultural science: Local knowledge for an alternative agriculture, Rural Sociology 56: 519–548. Kluckhohn, F. & Strodbeck, F. (1961). Variations in valueorientations: A theory tested in five cultures. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

157

Latour, B. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverely Hills: Sage Publications. Lefebvre, H. ([1974] 1991). The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Logsdon, G. (1994). At nature’s pace: Farming and the American dream. New York: Patheon Books. Long, N. & Long, A. (1992). Battlefields of knowledge. London: Routledge. Lyden, F. (1988). Value orientations in public decision making, Policy Studies Journal 16: 843–856. Mann, S. & Dickinson, J.M. (1978), Obstacles to the development of a capitalist agriculture, Journal of Peasant Studies 5: 466–481. Marsden, T., Lowe, P. & Whatmore, S., eds. (1990). Rural restructuring: Global processes and their responses. London: David Fulton Publishers. Mazur, R. & Titilola, S.T. (1992). Social and economic dimensions of local knowledge systems in African sustainable agriculture, Sociologia Ruralis 32: 264–286. McCorkle, C. (1989). Toward a knowledge of local knowledge and its importance for agricultural RD and E, Agriculture and Human Values 6 (3): 4–12. Mormont, M. (1987). Rural nature and urban natures, Sociologia Ruralis 27: 3–20. Newby, H. (1990). Urbanization and the rural class structure, in W. Friedland, L. Busch, F. Buttel & A. Rudy (eds.), Toward a New Political Economy of Agriculture (pp. 255– 283). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Raedeke, A., Rikoon, J.S. & Heffernan, W. (1994). Nitrogen fertilizer management: A qualitative examination of the decision making process. Paper presented at the Southern Rural Sociological Association annual meeting, Nashville, Tennesse. Rhoades, R.E. & Booth, R.H. (1982). Farmer-back-to farmer: A model for generating acceptable agricultural technology, Agricultural Administration 11: 127–137. Richards, P. (1993). Cultivation: Knowledge or performance?’ in M. Hobart (ed.), An Anthropological Critique of Development: The Growth of Ignorance (pp. 61–78). London: Routledge. Richards, P. (1985). Indigenous agricultural revolution: Ecology and food production in West Africa. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Rikoon, J.S. (1995). Conflicts of knowledge and the cultural construction of the environment: Implications for the mediation of ecology and democracy, Zemˇedˇelsk´a Ekonomika 41: 161–166. Rikoon, J.S. (1992). Sociological factors affecting farmers’ adoption of alternative farming practices for water quality protection and improvement, in Missouri MESA Project Plan, Vol. 2: Research (pp. 225–240). Columbia: USDAAgricultural Research Service, University of Missouri, and US Geological Survey. Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusions of innovations. New York: The Free Press. Rosmann, R. (1994). Farmer initiated on-farm research, American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 9: 34–37. Rouse, J. (1987). Knowledge and power: Toward a political philosophy of science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

158


Swidler, A. & Arditi, J. (1994). The new sociology of knowledge, Annual Review of Sociology 20: 305–329. Thompson, J. & Scoones, I. (1994). Challenging the populist perspective: Rural people’s knowledge, agricultural research, and extension practice, Agriculture and Human Values 11 (2–3): 58–76. Warren, D.M. (1994). Indigenous agricultural knowledge, technology, and social change, in G, McIsaac & W.R. Edwards

(eds.), Sustainable agriculture in the American midwest (pp. 35–53). Urbana: University of Chicago Press.

Address for correspondence: Andrew H. Raedeke, Rural Sociology Department, Sociology Building, Rm 8b, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA Phone: (573) 882-6357; Fax: (573) 882-1473 E-mail: [email protected]