2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.05.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

‘They don’t know what they are talking about’: Learning from the dissonances in dialogue about soil fertility knowledge and experimental practice in western Kenya

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
39
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
0
39
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The narrative of two unitary and fundamentally distinct knowledge systems—one ever expanding in influence and reach while the other rapidly erodes—has created a sense of urgency with regard to “preserving” local knowledge systems, as further loss erodes the knowledge base for environmental management and climate-change adaptation. Importantly, such framings have largely reinforced an image of local knowledge systems as fundamentally static and internally undifferentiated (Goldman 2007; Ramisch 2014). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The narrative of two unitary and fundamentally distinct knowledge systems—one ever expanding in influence and reach while the other rapidly erodes—has created a sense of urgency with regard to “preserving” local knowledge systems, as further loss erodes the knowledge base for environmental management and climate-change adaptation. Importantly, such framings have largely reinforced an image of local knowledge systems as fundamentally static and internally undifferentiated (Goldman 2007; Ramisch 2014). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(3) Responsibilities were delegated as much as possible to the farmers. Therefore, farmers were given the space to involve fully in the experimentation, not only by evaluating field performance, but also by having a full mandate for main steps in the research cycle (see for example, Arévalo and Ljung (2006), de Souza et al (2012), Giller et al (2008), Musvoto et al (2015), Nederlof et al (2004) and Ramisch (2014)). Maximum control over experimentation (analysis, design) was delegated to the farmers to avoid bias between groups due to our inputs (see also points 4 and 5 below).…”
Section: Points Of Departurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In participatory experimentation processes farmers and scientists provide different cognitive inputs and also use different sources of knowledge (Hoffmann et al, 2007). Differences in type and source of knowledge relate to differences in reference frameworks of involved scientists and farmers: academic vs. contextual and academic vs. pragmatic (Arévalo and Ljung, 2006;Leitgeb et al, 2011;Ramisch, 2014;Van Asten et al, 2009). In addition, also peers and social context in most cases are completely different (Chambers and Jiggins, 1987b).…”
Section: Participatory Experimentationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Farmers received a copy of the trial design with explanations in their local language on how to establish the trial. No conventional check treatment was included, as farmers are well aware of the performance of their traditional systems (Ramisch, 2014). Seeding dates varied between all plots depending on rainfall and irrigation opportunities.…”
Section: Experimental Designmentioning
confidence: 99%