3 Conceptual framework
3.1 Introduction: linking theory and practice
The study builds on the belief that the representation we make about the material world is neither an objective reflection of reality ‘as it is’ nor completely arbitrary, and it makes a fundamental distinction between the physical world and the metaphysical realm of morals and judgement in terms of positivist science’s success in producing ‘useful’ knowledge. In dealing with the cultural dimension of human existence the study takes an actor-oriented stance that acknowledges the role of both structure and human agency in shaping social change and introduces an interpretative perspective to account for multiple realities. The process of pro-poor aquaculture technology development and extension in the Bolivian Amazon is examined using an Innovation Systems Framework (Andersen et al., 2002; Carlsson et al., 2002; Hall et al., 2003), that acknowledges the role of different actors at the micro- and macro-level and the contexts in which they operate, in shaping the production and delivery of innovations. Local level analysis is aided by a Knowledge Engineering Approach to agricultural research management (Reece et al., 2003; Sumberg and Reece, 2004) and Livelihoods perspectives (Carney, 1999; Ellis, 2000; Norton and Foster, 2001; Scoones, 1998). These approaches are used in tandem to inform the study of ‘the adaptive end’ of the R&D process. Knowledge Engineering is particularly useful in providing conceptual ground for the analysis of fish farming technology development alternatives. The other side of the ‘technology transfer’ equation requires the understanding of resource poor farmers’ needs and expectations. The study moves beyond Farming Systems and draws on the notion of Livelihoods to inform the process of technology development and diffusion.
The following section describes in further detail the conceptual framework and research strategy adopted. It begins by setting the epistemological foundation of the study and the methodological approaches adopted. The different methods used for data collection and analysis are described in detail in the chapters that present the results of the study of aquaculture development in the Bolivian Amazon (Chapter 4) and of pro-poor aquaculture technology development initiatives in the indigenous territories TIM and TIMI in Moxos, Beni (Chapter 5).
43 3.1.1 Setting the foundations
Why bother with theory? The empiricist school of thought would argue that, in fact, we should not. Grounded on the ‘correspondence theory of reality’, empiricism is characterized by the belief that ‘facts speak for themselves’ (Bulmer, 1982). The researcher’s task, therefore, is limited to the selection and/or development of the most useful techniques and tools for data collection. This is often what occurs in research practice (May, 2001). Critics of empiricism argue that ‘facts’ do not exist out there independently of the medium through which they are collected, analysed and interpreted, in other words, data are not collected, data are produced. What is produced and how it is produced are inseparable in the research process (Layder, 1998). Social theory must be made explicit in order that the assumptions and presuppositions we make are open to scrutiny. Furthermore, social theory provides an orientation and background to the issues being studied and it is useful for the interpretation of research results, to ‘make sense’ of the empirical data. However, it is equally problematic to try and explain reality by producing data without theory as to try to produce theory without empirical data (Bourdieu, 2000). To deal with the inevitable dependence between theory and data requires a reflexive practice. ‘Reflexivity’ on the part of the researcher implies an overt ‘consideration of the practice of research, our place within it and the construction of our fields of inquiry...assisted by the constant interaction...between different interpretations of social life and the data which we produce about it’ (May 2001: 44).
3.1.2 A working framework / A framework that works
The differing positions with regards to methods and approaches to rural development and extension science that have developed, and often coexisted, mirror differing views about how the social world is perceived and what counts as knowledge. In other words, they reflect differing epistemological positions.
The objectives of this research will lead us to explore both physical phenomena and the realm of values and judgement, working with a diverse and multidisciplinary set of research methods that do not seem to fit easily within one single epistemology. The analysis of technical aquaculture issues through the assessment of geo- and biophysical indicators could fit comfortably within a hypothetical-deductive-
44 experimental epistemology typical of modern science. We need not abandon the realm of the physical world to investigate these matters where modern science can produce theories that are empirically adequate. We could say we are dealing with ontologically ‘objective’ entities and processes that exist independently of any mental state of the perceiver (Searle, 1995). However, if the empirically adequate knowledge acquired is to be of any use, we need to engage with those who are going to build the ponds, breed the fish and reap the benefits (if there are any). Furthermore, we will have to trespass into the realm of morals and judgement to gain some sort of ‘consensus’ before we even agree on the relevance of developing aquaculture in the first place, let alone the most effective way of developing and delivering ‘appropriate technologies’. Once the human dimension comes into the picture we enter a realm of knowledge which has always been less accessible for modernist epistemologies, because we must necessarily deal with entities which are ontologically ‘subjective’. A rigorous modernist framework for research within the realm of metaphysics cannot work, because to function it must turn ontologically subjective entities into ontologically objective ones. However, if the criteria of success for scientific theory is not truth or falsity but ‘empirical adequacy’ (at a given time and place), we might find ourselves disagreeing with regards to what is ‘adequate’. Development becomes a subjectively defined process whose aims and priorities are being continually negotiated over space and time. The emergence of an epistemology of development agency is providing new space for researchers and practitioners in the field to understand the role of these ‘negotiations’ in shaping social change.
3.1.3 The actor oriented paradigm: reconciling structure and agency
Structural models of development, such as modernization and neo-Marxist models, share a view of social change as emanating primarily from centres of power, in the form of state intervention or international interests. Despite ideological and theoretical differences, both positions understand development as following a broadly determined path. Social change is understood as being determinist, linear and promoted by external forces.
The actor-oriented paradigm has been a counterpoint to structural analysis (Long and Long, 1992). Although it acknowledges the role of outside forces (such as the market
45 or the state) in influencing social change, it rejects the idea that development can be explained by external determination alone. Whilst external interventions influence the lives of social groups and individuals, in doing so they are also mediated and transformed by these same actors. The notion of ‘human agency’ is at the heart of actor oriented approaches and attributes to individual actors ‘the capacity to process social experience and to devise ways of coping with life, even under the most extreme forms of coercion...social actors are knowledgeable and capable’ (ibid: 22-23). Peoples’ embeddedness within institutional structures and processes does not imply the total obliteration of behavioural choice, ‘all forms of dependence offer some resource whereby those who are subordinate can influence the activities of their superiors’ (Giddens, 1984: 16). Human agency manifests itself through social relations and requires organizing capacities to become effective. ‘Social actors’ that have the means of reaching decisions and acting upon them to a greater or lesser extent may include individuals but also civic organisations, political parties, enterprises, state agencies etc. Strategic agency depends upon the materialization of a network of actors who become committed to the same ‘project’, and requires the strategic channelling of claims, goods, information and other specific items to win the struggles that take place over the attribution of social meanings given to ideas and actions (Long, 1992). Social actors are not passive recipients of interventions, but active participants in social change who process information and build upon ‘discursive means11’ in their dealings and
interactions with other actors. The focus of analysis is on understanding differential responses to similar structural conditions. Such differential responses reflect, in part, variations in how actors deal with the situations they face.
In the fields of rural development and extension science, the actor-oriented paradigm offers a different approach to technology development and delivery than that developed by the classical Diffusion of Innovations Theory (Rogers, 1983) and Farming Systems Research. Actor-oriented approaches concentrate on knowledge generation and transformation in rural development interfaces. ‘Knowledge’ is understood as a social process that emerges as a product of the interaction between different sets of actors often with competing interests. ‘Knowledge systems’ are understood in terms of
11 Discourse refers to ‘the assemble of ideas, concepts, and categories through which meaning is given to
46 different actors and networks of actors through which technical and social information is communicated and negotiated (Scoones and Thompson, 1994: 3). ‘Social interfaces’ are points of intersection or encounters between different social systems or life- worlds12, where discrepancies in social interests, normative values, knowledge and
power are most likely to occur i.e. structural discontinuities (Arce and Long, 1992; Long and Villareal, 1994). A typical example of interface situations is when a new technology is introduced into existing farming systems and livelihoods. External agents’ conception of the problem at hand and the innovation proposed to deal with it will most likely differ from that of farmers. There will be an encounter (and mutual transformation) of life-worlds and modes of knowledge. Farmers, under this perspective, are seen as active ‘strategizers’ involved in constructing his/her own ‘farming world’, based on varying environmental, cultural and socioeconomic conditions and differential use and transformation of knowledge. Adopted technologies undergo a continuous process of readaptation to fit livelihood strategies, resource imperatives and priorities.
The analysis of ‘interface situations’ requires an interpretative perspective to help uncover the ‘hidden’ agendas of different social actors. This is central to understanding the intended and unintended outcomes of planned intervention. If it is recognised that there are ‘multiple realities’ at play, then it is important to examine whose interpretations prevail and the relationships between power and knowledge processes. Interface situations bring individuals or groups with different life-worlds face-to-face, but these social actors also differ in the resources and power they bring to the game. Under this perspective, the analysis of knowledge generation and dissemination highlights the need to account for the social context in which it takes place, beyond ‘formal institutions’ or ‘ideal type conceptions’ (Smith and Stacey, 1997).
The epistemological stance adopted in this research entails a choice of methodological approaches that allow for the analysis of micro-processes whilst also accounting for larger scale economic, political and socio-cultural systems. The combination of Innovation Systems, Knowledge Engineering and Livelihoods Approaches provides a
12A life-world can be understood as a lived-in and largely ‘taken for granted’ world (Schutz and Luckmann,
47 valuable framework through which to address both how particular groups or individuals deal with new elements in their life-worlds and attempt to create space for themselves, and how these processes can influence and be influenced by the broader environment in which they are set.