Methodological approach

Means-End Chain theory has been used in researching farmers’ decision-making before and the concept of multifunctionality has previously been used in explaining the multiple outcomes of agriculture. Yet by using Means-End Chain theory in

combination with multifunctionality this study was built upon a novel methodological approach. There are interesting conceptual links between MEC and multifunctionality. The benefit of MEC is that it promises to provide a participant’s perspective on each of the aspects: What does the participant perceive as being the functional trait or function, and what is his/her purpose for having this function? This social actor involvement has been described as highly important for the development of

multifunctional agriculture (Diaz et al., 2011; O’Farrell & Anderson, 2010). Here MEC offers a conceptual methodological way of not just including participants but even understanding their motives. However, it should be noted that as a singular example this study is not sufficient for proving the applicability of the approach. Instead, further research and possibly comparative studies targeting different methodologies should be conducted. Furthermore, there are some remaining question marks. First of all, the author took a lot of freedom with the MEC theory, especially in terms of data analysis. Results would likely be very different if a quantitative analysis was conducted.

Second, subsistence agriculture has proven to be a system that was not particularly suitable for a MEC approach. Personal values, which are the fundamental behavioural drivers according to MEC theory, are not commonly mentioned as behavioural drivers in subsistence agriculture. Rather, certain decisions are taken based on. This has appeared as a flaw to the MEC approach. Personal values are thought to be a set of guidelines that allow for an individual to achieve its basic needs. In subsistence agriculture basic needs have to be targeted directly in a large amount of everyday activities. For solving this problem, the study has considered basic need fulfilment as a personal value, which strictly speaking is a misinterpretation. However, it was found to enable a comparison of what actions and decisions are directed towards.

64 Taking housing as an example: To which extent is a new roof basic need and to which extent might it even be a question of status?

Third, laddering was found to be difficult and not always as rewarding as expected. One of the reasons is that at a level of basic need fulfilment further laddering could be offending for participants. This had to be avoided in any case. By using different laddering methods, it was possible to gain insights into higher cognitive levels on most aspects. Still, it is possible that laddering responses were skewed to those answers that participants found easiest to talk about. Children e.g. occurred as a common topic in relation to personal values. It’s very likely that the well-being of children is one of the most important things for participants. But it’s also possible that children happen to be a rather easy topic to talk about. Probably, there’s a little bit of both to it. This can be considered as a cultural aspect that influenced the way

communication and thus interviews are guided. Another issue with laddering was that of language and interpretation.

Forth, this study has been largely dependent on the quality of translations. For all communications in the field an interpreter was used. The interpreter was a

professional researcher from Mekelle university, having his core expertise in forestry and agricultural land use. This meant, that he was not a professionally trained interpreter. Of course this might have led to an increased margin of error in accurately translating formulations of participants. However, the hired interpreter had worked as such before, was familiar with the method of semi-structured interviews, and had the right expertise for translating terms and issues related to agroforestry. Thus, overall, the author is confident that the quality of the

interpretation was high especially for those parts of the interviews that were

concerned with the farming system, the trees’ attributes, and the trees’ functions. In terms of personal values associated with the trees, there might have been benefits of being able to access formulations of respondents more accurately or directly. This would though only have been possible if the interview was conducted in the local language. Most importantly the author was aware of this possible lack of

communication. Thoroughness and carefulness were applied within the analysis, and especially in terms of personal values, the author has been reluctant to interpret formulations or answers that weren’t entirely clear. Furthermore, direct quotes were intensively used throughout the results section to allow for transparency.

Despite the drawbacks of the approach, the use of MEC theory in this study has proven to be a methodology for highlighting an interesting link between

multifunctionality and local knowledge. On a level of personal reflection, the author would like to remark that in the beginning he was not working theoretically deep enough. To the author, it almost seems like sheer luck that everything fell into place much more than expected, especially in terms of the applicability of MEC theory in multifunctionality research. In hindsight, it could have been an advantage to draft a clearer framework between MEC theory and multifunctionality before embarking on the field trip. On the other hand, openness in terms of scientific theory enabled the author to be very flexible and reflexive, in the field and analysis.

65