Studying knowledge

There are various ways to document knowledge differences between children and adult farmers. This study makes use of two approaches:

1. Evaluation of individuals stocks of knowledge, that is what these individuals bear in their mind, given their culture and environment.

2. Examination of how individuals operationalize their stocks of knowledge, that is, the way they put their knowledge into action in a specific situation such as pest problem solving.

In the sections below I discuss relevant insights in relation to both dimensions.

2.1.1 Knowledge as a stock: the ethnoecological approach

Knowledge as a stock represents the contents of people’s minds. It is the knowledge that has been built up or accumulated and embedded in individuals.

The stock of knowledge has the dimensions of both breadth and depth (Wu and Shanley 2008). Several additional dimensions can be taken into account when evaluating people’s stocks of knowledge. The most important for the purpose of this study are perception, information and beliefs.

Knowledge and perception are closely interrelated with human action and experience. In everyday language, perceptions and beliefs related to the

32 33

functioning of the bio-physical and social world are usually referred to as

‘knowledge’ (Leeuwis, 2004). Knowledge and perception are influenced by an individual’s background, cultural context, social rules and religious beliefs (Björnsen-Gurung, 2002; Price, 2001). Knowledge and perception are not neutral; they are subject to social influences and interests (Grosz, 1993), and farmers have strategies to deal with information, evaluate their experiences and learn from them (Engel and Salomon, 1997; Röling, 1994). Information, education, training and experience allow farmers to develop and make use of new farming knowledge and technologies (FAO, 1996).

Indigenous versus scientific agricultural knowledge

In the sphere of agriculture there exist several types of knowledge as a stock.

However, the present research takes into account two of them: indigenous and scientific knowledge. Each has its own logic and process of creation.

Indigenous knowledge is the ‘knowledge system of people who are linked by history of occupation and through ancestors to a given location’ (Price, 2001: 156; Purcell, 1998: 260). In addition to this definition, Barsh (1997) and Kurin (1983) emphasize that indigenous knowledge is an aspect of culture which functions towards the long-term survival of a group. Hence, indigenous knowledge results from practicality, appropriate behavior and observation of the ecology (Grant and Miller, 2004; Purcell, 1998). Indigenous knowledge is often based on sets of uncontrolled, undocumented, and not always verifiable or replicable observations. It is linked to subjective experiences and rooted in the culture, history and biophysical environment of the group (Purcell, 1998; Raedeke and Rikoon, 1997). Modes used by farmers for validating such knowledge include practical experience, farm comparisons, intuition and discussions with peers (Leeuwis, 2004: 105-107).

Agricultural scientists tend to use different procedures for arriving at valid knowledge when compared to those used by farmers. Most natural scientists apply strict and systematic procedures for arriving at knowledge claims.

Natural scientists emphasize the importance of verifiability and replicability in knowledge creation, which implies not only that something may be known, but that the method(s) of discovery must also be solid, and further, that the knowledge must ‘contain the element of its explanation’ (Purcell, 1998:

259). Through the application of rigorous methods scientists hope to arrive at universally valid knowledge and insights; they tend to be less interested in knowledge that is true only within a specific cultural setting. A scientific explanation must be demonstrable outside of any ‘unique symbolic structure’

(Purcell, 1998: 259). It must bear universality, not the practitioner’s belief (Grosz, 1993; Purcell, 1998). Although there are many differences between

scientific and indigenous knowledge, they should not be exaggerated. At a more abstract level, according to Leeuwis (2004), all knowledge, including that of scientists, is local and contextual and thus occurs, and is meaningful in a specific cultural, technical and spatial context. Nevertheless, the knowledge of agricultural scientists can enrich ‘farmers’ indigenous knowledge in the sense that farmers’ knowledge is not always adaptive to rapid changes in climate or ecology, or to developments such as industrialization and an increasingly market-oriented agriculture (Price, 2001; Leeuwis, 2004). All this implies that ‘scientists’ and ‘farmers’ knowledge can enrich one another in fostering agricultural development. An important message of the above is that knowledge is an integral part of people’ culture.

The ethnoecological approach to studying knowledge stocks

The ethnoecological approach situates knowledge as an element of culture.

Ethnoecology refers to how ‘a given culture/language group organizes and classifies their knowledge of the environment’ (Price, 2001: 157). Culture consists of the organized standards and rules about reality and human choices that people share to a certain degree. Goodenough (1964) says that culture (including knowledge) is a product of learning, as distinct from biological heritage. Individual knowledge (skill, know-how and expertise) is culturally bound (Nanda and Warms, 1998; Bourdieu, 1994). However, culture is dynamic and builds upon itself through time (Price, 2001; Romney et al., 1986). Moreover, variations exist within a culture and differences between people may arise from their different roles or their individual observational skills, motivation, interests and perception. As Bourdieu (1994) puts it, knowledge and skills are the result of cultural interactions, and as such, are embedded within culturally produced values and meanings. He added that knowledge and skills (social and technical) are ‘styles of interaction, and reflect individual’s position in a social space’ (Bourdieu, 1994: 77-78). This highlights that real life situational diversity can be expected to produce diversity in individual farmers’ agricultural knowledge.

The ethnoecological perspective can be used to uncover agricultural knowledge of farmers in the Couffo region, in the majority of whom belong to the Adja cultural group. This is done through measuring farmers’ knowledge at individual and group levels using culturally correct concepts and responses (Price, 2001; Ellen, 1982; Romney et al., 1986; Gragson and Blount, 1999).

Werner and Fenton (1970) emphasize that early research on cultural knowledge used key informants and was traditionally represented as a composite of many individual competences. The description of knowledge that accompanied this composite was 'that of a potentially omniscient native speaker-hearer', that is,

34 35

an individual who knows all about his/her culture. It is now accepted, however, that people’s knowledge varies with their intelligence, interest, opportunity and social divisions such as gender. No individual can be said to hold the total stock of the knowledge of his/her culture. Therefore, a full description of people’s knowledge will be 'a composite picture of the cultural competences of many informants', chosen among the population. As a result, two levels of knowledge will be reflected: the sum of all knowledge held by individuals, and the amount of knowledge shared by all members or the intersection of all individuals’ competences (Werner and Fenton, 1970: 540; see also Price, 2001: 159).

One of the main principles in the ethnoecological approach is that of language as a ‘gateway’ to knowledge (Price, 2001: 158). It emphasizes naming as the basis of knowledge of living things and the way they are ordered in the nature, according to indigenous people’s perceptions (Berlin, 1992; Ellen, 1982).

Thus, the basis of analyzing farmer’s knowledge rests on the assumption that knowledge domains (well-bounded areas of knowledge) can be documented based on salience of naming items (Price, 2001: 157). Furthermore, language is vital to culture and cultural continuity and information about farming and other aspects of life are included in this. Price (2001) emphasizes that language is a main instrument in learning because it provides continuity in communicating knowledge between people and transmitting knowledge across generations. Language is also a means of bringing in new observations as we can invent terms and communicate observations we find of particular value. Several studies have used farmer folk nomenclature in agriculture to illustrate that naming is positively correlated with the cultural importance of different living things such as crop varieties, insect species, etc., and the evidence of the significance of utility dimensions in the salience of the named items (Hunn, 1982, 1999; Ellen, 1982; Brown, 1984; Berlin, 1992;

Grant and Miller, 2004; Björnsen-Gurung, 2002). Moreover, many authors have examined knowledge differences among farmers by studying indigenous agriculture and knowledge in the domain of crop protection (Johnson, 1974;

Bentley, 1989). They concluded that farmers’ knowledge varies according to their environment, and that farmers know more about some domains than others (Bentley, 1989; Chambers, 1983; Sherwood, 1997).

2.1.2 Knowledge in action: the pest problem solving process

In order to be useful, knowledge is tested and put to use in action. To do so, people refer to their own knowledge base, but also use information gathered from various sources. This can serve to turn an undesirable state of things

(a problem) into a desirable one (Leeuwis, 2004). Solving a given problem, for instance a pest problem, does not always occur in a straightforward and linear way. Nevertheless, several dimensions of problem solving can be distinguished. The present study focuses on aspects such as identifying the problem, explaining its causes(s), and determining and choosing among alternative solutions.