Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 425–440 | Cite as

Seeing below the surface: making soil processes visible to Ugandan smallholder farmers through a constructivist and experiential extension approach

  • Lauren Pincus
  • Heidi Ballard
  • Emily Harris
  • Kate Scow
Article

Abstract

Ugandan smallholder farmers need to feed a growing population, but their efforts are hampered by declining soil fertility rates. Agricultural extension can facilitate farmers’ access to new practices and technologies, yet farmers are understandably often hesitant to adopt new behaviors. New knowledge assimilation is an important component of behavior change that is often overlooked or poorly addressed by current extension efforts. We implemented a Fertility Management Education Program (FMEP) in central Uganda to investigate smallholder farmers’ existing soil knowledge and their assimilation of new scientific concepts into their knowledge framework. Qualitative data were collected through participant observation, farmer interviews, and focus groups, and coded for using a priori and emergent themes. Our exploration revealed some notable similarities between farmers’ soil knowledge and scientific concepts, particularly in regards to soil health concepts, a discovery that could facilitate communication between extension agents and farmers. However, certain scientific concepts are either unknown to farmers or discordant with existing soil knowledge; these concepts are unlikely to be assimilated by farmers without convincing and concerted extension efforts. Importantly, we found that the combination of new scientific knowledge and hands-on experimentation with novel practices gave farmers far greater confidence in implementing improved soil management practices. Our study provides evidence that extension programs should engage directly with farmers’ existing soil knowledge to develop their understanding of key biological concepts and confidence in implementing improved practices.

Keywords

Agricultural extension Experiential learning Soil fertility management Uganda Smallholder farmers 

Abbreviations

CBO

Community Based Organization

DAP

Diammonium phosphate

FMEP

Fertility Management Education Program

ISFM

Integrated Soil Fertility Management

NAADS

National Agricultural Advisory Services

NRCS USDA

Natural Resources Conservation Service

T&V

Training and Visit

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to the farmers involved in this study who volunteered their time, land, and labor to this study and who were willing to engage in countless discussions on soil with us. We are grateful to Mugagga Kayondo and George Ojwang for their skillful field assistance. Financial support for this research was provided through a graduate scholarship to the first author from the National Security Education Program and the Horticulture Innovation Lab. The Horticulture Innovation Lab is funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, as part of the U.S. Government’s global hunger and food security initiative called Feed the Future. The contents are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. This research was conducted by the first author in partial fulfillment of a Ph.D. degree in the Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Afranaakwapong, N., and E. Nkonya. 2015. Agricultural extension reforms and development in Uganda. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development 7: 122–134. doi: 10.5897/JAERD2013.0528.Google Scholar
  2. Ballard, H. L., C. G. H. Dixon, and E. M. Harris. 2016. Youth-focused citizen science: Examining the role of environmental science learning and agency for conservation. Biological Conservation 208: 65–75. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84: 191–215. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrera-Bassols, N., and J. A. Zinck. 2000. Ethnopedology in a worldwide perspective: An annotated bibliography. Netherlands: ITC Publication.Google Scholar
  5. Berkes, F., and C. Folke, eds. 1998. Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.5751/es-00202-040205.Google Scholar
  6. Blackie, M. J., and R. B. Jones. 1993. Agronomy and increased maize productivity in Eastern and Southern Africa. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 9: 147–160. doi: 10.1080/01448765.1993.9754628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braun, A., and D. Duveskog. 2008. The farmer field school approachhistory, global assessment and success stories. Background Paper for the IFAD Rural Poverty Report. http://www.ifad.org/rural/rpr2010/background/1.pdf. Accessed 8 Sep 2017.
  8. Briggs, L., and S. J. Twomlow. 2002. Organic material flows within a smallholder highland farming system of South West Uganda. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 89: 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brosius, P., G. W. Lovelace, and G Marten Gerald. 1986. Ethnoecology: An approach to understanding traditional agricultural knowledge. In Traditional Agriculture in Southeast Asia: A human ecology perspective, ed. Gerald G. Marten, 187–198. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bunyatta, D. K., J. G. Mureithi, C. A. Onyago, and F. U. Ngesa. 2006. Farmer field school effectiveness for soil and crop management technologies in Kenya. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 13: 47–63. doi: 10.5191/jiaee.2006.13304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cobo, J. G., G. Dercon, and G. Cadisch. 2010. Nutrient balances in African land use systems across different spatial scales: A review of approaches, challenges and progress. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 136: 1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2009.11.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis, K. 2006. Farmer field schools: A boon or bust for agricultural extension in Africa? Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 13: 91–97. doi: 10.5191/jiaee.2006.13109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dawoe, E. K., J. K, M. E. E. Quashie-Sam, Isaac, and S. K. K Oppong. 2012. Exploring farmers’ local knowledge and perceptions of soil fertility and management in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. Geoderma 179–180: 96–103. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.02.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doran, J. W. 2002. Soil health and global sustainability: Translating science into practice. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 88: 119–127. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00246-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Esilaba, A. O., P. Nyende, G. Nalukenge, and J. B. Byalebeka. 2005. Resource flows and nutrient balances for crop and animal production in smallholder farming systems in eastern Uganda. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 109: 192–201. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2005.03.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fairhead, J., and I. Scoones. 2005. Local knowledge and the social shaping of soil investments: Critical perspectives on the assessment of soil degradation in Africa. Land Use Policy 22: 33–41. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Faure, G., Y. Desjeux, and P. Gasselin. 2012. New challenges in agricultural advisory services from a research perspective: A literature review, synthesis and research agenda. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 18: 461–492. doi: 10.1080/1389224X.2012.707063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Giller, K. E., P. Tittonell, M. C. Rufino, M. T. van Wijk, Shamie Zingore, P. Mapfumo, S. Adjei-Nsiah, M. Herrero, R. Chikowo, and M. Corbeels. 2011. Communicating complexity: Integrated assessment of trade-offs concerning soil fertility management within African farming systems to support innovation and development. Agricultural Systems 104: 191–203. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2010.07.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glaser, Barney G, and A. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  20. Haileslassie, A., J. A. Priess, E. Veldkamp, and J. P. Lesschen. 2007. Nutrient flows and balances at the field and farm scale: Exploring effects of land-use strategies and access to resources. Agricultural Systems 94: 459–470. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2006.11.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Headland, T. N., K. L. Pike, and M. Harris, eds. 1990. Emics and Etics: The Insider/Outsider Debate. 7th ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. doi: 10.2307/541632.Google Scholar
  22. Holland, D., W. Lachicotte, D. Skinner, and C. Cain. 1998. Agency and identity in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Ingram, J., P. Fry, and A. Mathieu. 2010. Revealing different understandings of soil held by scientists and farmers in the context of soil protection and management. Land Use Policy 27: 51–60. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.07.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jenson, B., and K. Schnack. 1997. The action competence approach in environmental education. Environmental Education Research 3: 163–178. doi: 10.1080/1350462970030205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaizzi, K. C., J. Byalebeka, O. Semalulu, I. N. Alou, W. Zimwanguyizza, A. Nansamba, and E. Odama. 2012. Optimizing smallholder returns to fertilizer use: Bean, soybean and groundnut. Field Crops Research 127: 109–119. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2011.11.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kolb, D. 1984. Experiential learning as the science of learning and development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  27. Krasny, M. E., C. Lundholm, and R. Plummer. 2010. Resilience in social–ecological systems: The roles of learning and education. Environmental Education Research 16: 463–474. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2010.505416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krueger, R., and M. A. Casey. 2000. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leeuwis, C., and R. Pyburn. eds. 2002. Social learning for rural resource management. Wheelbarrows full of frogs: Social learning for rural resource management, 11–21. Assen: Koninklijke van gorcumGoogle Scholar
  30. Loevinsohn, M. E., J. A. Berdegué, and I. Guijt. 2002. Deepening the basis of rural resource management: Learning processes and decision support. Agricultural Systems 73: 3–22. doi: 10.1016/S0308-521X(01)00097-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mairura, F. S., D. N. Mugendi, J. I. Mwanje, J. Joshua, P. K. Ramisch, Mbugua, and J. N. Chianu. 2007. Integrating scientific and farmers’ evaluation of soil quality indicators in Central Kenya. Geoderma 139: 134–143. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2007.01.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marenya, P. P., and C. B. Barrett. 2007. Household-level determinants of adoption of improved natural resources management practices among smallholder farmers in western Kenya. Food Policy 32: 515–536. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.10.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Merriam, S. B. 2009. Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  34. Misiko, M., P. Tittonell, K. E. Giller, and P. Richards. 2011. Strengthening understanding and perceptions of mineral fertilizer use among smallholder farmers: Evidence from collective trials in western Kenya. Agriculture and Human Values 28: 27–38. doi: 10.1007/s10460-010-9264-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Morris, M., V. A. Kelly, R. J. Kopicki, and D. Byerlee. 2007. Fertilizer use in African agriculture: Lessons learned and good practice guidelines. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. doi: 10.1596/978-0-8213-6880-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mugwe, J., D. Mugendi, M. Mucheru-Muna, R. Merckx, J. Chianu, and B. Vanlauwe. 2008. Determinants of the decision to adopt integrated soil fertility management practices by smallholder farmers in the Central Highlands of Kenya. Experimental Agriculture 45: 61. doi: 10.1017/S0014479708007072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nederlof, E. S., and C. Dangbégnon. 2007. Lessons for farmer-oriented research: Experiences from a West African soil fertility management project. Agriculture and Human Values 24: 369–387. doi: 10.1007/s10460-007-9066-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nkonya, E., C. Kayuki, Kaizzi, and J. Pender. 2005. Determinants of nutrient balances in a maize farming system in eastern Uganda. Agricultural Systems 85: 155–182. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2004.04.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oudwater, N., and A. Martin. 2003. Methods and issues in exploring local knowledge of soils. Geoderma 111: 387–401. doi: 10.1016/S0016-7061(02)00273-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Parkinson, S. 2009. When farmers don’t want ownership: Reflections on demand-driven extension in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 15: 417–429. doi: 10.1080/13892240903309678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. QSR International. 2012. Nvivo qualitative data analysis Software. Melbourne: QSR International Pty Ltd.Google Scholar
  42. Quansah, C., P. Drechsel, B. B. Yirenkyi, and S. Asante-Mensah. 2001. Farmers’ perceptions and management of soil organic matter—A case study from West Africa. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 61: 205–213. doi: 10.1023/A:1013337421594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rogers, E. M. 1983. Diffusion of innovations. London: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  44. Rogoff, B., R. Paradise, R. M. Arauz, M. Correa-Chavez, and C. Angelillo. 2003. Firsthand learning through intent participation. Annual Review of Psychology 54: 175–203. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rushemuka, N. P., R.a. Bizoza, J. G. Mowo, and L. Bock. 2014. Farmers’ soil knowledge for effective participatory integrated watershed management in Rwanda: Toward soil-specific fertility management and farmers’ judgmental fertilizer use. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 183: 145–159. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schusler, T. M., and M. E. Krasny. 2010. Environmental action as context for youth development. The Journal of Environmental Education 41: 208–223. doi: 10.1080/00958960903479803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Talawar, S., and R. E. Rhoades. 1998. Scientific and local classification and management of soils. Agriculture and Human Values 15: 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tsouvalis, J., S. Seymour, and C. Watkins. 2000. Exploring knowledge-cultures: Precision farming, yield mapping, and the expert-farmer interface. Environment and Planning A 32: 909–924. doi: 10.1068/a32138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Uganda Bureau of Statistics. 2006. National household survey, agricultural module. Kampala, Uganda.Google Scholar
  50. van de Fliert, E., and A. R. Braun. 2002. Conceptualizing integrative, farmer participatory research for sustainable agriculture: From opportunities to impact. Agriculture and Human Values 19: 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Visser, I., S. Cawley, and N. Röling. 1998. A co-learning approach to extension: Soil nitrogen workshops in Queensland, Australia. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 5: 179–191. doi: 10.1080/13892249885300301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wadsworth, B. J. 1996. Piaget’s theory of cognitive and affective development: Foundations of constructivism. USA: Longman Publishing.Google Scholar
  53. Winklerprins, A. 1999. Insights and applications local soil knowledge: A tool for sustainable land management. Society & Natural Resources 12: 151–161. doi: 10.1080/089419299279812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. World Population Data Sheet. 2013. Population Reference Bureau. http://www.prb.org/pdf13/2013-population-data-sheet_eng.pdf. Accessed 8 Sep 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lauren Pincus
    • 1
  • Heidi Ballard
    • 2
  • Emily Harris
    • 2
  • Kate Scow
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Plant SciencesUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA
  2. 2.School of EducationUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA
  3. 3.Department of Land, Air and Water ResourcesUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations