Abstract
Biophysical soil fertility management research, however good the knowledge it generates, has to contend with social processes among smallholders if that research is to help alleviate poverty. This chapter traces the reasons why smallholder farmers in western Kenya “opted out” of the processes of a participatory, community-based soil fertility management research project that was intended to improve their livelihoods. Critical case sampling was used to investigate 16 notable “dissidents” of the action-research processes. In-depth interviews, informal interviews, and participant observation were undertaken among these informants and four focus group discussions were used for follow up and further data collection. Results showed that smallholders’ participation in soil fertility management research was shaped by many factors, including: perceptions of long-term vs. short-term benefits; personalities and the local “politics of research”; contradictory policies or practices of research institutions; and the nature of soil fertility technologies that were being researched. These factors had similar influences across gender and age. This chapter suggests that meaningful researcher–smallholder partnerships can be achieved if policies and practices of collaborating institutions are harmonised and research is objectively guided and reviewed against smallholder objectives.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Luyia is a diverse community with more than 17 sub-ethnic groups. Butula, Emuhaya and Matayos are predominantly populated by the Abamarachi, Abanyore, and Abakhayo sub-ethnicities.
- 3.
- 4.
For instance, the so-called “Tephrosia-babies” in Chakol. This is a notorious story of how between 1997 and 2002, certain project staff slept with local women in plots of Tephrosia sp. and impregnated them. Another disgraceful story was when in 2003 a local girl “eloped” with another project’s staff. We (the FEI) had to bear the blame, since we were the most visible “outsiders” working there and the average farmer did not really distinguish between research projects funded by different agencies.
- 5.
The various names (e.g. “contact people”, “community facilitator”, “Resource farmer”) reflect the terms that were used in the different sites, some of which originated from previous projects or relationships. For example, the “community facilitator” in Emuhaya was a paid, government employee who had been employed by a previous project to support agricultural extension on ISFM topics in the community. The “Resource Farmer” concept was an FEI term coined later in the project as an alternative model for a more participatory, egalitarian relationship between the researchers and group members.
- 6.
When farmers visited on-station experiments, the detailed and expansive nature of the replicates were surprising to them. This “overly careful” design was even considered confusing, since replicates and treatments are typically scattered randomly by them and not easily compared side-by-side. Farmers seem to learn better by comparing fewer plots, and gaining deeper understanding about relevant and/or manageable procedures (Misiko 2007).
References
Abwunza, J. M. (1995). ‘Silika’ – To make our lives shine: Women’s groups in Maragoli. Anthropologica, 37(1), 27–48.
Bationo, A. (Ed.). (2004). Managing Nutrient cycles to sustain soil fertility in sub-Saharan Africa. Nairobi: Academic Science.
Bationo, A., Hartemink, A., Lungu, O., Naimi, M., Okoth, P., Smaling, E., & Thiombiano, L. (2006). African soils: Their productivity and profitability of fertiliser use. Background paper presented at the African Fertiliser Summit, 9–13 June 2006. Abuja, Nigeria.
Chambers, R. (1993). Challenging the professions: Frontiers for rural development. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Cohen, Y. (Ed.). (1968). Man in adaptation: The cultural present (2nd ed.). Chicago: Aldine.
Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (Eds.). (2001). Participation: The new tyranny? (p. 247). London: Zed Books.
Crowley, E. L., & Carter, S. E. (2000). Agrarian change and the changing relationships between toil and soil in Maragoli, Western Kenya (1900–1994). Human Ecology, 28(3), 383–414.
Defoer, T., Budelman, A., Toulmin, C., & Carter, S. E. (2000). Building common knowledge: Participatory learning and action research. Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute.
FAO, IFAD, & WB. (2008). Gender in agriculture sourcebook. Rome/Washington, DC: Food and Agriculture Organisation, International Fund for Agricultural Development/World Bank.
Holmberg, J. (1992). Making development sustainable: Redefining Institutions, Policy and Economics, International Institute for Environment and Development. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Marshall, P. A. (2003). Human subjects protections, institutional review boards, and cultural anthropological research. Anthropological Quarterly, 76(2), 269–285.
Misiko, M. (2008). An ethnographic exploration of the impacts of HIV/AIDS on soil fertility management among smallholders in Butula, western Kenya. NJAS, 56(3), 167–177.
Misiko, M, P. Tittonell, J.J. Ramisch, P. Richards and K.E. Giller (2008). Integrating new soyabean varieties for soil fertility management in smallholder systems through participatory research: lessons from western Kenya. Agricultural Systems, 97, 1–12.
Misiko, M. (2007). Participatory analyses of the “Strengthening ‘Folk Ecology’ Project” activities: A report on the January–March 2007 fieldwork. Nairobi: TSBF-CIAT. (mimeo).
Misiko, M. (2001). The potential of community institutions in dissemination and adoption of agricultural technologies in Emuhaya, Kenya. M.A. Thesis, University of Nairobi.
Mosse, D. (2001). ‘People’s knowledge’, participation and patronage: Operations and representations in rural development. In B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The new tyranny? (pp. 16–35). London: Zed Books.
Onduru, D., De Jager, A., Gachini, G., & Diop, J. (2001). Exploring new pathways for innovative soil fertility management in Kenya. Managing Africa’s Soils, 25
Pijnenburg, B. (2004). Keeping it vague: Discourses and practices of participation in rural Mozambique. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University.
Pretty, J. N. (1995). Regenerating agriculture: Policies and practices for sustainability and self-reliance. London: Earthscan.
Ramisch, J. J., Misiko, M. T., Ekise, I. E., & Mukalama, J. B. (2006). Strengthening ‘folk ecology’: Community-based learning for soil fertility management, western Kenya. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 4(2), 154–168.
Ramisch, J. J. (2010). Experiments as ‘performances’: Interpreting farmers soil fertility management practices in western Kenya. Chapter 15 in M. Goldman, P. Nadasdy, & M. D. Turner (Eds.), Knowing nature, transforming ecologies: Science, power, and practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Republic of Kenya. (1997a). Busia District Development Plan 1997–2001. Nairobi: Government Printer.
Republic of Kenya. (1997b). Vihiga District Development Plan 1997–2001. Nairobi: Government Printer.
Röling, N. (1990). The agricultural research-technology transfer interface: A knowledge systems perspective. In D. Kaimowitz (Ed.), Making the link: Agricultural research and technology transfer in developing countries (pp. 1–42). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Savala, C. E. N., Omare, M. N., & Woomer, P. L. (Eds.). (2003). Organic resource management in Kenya: Perspectives and guidelines. Nairobi: Forum for Organic Resource Management and Agricultural Technologies.
Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Programme (TSBF). (2000). The Biology and fertility of tropical soils: Report of the Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Programme 1997–1998. Nairobi: TSBF.
Vanlauwe, B., Diels, J., Sanginga, N., & Merckx, R. (Eds.). (2002). Integrated plant nutrient management in sub-Saharan Africa. Wallingford: CABI.
Wangila, J., Rommelse, R., & deWolffe, J. (1999). Characterization of households in the pilot project area of western Kenya. Nairobi: ICRAF (mimeo).
Werner, J. (2000). Participatory development of agricultural innovations: Procedures and methods of on-farm research (p. 193). Eschborn: GTZ.
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the assistance of farmers in western Kenya, the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the Rockefeller Foundation, Wageningen University and Research Centre, and the TSBF Institute of CIAT. Perceptions documented here were observed among some farmers; this document does not wish to generalise all observations. The author takes full responsibility for any omissions, inaccuracies, and analyses.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Misiko, M. (2010). “Opting Out”: A Case Study of Smallholder Rejection of Research in Western Kenya. In: German, L., Ramisch, J., Verma, R. (eds) Beyond the Biophysical. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8826-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8826-0_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8825-3
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-8826-0
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)