IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i11p4342-d362897.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Use of Video to Evaluate On-Farm Demonstrations as a Tactile Space for Learning

Author

Listed:
  • Hanne Cooreman

    (KU Leuven & Social Sciences Unit Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium)

  • Joke Vandenabeele

    (KU Leuven—Education, Culture and Society-Laboratory for Education and Society (ECS-LES), 3000 Leuven, Belgium)

  • Lies Debruyne

    (Social Sciences Unit, Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium)

  • Fleur Marchand

    (Social Sciences Unit, Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
    Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development, University of Antwerp, 2020 Antwerp, Belgium)

Abstract

Tactile spaces as learning environments influence individuals’ attitudes through social embeddedness or interconnections among people, and physical embodiedness through experiencing surroundings, potentially fostering deep commitments. When on-farm demonstrations operate as tactile spaces, they could potentially support the adoption of innovative agricultural practices. In this article, we introduce video analysis as a methodological approach to evaluate this potential of on-farm demonstration (OFD) as tactile spaces. We reflect upon this methodology with a lens on three Belgian on-farm demonstrations, each on a different topic with a different participant group, all including farmers. As a first result, this method assists in defining strengths and weaknesses of an OFD in terms of using its potential as a rich learning environment. Based on our cases, we suggest deliberately incorporating physical interaction opportunities and verbal references to the surroundings during OFDs, as our data reveals that physical embodiedness opportunities stimulate verbal and physical interactions. However, more research should confirm this. Secondly, our research resulted in lessons learned for future use of video to evaluate OFDs as tactile spaces, building on the VDA methodological framework of Nassauer and Legewie (2018). We summarise our insights in methodological guidelines, which can serve as a starting point to guide future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Hanne Cooreman & Joke Vandenabeele & Lies Debruyne & Fleur Marchand, 2020. "The Use of Video to Evaluate On-Farm Demonstrations as a Tactile Space for Learning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-15, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:11:p:4342-:d:362897
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/11/4342/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/11/4342/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Davis, K. & Nkonya, E. & Kato, E. & Mekonnen, D.A. & Odendo, M. & Miiro, R. & Nkuba, J., 2012. "Impact of Farmer Field Schools on Agricultural Productivity and Poverty in East Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 402-413.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mekonnen, Daniel Ayalew & Gerber, Nicolas & Matz, Julia Anna, 2018. "Gendered Social Networks, Agricultural Innovations, and Farm Productivity in Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 321-335.
    2. Jinyang Cai & Fengxiang Ding & Yu Hong & Ruifa Hu, 2021. "An Impact Analysis of Farmer Field Schools on Hog Productivity: Evidence from China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, October.
    3. Sardorbek Musayev & Jonathan Mellor & Tara Walsh & Emmanouil Anagnostou, 2021. "Development of an Agent-Based Model for Weather Forecast Information Exchange in Rural Area of Bahir Dar, Ethiopia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-21, April.
    4. Andre Croppenstedt & Markus Goldstein & Nina Rosas, 2013. "Gender and Agriculture: Inefficiencies, Segregation, and Low Productivity Traps," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 28(1), pages 79-109, February.
    5. Mikami, Satoru & Furukawa, Mitsuaki, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Conditions for Successful Knowledge Transfer in Training Programs," Working Papers 85, JICA Research Institute.
    6. Sylvester Ochieng Ogutu & Andrea Fongar & Theda Gödecke & Lisa Jäckering & Henry Mwololo & Michael Njuguna & Meike Wollni & Matin Qaim, 2020. "How to make farming and agricultural extension more nutrition-sensitive: evidence from a randomised controlled trial in Kenya [Agricultural extension: good intentions and hard realities]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(1), pages 95-118.
    7. Mohammad Mahfuzur Rahman Bhuiyan & Keshav Lall Maharjan, 2022. "Impact of Farmer Field School on Crop Income, Agroecology, and Farmer’s Behavior in Farming: A Case Study on Cumilla District in Bangladesh," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-20, April.
    8. Chilemba, Joanna & Ragasa, Catherine, 2018. "The impact of a farmer business school program on incomes of smallholder farmers: Insights from central Malawi," MaSSP working papers 23, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    9. Hammond, Jim & Rosenblum, Nathaniel & Breseman, Dana & Gorman, Léo & Manners, Rhys & van Wijk, Mark T. & Sibomana, Milindi & Remans, Roseline & Vanlauwe, Bernard & Schut, Marc, 2020. "Towards actionable farm typologies: Scaling adoption of agricultural inputs in Rwanda," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    10. Ruth Stewart & Laurenz Langer & Natalie Rebelo Da Silva & Evans Muchiri & Hazel Zaranyika & Yvonne Erasmus & Nicola Randall & Shannon Rafferty & Marcel Korth & Nolizwe Madinga & Thea de Wet, 2015. "The Effects of Training, Innovation and New Technology on African Smallholder Farmers' Economic Outcomes and Food Security: A Systematic Review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 1-224.
    11. Adewale H. Adenuga & Claire Jack & Austen Ashfield & Michael Wallace, 2021. "Assessing the Impact of Participatory Extension Programme Membership on Farm Business Performance in Northern Ireland," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-12, September.
    12. Ram Fishman & Stephen C. Smith & Vida Bobic & Munshi Sulaiman, 2022. "Can Agricultural Extension and Input Support Be Discontinued? Evidence from a Randomized Phaseout in Uganda," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 104(6), pages 1273-1288, November.
    13. Kondylis, Florence & Mueller, Valerie & Zhu, Jessica, 2017. "Seeing is believing? Evidence from an extension network experiment," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 1-20.
    14. Muluken Gezahegn Wordofa & Maria Sassi, 2017. "Impact of Farmers’ Training Centres on Household Income: Evidence from Propensity Score Matching in Eastern Ethiopia," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-12, December.
    15. Lisa Jäckering & Theda Gödecke & Meike Wollni, 2019. "Agriculture–nutrition linkages in farmers’ communication networks," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 50(5), pages 657-672, September.
    16. Denise Hörner & Adrien Bouguen & Markus Frölich & Meike Wollni, 2022. "Knowledge and Adoption of Complex Agricultural Technologies: Evidence from an Extension Experiment," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 36(1), pages 68-90.
    17. Yao Pan & Stephen C Smith & Munshi Sulaiman, 2018. "Agricultural Extension and Technology Adoption for Food Security: Evidence from Uganda," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1012-1031.
    18. Guo, Xiao-Xia & Li, Ke-Li & Liu, Yi-Ze & Zhuang, Ming-Hao & Wang, Chong, 2022. "Toward the economic-environmental sustainability of smallholder farming systems through judicious management strategies and optimized planting structures," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    19. Stephen C. Smith & Ram Fishman & Vida BobicÌ & Munshi Sulaiman, 2017. "How Sustainable Are Benefits from Extension for Smallholder Farmers? Evidence from a Randomised Phase-Out of the BRAC Program in Uganda," Working Papers 2017-1, The George Washington University, Institute for International Economic Policy.
    20. Miki Dowsing & Sarah Cardey, 2020. "Smallholder Farmers’ Perspectives on Advisory Extension Services: A Case Study of the Gamo Communities of Southern Ethiopia," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-17, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:11:p:4342-:d:362897. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.