IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/joafsc/360018.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pairing a Q Study with Participatory Decision-making around Farmworker Safety: A Case in Washington's Tree Fruit Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Lehrer, Nadine
  • Donovan, Colleen
  • Gullen, Maureen

Abstract

Tenets of participatory decision-making speak to the importance of meaningful participation from diverse stakeholders for improving both process and outcomes. But what participation actually looks like can vary substantially, and constructing a group where all actors can truly speak is often elusive. In addressing controversies over pesticide safety in tree fruit orchards in Washington State, we used a Q study to identify divergent viewpoints and convened a group to bring these views together. The resulting stakeholder working group was then challenged to both acknowledge their often-opposing viewpoints and to construct a mutually beneficial idea for improving pesticide safety in the tree fruit industry. This paper explores the dynamics of this stakeholder working group, analyzing not only its successes but also its challenges and difficulties. Rooted in a mainstream agricultural industry in the western United States, this study highlights the ways in which seemingly simple things like who “shows up” and why can shape processes and outcomes. See the press release for this article.

Suggested Citation

  • Lehrer, Nadine & Donovan, Colleen & Gullen, Maureen, 2019. "Pairing a Q Study with Participatory Decision-making around Farmworker Safety: A Case in Washington's Tree Fruit Industry," Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, Center for Transformative Action, Cornell University, vol. 8(4).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:joafsc:360018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/360018/files/662.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ekboir, Javier, 2003. "Why impact analysis should not be used for research evaluation and what the alternatives are," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 166-184, November.
    2. Luke Sinwell, 2008. "Using Giddens's theory of 'structuration' and Freirean philosophy to understand participation in the Alexandra Renewal Project," Development Southern Africa, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(3), pages 245-258.
    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. Genowefa Blundo-Canto & Bernard Triomphe & Guy Faure & Danielle Barret & Aurelle de Romemont & Etienne Hainzelin, 2019. "Building a culture of impact in an international agricultural research organization: Process and reflective learning," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 136-144.
    2. Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2008. "Institutionalizing end-user demand steering in agricultural R&D: Farmer levy funding of R&D in The Netherlands," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 460-472, April.
    3. Raitzer, David A. & Kelley, Timothy G., 2008. "Benefit-cost meta-analysis of investment in the International Agricultural Research Centers of the CGIAR," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 96(1-3), pages 108-123, March.
    4. Blackstock, K.L. & Kelly, G.J. & Horsey, B.L., 2007. "Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 726-742, February.
    5. Andy Hall & Norman Clark, 2010. "What do complex adaptive systems look like and what are the implications for innovation policy?," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(3), pages 308-324.
    6. Birner, Regina & Davis, Kristin E. & Pender, John L. & Nkonya, Ephraim M. & Anandajayasekeram, Ponniah & Ekboir, Javier & Mbabu, Adiel & Spielman, David J. & Horna, Daniela & Benin, Samuel & Cohen, Ma, 2006. "From "best practice" to "best fit": A framework for designing and analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services worldwide," FCND discussion papers 210, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    7. Peter Weißhuhn & Katharina Helming & Johanna Ferretti, 2018. "Research impact assessment in agriculture—A review of approaches and impact areas," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 36-42.
    8. Klerkx, Laurens & Aarts, Noelle & Leeuwis, Cees, 2010. "Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(6), pages 390-400, July.
    9. Heidi Peterson, 2023. "Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) or the Highway? An Alternative Road to Investigating the Value for Money of International Development Research," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(2), pages 260-280, April.
    10. Genowefa Blundo Canto & Bernard Triomphe & Guy Faure & Danielle Barret & Aurelle de Romemont & Etienne Hainzelin, 2019. "Building a culture of impact in an international agricultural research organization: Process and reflective learning," Post-Print hal-05173616, HAL.
    11. Hall, Andy & Dijkman, Jeroen & Sulaiman, Rasheed, 2010. "Research Into Use: Investigating the Relationship between Agricultural Research and Innovation," MERIT Working Papers 2010-044, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    12. Chengdong Liao & Helen Ross & Natalie Jones & Gomathy Palaniappan, 2024. "System lacks systems thinking: Top‐down organization and actor agency in China's agricultural extension system," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 82-99, January.
    13. Matteo Pedrini & Valentina Langella & Mario Alberto Battaglia & Paola Zaratin, 2018. "Assessing the health research’s social impact: a systematic review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1227-1250, March.
    14. Mikko V. Pohjola & Pasi Pohjola & Marko Tainio & Jouni T. Tuomisto, 2013. "Perspectives to Performance of Environment and Health Assessments and Models—From Outputs to Outcomes?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-22, June.
    15. Douthwaite, Boru & Gummert, Martin, 2010. "Learning selection revisited: How can agricultural researchers make a difference?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(5), pages 245-255, June.
    16. Hall, Andy & Sulaiman, Rasheed & Bezkorowajnyj, Peter, 2008. "Reframing technical change: Livestock Fodder Scarcity Revisited as Innovation Capacity Scarcity: Part 2. A Framework for Analysis," MERIT Working Papers 2008-003, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    17. Pant, Laxmi P., 2010. "Assessing Innovations in International Research and Development Practice," MERIT Working Papers 2010-043, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    18. Raltzer, David A. & Lindner, Robert K., 2005. "Review of the Returns to ACIAR's Bilateral R&D Investments," Impact Assessment Series (IAS) 113215, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.
    19. Kuehne, Geoff & Llewellyn, Rick & Pannell, David J. & Wilkinson, Roger & Dolling, Perry & Ouzman, Jackie & Ewing, Mike, 2017. "Predicting farmer uptake of new agricultural practices: A tool for research, extension and policy," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 115-125.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:joafsc:360018. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.