IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v139y2015icp38-49.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Generating transformative agency among horticultural producers: An activity-theoretical approach to transforming Integrated Pest Management

Author

Listed:
  • Vänninen, Irene
  • Pereira-Querol, Marco
  • Engeström, Yrjö

Abstract

This study presents a systemic innovation in the context of Integrated Pest Management – IPM. We introduce the Change Laboratory method as a tool for transforming pest management in a community of greenhouse firms that are interdependent through a shared pest. The objective of the study was to see if the Change Laboratory method, based on an activity theoretical and expansive learning approach, is appropriate for promoting the agency among greenhouse growers so that they become transformative agents of their own activity. The study is based on deductive and inductive content analysis of transcribed discourse data from six Change Laboratory sessions. By analyzing how expressions of transformative agency and its different forms of expression unfolded over the sessions, we showed that criticizing was the most important agentive talk that fed the reconceptualization of the current, problematic activity. The analysis of the envisioning expressions of transformative agency indicated a collectively produced reconstruction (re-design) of the object of IPM activity, i.e. a radical change, in activity-theoretical terms, in the activity of whitefly IPM. As a result of the process, the growers began knowledge sharing and collaborative learning in two villages of the study area, using a learning club as the platform. In contrast to traditional views of externally induced change, the agentive actions were performed by the growers themselves instead of external change agents. Being able to identify the discursive transformative agency actions in the talk of farmers can improve the capability of interventionists to support transformative change when implementing IPM through co-innovation. We propose that revealing the object of farmers’ and other stakeholders’ pest management activity through analysis of transformative agency actions during formative interventions could contribute to better understanding what it takes to implement IPM in ‘local conditions’. This study provided us an opportunity to contrast and compare the activity-theory-based approach to facilitated change with other social learning approaches to change, with their specific system concepts, in the domain of natural resource management.

Suggested Citation

  • Vänninen, Irene & Pereira-Querol, Marco & Engeström, Yrjö, 2015. "Generating transformative agency among horticultural producers: An activity-theoretical approach to transforming Integrated Pest Management," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 38-49.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:139:y:2015:i:c:p:38-49
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2015.06.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X15000803
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.06.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pahl-Wostl, Claudia & Tabara, David & Bouwen, Rene & Craps, Marc & Dewulf, Art & Mostert, Erik & Ridder, Dagmar & Taillieu, Tharsi, 2008. "The importance of social learning and culture for sustainable water management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 484-495, January.
    2. Noelle Aarts & Cees Van Woerkum & Babette Vermunt, 2007. "Policy and planning in the dutch countryside: The role of regional innovation networks," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(6), pages 727-744.
    3. Wossink, G. A. A. & de Buck, A. J. & van Niejenhuis, J. H. & Haverkamp, H. C. M., 1997. "Farmer perceptions of weed control techniques in sugarbeet," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 409-423, November.
    4. J�rôme Pelenc & Minkieba Kevin Lompo & J�rôme Ballet & Jean-Luc Dubois, 2013. "Sustainable Human Development and the Capability Approach: Integrating Environment, Responsibility and Collective Agency," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 77-94, February.
    5. Dogliotti, S. & García, M.C. & Peluffo, S. & Dieste, J.P. & Pedemonte, A.J. & Bacigalupe, G.F. & Scarlato, M. & Alliaume, F. & Alvarez, J. & Chiappe, M. & Rossing, W.A.H., 2014. "Co-innovation of family farm systems: A systems approach to sustainable agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 76-86.
    6. Remi Maniak & Christophe Midler, 2008. "Shifting from co-development to co-innovation," International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(4), pages 449-468.
    7. van Mierlo, Barbara & Janssen, Arni & Leenstra, Ferry & van Weeghel, Ellen, 2013. "Encouraging system learning in two poultry subsectors," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 29-40.
    8. Sewell, A.M. & Gray, D.I. & Blair, H.T. & Kemp, P.D. & Kenyon, P.R. & Morris, S.T. & Wood, B.A., 2014. "Hatching new ideas about herb pastures: Learning together in a community of New Zealand farmers and agricultural scientists," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 63-73.
    9. Julie Ingram, 2008. "Agronomist–farmer knowledge encounters: an analysis of knowledge exchange in the context of best management practices in England," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 25(3), pages 405-418, September.
    10. Klerkx, Laurens & van Bommel, Severine & Bos, Bram & Holster, Henri & Zwartkruis, Joyce V. & Aarts, Noelle, 2012. "Design process outputs as boundary objects in agricultural innovation projects: Functions and limitations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 39-49.
    11. Jakku, E. & Thorburn, P.J., 2010. "A conceptual framework for guiding the participatory development of agricultural decision support systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(9), pages 675-682, November.
    12. Garud, Raghu & Karnoe, Peter, 2003. "Bricolage versus breakthrough: distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 277-300, February.
    13. Geels, Frank W., 2004. "From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 897-920, September.
    14. 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.
    15. Rémi Maniak & Christophe Midler, 2008. "Shifting from co-development process to co-innovation," Post-Print hal-00404179, HAL.
    16. Klerkx, Laurens & Nettle, Ruth, 2013. "Achievements and challenges of innovation co-production support initiatives in the Australian and Dutch dairy sectors: A comparative study," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 74-89.
    17. Whittle, Andrea & Suhomlinova, Olga & Mueller, Frank, 2011. "Dialogue and distributed agency in institutional transmission," Journal of Management & Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(4), pages 548-569, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Katharine Tröger & Margareta Amy Lelea & Oliver Hensel & Brigitte Kaufmann, 2018. "Embracing the Complexity: Surfacing Problem Situations with Multiple Actors of the Pineapple Value Chain in Uganda," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 557-580, October.
    2. Lacombe, Camille & Couix, Nathalie & Hazard, Laurent, 2018. "Designing agroecological farming systems with farmers: A review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 208-220.
    3. Campbell, Rebecca & Height, Kaitlyn & Hawkes, Gina & Graham, Sonia & Schrader, Silja & Blessington, Louise & McKinnon, Scott, 2023. "Meanings, materials and competences of area-wide weed management in cropping systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).

    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. Srinivasan, M.S. & Jongmans, C. & Bewsell, D. & Elley, G., 2019. "Research idea to science for impact: Tracing the significant moments in an innovation based irrigation study," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 181-192.
    2. Maria, Kernecker & Maria, Busse & Andrea, Knierim, 2021. "Exploring actors, their constellations, and roles in digital agricultural innovations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    3. Aare, Ane Kirstine & Lund, Søren & Hauggaard-Nielsen, Henrik, 2021. "Exploring transitions towards sustainable farming practices through participatory research – The case of Danish farmers' use of species mixtures," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    4. Garb, Yaakov & Friedlander, Lonia, 2014. "From transfer to translation: Using systemic understandings of technology to understand drip irrigation uptake," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 13-24.
    5. Elzen, Boelie & Bos, Bram, 2019. "The RIO approach: Design and anchoring of sustainable animal husbandry systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 141-152.
    6. Ditzler, Lenora & Klerkx, Laurens & Chan-Dentoni, Jacqueline & Posthumus, Helena & Krupnik, Timothy J. & Ridaura, Santiago López & Andersson, Jens A. & Baudron, Frédéric & Groot, Jeroen C.J., 2018. "Affordances of agricultural systems analysis tools: A review and framework to enhance tool design and implementation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 20-30.
    7. Prost, Lorène & Reau, Raymond & Paravano, Laurette & Cerf, Marianne & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène, 2018. "Designing agricultural systems from invention to implementation: the contribution of agronomy. Lessons from a case study," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 122-132.
    8. Kurniasih, Heni & Ford, Rebecca M & Keenan, Rodney J & King, Barbara, 2021. "The evolution of community forestry through the growth of interlinked community institutions in Java, Indonesia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    9. Koutsouris, Alex, 2012. "Facilitating Agricultural Innovation Systems: A critical realist approach," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, vol. 114(2), pages 1-7, October.
    10. Andrews, Matt & Pritchett, Lant & Woolcock, Michael, 2013. "Escaping Capability Traps Through Problem Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA)," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 234-244.
    11. Islam, Md. Mofakkarul & Renwick, Alan W. & Lamprinopoulou-Kranis, Chrysa & Klerkx, Laurens, 2012. "Dynamics of Innovation in Livestock Genetics in Scotland: An Agricultural Innovation Systems Perspective," 131st Seminar, September 18-19, 2012, Prague, Czech Republic 135769, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. repec:unu:wpaper:wp2012-64 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Florence Charue-Duboc & Lise Gastaldi & Thomas Paris & Nathalie Raulet-Croset, 2015. "Couplage entre explorations des connaissances scientifiques et des valeurs d’usages : la caractérisation de nouvelles modalités à partir du cas d’une entreprise dans les technologies de la communicati," Post-Print halshs-01306684, HAL.
    14. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & K. Matthias Weber, 2022. "Innovation Studies, Social Innovation, and Sustainability Transitions Research: From mutual ignorance towards an integrative perspective?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2227, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    15. Rossing, Walter A.H. & Albicette, Maria Marta & Aguerre, Veronica & Leoni, Carolina & Ruggia, Andrea & Dogliotti, Santiago, 2021. "Crafting actionable knowledge on ecological intensification: Lessons from co-innovation approaches in Uruguay and Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    16. Pant, Laxmi Prasad, 2016. "Paradox of mainstreaming agroecology for regional and rural food security in developing countries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 305-316.
    17. Kejia Yang & Johan Schot & Bernhard Truffer, 2020. "Shaping the Directionality of Sustainability Transitions: The Diverging Development Patterns of Solar PV in Two Chinese Provinces," SPRU Working Paper Series 2020-14, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    18. Iris Wanzenböck & Joeri H Wesseling & Koen Frenken & Marko P Hekkert & K Matthias Weber, 0. "A framework for mission-oriented innovation policy: Alternative pathways through the problem–solution space," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 47(4), pages 474-489.
    19. Salembier, Chloé & Segrestin, Blanche & Berthet, Elsa & Weil, Benoît & Meynard, Jean-Marc, 2018. "Genealogy of design reasoning in agronomy: Lessons for supporting the design of agricultural systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 277-290.
    20. Isaac, Marney E., 2012. "Agricultural information exchange and organizational ties: The effect of network topology on managing agrodiversity," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 9-15.
    21. Alex Koutsouris, 2012. "Exploring the emerging facilitation and brokerage roles for agricultural extension education," Working Papers 2012-4, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.

    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:eee:agisys:v:139:y:2015:i:c:p:38-49. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    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.