Methodological Reflections on Monitoring Interactive Knowledge Creation during Farming Demonstrations by Means of Surveys and Observations
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Case Study Description
2.2. Data Collection
2.3. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Hands-on Activities
3.2. Knowledge Scaffolding
3.3. Discussion and Negotiation
4. Discussion
4.1. Overcoming the Stumbling Block of Abstract Concepts
4.2. Familiarity with the Target Group
4.3. Towards an Improved Process for Monitoring Learning at Farming Demonstrations
4.4. Limitations of the Study
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Survey for participants | This box will be filled in by the researcher | |||||
Country: | ||||||
Demo: | ||||||
Date: | ||||||
Participant no: | ||||||
Age | years | |||||
Gender (circle) | Male/Female/Other | |||||
Do you work in the local area? | Yes | / No | ||||
If yes, for how many years have you worked in the local area? | years | |||||
What level of degree do you have (tick those that apply)? | ||||||
No education | ||||||
Primary (until 12y) | ||||||
Secondary (until at least 16y) | ||||||
Third level | ||||||
Diploma degree | ||||||
BA/BSc | ||||||
MA/MSc | ||||||
PhD | ||||||
Other (or if you like to clarify): | ||||||
What are your occupations ? | ||||||
Years experience as a: | Farmer | years | ||||
Adviser | years | |||||
Other: | years | |||||
years | ||||||
What were your reasons/goals for attending this event? Were your expectations met? Please explain. | ||||||
The participants of the event were mainly (circle): | new to me | both new and familiar | familiar to me | |||
How did you learn about this demonstration event (tick box)? | ||||||
Personal invitation | ||||||
Farming press | ||||||
Website | ||||||
Social media | ||||||
Other (indicate which): | ||||||
strongly disagree (--) | disagree (-) | agree (+) | strongly agree (++) | not applicable | Additional comments | |
I think the demonstrator/organiser had the right skills to carry out the demonstration. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
Please explain why/why not? | ||||||
I think the host farm operation/place was well suited for this event. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
I think the content was relevant to my own situation. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
The aims of the event were clear to me. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
The group was the right size. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
I felt surprised at some point(s) during the event. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
I have the feeling I learned something new (knowledge, skill, practice, etc.). | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
I thought about how I could implement some of the ideas and practices on my own farm. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
I reflected on my own point of view at some point during the event. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
If so what did you reflect on? | ||||||
I participated in an interactive experience on farming practices during the event (e.g.: try out machinery, feel soil differences,…) | NO | YES | N/A | |||
If yes, please describe the experience | ||||||
I participated in an interactive experience on non-farming practices during the event (e.g.: play a game, put post-its on a wall etc.) | NO | YES | N/A | |||
If yes, please describe the experience | ||||||
The event built on my current understanding/knowledge. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
I could relate well to other participants (because they have an agricultural background similar to mine). | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
I felt like I could trust the knowledge of (most of) the other participants. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
The event felt like an informal activity to me. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
I thought the host farm was comparable enough to my own farm. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
I had the feeling the demonstrator/organiser was like one of us. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
I had the feeling I could trust the demonstrators knowledge. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
I had the feeling that I could share my own knowledge as relevant information. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
strongly disagree (--) | disagree (-) | agree (+) | strongly agree (++) | not applicable | Additional comments | |
I felt encouraged to ask questions during the event. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
In my opinion, there were interesting discussions during the event. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
When there were any discussions, I felt comfortable sharing my opinion. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
I heard at least one discussion in which participants didn’t completely agree with each other. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
If participants didn’t agree with each other during discussions, somebody (demonstrator/organiser/other participant) tried to reach a consensus between them. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
if yes, what was the role/occupation of this person? (another farmer, advisor, the facilitator, the organisoretc.) | ||||||
I learnt something about sustainable agriculture. | NO | YES | N/A | |||
If yes, please describe shortly what you learnt | ||||||
I’m thinking about an action I could undertake myself, because of the event | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
I feel motivated to undertake some sort of action towards sustainable agriculture | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
If yes, please describe shortly what kind of actions you are thinking about | ||||||
What made the event effective for you? | ||||||
Which activity did you like the most? Why? | ||||||
Which activity did you like the least? Why? | ||||||
What are the barriers to undertake the things you learned today? | ||||||
Which suggestions do you have on how to improve the event? | ||||||
Would you recommend this event to others? | NO | YES | ||||
Thank you very much for your answers |
References
- Cristóvão, A.; Koutsouris, A.; Kügler, M. Extension systems and change facilitation for agricultural and rural development. In Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic; Darnhofer, I., Gibbon, D., Dedieu, B., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherland, 2012; pp. 201–227. [Google Scholar]
- McMichael, P. Commentary: Food regime for thought. J. Peasant. Stud. 2016, 43, 648–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Folke, C.; Walker, B.; Scheffer, M.; Chapin, T.; Carpenter, S.; Rockström, J. Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conklin, J. Wicked Problems & Social Complexity. In Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Purvis, B.; Mao, Y.; Robinson, D. Three pillars of sustainability: In search of conceptual origins. Sustain. Sci. 2019, 14, 681–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wals, A.; Dyball, R.; Brown, V.; Keen, M. Social Learning towards a Sustainable World: Principles, Perspectives, and Praxis; Wals, A., Ed.; Wageningen UR: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Roling, N.G.; Wagemakers, A. A New Practice: Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture. In Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture: Participatory Learning and Adaptive Management in Times of Environmental Uncertainty; Roeling, N.G., Wagemakers, M.A.E., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1998; pp. 3–22. [Google Scholar]
- Darnhofer, I.; Bellon, S.; Dedieu, B.; Milestad, R. Adaptiveness to Enhance the Sustainability of Farming Systems. Sustain. Agric. 2011, 2, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meynard, J.-M.; Dedieu, B.; Bos, A.P. (Bram) Re-design and co-design of farming systems. An Overview of Methods and Practices. In Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic; Springer Science and Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2012; pp. 405–429. [Google Scholar]
- Ollivier, G.; Magda, D.; Mazé, A.; Plumecocq, G.; Lamine, C. Agroecological transitions: What can sustainability transition frameworks teach us? An ontological and empirical analysis. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lacombe, C.; Couix, N.; Hazard, L. Designing agroecological farming systems with farmers: A review. Agric. Syst. 2018, 165, 208–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, K.; Bohn, A.; Franzel, S.; Blum, M.; Rieckmann, U.; Raj, S.; Hussein, K.; Ernst, N. What Works in Rural Advisory Services? Global Good Practice Notes; Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS): Lausanne, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Burton, R.; Elzen, B.; Tisenkopf, T.; Ādamsone-Fiskoviča, A.; Grivins, M. Plaid: A Practice-Based Conceptual Framework and Typology; Baltic Studies Centre: Riga, Latvia, 2017; pp. 1–47. [Google Scholar]
- Koutsouris, A.; Papa, E.; Chiswell, H.; Cooreman, H.; Debruyne, L.; Ingram, J.; Marchand, F. Demonstration Farms as Multi-purpose Structures, Providing Multi-Functional Processes To Enhance Peer-To-Peer Learning in the Context of Innovation for Sustainable Agriculture. Available online: https://agridemo-h2020.eu/docs/Rapport_AGRIDEMO_analytical_framework.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2020).
- Illeris, K. How we Learn: Learning and Non-Learning in School and Beyond; Routledge: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Mezirow, J. Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Pretty, J.N.; Chambers, R. Toward a learning paradigm: New professionalism and institutions for agriculture. In Rethinking Sustainability: Power, Knowledge, and Instutions; University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2003; pp. 189–227. [Google Scholar]
- Lankester, A. Conceptual and operational understanding of learning for sustainability: A case study of the beef industry in north-eastern Australia. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 119, 182–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sewell, A.; Hartnett, M.K.; Gray, D.I.; Blair, H.T.; Kemp, P.; Kenyon, P.; Morris, S.; Wood, B.A. Using educational theory and research to refine agricultural extension: Affordances and barriers for farmers’ learning and practice change. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2017, 23, 313–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buckler, C.; Creech, H. Shaping the Future We Want UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. In Proceedings of the 2005–2014 Final Report; UNESCO: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Tilbury, D. Education for Sustainable Development: An Expert Review of Processes and Learning; UNESCO: London, UK, 2011; p. 132. [Google Scholar]
- Moyer, J.M.; Sinclair, A.J. Learning for Sustainability: Considering Pathways to Transformation. Adult Educ. Q. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, E.W.; Cranton, P. The Handbook of Transformative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Cooreman, H.; Vandenabeele, J.; Debruyne, L.; Ingram, J.; Chiswell, H.; Koutsouris, A.; Pappa, E.; Marchand, F. A conceptual framework to investigate the role of peer learning processes at on-farm demonstrations in the light of sustainable agriculture. Int. J. Agric. Ext. 2018, 6, 91–103. [Google Scholar]
- Millar, J.; Curtis, A. Moving farmer knowledge beyond the farm gate: An Australian study of farmer knowledge in group learning. Eur. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 1997, 4, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franz, N.K.; Piercy, F.P.; Donaldson, J.; Westbrook, J.; Richard, R. How Farmers Learn: Improving Sustainable Agricultural Education Executive Summary/Research Brief. Available online: https://www.pubs.ext.vt.edu/2904/2904-1291/2904-1291.html (accessed on 30 April 2020).
- Franz, N.; Westbrook, J. How Farmers Learn: Findings from Louisiana, Tennessee, and Virginia. J. Rural Soc. Sci. 2010, 25, 37–59. [Google Scholar]
- SAI Platform Partnering with Farmers towards Sustainable Agriculture: Overcoming the Hurdles and Leveraging the Drivers Practitioners’ Guide 2.0. Available online: https://saiplatform.org/uploads/SAI_Platform_publications/SAI_Platform_Farmer_Partnership_-_Practitioners_Guide_-_May_2015.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2020).
- Grudens-Schuck, N.; Cramer, J.; Exner, D.; Shour, M. The new adult education: Bringing peer educators up to speed. J. Ext. 2003, 41, 4FEA2. [Google Scholar]
- Vygotsky, L.S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Topping, K.J.; Ehly, S.W. Peer Assisted Learning: A Framework for Consultation. J. Educ. Psychol. Consult. 2001, 12, 113–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boud, D.; Cohen, R.; Sampson, J. Peer Learning and Assessment. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 1999, 24, 413–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wals, A.E.J. Beyond Unreasonable Doubt; University of Cambridge: Cambridge, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Vandenabeele, J.; Wildemeersch, D. How farmers learn about environmental issues: Reflections on a sociobiographical approach. Adult Educ. Q. 2012, 62, 56–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EIP-AGRI Promoting Creativity and Learning through Agricultural Knowledge Systems and Interactive Innovation. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/sites/agri-eip/files/eip-agri_seminar_knowledge_systems_final_report_2016_en.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2020).
- Ingram, J.; Chiswell, H.; Mills, J.; Debruyne, L.; Cooreman, H.; Koutsouris, A.; Pappa, E.; Marchand, F. Enabling learning in demonstration farms: A literature review. Int. J. Agric. Ext. 2018, 2018, 29–42. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. In Applied Social Research Methods Series, 5th ed.; Yin, R.K., Ed.; Sage Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Marchand, F.; Chiswell, H.; Ingram, J.; Pappa, E.; Alexopoulos, Y.; Koutsouris, A.; Cooreman, H.; Hubeau, M.; Debruyne, L. D6.1 Best Practice for on-Farm Demonstration Activities, Programmes and Organisations: An Analysis of the Interplay between Key Characteristics; AgriDemo Farmer to Farmer; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2019; pp. 1–85. [Google Scholar]
- Debruyne, L.; Cooreman, H.; Koutsouris, A.; Chiswell, H.; Ingram, J.; Mills, J.; Marchand, F. Methodological Guide for Data Gathering and Analysis: D3.1 Structural Characteristics; D4.1 Functional Characteristics; D5.2 Impact Assessment. Available online: https://agridemo-h2020.eu/docs/D3.1-D4.1-D5.2 Methodological guide for data gathering and analysis_v2.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2020).
- Joye, D.; Wolf, C.; Smith, T.W.; Fu, Y.-C. Survey Methodology: Challenges and Principles In: The SAGE Handbook of Survey Methodology Survey Methodology: Challenges and Principles; SAGE Publications Ltd: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 3–15. [Google Scholar]
- Wästerfors, B.D. Observations; SAGE Publications Ltd: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 314–326. [Google Scholar]
- Flick, U. Doing Triangulation and Mixed Methods; SAGE Publications Ltd: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Burchell, B.; Marsh, C. The effect of questionnaire length on survey response. Qual. Quant. 1992, 26, 233–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dawson, P. Assessment rubrics: Towards clearer and more replicable design, research and practice. Assess. Evaluation High. Educ. 2015, 42, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casey, M.; Rhodes, T.; Payne, T.; Brown, M.; Dynes, R. Over the Fence—Designing Extension Programs to Bring about Practice Change; Ministry of Primary Industries: Wellington, New Zealand, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Fowler, F.J.J.; Cosenza, C. Design and Evaluation of Survey Questions. In The SAGE Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods; SAGE Publications Ltd: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- FarmDemo. Design Guide for on-Farm Demonstrations; AgriDemo Farmer to Farmer; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Casagrande, M.; Alletto, L.; Naudin, C.; Lenoir, A.; Siah, A.; Celette, F. Enhancing planned and associated biodiversity in French farming systems. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 37, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pennings, J.M.; Irwin, S.H.; Good, D.L. Surveying Farmers: A Case Study. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2002, 24, 266–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bentley, J.; Van Mele, P.; Okry, F.; Zossou, E. Videos that speak for themselves: When non-extensionists show agricultural videos to large audiences. Dev. Pr. 2014, 24, 921–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tashakkori, A.; Teddlie, C. Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Research. In The SAGE Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods; SAGE Publishing: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2014; pp. 283–317. [Google Scholar]
- Nederhof, A.J. Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1985, 15, 263–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, E.W.; Duveskog, D.; Friis-Hansen, E. Fostering transformative learning in non-formal settings: Farmer-Field Schools in East Africa. Int. J. Lifelong Educ. 2012, 31, 725–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geels, F.W.; Kemp, R. Dynamics in socio-technical systems: Typology of change processes and contrasting case studies. Technol. Soc. 2007, 29, 441–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanclay, F. Social principles for agricultural extension to assist in the promotion of natural resource management. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2004, 44, 213–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Case | Country | Topic | Description | Number of Participants (Approx.) | Respondents to Survey | Respondents (Farmers) 1 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ES1 | Spain | Species mixtures | Workshop held for a farmers’ group on species mixtures, including a demonstration of species mixture trials of ReMIX on one of the farmer’s fields. The group did an in-field evaluation of the trials and discussed the potential of species mixtures among farmers. | 10 | 10 | 10 |
ES2 | Spain | Farm machinery | Farm machinery demonstration, DemoAgro, to show innovation in agricultural machinery for plant production. At the demonstration, participants could visit stands to talk to manufacturers, watch a test run of machinery and try out the machinery themselves. | 2000 | 31 | 28 |
ES3 | Spain | Organic livestock farming | Part of a course in agroecology offered by the Public University of Navarra for farmers, agronomists and other interested parties. The students visited an experimental farm with organic production of sheep and dairy (cheese). Explanations were given about grazing, dairy production, commercialisation of organic products etc. | 20 | 15 | 3 |
DK1 | Denmark | Species mixtures | Workshop on species mixtures at a farm of a member of the Danish ReMIX farmers’ group. The event included a demonstration of species mixture trials on the farm, in-field evaluation and discussion on possibilities of using species mixtures among farmers. | 8 | 5 | 5 |
BE1 | Belgium | Agroforestry | Event presenting a whole farm approach on 50 hectares with agroforestry examples spread across the farmer’s land. No specific materials or tools/techniques were used/shown. There were several examples of agroforestry combinations. | 40 | 4 | 4 |
BE2 | Belgium | Mechanical weed control in maize | Demonstration of approximately eight machines on a maize field belonging to a farmer who had recently converted to organic production. The advisor guided the demonstration of the different machines by explaining them and showing the differences between them one by one. | 100 | 22 | 17 |
BE3 | Belgium | Innovative dairy farming | Presentation by advisors on a calculation tool for optimising dairy farm management in a meeting room above the barn. Afterwards, the farmer gave a guided tour of the farm and the new barn, including a demonstration of new technologies (e.g., milking robots). | 40 | 15 | 14 |
Circle the answer that fits best + give reasons in the box below (definitions are sometimes subjective, but are meant to be indicative of the variables on which we want data. No right or wrong answers!) | If ‘not applicable’, circle this box and give reasons for your decision in the next box | ||||||
Hands-on activities (participants were asked to do something interactive with material related to the topic, other then looking and listening (e.g., try out a machine, test a tool) | Demonstrator/ organiser | No hands-on activity was demonstrated. | A hands-on activity was demonstrated, but only very briefly. | A hands-on activity was demonstrated long enough to ensure it was clear to every participant. | More then one hands-on activity was demonstrated very clearly/instructively. | N/A | |
How many? Describe them. | |||||||
Participant | No hands-on activity was carried out by participants. | Participants could take part in a hands-on activity, but did not get feedback on what they did. | Participants could take part in a hands-on activity and did get feedback on what they did. | Participants could take part in multiple hands-on activities and received some sort of feedback on what they did. | N/A | ||
How many? Describe them. Describe the feedback. |
Strongly Disagree (--) | Disagree (-) | Agree (+) | Strongly Agree (++) | Not Applicable | Additional Comments | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I asked at least one question during the event (circle). | no | yes | N/A | |||
I shared my own point of view at least once during the event. | no | yes | N/A | |||
I felt encouraged to ask questions during the event. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
In my opinion, there were interesting discussions during the event. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
When there were any discussions, I felt comfortable sharing my opinion. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
I heard at least one discussion in which participants didn’t completely agree with each other. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
If participants didn’t agree with each other during discussions, somebody (demonstrator/organiser/other participant) tried to reach a consensus between them. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | N/A | |
if yes, what was the role/occupation of this person? (another farmer, advisor, the facilitator, the organisoretc.) |
Case | Hands-on Activity | Knowledge Scaffolding | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participants | Observer | Participants | Observer | |||||
I Participated in an interactive experience (on farming practices) | Hands-on activities were demonstrated * | Participants could take part in hands-on activities ** | The event built on my current understanding/knowledge | The demonstrator/organizer *** | Knowledge was explained **** | |||
% No | % Yes | % Disagree or strongly disagree | % Agree or strongly agree | |||||
ES1 | 50 | 50 | a | b | 10 | 90 | d | d |
ES2 | 65 | 35 | b | b | 0 | 100 | N/A | N/A |
ES3 | 67 | 33 | c | b | 33 | 67 | b | d |
DK1 | 20 | 80 | c | b | 0 | 100 | N/A | N/A |
BE1 | 100 | 0 | a | a | 0 | 100 | b | c |
BE2 | 80 | 20 | d | a | 13 | 87 | a | c |
BE3 | 90 | 10 | b | a | 14 | 86 | c | d |
Case | Discussion | Negotiation | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participants | Observer | Participants | Observer | Participants | Observer | Participants | Observer | ||||||
I asked at least one question during the event | Time for questions * | Number of questions ** | I shared my own point of view at least once during the event | Participants formulated their own point of view *** | In my opinion, there were interesting discussions during the event | Open discussions were held **** | Attempts were made to reach consensus in discussions | Negotiating conflict ***** | |||||
% No | % Yes | % No | % Yes | % Disagree or strongly disagree | % Agree or strongly agree | % Disagree or strongly disagree | % Agree or strongly agree | ||||||
ES1 | 25 | 75 | d | d | 14 | 86 | c | 13 | 88 | d | 63 | 38 | b |
ES2 | 15 | 85 | d | d | 4 | 96 | N/A | 23 | 77 | N/A | 61 | 39 | N/A |
ES3 | 0 | 100 | b | d | 0 | 100 | b | 0 | 100 | c | 0 | 100 | b |
DK1 | 0 | 100 | d | d | 0 | 100 | c | 0 | 100 | d | 0 | 100 | d |
BE1 | 25 | 75 | b | c | 0 | 100 | b | 25 | 75 | c | 33 | 67 | c |
BE2 | 29 | 71 | b | b | 7 | 93 | a | 21 | 79 | a | 38 | 62 | a |
BE3 | 25 | 75 | c | c | 38 | 62 | b | 31 | 69 | b | 57 | 43 | c |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Aare, A.K.; Cooreman, H.; Garayoa, C.V.; Arrieta, E.S.; Bellostas, N.; Marchand, F.; Hauggaard-Nielsen, H. Methodological Reflections on Monitoring Interactive Knowledge Creation during Farming Demonstrations by Means of Surveys and Observations. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5739. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145739
Aare AK, Cooreman H, Garayoa CV, Arrieta ES, Bellostas N, Marchand F, Hauggaard-Nielsen H. Methodological Reflections on Monitoring Interactive Knowledge Creation during Farming Demonstrations by Means of Surveys and Observations. Sustainability. 2020; 12(14):5739. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145739
Chicago/Turabian StyleAare, Ane Kirstine, Hanne Cooreman, Cristina Virto Garayoa, Esther Sótil Arrieta, Natalia Bellostas, Fleur Marchand, and Henrik Hauggaard-Nielsen. 2020. "Methodological Reflections on Monitoring Interactive Knowledge Creation during Farming Demonstrations by Means of Surveys and Observations" Sustainability 12, no. 14: 5739. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145739