Farmer Field Schools as a transformative learning space in the rural African setting

135 Pages·2013·5.64 MB·English

Farmer Field Schools as a
transformative learning space in the
rural African setting
Deborah Duveskog
Faculty of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences
Department of Urban and Rural Development

Uppsala

Doctoral Thesis
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Uppsala 2013
Acta Universitatis agriculturae Sueciae
2013:47
Cover photo: A Farmer Field School group carrying out field analysis of their
crops. (photo: D. Duveskog)
ISSN 1652-6880
ISBN 978-91-576-7832-4
© 2013 Deborah Duveskog, Uppsala
Print: SLU Service/Repro, Uppsala 2013
Farmer Field Schools as a transformative learning space in the
rural African setting
Abstract
The aims of this research was to understand how education in the rural African faming
setting can contribute to development and well-being in a way that is empowering for
the poor. The Farmer Field School (FFS) approach provided an empirical frame for the
research. By reflecting on experiences of FFS participants in East Africa, the research
tried to answer how the FFS learning experience play out in the daily lives of
participants and their families and the role that FFS play in assisting participants to take
control over their own development and enhanced well-being. Conceptually the
research was framed by constructivist line of thoughts, adult education and
transformative learning theories. The research applied a mixed methods approach with
a variety of qualitative and quantitative tools including participatory identification of
indicators of empowerment, large-scale household surveys with a total of 2000 farmers
and in-depth interviews. Data analysis from the quantitative survey work indicated a
relationship between farmer participation in FFS, empowerment and increased
wellbeing in all three countries studied. The study thus argues for an empowerment
route to well-being, triggered by group based learning. The research further indicate
significant impact of FFS in terms of building the capacity of people to make choices
and decisions that ultimately lead to increased uptake of agricultural innovations,
access to services and markets as well as collective action. Qualitative data revealed
significant social impacts of FFS in terms of changes in everyday life of participants,
transformation of self-concept, change in gender roles and relations, customs and
traditions, community relations and an increase in household economic development. A
number of pedagogical tools applied in the FFS were found to be instrumental in
facilitating transformative learning and empowerment. Major conclusions of the study
are the need for investment in human capacity and the importance of an appropriate
mix of technological and social advancement for development. The implications of the
research are relevant within the fields of rural development, gender studies and for
transformative learning and adult education theory. Further, the study contributes
knowledge on how to measure empowerment in the poverty setting.
Keywords: Farmer Field Schools, East Africa, transformative learning,
experiential learning, agricultural extension, empowerment
Author’s address: Deborah Duveskog, SLU, Department of Urban and Rural
Development
P.O. Box 7012, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
E-mail:
Dedication
To all learners and educators in pursuit of knowledge, may your learning
journey not be one of domestication, but of liberation.

Knowledge is not extended from those who consider that they know to those
who consider that they do not know. Knowledge is built up in the relations
between human beings and the world, relations of transformation.
Paulo Freire
Contents

Abstract
List of Publications 7
Abbreviations 9
1 Preface 11
2 Introduction 13
3 Research overview 17
3.1 Problem orientation 17
3.2 The research aim and questions 19
4 Background 23
4.1 The changing nature and needs of small-holder farming 23
4.2 Community empowerment in the poverty debate 24
4.3 The evolution of agricultural extension 26
4.3.1 The Training and Visit era 26
4.3.2 A “new” extension paradigm 28
4.3.3 Demand-driven extension 30
4.4 Agriculture extension in East Africa, from past to present 32
5 Farmer field schools 37
5.1 Background 37
5.2 The learning processes in FFS 38
5.3 Existing knowledge on FFS 47
6 Theoretical framework 51
6.1 Empowerment 51
6.2 Adult learning 59
6.2.1 A constructivist approach to adult learning 59
6.2.2 Transformative learning theory 64
6.2.3 Situated learning in a community of practice 69
7 Study area 71
7.1 Empirical frame 71
7.2 Research sites 72
8 Methodology 77
8.1 A combined methods approach 77
8.2 Data collection tools and methods 78
8.3 Data analysis 85
8.3.1 Analysis of interviews 85
8.3.2 Statistical analysis of survey data 85
8.3.3 Analysis of secondary data 87
9 Main findings 89
9.1 Change in everyday life among participants 89
9.2 Changing traditions, gender roles, and community relationships 92
9.3 Relationships between FFS, empowerment and well-being 95
9.4 The fostering of transformative learning 99
10 Concluding discussion 103
10.1 How the FFS learning experience play out in the daily lives of
participants 103
10.2 The role of FFS in assisting participants to take control over their own
development and well-being 105
10.3 The FFS learning process explained though transformative learning
theory 109
10.4 Further research 111
11 Implications for development practice 115
12 References 121
13 Acknowledgements 133
14 Paper I-IV 135
List of Publications
This thesis is based on the work contained in the following papers, referred to
by Roman numerals in the text:
I Duveskog, D., Friis-Hansen, E., and Taylor, E. W. (2011) Farmer Field
School in rural Kenya: A transformative learning experience. Journal of
Development Studies 47(10): 1529-1544.
II Friis-Hansen, E. and Duveskog, D. and Taylor E. (2012) Less noise in the
household: the impact of Farmer Field Schools on gender relations. Journal
of Research in Peace, Gender and Development 2(2): 044-055.
III Friis-Hansen, E. and Duveskog, D. (2012) The empowerment rout to well-
being: an analysis of Farmer Field Schools in East Africa. World
Development 40 (2): 414-427.
IV Taylor, E., Duveskog, D., and Friis-Hansen, E. (2012) Fostering
transformative learning in non-formal settings: Farmer Field Schools in
East Africa. International Journal of Lifelong Education 31(6): 725-742
Papers I-IV are reproduced with the permission of the publishers.
The contribution of Deborah Duveskog to the papers included in this thesis
was as follows:
All papers included in this thesis were produced by close teamwork among
all contributing authors. For papers I, III and IV the doctoral student held the
primary responsible for all planning and organization of fieldwork in Kenya
and was responsible for the collection of secondary data. Sampling and
establishment of contacts with respondents in the field as well as interviews
7
with key informant were the responsibility of the doctoral student. All co-
authors were involved in conceptualisation of the studies, the interview field
data collection, analysis and writing. Most writing was done collectively,
however the doctoral student wrote parts of the introduction and background
sections alone. The doctoral student held a major responsibility for certain
parts of the discussion. For paper I, where the doctoral student is the first
author, she student held the primary responsibility for finalization of the paper
for journal submission.
Paper II was equally prepared by both co-authors who were both involved
in all stages of the conceptualisation, analysis and writing. However, major
parts of the collection of empirical material were carried out separate by the
two authors. The student was solely responsible for the planning and collection
of the empirical material in Kenya and Tanzania. In Uganda the doctoral
student was responsible for one of the quantitative elements. In all three
countries, the student was responsible for method development related to the
participatory identification of variables for measurement of empowerment. The
analysis in SPSS software was jointly conducted by the two authors, but with
the doctoral student taking a lead in the analysis of the data from Kenya and
Tanzania while the first author took a lead in analysis of the Uganda data set.
Some section were written entirely by the doctoral student. The theory section
was designed together by both authors, and writing was done jointly.

8
Abbreviations

AESA Agro-Ecological System Analysis
ASDP Agricultural Sector Development Programme
ASSP Agricultural Services Support Programme
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FFS Farmer Field Schools
HIV Human immunodeficiency virus
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IPM Integrated Pest Management
NAADS National Agricultural Advisory Service
NAEP National Agricultural Extension Policy
NAEP National Agricultural Extension Project
NALEP National Agricultural and Livestock Extension Programme
NALERP National Agricultural and Livestock Extension Rehabilitation
Project
NFE Non-Formal Education
NGO Non-governmental organization
PRSP Poverty Reduction Support Programmes
SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
SRA Strategy to Revitalize Agriculture
T&V Training and Visit extension system
TL Transformative Learning
TOT Training of Trainers
UNDP United Nations Development Programme

9