Response to Vanclay et al. on Farming Styles: Q Methodology for Identifying Styles and its Relevance to Extension
Response to Vanclay et al. on Farming Styles: Q Methodology for Identifying Styles and its Relevance to Extension
复制标题
对 Vanclay 等人的回应
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
K. Klonsky
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Fairweather;K. Klonsky
2006 年，Vanclay 等人。对农业风格的概念进行了批判性的阐述，并提出了修订后的概念，以增强我们对风格的理解。他们的研究经验使他们通过将农业方式应用于五个层次来重新概念化。他们的结论是，不存在对单一农耕方式的支持，农耕方式更多的是一种智力建构，而不是社会建构，而且它们不是真实的。 Vanclay 等人对农业风格的修订观点。讨论和评估了有关耕作方式概念的八个问题。我们同意这些评估中的所有观点，但只有两个除外：即没有方法可以揭示耕作方式，以及此类研究对推广无用。我们在本文中表明，有一种行之有效的方法来识别耕作方式，并且此类研究对于推广非常有用。在我们的案例中，我们有助于更好地理解耕作方式，这种耕作方式使用一种基于农民所说的农场管理方法的方法，而不是依赖于研究人员对耕作方式评估的方法。
In 2006 Vanclay et al. provided a critical account of the concept of farming styles and proposed revised concepts that enhance our understanding of styles. Their research experience led them to reconceptualise farming styles by applying them to five levels. They concluded that there was no support for a single set of farming styles, that farming styles are more an intellectual construction than a social construction, and that they were not real. In their revised view of farming styles Vanclay et al. discussed and assessed eight issues about the concept of farming styles. We agree with all but two of these assessments - the claim that there is no method that can uncover styles of farming and the claim that such research is not useful for extension. We show in this article that there is a well-established method for identifying farming styles and that such research is very useful for extension. In making our case we contribute to a better understanding of farming styles, one that uses a method that rests on what farmers state is their approach to managing a farm rather than on methods that rely on researcher assessments of farming styles.