Show simple item record

Participation and empowerment: A comparative study of IPM technology generation in Nicaragua.

dc.contributor.authorNelson, Kristen Carol
dc.contributor.advisorWest, Patrick C.
dc.date.accessioned2016-08-30T17:05:26Z
dc.date.available2016-08-30T17:05:26Z
dc.date.issued1994
dc.identifier.urihttp://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&res_dat=xri:pqm&rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:9423274
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/129294
dc.description.abstractThe heated debate over the limited impact of integrated pest management (IPM) in Central American agriculture suggests that we need to investigate the mechanisms of IPM technology generation. CATIE/MAG-IPM Nicaragua initiated a comparative study of two prototypic models with tomato farmers in the Sebaco Valley, in 1990-91. I created two ideal types from the literature: the scientist-led and farmer-led models. Each model was represented by three different communities. The study focused on the: (1) technology generation process, (2) IPM technologies and farmer opinion of IPM, (3) forms of participation and empowerment by farmers and scientists, and (4) institutionalization of the two models. The investigation methodology consisted of community level interviews, intensive pre- and post-program participant interviews, participant observation, and statistical evaluation of production and insect variables related to the experiments. The two models resulted in selection of different priority pests, different criteria for selecting technologies, and different technologies under experimentation. Farmer participation was greater in number, levels of influence, and forms of empowerment in the farmer-led model. A continuum for empowerment in the research process is presented. The scientist-led model was more costly, by.23%, than the farmer-led model. In addition, I analyzed the current debate about Central American IPM research and identified three worldviews. The first worldview, represented by Rogers' diffusion theory, finds problems in communication between extensionists and farmers and weak links between research and extension. The second worldview represented by Latour's 'tecnoscience' critique, finds problems in 'translation' a research program's inability to gather active support and participation by colleagues and farmers that would use the information and technologies. A third worldview approaches IPM research from a Foucaultian perspective, focusing on the non-involvement of many sectors of the agricultural society that have not been able to create their own knowledge and power due to the 'totalizing' nature of scientific inquiry. Coming from different worldviews to solve the problems in Central American IPM research and development, the group advocates find themselves proposing radically different solutions.
dc.format.extent294 p.
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoEN
dc.subjectComparative
dc.subjectEmpowerment
dc.subjectFarmers
dc.subjectGeneration
dc.subjectIpm
dc.subjectNicaragua
dc.subjectParticipation
dc.subjectStudy
dc.subjectTechnology
dc.titleParticipation and empowerment: A comparative study of IPM technology generation in Nicaragua.
dc.typeThesis
dc.description.thesisdegreenamePhDen_US
dc.description.thesisdegreedisciplineBiological Sciences
dc.description.thesisdegreedisciplineEntomology
dc.description.thesisdegreedisciplineEnvironmental science
dc.description.thesisdegreedisciplineHealth and Environmental Sciences
dc.description.thesisdegreedisciplineSocial Sciences
dc.description.thesisdegreedisciplineSociology
dc.description.thesisdegreegrantorUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/129294/2/9423274.pdf
dc.owningcollnameDissertations and Theses (Ph.D. and Master's)


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.