On-farm trials: A survey of methods

Clive Lightfoot, Randolph Barker
{"title":"On-farm trials: A survey of methods","authors":"Clive Lightfoot,&nbsp;Randolph Barker","doi":"10.1016/0269-7475(88)90045-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>After more than a decade of project work on Farming Systems Research, much confusion and disagreement surrounds the methodology for on-farm experiments. This paper reports the results of a survey of 41 practitioners who were asked to report on the methods and procedures they were using in their projects, and the reasons for success or failure. Responses suggest that projects based on formal, complex, researcher-designed experiments ran into a maze of problems including logistical support, analytical needs, interdisciplinary compromise, and farmer participation. Most importantly, this conventional approach to farming systems research fails to incorporate the experimential knowledge of the farmer in the research design. Thus, many if not most farming systems research projects fail to provide useful information to farmers or to station-based researchers. On the other hand, those practitioners who do report success indicate that experiments which exploit indigenous knowledge to define research questions, and employ many farmers to conduct simple, flexible trials can provide the information needed to develop technologies relevant to resource-poor farmers.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100060,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Administration and Extension","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1988-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0269-7475(88)90045-1","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agricultural Administration and Extension","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0269747588900451","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

After more than a decade of project work on Farming Systems Research, much confusion and disagreement surrounds the methodology for on-farm experiments. This paper reports the results of a survey of 41 practitioners who were asked to report on the methods and procedures they were using in their projects, and the reasons for success or failure. Responses suggest that projects based on formal, complex, researcher-designed experiments ran into a maze of problems including logistical support, analytical needs, interdisciplinary compromise, and farmer participation. Most importantly, this conventional approach to farming systems research fails to incorporate the experimential knowledge of the farmer in the research design. Thus, many if not most farming systems research projects fail to provide useful information to farmers or to station-based researchers. On the other hand, those practitioners who do report success indicate that experiments which exploit indigenous knowledge to define research questions, and employ many farmers to conduct simple, flexible trials can provide the information needed to develop technologies relevant to resource-poor farmers.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
农场试验:对方法的调查
在十多年的农业系统研究项目工作之后,围绕着农场实验的方法产生了许多困惑和分歧。本文报告了对41位从业者的调查结果,他们被要求报告他们在项目中使用的方法和程序,以及成功或失败的原因。调查结果表明,基于正式的、复杂的、由研究人员设计的实验的项目遇到了一系列问题,包括后勤支持、分析需求、跨学科妥协和农民参与。最重要的是,这种传统的农业系统研究方法未能在研究设计中纳入农民的实验知识。因此,许多(如果不是大多数的话)农业系统研究项目不能向农民或站内研究人员提供有用的信息。另一方面,那些报告成功的实践者指出,利用本土知识来确定研究问题的实验,并雇用许多农民进行简单、灵活的试验,可以提供开发与资源贫乏的农民相关的技术所需的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Editorial Editorial Board Guest editorial Editorial
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1