@article {568, title = {Foresters{\textquoteright} beliefs about farmers: A priority for social science research in social forestry}, journal = {Agroforestry Systems}, volume = {17}, year = {1992}, month = {January 1992}, pages = {13-41}, abstract = {

This study suggests that one of the most productive (and most neglected) uses of social science research in forestry development projects is to examine foresters\&$\#$39; beliefs regarding rural peoples. This suggestion is illustrated with data from the Forestry Planning and Development Project, Pakistan\&$\#$39;s first nation-wide social forestry project.

The operational component of this project, intended to assist small farmers to cultivate trees on their farmlands, ran into immediate difficulties. Many of the foresters involved insisted that small farmers were simply not interested in tree cultivation. A comprehensive base-line study subsequently was carried out to examine the validity of this belief. The results of this study (confirmed by the subsequent experience with the project in the field) varied markedly from the foresters\&$\#$39; beliefs.

While many of the foresters believed small farmers were opposed to having trees on their farms and would not agree to plant trees under the project, most farmers already had trees on their farms and expressed interest in planting more; while many foresters believed farmers would only be interested in planting large blocks of market-oriented exotics, most farmers requested small plantings of multi-purpose native trees; while many foresters believed farmers would plant trees only for market sale, most farmers requested trees to meet household needs for fuel and timber; and while many foresters did not think that increasing supplies of fuelwood could reduce the burning of dung, all of the evidence provided by the farmers suggested that it would.

The disparity between farmer reality and forester belief is attributed to failures on the part of both foresters and social scientists - failure by foresters to distinguish their non-empirical beliefs about farmers from their empirically-based knowledge of trees, and failure by social scientists to recognize the belief systems of foresters as a legitimate and important object of study. Their study comprises three parts: finding out what the foresters think the farmers want, finding out from the farmers what they actually want, and then analyzing and explaining the differences.

}, keywords = {agroforestry, farm, forester beliefs, fuelwood, institutional factors, Pakistan, social sciences, socioeconomics}, doi = {10.1007/BF00122925}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122925}, author = {Michael R. Dove} } @proceedings {478, title = {NFU{\textquoteright}s Annual Conference 1991}, year = {1991}, month = {23-24 May 1991}, publisher = {Norwegian Centre for International Agricultural Development, Agricultural University of Norway; Norwegian Association for Development Research}, address = {Aas [{\r A}s], Norway; Oslo, Norway}, abstract = {

Can researchers from different disciplines, especially the natural and social sciences, work effectively together? Can they complement each other, or are they mutually incompatible, speaking contradictory, or simply different, languages? What can the various disciplines--together or separately--offer to the decision maker? Are the imperatives of research and policy so different that they cannot, and should not, be directly linked? (author)

These issues were addressed at the seventh annual conference of the Norwegian Association for Development Research (NFU). This book contains the papers presented at the conference. Papers presented at the conference covered topics such as:

}, keywords = {Africa, agriculture, agroforestry, agroforestry development, environment, farmer research, farmers, food security, gene resources, interdisciplinary, interdisciplinary research, multidisciplinary teams, natural resources, Norsk forening for utviklingsforskning (NFU), Norwegian Association for Development Research, nutrition, participatory research, property rights, social justice, social sciences, Soil Productivity Research Program (SPRP), sustainable development, Zambia}, url = {http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/29625062}, author = {NORAGRIC} } @inbook {885, title = {Indigenous technology and farming systems research: Agroforestry in the Indian desert}, booktitle = {Social sciences and farming systems research: Methodological perspectives on agricultural development}, series = {Westview special studies in agriculture science and policy}, year = {1986}, note = {Chapter 11}, month = {1986}, pages = {221-244}, publisher = {Westview Press}, organization = {Westview Press}, address = {Boulder, CO}, abstract = {This case study describes a Farming Systems project directed by the author in India with the faculty of Mohan Lal Sukhadia Agricultural University, the agricultural school for the State of Rajasthan. The project dealt with an arid zone where grain is produced in association nitrogen fixing trees. The multiple benefits of this association make it unlikely that farmers will change this production system unless major climatic or infrastructural changes occur. The probable persistence of this pattern has major implications for agricultural research strategies.}, keywords = {agricultural systems, agroforestry, research , social sciences}, isbn = {0-8133-7136-8}, url = {http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/13009091}, author = {Barry H Michie}, editor = {Jeffrey R Jones and Ben J. Wallace} }