A mixed qualitativequantitative participatory methodology
Identifieur interne : 001410 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001409; suivant : 001411A mixed qualitativequantitative participatory methodology
Auteurs : Hilda Munyua ; Christine StilwellSource :
- Library Management [ 0143-5124 ] ; 2010-01-05.
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand the agricultural knowledge and information systems AKIS of smallscale farmers in Kirinyaga district, Kenya by identifying the key agricultural actors, establishing the information needs of farmers and how they access, share and exchange agricultural knowledge and information. Designmethodologyapproach The study adopts a triangulation of qualitative, quantitative and participatory methodologies and methods for sampling, data collection and data analysis. The methods combine Relaxed Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems RAAKS and Participatory Rural Appraisal PRA, focus group discussions with farmers groups, observation and analysis of secondary data. The sensemaking methodology is used an alternative approach to study information behaviour, while the soft systems methodology is used to link up the different activities by diverse agricultural actors. Findings Richer and deeper data are collected through mixed methodologies and methods. The study identifies more than 100 active information and knowledge providers in Kirinyaga district, with extension emerging as the most important source of information. However, linkages between the various actors and farmers are weak. In particular, the findings of the study demonstrate that the AKIS of smallscale farmers is location specific and varies with the enterprises produced. Research limitationsimplications Triangulation of methods is expensive hence the study is limited to only one district in Kenya. The paper suggests further research into ways of strengthening and formalising linkages between key actors. Practical implications The study points to the need to strengthen and formalise linkages between farmers and extensionists, private sector, media, farmers' groups, civil society organisations, researchers, educators and microfinance institutions. Social implications The study findings could inform policy development and reforms in agriculture, extension services and help to improve linkages and the flow of agricultural information and knowledge. Consequently, this would translate to improved farming methods and increased agricultural productivity. Originalityvalue The study contributes empirical data that builds on to the existing body of knowledge on AKIS among smallscale farmers. The paper presents a useful mix of methods RAAKS, PRA, focus group discussions and observation for studying the management of agricultural knowledge and information.
Url:
DOI: 10.1108/01435121011013359
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:579D8EC9BAA4ABF10932613AE733C4741713CD96Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">A mixed qualitativequantitative participatory methodology</title><author><name sortKey="Munyua, Hilda" sort="Munyua, Hilda" uniqKey="Munyua H" first="Hilda" last="Munyua">Hilda Munyua</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>School of Sociology and Social Studies, University of KwaZuluNatal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Stilwell, Christine" sort="Stilwell, Christine" uniqKey="Stilwell C" first="Christine" last="Stilwell">Christine Stilwell</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>School of Sociology and Social Studies, University of KwaZuluNatal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:579D8EC9BAA4ABF10932613AE733C4741713CD96</idno><date when="2010" year="2010">2010</date><idno type="doi">10.1108/01435121011013359</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/579D8EC9BAA4ABF10932613AE733C4741713CD96/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001410</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001410</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">A mixed qualitativequantitative participatory methodology</title><author><name sortKey="Munyua, Hilda" sort="Munyua, Hilda" uniqKey="Munyua H" first="Hilda" last="Munyua">Hilda Munyua</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>School of Sociology and Social Studies, University of KwaZuluNatal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Stilwell, Christine" sort="Stilwell, Christine" uniqKey="Stilwell C" first="Christine" last="Stilwell">Christine Stilwell</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>School of Sociology and Social Studies, University of KwaZuluNatal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Library Management</title><idno type="ISSN">0143-5124</idno><imprint><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><date type="published" when="2010-01-05">2010-01-05</date><biblScope unit="volume">31</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1/2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="5">5</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="18">18</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0143-5124</idno></series><idno type="istex">579D8EC9BAA4ABF10932613AE733C4741713CD96</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/01435121011013359</idno><idno type="filenameID">0150310101</idno><idno type="original-pdf">0150310101.pdf</idno><idno type="href">01435121011013359.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0143-5124</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand the agricultural knowledge and information systems AKIS of smallscale farmers in Kirinyaga district, Kenya by identifying the key agricultural actors, establishing the information needs of farmers and how they access, share and exchange agricultural knowledge and information. Designmethodologyapproach The study adopts a triangulation of qualitative, quantitative and participatory methodologies and methods for sampling, data collection and data analysis. The methods combine Relaxed Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems RAAKS and Participatory Rural Appraisal PRA, focus group discussions with farmers groups, observation and analysis of secondary data. The sensemaking methodology is used an alternative approach to study information behaviour, while the soft systems methodology is used to link up the different activities by diverse agricultural actors. Findings Richer and deeper data are collected through mixed methodologies and methods. The study identifies more than 100 active information and knowledge providers in Kirinyaga district, with extension emerging as the most important source of information. However, linkages between the various actors and farmers are weak. In particular, the findings of the study demonstrate that the AKIS of smallscale farmers is location specific and varies with the enterprises produced. Research limitationsimplications Triangulation of methods is expensive hence the study is limited to only one district in Kenya. The paper suggests further research into ways of strengthening and formalising linkages between key actors. Practical implications The study points to the need to strengthen and formalise linkages between farmers and extensionists, private sector, media, farmers' groups, civil society organisations, researchers, educators and microfinance institutions. Social implications The study findings could inform policy development and reforms in agriculture, extension services and help to improve linkages and the flow of agricultural information and knowledge. Consequently, this would translate to improved farming methods and increased agricultural productivity. Originalityvalue The study contributes empirical data that builds on to the existing body of knowledge on AKIS among smallscale farmers. The paper presents a useful mix of methods RAAKS, PRA, focus group discussions and observation for studying the management of agricultural knowledge and information.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>emerald</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Hilda Munyua</name><affiliations><json:string>School of Sociology and Social Studies, University of KwaZuluNatal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Christine Stilwell</name><affiliations><json:string>School of Sociology and Social Studies, University of KwaZuluNatal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Agriculture</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Knowledge processes</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Information systems</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Small enterprises</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Kenya</value></json:item></subject><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand the agricultural knowledge and information systems AKIS of smallscale farmers in Kirinyaga district, Kenya by identifying the key agricultural actors, establishing the information needs of farmers and how they access, share and exchange agricultural knowledge and information. Designmethodologyapproach The study adopts a triangulation of qualitative, quantitative and participatory methodologies and methods for sampling, data collection and data analysis. The methods combine Relaxed Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems RAAKS and Participatory Rural Appraisal PRA, focus group discussions with farmers groups, observation and analysis of secondary data. The sensemaking methodology is used an alternative approach to study information behaviour, while the soft systems methodology is used to link up the different activities by diverse agricultural actors. Findings Richer and deeper data are collected through mixed methodologies and methods. The study identifies more than 100 active information and knowledge providers in Kirinyaga district, with extension emerging as the most important source of information. However, linkages between the various actors and farmers are weak. In particular, the findings of the study demonstrate that the AKIS of smallscale farmers is location specific and varies with the enterprises produced. Research limitationsimplications Triangulation of methods is expensive hence the study is limited to only one district in Kenya. The paper suggests further research into ways of strengthening and formalising linkages between key actors. Practical implications The study points to the need to strengthen and formalise linkages between farmers and extensionists, private sector, media, farmers' groups, civil society organisations, researchers, educators and microfinance institutions. Social implications The study findings could inform policy development and reforms in agriculture, extension services and help to improve linkages and the flow of agricultural information and knowledge. Consequently, this would translate to improved farming methods and increased agricultural productivity. Originalityvalue The study contributes empirical data that builds on to the existing body of knowledge on AKIS among smallscale farmers. The paper presents a useful mix of methods RAAKS, PRA, focus group discussions and observation for studying the management of agricultural knowledge and information.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>9.937</score><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><keywordCount>5</keywordCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>519 x 680 pts</pdfPageSize><abstractCharCount>2487</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>4937</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>33850</pdfCharCount><abstractWordCount>339</abstractWordCount><pdfPageCount>14</pdfPageCount></qualityIndicators><title>A mixed qualitativequantitative participatory methodology</title><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><volume>31</volume><publisherId><json:string>lm</json:string></publisherId><pages><last>18</last><first>5</first></pages><issn><json:string>0143-5124</json:string></issn><issue>1/2</issue><subject><json:item><value>Library & information science</value></json:item><json:item><value>Librarianship/library management</value></json:item><json:item><value>HR in libraries</value></json:item><json:item><value>Library promotion</value></json:item><json:item><value>Library strategy</value></json:item></subject><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><title>Library Management</title><doi><json:string>10.1108/lm</json:string></doi></host><categories><wos></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>economic & social sciences</json:string><json:string>social sciences</json:string><json:string>information & library sciences</json:string></scienceMetrix></categories><publicationDate>2010</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2010</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1108/01435121011013359</json:string></doi><id>579D8EC9BAA4ABF10932613AE733C4741713CD96</id><score>0.051538736</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/579D8EC9BAA4ABF10932613AE733C4741713CD96/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/579D8EC9BAA4ABF10932613AE733C4741713CD96/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/579D8EC9BAA4ABF10932613AE733C4741713CD96/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">A mixed qualitativequantitative participatory methodology</title><title level="a" type="sub" xml:lang="en">A study of the agricultural knowledge and information system AKIS of smallscale farmers in Kirinyaga district, Kenya</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><availability><p>© Emerald Group Publishing Limited</p></availability><date>2010</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">A mixed qualitativequantitative participatory methodology</title><title level="a" type="sub" xml:lang="en">A study of the agricultural knowledge and information system AKIS of smallscale farmers in Kirinyaga district, Kenya</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Hilda</forename><surname>Munyua</surname></persName><affiliation>School of Sociology and Social Studies, University of KwaZuluNatal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">Christine</forename><surname>Stilwell</surname></persName><affiliation>School of Sociology and Social Studies, University of KwaZuluNatal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Library Management</title><idno type="pISSN">0143-5124</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/lm</idno><imprint><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><date type="published" when="2010-01-05"></date><biblScope unit="volume">31</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1/2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="5">5</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="18">18</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">579D8EC9BAA4ABF10932613AE733C4741713CD96</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1108/01435121011013359</idno><idno type="filenameID">0150310101</idno><idno type="original-pdf">0150310101.pdf</idno><idno type="href">01435121011013359.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2010</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract><p>Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand the agricultural knowledge and information systems AKIS of smallscale farmers in Kirinyaga district, Kenya by identifying the key agricultural actors, establishing the information needs of farmers and how they access, share and exchange agricultural knowledge and information. Designmethodologyapproach The study adopts a triangulation of qualitative, quantitative and participatory methodologies and methods for sampling, data collection and data analysis. The methods combine Relaxed Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems RAAKS and Participatory Rural Appraisal PRA, focus group discussions with farmers groups, observation and analysis of secondary data. The sensemaking methodology is used an alternative approach to study information behaviour, while the soft systems methodology is used to link up the different activities by diverse agricultural actors. Findings Richer and deeper data are collected through mixed methodologies and methods. The study identifies more than 100 active information and knowledge providers in Kirinyaga district, with extension emerging as the most important source of information. However, linkages between the various actors and farmers are weak. In particular, the findings of the study demonstrate that the AKIS of smallscale farmers is location specific and varies with the enterprises produced. Research limitationsimplications Triangulation of methods is expensive hence the study is limited to only one district in Kenya. The paper suggests further research into ways of strengthening and formalising linkages between key actors. Practical implications The study points to the need to strengthen and formalise linkages between farmers and extensionists, private sector, media, farmers' groups, civil society organisations, researchers, educators and microfinance institutions. Social implications The study findings could inform policy development and reforms in agriculture, extension services and help to improve linkages and the flow of agricultural information and knowledge. Consequently, this would translate to improved farming methods and increased agricultural productivity. Originalityvalue The study contributes empirical data that builds on to the existing body of knowledge on AKIS among smallscale farmers. The paper presents a useful mix of methods RAAKS, PRA, focus group discussions and observation for studying the management of agricultural knowledge and information.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>Agriculture</term></item><item><term>Knowledge processes</term></item><item><term>Information systems</term></item><item><term>Small enterprises</term></item><item><term>Kenya</term></item></list></keywords></textClass><textClass><keywords scheme="Emerald Subject Group"><list><label>cat-LISC</label><item><term>Library & information science</term></item><label>cat-LLM</label><item><term>Librarianship/library management</term></item><label>cat-HILB</label><item><term>HR in libraries</term></item><label>cat-LPM</label><item><term>Library promotion</term></item><label>cat-LSTR</label><item><term>Library strategy</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2010-01-05">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/579D8EC9BAA4ABF10932613AE733C4741713CD96/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus emerald not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><!-- Auto generated NISO JATS XML created by Atypon out of MCB DTD source files. Do Not Edit! --><article dtd-version="1.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research-article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">lm</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="doi">10.1108/lm</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Library Management</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">0143-5124</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1108/01435121011013359</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="original-pdf">0150310101.pdf</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="filename">0150310101</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="type-of-publication"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">research-article</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Research paper</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="subject"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-LISC</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Library & information science</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-LLM</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Librarianship/library management</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-HILB</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">HR in libraries</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-LPM</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Library promotion</compound-subject-part></compound-subject><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-LSTR</compound-subject-part><compound-subject-part content-type="label">Library strategy</compound-subject-part></compound-subject></subj-group></subj-group></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>A mixed qualitative‐quantitative‐ participatory methodology</article-title><subtitle>A study of the agricultural knowledge and information system (AKIS) of small‐scale farmers in Kirinyaga district, Kenya</subtitle></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><string-name><given-names>Hilda</given-names> <surname>Munyua</surname></string-name><aff>School of Sociology and Social Studies, University of KwaZulu‐Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa</aff></contrib><x></x><contrib contrib-type="author"><string-name><given-names>Christine</given-names> <surname>Stilwell</surname></string-name><aff>School of Sociology and Social Studies, University of KwaZulu‐Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa</aff></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><day>05</day><month>01</month><year>2010</year></pub-date><volume>31</volume><issue>1/2</issue><fpage>5</fpage><lpage>18</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>© Emerald Group Publishing Limited</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2010</copyright-year><license license-type="publisher"><license-p></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="01435121011013359.pdf"></self-uri><abstract><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Purpose</title><x> – </x><p>The purpose of this paper is to understand the agricultural knowledge and information systems (AKIS) of small‐scale farmers in Kirinyaga district, Kenya by identifying the key agricultural actors, establishing the information needs of farmers and how they access, share and exchange agricultural knowledge and information.</p></sec><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Design/methodology/approach</title><x> – </x><p>The study adopts a triangulation of qualitative, quantitative and participatory methodologies and methods for sampling, data collection and data analysis. The methods combine Relaxed Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems (RAAKS) and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), focus group discussions with farmers groups, observation and analysis of secondary data. The sense‐making methodology is used an alternative approach to study information behaviour, while the soft systems methodology is used to link up the different activities by diverse agricultural actors.</p></sec><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Findings</title><x> – </x><p>Richer and deeper data are collected through mixed methodologies and methods. The study identifies more than 100 active information and knowledge providers in Kirinyaga district, with extension emerging as the most important source of information. However, linkages between the various actors and farmers are weak. In particular, the findings of the study demonstrate that the AKIS of small‐scale farmers is location specific and varies with the enterprise(s) produced.</p></sec><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Research limitations/implications</title><x> – </x><p>Triangulation of methods is expensive hence the study is limited to only one district in Kenya. The paper suggests further research into ways of strengthening and formalising linkages between key actors.</p></sec><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Practical implications</title><x> – </x><p>The study points to the need to strengthen and formalise linkages between farmers and extensionists, private sector, media, farmers' groups, civil society organisations, researchers, educators and microfinance institutions.</p></sec><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Social implications</title><x> – </x><p>The study findings could inform policy development and reforms in agriculture, extension services and help to improve linkages and the flow of agricultural information and knowledge. Consequently, this would translate to improved farming methods and increased agricultural productivity.</p></sec><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Originality/value</title><x> – </x><p>The study contributes empirical data that builds on to the existing body of knowledge on AKIS among small‐scale farmers. The paper presents a useful mix of methods (RAAKS, PRA, focus group discussions and observation) for studying the management of agricultural knowledge and information.</p></sec></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Agriculture</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Knowledge processes</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Information systems</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Small enterprises</kwd><x>, </x><kwd>Kenya</kwd></kwd-group><custom-meta-group><custom-meta><meta-name>peer-reviewed</meta-name><meta-value>no</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>academic-content</meta-name><meta-value>yes</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>rightslink</meta-name><meta-value>included</meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-group></article-meta><ack><p>This paper was originally presented at the International Conference on Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries (QQML 2009) Chania, Crete, Greece: 26‐29 May 2009.</p></ack></front><body><sec><title>1 Introduction and background</title><p>In Kenya, 80 per cent of the population lives in rural areas and derive their livelihoods from agriculture. The agricultural sector plays a critical role in wealth creation and employment, and accounts for about 25 per cent of the gross development product (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b26">Republic of Kenya, 2008a</xref>). Agriculture provides raw materials to the manufacturing sector and stimulates indirect growth. The agricultural sector employs more than 80 per cent of Kenya's workforce and contributes 57 per cent of national income (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b25">Republic of Kenya, 2006</xref>). Despite its importance, growth in the sector has declined over the years from 4.4 per cent in 1996 to a record −2.4 per cent in 2000 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b25">Republic of Kenya, 2006</xref>). Improvements were made from 2002 (1.8 per cent) to 2005 (6.9 per cent), but the growth rate dropped to 2.3 per cent in 2007 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b27">Republic of Kenya, 2008b</xref>). Of the farmers in Kenya, 80 per cent are smallholders, who produce for subsistence and for sale. These farmers face many barriers to attaining full agricultural production including poor access to agricultural information, low output and productivity, weak institutional capacity and coordination, inadequate markets and market information (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b25">Republic of Kenya, 2006</xref>). In addition, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b23">Rees <italic>et al.</italic> (2000)</xref> observed that linkages between research, extension, civil society organisations and farmers were weak and that often the new improved technologies did not reach their intended beneficiaries.</p><p>The <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b16">FAO and World Bank (2000)</xref> defined an agricultural knowledge and information systems (AKIS) as a system that “links rural people and institutions to promote mutual learning and generate, share and utilize agriculture‐related technology, knowledge and information”. The need to increase production, improve the poor linkages between agricultural actors, improve access to market information and agroprocessing, and address the limited supply of agricultural information and knowledge for farmers highlighted the need to understand the AKISs of small‐scale farmers. Kirinyaga district, Central province provided a good entry site for the study of AKIS because of its high agricultural potential and population. Kirinyaga district is characterised by many small‐scale farmers who keep livestock and grow cash crops and subsistence crops. The district faces immense challenges including the small landholdings (average farm sizes of 1.2 hectares), declining productivity in agriculture and livestock, poverty, gender inequality, low incomes and a varied tropical climate. More significantly, the farmers do not have adequate access to agricultural information and knowledge on production, processing and marketing (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b24">Republic of Kenya, 2002</xref>). This paper reports on a study of AKIS carried out in four divisions (Central, Gichugu, Mwea and Ndia) of Kirinyaga district. The study aimed to understand the role of small‐scale farmers as key actors in supporting agricultural development, their information behaviour and their sources of knowledge and information and their system of inter‐linkages for the sharing of agricultural knowledge and information. The study used a mixed qualitative‐quantitative‐participatory methodology, and focused on small‐scale farmers' groups in exploring ways of strengthening linkages and improving the sharing and exchanging of agricultural knowledge and information between actors.</p></sec><sec><title>2 Methodology and methods</title><p>Waring (2000, cited in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b19">Knox, 2004</xref>) pointed out that it can be limiting to adopt only one methodological approach as “methodologies are best used in a complementary way” to ensure the bigger picture is not lost. Earlier, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b21">Pratt and Loizos (1992)</xref> observed that research touching on development issues required not only quantitative and qualitative aspects, but also participation of local stakeholders. This study used the qualitative and quantitative mixed style design (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b7">Creswell, 2003</xref>), and participatory action methodology (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b22">Pretty and Vodouhe, 1997</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b2">Bhana, 1999</xref>) to explore ways of strengthening linkages and improving the sharing of agricultural knowledge and information. The sense‐making methodology (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b10 b11 b12">Dervin, 1998, 1999, 2007</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b30">Romanello <italic>et al.</italic>, 2003</xref>) was used as an alternative approach to study information behaviour of small‐scale farmers. The sense‐making methodology is based on the soft knowledge systems perspective. The soft systems methodology (SSM) (a participatory methodology) was used to link up the different activities by diverse agricultural actors into a purposeful whole (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b5">Checkland and Scholes, 1990</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b3 b4">Checkland, 1999, 2000</xref>). More specifically, the SSM was used to help:<list list-type="bullet"><list-item><label>• </label><p>identify actors and potential actors;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>identify opportunities to improve a knowledge and information system; and</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>create awareness among relevant stakeholders.</p></list-item></list>A multi‐method research design was adopted. We used qualitative techniques to study the AKIS of small‐scale farmers and their information behaviour comprising a cross sectional survey, interviews, observation, action research, and focus group discussions. The survey method was used to assess people's feelings, thoughts, opinions and relationships (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b34">Shaughnessy <italic>et al.</italic>, 2003</xref>). Interviews were conducted in both the qualitative and quantitative approaches to provide the opportunity to clarify any outstanding issues, and obtain insights of the respondents (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b1">Babbie, 2004</xref>). <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b11">Dervin's (1999)</xref> sense making interviewing technique was used for interviews and focus group discussions to gather in‐depth data on agricultural actors, and to allow the farmers to deconstruct and describe their worlds in their own terms and meanings. A semi‐structured questionnaire was used to investigate agricultural information providers. The Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems (RAAKS) (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b14">Engel and Salomon, 1997</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b31">Salomon and Engel, 1997a</xref>) – an SSM application, and the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methods were used to study the different agricultural actors and their social interactions in an AKIS of small‐scale farmers. RAAKS provided for the inclusion of women and other frequently neglected groups such as the youth (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b32">Salomon and Engel, 1997b</xref>). We used six RAAKS windows: actor analysis (A2), prime mover septagram (A5/B6), knowledge network analysis – information source (B3a), knowledge network analysis – communication sheet (B3b), integration analysis (RAAKS B4/a), and basic configurations. The PRA methods used were time lines, network diagrams, agriculture service maps and Venn diagrams. The PRA methods used yielded purely qualitative data, while RAAKS provided qualitative and quantitative data.</p><p>The study population was made up of small‐scale farmers in Kirinyaga district (individuals and groups), and information providers. Cluster sampling was used to draw the sample as there was no comprehensive sampling frame and the population was large and scattered (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b33">Sapsford and Jupp, 2006</xref>). The basis of the clusters was sub‐locations. The selection of farmers' groups was guided by the criteria used by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b23">Rees <italic>et al.</italic> (2000)</xref> – they have:<list list-type="bullet"><list-item><label>• </label><p>a concentration and diversity of agricultural developments;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>diversity and concentration of actors;</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>social organisation of farming groups; and</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>agro‐ecological representation.</p></list-item></list>In addition, we added the criteria balanced representation of men, women and youth farmers (15‐25 years). The sampling steps included:<list list-type="bullet"><list-item><label>• </label><p>selection of three locations from each of the four divisions (12);</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>selection of three sub‐locations from each location (36);</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>selection of three farmers' groups from each sub‐location; and</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>one farmer was then selected from each farmers' group (focus group discussion), and each farmers' group was asked to identify a farmer not belonging to a group.</p></list-item></list>In sum, a total of 90 focus group discussions were held with farmers' groups, 102 individual farmers belonging to a group and 71 individual farmers not belonging to a group were interviewed. Eight questionnaires were sent out to information providers and the response rate was 50 per cent. Detailed observations were made during field visits and throughout the data collection period in Kirinyaga district. One to one interviews were conducted with government ministries, research, training and education institutions (14), non‐governmental organisations (NGOs), community‐based organisations (CBO), projects and religious organisations (8), input stockists (17) and key informant representatives (4). SPSS 15.0 and NUD.IST (NVIVO) nine were used to analyse quantitative and qualitative data, respectively.</p></sec><sec><title>3 Preliminary results</title><p>The preliminary data presented are based on the findings obtained from focus group discussions with farmers groups, RAAKS and PRAs. The content analysis of sense making is not covered in this paper. Of the 90 farmers' groups (<italic>n</italic>=90) (22, 26, 26, 16 in Central, Gichugu, Mwea and Ndia, respectively) that participated in the study, about two‐thirds (67.8 per cent) were mixed groups (male, female and youth), 21.1 per cent female only, 6.7 per cent male only and 4.4 per cent youth only. The groups were diverse and while some were formal, others were informal. About 92.2 per cent of the groups were registered and this status enabled them to exist as legal entities that can transact business, open bank accounts, negotiate agreements, apply for loans, access government support, sue and be sued. The majority (97.8 per cent) were farmers' groups, while 2.2 per cent were cooperatives.</p><sec><title>Information behaviour</title><p>The study established that the main objectives of farmers' groups were to: generate income (22.3 per cent), improve agricultural development and adopt modern technologies (20.9 per cent), address social welfare activities (14.1 per cent), reduce poverty (7.8 per cent) and to access markets and good prices (7.3 per cent) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_0150310101005">Table I</xref>).</p><p>The groups cited about 44 enterprises (<italic>n</italic>=214 responses) as their main agricultural enterprises. Those more frequently mentioned were tissue culture bananas (TCB) (22 groups, 10.3 per cent of responses), maize (19 groups 8.9 per cent), coffee (16 groups, 7.5 per cent), French beans and tree/fruit nursery seedlings (15 groups, 7.0 per cent each), dairy goat (14 groups, 6.5 per cent) and dairy cow (13 groups, 6.1 per cent). Other enterprises of farmers' groups included tea, tomatoes, poultry, bee keeping, cotton, pigs and avocado soap making.</p><p>The information needs of the groups were based on the enterprise(s) they ranked as priority. The enterprise(s) ranked as priority number 1 (<italic>n</italic>=88) appeared to be for income generation and food: French beans (13.6 per cent), maize (12.5 per cent), coffee (10.2 per cent), tea (8.0 per cent) dairy cow and dairy goat (6.8 per cent each), tree/fruit seedlings (5.7 per cent), TCB (4.6 per cent), as well as cotton, bee farming and horticulture (3.4 per cent each). Enterprises ranked as priority number 2 (<italic>N</italic>=76) seemed to be primarily for household consumption and for selling: maize (12 groups, 15.8 per cent), beans (seven groups, 9.2 per cent), TCB (six groups, 7.9 per cent), dairy goat (five groups, 6.6 per cent), and tomatoes (four groups, 5.3 per cent). For each of these priority enterprises, the groups needed information on diverse areas cutting across the production to consumption continuum as presented in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_0150310101006">Table II</xref>. The groups in Mwea and Ndia mainly sought information on TCB, while groups in Central and Gichugu required information on tea, animal feeds, animal health and breeds. Groups in Gichugu and Ndia looked for information on coffee, while groups in Mwea sought after information on cotton. There were no major differences between information needs related to specific enterprises that the groups ranked as priority numbers 1 and 2 except that there were more needs for value addition information for enterprises ranked as priority one (16.2 per cent as opposed to 2.7 per cent) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_0150310101006">Table II</xref>).</p><p>Farmers' groups in Kirinyaga district expressed diverse information‐seeking behaviour. About half (44 groups, 51.8 per cent for enterprise ranked priority number 1 (<italic>n</italic>=129 responses) and 36 groups, 50.7 per cent for enterprise ranked priority number 2 (<italic>n</italic>=113 responses)) of the respondents indicated that they obtained information from extension service providers. The groups either invited the extensionists to their group meetings, or representatives of the groups visited extension officers in their offices. Others participated in farmer field schools, attended training at agricultural training centres, visited research institutions or worked with NGOs to access knowledge and information, or were trained at their locality by local and external experts such as horticultural exporting companies. The groups also consulted input stockists at their premises, veterinary officers, attended field days, shows, seminars and study tours. Some respondents only relied on their own knowledge.</p><p>The responsibility for collecting information for the groups (<italic>n</italic>=90) rested with the secretary (26.5 per cent), or the executive committee (25 per cent), or the chairperson (21.25 per cent). Individual farmers also collected information. Information for the enterprise ranked priority number 1 (<italic>n</italic>=155 responses) was shared through meetings (75 groups, 88.2 per cent of cases), training (21 groups, 24.7 per cent), demonstrations (19 groups, 22.4 per cent), one on one oral discussions (13 groups, 15.3 per cent), barazas<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1">[1]</xref> (ten groups, 11.8 per cent), cellular phone, print materials, field days and churches. A similar pattern was observed in the manner in which the groups shared information and knowledge for the enterprise ranked priority number 2. Most of the groups shared information through group meetings (58 groups, 84.1 per cent of responses), training sessions (12 groups, 17.4 per cent), oral discussion (nine groups13.0 per cent), barazas (eight groups, 11.6 per cent), and demonstrations (seven groups, 10.1 per cent). About 81.8 per cent of the focus groups indicated that they shared the information they accessed with other members of the community including other farmers, neighbours and friends, (89.9 per cent), other groups, leaders and visitors that asked. Most information was shared orally (60 per cent) at training sessions, meetings, social and prayer gatherings, followed by demonstrations and observation (14.3 per cent). Local and/or indigenous knowledge<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn2">[2]</xref> was considered important, with 51 groups (58.6 per cent) indicating that they shared indigenous and/or local knowledge assets they possessed with other community members. This knowledge was tapped from knowledgeable elders, groups, parents, other farmers and the radio.</p></sec><sec><title>AKIS of Kirinyaga district</title><p>There were more than 100 active information and knowledge providers in Kirinyaga district. These were categorised under the following sub systems:<list list-type="bullet"><list-item><label>• </label><p>research (three national institutions and three international institutions);</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>training and education institutions (7);</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>public sector (government departments and programmes (15), and parastatals (4));</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>local producers (farmers' groups, model/innovative farmers, neighbours, relatives, friends);</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>markets (local (Kagio, Kutus, Makutano, Sagana, Kibirigwi, Baricho, Kerugoya), external outside Kirinyaga (e.g. Nairobi, Mombasa) and export markets);</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>civil society organisations (17 NGOs and associations, four projects, five faith‐based organisations);</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>private sector organisations (36), (which included horticultural exporting companies, input stockists, agrochemical companies, seed suppliers, feeds and fertiliser manufacturers, credit and microfinance institutions (11));</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>media (e.g. Inooro and Cooro radio stations, television and newspapers); and</p></list-item><list-item><label>• </label><p>development partners (donors) (6).</p></list-item></list>Extension emerged as the most important source of information. Extension services from the Ministry of Agriculture and information from model farmers were perceived to be closer and more accessible to farmers than other sources. Other key sources included the private sector, especially horticultural exporting companies, input stockists and NGOs. Because of the varied climate and diverse agroecological conditions in the district, the different divisions, locations and sub‐locations had their own major sources. For example, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_0150310101001">Figure 1</xref> shows a Venn diagram showing the main sources of agricultural information in Miuu sub location, Murinduko location in Mwea that shows institutions, organisations, groups and important individuals found in Miuu sub location. The size of the circle represents the perceived views of the groups regarding the importance and contact with the information provider. The distance from the centre denotes how close (in terms of physical distance) the service provider is to the group.</p><p>The farmers' groups in Miuu sub location perceived the Ministry of Agriculture to be the most important and accessible source of agricultural information and knowledge. The Ministry of Fisheries Development and the Christian Community Service, Ministry of Livestock Development, Veterinary Department and Forest Department were considered important but not easily accessible. The Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) and the cotton ginnery were viewed to be of medium importance but were perceived to be closer to the community. Other key sources were Mwea Irrigation Agricultural Development Centre (MIAD), the Horticultural Crops Development Authority, Africa Harvest and churches. Model and innovative farmers, though few and scattered played a vital role in providing agricultural information and knowledge to the surrounding community. NGOs and faith‐based organisations were more active in Mwea, Ndia and Central, where there was a strong presence of private sector organisations and microfinance and credit institutions. However, extension services, horticultural exporting companies, agrochemical and seed companies, and stockists provided information and knowledge in all the four divisions. Access to credit was crucial in facilitating acquisition of agricultural inputs, which have become very expensive. Some focus group discussion members often remarked: “we have been trained but we do not have money to buy the inputs”. Microfinance and credit institutions were thus a key actor in the AKIS of Kirinyaga district.</p><p>There were various services linking the different actors in Kirinyaga district to farmers' groups. Extension services were provided by: the public sector, coffee cooperatives and societies, NGOs and faith‐based organisations. The groups acquired agricultural inputs from stockists and in some cases from Kamweti Agricultural Training Centre (sweet potato vines), KARI – Mwea (cotton seed), MIAD (rice seed), Coffee Research Foundation (improved coffee seedlings), or Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (TCB plantlets). Private animal health service providers offered health care and artificial insemination services to farmers who could afford to pay. Horticultural exporting companies, coffee factories, associations, and private companies provided services for the control and management of plant pests and diseases at cost. Ox plough services were the most preferred ploughing method because of the hilly terrain in Kirinyaga district, while a few farmers used tractors and the hoe or fork <italic>jembe</italic>. Horticultural exporters, traders and hawkers collected farm produce at designated collection sheds or the farm gate. Farmers transported their goods on donkey carts (especially in Mwea), pickup trucks, canters or lorries and sold it at the main local markets at Kagio, Sagana, Makutano and Kutus (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_0150310101002">Figure 2</xref>). The groups mainly accessed credit from their merry‐go‐rounds<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn3">[3]</xref>, savings and credit cooperatives, KREP, Agricultural Finance Cooperation and Equity Bank (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_0150310101002">Figure 2</xref>).</p><p>This study established that linkages between the various actors and farmers were weak. Although some services were easily accessible, others were distant and inaccessible or not affordable to farmers. For example, the network diagram for Kombui‐ini sub location, Kangai location in Mwea demonstrated that farmers had stronger links with neighbours and other farmers, stockists, agrochemical companies and horticultural exporters, while linkages with extension, markets, credit institutions, the National Irrigation Board and markets were weak (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_0150310101002">Figure 2</xref>). A network diagram for Kithumbu sub location, Mwerua location in Ndia brought out farmers' groups as being an important and accessible actor.</p><p>Prime mover septagrams helped to determine the most influential actor(s) in the operational activities of farmers' groups in terms of the quality and strength of the relationship between the groups with the world around them. The shape of the septagrams depended on the conditions in the location, the actors and services on the ground as well as the enterprise(s) produced. The septagram for Wendani Cotton Self Help Group in Riagicheru sub location, Murinduko location in Mwea showed that research, extension, market and the new cotton policy influenced cotton production (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_0150310101003">Figure 3</xref>). It was apparent that markets were increasingly becoming the drivers of agricultural production, and farmers were willing to adopt any enterprise as long as there was a market and good economic returns. Farmers in Riagicheru sub location adopted cotton because the ginnery provided a ready market. In contrast, the septagram for Ngakandu Dairy Goat Keeping Self Help Group in Karia sub‐location, Koroma location in Central (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_0150310101004">Figure 4</xref>) showed that consumers of dairy goat milk were the prime movers. Research and agro processors exerted the least influence for the dairy goat enterprise.</p></sec></sec><sec><title>4 Discussion and conclusion</title><p>The combined qualitative‐quantitative‐participatory methodology made the research “fun”, and as observed by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b13">Duffy (1987)</xref>, mixed methodologies encouraged creativity and enriched the understanding of problems being investigated (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b18">Hoskisson <italic>et al.</italic>, 1999</xref>). Data from the participatory approaches complemented the survey and focus group discussions data and the mix provided results that were more reliable and rounded (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b6">Cohen <italic>et al.</italic>, 2007</xref>), with pictorial representations that enhanced understanding. The SSM facilitated the understanding of complex “organisational” problems, innovation, learning and choice making (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b28">Röling, 1988</xref>). The methodology helped to highlight the roles and relationships between different agricultural actors, what they actually did, how they learnt, and how they shared ideas and experiences (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b14">Engel and Salomon, 1997</xref>). RAAKS provided tools for studying AKIS and the participatory approach helped to visualise things, tap the farmers' knowledge, facilite learning (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b29">Röling and Pretty, 1997</xref>), and provide a balance between science and practice (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b8">Cronholm and Goldkuhl, 2004</xref>), and to enable the rural people to arrive at solutions to their problems. Triangulation of methodologies provided the freedom to choose appropriate research methods that were practical and that best addressed the research question(s) (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b18">Hoskisson <italic>et al.</italic>, 1999</xref>). Further, the blend increased the robustness of the results of the study (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b15">Esteves and Pastor, 2004</xref>).</p><p>However, some critics of mixed methodologies have argued that it is difficult to discern the link between two methodologies because the paradigms for each might be different (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b9">de Vos, 1998, p. 360</xref>). <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b19">Knox (2004)</xref> argued that mixing of methodologies could complicate the research process. The experience of this study showed that triangulation of methodologies led to synergy, enrichment and complementarity of data. The process was however very expensive in terms of time, money and energy. The triangulation resulted in a massive store of data requiring much time on analysis. Although some of the methods duplicated the data obtained, the investment was justified by the completeness and detail of results obtained. The interviews and focus group discussions were long (about three and a half hours), and there were challenges in getting some group members to participate in the discussions. Some participants had very high expectations and viewed the study as the mouthpiece they were waiting for to air their problems and bring solutions.</p><p>The study of AKIS of Kirinyaga district corroborated the results of previous studies (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b23">Rees <italic>et al.</italic>, 2000</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b17">Garforth, 2001</xref>) in other locations. Linkages between actors were weak and each actor was driven by their own motives and interest, some of which were conflicting. The study also confirmed that the AKIS of small‐scale farmers was location specific and varied with the enterprise(s) produced. Despite the non‐availability of extension officers due to low staff numbers, the demand‐driven public extension services were the most important source of information and knowledge for farmers' groups in Kirinyaga. It showed that farmers' groups were a key actor in the district and they worked collectively to learn, address problems and make discovery. Some of the groups had amalgamated to form umbrella groups such as the Rungeto Leaders Group. The groups were effective in promoting and scaling up new technologies, displaying innovation and improving farming methods. Although the study revealed that linkages between the actors themselves were weak, the TCB enterprise provided a good example of synergy between actors, where Africa Harvest (an NGO promoting TCB) collaborated with TechnoServe (an NGO linking farmers to markets) and the Ministry of Agriculture (for general husbandry). Most groups that had adopted TCB expressed satisfaction with the outcome. Another example is the National Agriculture and Livestock Extension Programme that demonstrated a pluralistic approach and partnership between the public sector, private sector, civil society and farmers' groups through the establishment of a multi‐stakeholder forum. The forum has facilitated interaction among actors and enhanced the sharing and dissemination of agricultural information and knowledge, but it had challenges of non‐attendance by some stakeholders. This suggests the need for policy and regulatory frameworks that strengthen and formalise linkages between key actors.</p></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_0150310101001"><label><bold>Figure 1<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>Venn diagram of Miuu sub location, Murinduko location, Mwea division</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="0150310101001.tif"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_0150310101002"><label><bold>Figure 2<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>Network diagram for Kombui‐ini sub location, Kangai location, Mwea division</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="0150310101002.tif"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_0150310101003"><label><bold>Figure 3<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>Prime mover septagram of Wendani Cotton Self Help Group</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="0150310101003.tif"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_0150310101004"><label><bold>Figure 4<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>Prime mover septagram of Ngakandu Dairy Goat Keeping Self Help Group</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="0150310101004.tif"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_0150310101005"><label><bold>Table I<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>The main objectives of farmers' groups</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="0150310101005.tif"></graphic></fig></sec><sec><fig position="float" id="F_0150310101006"><label><bold>Table II<x> </x></bold></label><caption><p>Information needs for enterprises ranked priority numbers 1 and 2</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="0150310101006.tif"></graphic></fig></sec></body><back><fn-group><title>Notes</title><fn id="fn1"><p><italic>Baraza</italic> is a Kiswahili word meaning a public space or gathering of people for the purpose of a meeting. The meetings may be simple informal gatherings of people or formal public or communal.</p></fn><fn id="fn2"><p>Local knowledge is a blend of knowledge generated locally through practice and experience, and incorporating knowledge from several cultures within individual societies that may not be indigenous to the community in an ecosystem. Indigenous knowledge is the unique knowledge existing within people's memories and developed around specific conditions of women and men indigenous to a particular geographic area.</p></fn><fn id="fn3"><p>Merry go rounds are an innovative arrangement between farmers' group members who come together for strength. The members contribute money regularly to build a reservoir of funds for investment (a revolving bank) and the money is loaned to members on a rotating basis. The merry go rounds have provided easy access to credit.</p></fn></fn-group><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="b1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Babbie</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), <source><italic>The Practice of Social Research</italic></source>, <edition>10th ed.</edition>, <publisher-name>Wadsworth</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Belmont, CA</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b2"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bhana</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>), “<article-title><italic>Participatory action research: a practical guide for realistic radicals</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Terre Blanche</surname>, <given-names>M.K.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Durrheim</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Eds), <source><italic>Research in Practice: Applied Methods for the Social Sciences</italic></source>, <publisher-name>University of Cape Town Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Cape Town</publisher-loc>, pp. <fpage>227</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>38</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b3"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Checkland</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>), <source><italic>Soft Systems Methodology: A 30‐year Retrospective</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Wiley</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Chichester</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b4"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Checkland</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Soft systems methodology: a thirty year retrospective</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Systems Research and Behavioural Science</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>17</volume>, pp. <fpage>s11</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>s158</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b5"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Checkland</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Scholes</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1990</year>), <source><italic>Soft Systems Methodology in Action</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Wiley</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Chichester</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b6"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Cohen</surname>, <given-names>L.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Manion</surname>, <given-names>L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Morrison</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2007</year>), <source><italic>Research Methods in Education</italic></source>, <edition>6th ed.</edition>, <publisher-name>Routledge</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b7"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Creswell</surname>, <given-names>J.W.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), <source><italic>Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches</italic></source>, <edition>2nd ed.</edition>, <publisher-name>Sage</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Thousand Oaks, CA</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b8"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Cronholm</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Goldkuhl</surname>, <given-names>G.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>Conceptualising participatory action research – three different practices</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>2</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>47</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>58</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b9"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>de Vos</surname>, <given-names>A.S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Ed.) (<year>1998</year>), <source><italic>Research at Grass Roots: A Primer for the Caring Processionals</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Van Schaik</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Pretoria</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b10"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dervin</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>), “<article-title><italic>Sense‐making theory and practice: an overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Knowledge Management</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>2</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>36</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>46</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b11"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dervin</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>), “<article-title><italic>On studying information seeking methodology: the implications of connecting metatheory to method</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Information Processing and Management</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>35</volume>, pp. <fpage>727</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>50</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b12"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dervin</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2007</year>), “<article-title><italic>Applying sense‐making methodology to focus group design: addressing both collective and individual agency</italic></article-title>”, paper presented at Non‐Divisional Working Symposium on “Making communication studies matter: field relevance/irrelevance to media, library, electronic, communication system designs, policies, practices”, 24 May, San Francisco, CA, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://communication.sbs.ohio-state.edu/sense-making/meet/2007/meet07_dervin.pdf">http://communication.sbs.ohio‐state.edu/sense‐making/meet/2007/meet07_dervin.pdf</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b13"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Duffy</surname>, <given-names>M.E.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1987</year>), “<article-title><italic>Methodological triangulation: a vehicle for merging quantitative and qualitative research methods</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>IMAGE: Journal of Nursing Scholarship</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>19</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>130</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>3</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b14"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Engel</surname>, <given-names>P.G.H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Salomon</surname>, <given-names>M.L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1997</year>), <source><italic>Facilitating Innovation for Development: A RAAKS Resource Box</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Royal Tropical Institute</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Amsterdam</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b15"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Esteves</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Pastor</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>Using a multimethod approach to research enterprise systems implementations</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>2</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>69</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>82</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b16"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>FAO and World Bank</string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), <source><italic>Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems for Rural Development (AKIS/RD): Strategic Vision and Guiding Principles</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Bank</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Rome</publisher-loc>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.fao.org/sd/EXdirect/EXre0027.htm">www.fao.org/sd/EXdirect/EXre0027.htm</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b17"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Garforth</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>), “<article-title><italic>Agricultural knowledge and information systems in Hagaz</italic></article-title>”, <publisher-name>SD Dimensions</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Eritrea</publisher-loc>, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.fao.org/sd/2001/KN1001a_en.htm">www.fao.org/sd/2001/KN1001a_en.htm</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b18"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hoskisson</surname>, <given-names>R.E.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hitt</surname>, <given-names>M.A.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Wan</surname>, <given-names>W.P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Yiu</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>), “<article-title><italic>Theory and research in strategic management: swings of a pendulum. (Yearly review of management)</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Journal of Management</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>25</volume> No. <issue>3</issue>, pp. <fpage>417</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>56</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b19"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Knox</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>), “<article-title><italic>A researcher's dilemma – philosophical and methodological pluralism</italic></article-title>”, <source><italic>Electronic Journal of Business Research</italic></source>, Vol. <volume>2</volume> No. <issue>2</issue>, pp. <fpage>119</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>28</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b21"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Pratt</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Loizos</surname>, <given-names>P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1992</year>), “<article-title><italic>Choosing research methods: data collection for development workers</italic></article-title>”, Oxfam Development Guidelines No. 7, <publisher-name>Oxfam</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Oxford</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b22"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Pretty</surname>, <given-names>J.N.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Vodouhe</surname>, <given-names>S.D.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1997</year>), “<article-title><italic>Using rapid or participatory appraisal</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Swanson</surname>, <given-names>B.E.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Ed.), <source><italic>Improving Agricultural Extension: A Reference Manual</italic></source>, <publisher-name>FAO</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Rome</publisher-loc>, pp. <fpage>47</fpage><x>‐</x><lpage>55</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b23"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Rees</surname>, <given-names>D.J.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Momanyi</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Wekundah</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ndungu</surname>, <given-names>F.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Odondi</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Oyure</surname>, <given-names>A.O.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Andima</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kamau</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ndubi</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Musembi</surname>, <given-names>F.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Mwaura</surname>, <given-names>L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Joldersma</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), “<article-title><italic>Agricultural knowledge and information systems in Kenya: implications for technology dissemination and development</italic></article-title>”, Agricultural Research and Extension Network (AgREN) Network Paper No. 107, available at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.odi.org.uk/agren/papers/agrenpaper_107.pdf">www.odi.org.uk/agren/papers/agrenpaper_107.pdf</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b24"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Republic of Kenya</string-name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>), <source><italic>Kirinyaga District Development Plan: 2002‐2008. Effective Management for Sustainable Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Ministry of Finance and Planning</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Nairobi</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b25"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Republic of Kenya</string-name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>), <source><italic>Economic Survey 2006</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Republic of Kenya</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Nairobi</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b26"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Republic of Kenya</string-name></person-group> (<year>2008a</year>), <source><italic>Economic Survey 2008</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Kenya National Bureau of Statistics</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Nairobi</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b27"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name>Republic of Kenya</string-name></person-group> (<year>2008b</year>), <source><italic>First Medium Term Plan (2008‐2012): Kenya Vision 2030. A Globally Competitive and Prosperous Kenya</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Republic of Kenya</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Nairobi</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b28"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Röling</surname>, <given-names>N.G.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1988</year>), <source><italic>Extension Science: Information Systems in Agricultural Development. WYE Studies in Agricultural and Rural Development</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Oxford University Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Oxford</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b29"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Röling</surname>, <given-names>N.G.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Pretty</surname>, <given-names>J.N.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1997</year>), “<article-title><italic>Extension's role in sustainable agriculture development</italic></article-title>”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Swanson</surname>, <given-names>B.E.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Bentz</surname>, <given-names>R.P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Sofranko</surname>, <given-names>A.J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Eds), <source><italic>Improving Agricultural Extension: A Reference Manual</italic></source>, <publisher-name>FAO</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Rome</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b30"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Romanello</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dervin</surname>, <given-names>B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Fortner</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), “<article-title><italic>Sense‐making as a methodology to inform interdisciplinary communication of scientific uncertainty of global climate change</italic></article-title>”, paper presented at a non‐divisional workshop held at the Meeting of the International Communication Association, San Diego, CA.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b31"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Salomon</surname>, <given-names>M.L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Engel</surname>, <given-names>P.G.H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1997a</year>), <source><italic>Networking for Innovation: A Participatory Actor‐Oriented Methodology</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Royal Tropical Institute</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Wageningen</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b32"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Salomon</surname>, <given-names>M.L.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Engel</surname>, <given-names>P.G.H.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>1997b</year>), <source><italic>Networking for Innovation: Windows and Tools</italic></source>, <publisher-name>Royal Tropical Institute</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Wageningen</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b33"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Sapsford</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Jupp</surname>, <given-names>V.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (Eds) (<year>2006</year>), <source><italic>Data Collection and Analysis</italic></source>, <edition>2nd ed.</edition>, <publisher-name>Sage</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="b34"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Shaughnessy</surname>, <given-names>J.J.</given-names></string-name></person-group>, <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Zechmeister</surname>, <given-names>E.B.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Zechmeister</surname>, <given-names>J.S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>), <source><italic>Research Methods in Psychology</italic></source>, <edition>6th ed.</edition>, <publisher-name>McGraw‐Hill</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Boston, MA</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list><ref-list><title>Further Reading</title><ref id="frd1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Krueger</surname>, <given-names>R.A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Casey</surname>, <given-names>M.A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>), <source><italic>Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research</italic></source>, <edition>3rd ed.</edition>, <publisher-name>Sage</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list><app-group><app id="APP1"><title>Corresponding author</title><p>Christine Stilwell can be contacted at: stilwell@ukzn.ac.za</p></app></app-group></back></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>A mixed qualitativequantitative participatory methodology</title><subTitle>A study of the agricultural knowledge and information system AKIS of smallscale farmers in Kirinyaga district, Kenya</subTitle></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>A mixed qualitativequantitative participatory methodology</title><subTitle>A study of the agricultural knowledge and information system AKIS of smallscale farmers in Kirinyaga district, Kenya</subTitle></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Hilda</namePart><namePart type="family">Munyua</namePart><affiliation>School of Sociology and Social Studies, University of KwaZuluNatal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Christine</namePart><namePart type="family">Stilwell</namePart><affiliation>School of Sociology and Social Studies, University of KwaZuluNatal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2010-01-05</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2010</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract>Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand the agricultural knowledge and information systems AKIS of smallscale farmers in Kirinyaga district, Kenya by identifying the key agricultural actors, establishing the information needs of farmers and how they access, share and exchange agricultural knowledge and information. Designmethodologyapproach The study adopts a triangulation of qualitative, quantitative and participatory methodologies and methods for sampling, data collection and data analysis. The methods combine Relaxed Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems RAAKS and Participatory Rural Appraisal PRA, focus group discussions with farmers groups, observation and analysis of secondary data. The sensemaking methodology is used an alternative approach to study information behaviour, while the soft systems methodology is used to link up the different activities by diverse agricultural actors. Findings Richer and deeper data are collected through mixed methodologies and methods. The study identifies more than 100 active information and knowledge providers in Kirinyaga district, with extension emerging as the most important source of information. However, linkages between the various actors and farmers are weak. In particular, the findings of the study demonstrate that the AKIS of smallscale farmers is location specific and varies with the enterprises produced. Research limitationsimplications Triangulation of methods is expensive hence the study is limited to only one district in Kenya. The paper suggests further research into ways of strengthening and formalising linkages between key actors. Practical implications The study points to the need to strengthen and formalise linkages between farmers and extensionists, private sector, media, farmers' groups, civil society organisations, researchers, educators and microfinance institutions. Social implications The study findings could inform policy development and reforms in agriculture, extension services and help to improve linkages and the flow of agricultural information and knowledge. Consequently, this would translate to improved farming methods and increased agricultural productivity. Originalityvalue The study contributes empirical data that builds on to the existing body of knowledge on AKIS among smallscale farmers. The paper presents a useful mix of methods RAAKS, PRA, focus group discussions and observation for studying the management of agricultural knowledge and information.</abstract><subject><genre>keywords</genre><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>Knowledge processes</topic><topic>Information systems</topic><topic>Small enterprises</topic><topic>Kenya</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Library Management</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><subject><genre>Emerald Subject Group</genre><topic authority="SubjectCodesPrimary" authorityURI="cat-LISC">Library & information science</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-LLM">Librarianship/library management</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-HILB">HR in libraries</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-LPM">Library promotion</topic><topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-LSTR">Library strategy</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">0143-5124</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">lm</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1108/lm</identifier><part><date>2010</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>31</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>1/2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>5</start><end>18</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">579D8EC9BAA4ABF10932613AE733C4741713CD96</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1108/01435121011013359</identifier><identifier type="filenameID">0150310101</identifier><identifier type="original-pdf">0150310101.pdf</identifier><identifier type="href">01435121011013359.pdf</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© Emerald Group Publishing Limited</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>EMERALD</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Agronomie/explor/SisAgriV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001410 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001410 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Agronomie
|area= SisAgriV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:579D8EC9BAA4ABF10932613AE733C4741713CD96
|texte= A mixed qualitativequantitative participatory methodology
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.28. |  |