Methodological Complementarity and Learning Processes:

A survey into extensive agriculture in Argentina

Adrián L. Gargicevicha Jorge R. Maronib

aInstituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA) Casilda, Santa Fe, Argentina

b Faculty of Agrarian Sciences of the Universidad Nacional de Rosario, Santa Fe, Argentina

1 Introduction

Quantitative (so called ‘hard’) research methodologies tend to dominate over qualitative (‘soft’)

methodologies in the process of developing agricultural expertise amongst farmers in Argentina. In our

view, this dominance has created institutional and conceptual dichotomies that are difficult to overcome.

Furthermore, there has been little critical analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of harder approaches

in encouraging farmer learning and innovation for sustainable development.

According to Guijt and Engel (1998), “in theory, hard methodologies articulate basic functional elements

to represent a part of reality, while on the contrary, the approximations of soft methodologies do not

pretend to model, but to create windows of reality based on relevant theoretic perspectives”. The former

are applied frequently in technical interventions, and the latter are used to stimulate learning processes

between diverse participants.The complementary use of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ methodologies is proposed by

Guijt and Engel (1998) as a way to “make the essential information more explicit, giving way to a thinking

process that helps farmers to develop measures based on sound information, contributing to sustainability

through a more elaborate and explicit understanding of the consequences of certain decisions applied in

the use of land and enterprise management”.

In this paper, we describe a research programme carried out using a mix of quantitative and qualitative

methods in accordance with the objectives of the Concerted Action Project for the Assessment of

Sustainability in the Southern Cone of Latin America (Gargicevich et al., 1999). An action research

approach was followed to analyse the problem of sustainability, as well as to promote learning and to

develop possible solutions. The core research team consisted of an agronomist, a land use engineer, and an

educational specialist, and was supported by two other engineers, another agronomist, a statistician, and a

communication specialist.

In the study area, the town of Casilda, Santa Fe province, Argentina, agricultural development mainly

focuses on problem diagnosis, emphasising explanation rather than facilitating learning and problem-

solving. Culturally, innovation in the agricultural sector is developed between the agronomist and farmer.

In this model the agronomists conduct the process and farmers’ participation is claimed, but in practice they

are passive. Thus, through our attempt to merge hard and soft methods we hoped to be more effective in

incorporating understanding, as well as developing solutions, with the active involvement of all interested

participants.

Stakeholders in the research included farmers, landowners, extension agents, managers of storage facilities,

accounting consultants, and representatives of banks, producer co-ops, professional associations, co-op

committees, associations, the National Institute of Farming and Animal Husbandry Technology (Instituto

Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria - INTA) and the university. The farmers and landowners, which

included women and men, formed the majority.

For this research, sustainability was defined as “the temporary continuity of enterprises with responsible

management of natural resources and social relationships”. The social aspects included economic and

institutional dimensions, whilst environmental dimensions comprised the natural aspects. The complexity

of interactions between social and natural aspects implied by the concept of sustainability, necessitated a

close examination of three central issues:

• Learning on the part of participants to encourage innovation and to plan actions for sustainability,

assuming that innovations require group interaction.

• Analysing trade-offs: Analysing the trade-offs made in farmers’ decision-making between

environmental, social and economic objectives helped identify those actions that might undermine

sustainability.

• Exploring agricultural knowledge networks existing among participants. This allowed an

understanding of the frequency and intensity of relationships among actors and helped to plan

interventions. In this paper, we focus specifically on the advantages and difficulties of methodological mergers for

facilitating learning for farming community and researchers’ sustainability.

1.1 Description of the study area

The study area is dominated by extensive farming operations, a highly mechanised productive system and a

predominance of household labour. Most farmers own their land. Production units commonly concentrate

many owners, and farm sizes vary between 90 and 235 hectares, depending on the type of ownership.

These are below the average sizes for Argentina. The farmers live in the city and travel to their farms daily.

They represent the range of formal and informal educational and literacy levels. Most farms produce grain,

occupying more than 85% of the area. The main crops are soybean, wheat and corn. Soil degradation and

erosion are common problems, undermining the sustainability of agricultural and rural enterprises. The

economic crisis claimed by farmers is another negative indicator of the sustainability of some enterprises.

Recently, however, more farmers have been adopting soil conservation techniques like direct sowing of

crops and summer rotations with higher proportions of grassy surfaces.

2 Applying complementary methods

The main methodological approach was to combine a ‘hard’ and a ‘soft’ method. For the former we chose a

quantitative method called GRANJAS. This combines simulation software with linear programming to

balance the resources used and produced in an agricultural enterprise. The qualitative ‘soft’ method we

chose is called Rapid Appreciation of the Agricultural Knowledge Systems (RAAKS), which provides a

participatory action research focus to facilitate social learning in sustainable development (Box 1).

Other methods included a quantitative survey technique (Representative Sampling) to characterise the

area’s technological, economic, structural, institutional, social and environmental aspects. This method was

used to develop the simulation scenarios in GRANJAS and improve information in the first stages of

RAAKS. The other approach was communicational diagnostics, a qualitative method used to investigate

communication difficulties limiting problem-solving for sustainability. This last method was used with a

different and larger group of farmers, similar to those involved in the main research process, in order to

understand which difficulties would need to be overcome for planned interventions to reach a larger

area/group of farmers.

Box 2 summarises how the methods were merged, their sequence and complementarity. After training in

GRANJAS and RAAKS, Representative Sampling was used to ensure representation and diversity of

Box 1. The main characteristics of Granjas, RAAKS, Communicational Diagnosis and

Representative Sampling

GRANJAS: (‘hard’, quantitative method) interactive and dynamic simulator of activities and resultsof farming and animal husbandry enterprises. Integrated by three main interrelated components: adatabank, a model generator and a dynamic simulator. The databank requires detailed informationabout resources and technical production activity schedules. The simulator works with non-linearmodels and is capable of reflecting seasonal fluctuations of parameters in technical schedules. Thecalculations represent the different results of pre-established production scenarios, being able tovary the duration periods of the analysis. It evaluates results provoked by a technical change in thefarming system and calculates the balance of use of usable resources, consumables and thoseproduced. It is a useful tool for planning (Berdegué et al., 1989).

RAAKS Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems: (‘soft’, qualitative method). Actionresearch methodology for analysis and provision of social (inter) action for innovation in complexsituations. Assists in developing strategic diagnoses and formulating proposals for action. Focuseson the way relevant agents in the innovation processes relate to others and participate trying out,weighing and deciding on relevant ideas, alternate proposals and strategic solutions. Helps identifyobstacles and opportunities. Rather than generating specific solutions, it helps improve the qualityof strategic decisions, communication and co-operation among a number of agents. The productsare specific adjustments, communication agreements and/or strategic co-operation betweenrelevant agents in order to improve performance of collective innovations (Engel and Salomon,1997).

Communicational Diagnosis: is a quali/quantitative communicative methodology which intervenesstrategically in macro-social areas for the resolution of problems from a pragmatic and constructiveperspective. It starts by recognising that society is a unifying space for different groups that perceiveand act differently because they come from different socio-cultural contexts. Communicationaldiagnosis uses this diversity to bring together interests for a common objective. The focus is onrelationships between socio-cultural dynamics, going beyond the interpersonal to identify keymediations operating in the social sphere. Its main contribution is to characterise the currentposition of socio-cultural patterns that are relevant to the analysed problem. Its main product is todesign a communication strategy to achieve common objectives (Massoni, 1992).

Representative Sampling: (‘hard’, quantitative method). Quantitative polling of structural, social,technical, economic and institutional aspects of enterprises in the study area through a sampling ofrural districts. The sampling provides information about enterprises in the area, allowing statisticalanalysis for correlating and inferring results over a larger area. It allows the main enterprise typesfor each variable analysed to be classified. Done over time, it provides information on the evolutionof variables, observing the magnitude of change for each one. (Hansen et al., 1989).

Figure 1. Relationships between the methods during complementation

SUSTAINABILITY

Continuity of enterprises with responsible management of

natural resources and social relationships

REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLING

(quantitative method)

Detection of types of enterprises in the area

Construction of a database Determination of participants and surroundings

GRANJAS

(quantitative method)

RAAKS

(qualitative method)

Detection of negotiations

Adjustment of scenarios

Modelling Characterising

RESULTS

ACTIONS

COMMUNICATIONAL DIAGNOSIS

(qualitative method)

Processes developed Processes in execution

Key:

Box 2. Summary of the process of methodological complementation

Type of method,

chronology and process

Participants Product Outcome

1. QUANTITATIVE

GRANJAS

Practical training course

Investigators Capacity to use

simulation software

Knowledge of the method.

2. QUALITATIVE

RAAKS

Practical training course

Investigators Capacity to use the

method

Knowledge of the method.

3. QUANTITATIVE

Representative sampleof the Casilda area.

Field survey

Farmers

Landowners

Technological,

economic, social and

institutional

information on

agricultural enterprises

Representative and current area

data.

For RAAKS: definition of

participants, social behaviour,

criteria and tendencies for the

innovation process

For GRANJAS: elaboration of

database and construction of

simulation scenarios

4. QUANTITATIVE

GRANJAS

Development of database

Investigators Local database Adjust information for

GRANJAS

5. QUALITATIVE

RAAKSDevelopment of Phase A:

Interviews and non-field

analysis.

Development of first

workshop.

Investigators,

farmers, owners,

professionals,

institutions.

Redefinition of

objectives and

problem. Identification

of participants.

Analysis of

participants' missions.

Environmental

diagnosis:

actors/factors that

influence the

performance of system

Stimulated learning process

through open discussion in

meetings.

Information about the real

simulation scenarios in

GRANJAS.

6. QUANTITATIVE

GRANJAS

Development of the

simulation scenarios.

Investigators,

Farmers

representative of

management

types

Farmers’ economic

and management

results and trade-offs

related to decision-

making

Stimulated learning through

scenarios result analysis.

Detect tendencies in sustainable

development process.

Analysis of possible lines of

action for RAAKS.

7. QUALITATIVE

RAAKS

Development of Phase B:

Interviews and non-field

analysis.

Development of second

workshop.

Investigators

Farmers

Owners

Professionals

Institutions

Knowledge network of

agricultural system.

System tasks and co-

ordination.

Synthesis of social

organisation

Stimulated learning through open

discussion in meeting.

Confirmed tendencies in

agricultural development

process, identified actions to

encourage and who could

implement them.

8. QUALITATIVE

COMMUNICATION

DIAGNOSIS

Specific tests, non-field

analysis.

Investigators

Farmers and

owners who did

not participate in

previous stages.

Common aspects and

limitations in socio-

cultural patterns

studied.

Understanding communication

limitations for intervention at a

higher level of aggregation

(future action).

9. QUALITATIVE

RAAKSDevelopment of Phase C:

Non-field analysis.

Investigators Synthesised analysis

of knowledge

management and of

participant's potential

actions

Tools available to discuss

potential actions.

information for the rest of the process. Figure 1 outlines the relationships between methods.

Combined use of these methods allowed information to be generated that reflected the area’s diversity. The

workshops, participatory methods (eg. discussions, brainstorming sessions, joint drawing on overhead

sheets and flip charts) and personal interviews, allowed the inclusion of different opinions and perspectives

and the negotiation of trade-offs, as well as the development of learning amongst the different actors

actively engaged with the problem. Over 120 people participated in the whole process.

The first workshop, with 40 participants, was held to consolidate information obtained so far. Through a

brainstorming session, a list of participants and factors involved in the problem was agreed, building a

shared geographic representation, and summarising the sustainability problem. The problem was defined in

terms of the continuity of enterprises strongly threatened by external factors (politics, prices, etc.). This

highlighted the variation between cases, and that most participants seemed to expect solutions to come

from outside (from the government). The findings from this workshop provided information,

complementary to the survey data, for building the simulation scenarios used in GRANJAS.

The main trade-offs involved in farmers’ decision-making about social and natural aspects were detected

whilst discussing the potential solution tools. Even though the causes of the problem were largely

considered to be external to the enterprise, analysing possible solutions led farmers to propose actions that

individuals could take, including action to reach effective integral management of enterprises. This

management includes efforts to improve social relationships through associations, unions and education,

thus moving beyond purely individual management activities.

The research team analysed information from the first workshop and continued the RAAKS-based analysis.

They also designed enterprise models for GRANJAS, taking into account the various trade-offs farmers

seemed to be making. New interviews with representative farmers and the simulation results helped the

researchers to set the objectives for the second workshop. At this workshop, there were 50% fewer

participants than at the first one, though the farmers and landowners present demonstrated their interest by

actively participating. This workshop aimed to deepen understanding of the agricultural knowledge

network and to consolidate information about participants and of tasks associated with problem solution.

Discussions also focused on the participants’ potential for undertaking positive actions.

This interactive process helped change the team’s initial perception, which had focused on technological

aspects as the farmers’ main chance for increased sustainability. Economic and institutional aspects took

priority over technological aspects. From this perspective, focusing exclusively on agricultural technology

was seen as simply treating the symptoms, not the causes.

Changes in participants’ perceptions also began to emerge. Farmers began to give more relevance, after the

second workshop, to internal management factors which depended on their own initiative. The team also

modified the initial classification of farmers as ‘innovative’ and ‘traditional’ to one that grouped them by

‘interest’ shown, distinguishing between ‘highly concerned’ and ‘less concerned’ by the problem. This

represented a shift of perspective from seeing farmers as hindered by lack of an innovative technical

capacity to hindered by a lack of interest - thus again stressing the importance of personal motivation to

take action.

The use of GRANJAS simulation scenarios to evaluate trade-offs between environmental, social,

technological and economic aspects allowed an ex-ante analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of

each assessed situation, including preferences and rationales of actors involved in the agricultural

knowledge system. The adjusting of scenarios was assisted by the continual complementation of methods

and was facilitated by the knowledge, experience and position of researchers as active participants in the

system. The information was useful and relevant to the complexity of the problem of sustained

development and enriched the debate about how the complementation of methods affects learning

processes for innovation.

3 Analysis

Here we assess how different methodological approaches contributed to the research.

3.1 RAAKS

The use of RAAKS contributed:

• an improved definition of the problem being studied;

• an identification of the main active participants and their contact networks for learning for innovation;

• an understanding of the problem context, assigning priorities to opportunities and limitations for

solution implementation;

• an exploration of the rationales driving participants’ decisions, and how trade-offs between social,

economic, technological and environmental objectives affect sustainability; and

• the design of possible action strategies agreed by all.

RAAKS revealed the diversity of the social groups involved, especially when faced with trade-off decisions

between environmental and social aspects. It was also capable of involving researchers actively in the

development of research, forcing changes in some of the views regarding the problem being studied. The

identification of social aspects during the use of this ‘soft’ method ensured that elements not traditionally

included in ‘harder’ analyses were incorporated. It encouraged debates between researchers about the

degree of influence of social aspects on environmental and technical issues.

3.2 GRANJAS

The use of GRANJAS contributed the following:

• ex-ante economic forecasts through simulated farming scenarios;

• an ability to apply variability to environmental, technological, economic and social aspects of the

analysis;

• an ability to detect trade-offs made by farmers during the decisions required about innovations.

However, even though GRANJAS produced useful information for developing possible solutions, it was

not able to provide methods for achieving these solutions. Neither could it highlight the different

perspectives of participants who will implement the solutions and the probable associated conflicts.

The communication diagnosis detected that limitations identified as part of the problem were

conceptualised differently by the same types of farmers who had not participated during the execution of

GRANJAS and RAAKS. This illustrative sample provided up-to-date information at the time of the study,

thus ensuring its representativeness.

3.3 Advantages of methodological complementarity

The complementary use of methods constituted a different way of approaching the sustainability problem

in Casilda. The focus shifted from the typical approach of generating data to make a diagnosis, towards

searching for information that would help promote effective action. It enriched the information generated

through the action research strategy, enabling analysis of the sustainability of farming and animal

husbandry enterprises.

The ex-ante analysis was participatory, negotiated and agreed among all participants. These features

permitted the inclusion of different outlooks demanded to solve such a complex problem as sustainability,

which is strongly influenced by personal values and social and cultural preferences. At the same time,

methodological complementarity allowed various types of trade-offs to be explored, improving the

accuracy of the projected outcomes. It also allowed a more complete study of the main trade-offs made by

farmers during the search for solutions. With quantitative methods, the main trade-offs detected are related

to the enterprise’s land area; ownership type; the manner or payment of land rent; choice of alternate crop

production processes; and quantity and availability of finance. With qualitative methods, however, the main

trade-offs made by farmers were associated with social integration efforts that would surmount

individualism to achieve collective solutions. These efforts are directed toward increasing knowledge and

economic resources.

This broader understanding of the trade-offs involved allowed for the development of more appropriate

development strategies. Farmers understood the importance of their social attitudes in ensuring the

continuity of their endeavours. Also, due to the diversity of views exchanged during the analysis, they

deepened their understanding of the complexity of interactions between social and natural issues.

Methodological complementarity was also an advantage in the interpretation of agricultural knowledge

networks associated with sustainability. Figure 2 represents the knowledge network obtained in the Casilda

study, showing the diversity of participants involved, systems and subsystems, and characterisation of types

of contacts. The qualitative methods contributed the initial information for exploring this knowledge

network in more depth. The quantitative focus added information on the intensity and frequency of the

network contacts. This helped to understand the relative weight of some participants. The farmers learned

the comparative relevance of their efforts to establish system contacts, the extent of answers to their

demands and the effectiveness of these in contributing to resolving sustainability problems.

The learning included new forms of reflection regarding the problem, its origin, limitations and

opportunities for solutions. The learning process was spontaneous, inclusive and driven by the participants’

specific interests.

3.3.1 Impact on the researchers Regarding the dynamics of the learning process, something occurred that is usually absent during most

(frequently quantitative) research projects - the team continually discussed the topics being studied,

gradually increasing their understanding as the process of methodological complementarity unfolded.

The main insights gained by the team were:

• It is relevant to adjust hypotheses and research questions comparing them continually to field

realities via participatory processes, at every action-research cycle.

• The research processes can be improved by considering the diversity of relevant participants and

their perceptions.

• The research process benefits from serious consideration of unfulfilled requests that are voiced

during participants’ reflections. It is possible to add value to the final result by: positive actions

started during the research process; and being open to an interdisciplinary research process.

The process also allowed for a more open discussion, generating debates between the research team’s

participants on:

• holistic versus narrower views;

• the personal security offered by traditional scientific research methods as compared to the risks and

uncertainties associated with innovative methods;

• the typical role of researchers as an external problem solver and the unconventional role of the

researcher as an active catalyst.

As a result of the knowledge gained, researchers’ attitudes toward the use of a solitary research method

were modified. Their critical capacity regarding methods also improved, opening them up to considering

Figure 2. Relationships in the agricultural production system

alternatives, especially those related to combining methods.

3.3.2 Impact on other participants Regarding other participants, the dynamics of the learning process were characterised by high degrees of

interaction. Learning was driven by interactive and growing mechanisms for participation, without

manipulation. The common interest in the process and the diversity of existing experiences broadened the

insights obtained.

The key lessons for the remaining participants were:

• Farmers are the main vehicle for achieving sustainability.

• Individualism has a negative effect on group approaches to problem-solving, and there are serious

difficulties in surmounting this.

• It is possible to transform some of the negative factors that impede the resolution of problems into

opportunities.

• It is possible to broaden knowledge regarding participants, factors and their hierarchy, that affect a

complex problem.

• It is possible to apply alternative methods for problem analysis and solution.

• It is difficult to find effective solutions external to the enterprise.

• Farmers are not willing to co-operate to develop solutions jointly

• Undertaking other measures, over and above the production process itself, is relevant to solving the

problem.

The participants’ perceptions of the capacity of institutions that could potentially contribute to problem

solving are affected by the extent to which official organisational aims concord with tacit aims. Even

though the learning impact was not assessed using specific tools, subsequent events demonstrated these

attitudinal shifts among participants. The individualist attitude of farmers in the area was reaffirmed since

no joint actions were proposed in the workshops. The integral management weakness of farming and

animal husbandry enterprises defined in the study as one of the main sustainability problems, manifested

itself as an unsatisfied demand that technical professionals addressed in subsequent searches for

innovations. Despite the indifference of the institutions towards the problem, their representatives, on their

own individual initiative, used complementary methods for other research topics.

3.4 Difficulties and limitations of the methodological complementation

Although the results of merging ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ methods were promising, it is important to analyse the

difficulties and limitations encountered if we are to expand the use of methodological complementation and

encourage its use.

The main difficulty associated with the qualitative method, from a theoretical point of view, was the need

for researchers with quantitative schooling to learn a new language. The use of RAAKS tools required a

specific training course, including field practice.

The quantitative method GRANJAS presented practical application difficulties with the programme

software (in terms of database information access, visualising information relationships, and low capacity

for rapid change on technical production activity schedules) which were overcome due to available data

about the area and its productive characteristics.

The diversity of production systems in Argentina means that solutions that work for one group of farmers,

will perhaps not work for another new group, or for farmers that did not participate in the work. This means

that specific interventions will be required in each case.

Given the predominance of quantitative traditions, it is necessary to focus attention on integrating work

teams. These should include researchers who are critical but open in their attitudes toward methodological

innovations. Even though there were no institutional impediments during the work, there has not yet been

any evidence of interest in discussing the proposal, especially on the part of the institutional participants

(INTA and the university).

4 Conclusions and final considerations

Integrating ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ methodologies offers important benefits to action research processes. The main

conclusions from the Casilda study are:

• Methodological complementation can broaden problem analysis, making it possible to assess each

aspect from different angles, with different attitudes and at different times.

• The influence of preconceptions on investigation and on action is reduced by opening up the

process to multiple influences (and not just one or two). The plurality of existing knowledge gives

way to a more balanced process of learning, reducing the risk of bias that could be introduced by the

personal influence of each participant.

• Merging methods improves the understanding of possible avenues of intervention for complex

problems related to sustainability.

• If each method is applied optimally, they can be mutually beneficial by using the information and

questions that flow between them. Similarly, learning is optimised by the particular strengths of

each method used, especially when complex systems are studied with interacting natural and social

aspects.

• Concerted interventions involving diverse stakeholders are stimulated. Knowledge of the scope of

trade-offs required for intervention is more complete, due to the inclusion of different perceptions,

preferences and cultural values of diverse stakeholders involved.

• Learning is immediate, easily internalised and contains multiple facets of the problem.

Since the model dominating agricultural development institutions in the region is still that of emitter -

message - receptor, debate about the advantages of methodological complementation could help to promote

changes in agricultural policies, in training programmes for agronomists and in regional organisations.

New research is needed to increase the adoption of these complementary approaches. New experiences

from interdisciplinary points of view regarding the potential of these methodological options will broaden

their application, deepening the impact of this methodological innovation.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all participants in the farming and animal husbandry sector of the study area that

altruistically contributed to the research development; to the technicians that developed the project’s tasks;

to Paul Engel, for his methodological contributions and training; and to Irene Guijt, Julio Berdegué, Fiona

Hall and Michael Loevinsohn, for their valuable suggestions.

References

Berdegué, JA., Installe, M., Duque, Ch., Garcia, R. and Quezada, X. (1989) Application of a simulation

software to the analysis of peasant farming systems. Agricultural Systems 30: 317-334.

Engel, PGH. and Salomon, M. (1997) Facilitating Innovation for Development: A RAAKS resource box.

KIT Press, Amsterdam.

Gargicevich AL., Maroni, J. and Dorgambide, C. (1999) Informe Final Argentina del Proyecto de Acción

Concertada Para Evaluar la Sostenibilidad en el Cono Sur de América Latina. Working document

for the Concerted Action of the Evaluation of the Sustainability of Agricultural Systems in the

Southern Cone of South America. RIMISP, Santiago, Chile. http://www.RIMISP.cl

Gargicevich, AL., Maroni, J. and Dorgambide, C. (2000a) Combinando Enfoques Metodológicos para el

Análisis de la Sostenibilidad de las Empresas Rurales. Su Aplicación en la Agricultura Extensiva

del Area Núcleo Argentina.Working document for the Concerted Action of the Evaluation of the

Sustainability of Agricultural Systems in the Southern Cone of South America. RIMISP, Santiago,

Chile. www.Rimisp.cl/proyectos/acción concertada.

Gargicevich, AL., Maroni, J. and Dorgambide, C. (2000b). Apreciaciones Acerca de la Complementación

de Metodologías. Complementary document of the Informe Final de Acción Concertada. Working

document for the Concerted Action of the Evaluation of the Sustainability of Agricultural Systems in

the Southern Cone of South America. RIMISP, Santiago, Chile. WWW Rimisp.cl/proyectos/acción

concertada.

Guijt, I. and Engel, PGH. (1998) Hard or ‘Soft’ or Medium-boiled? Methodological complementarity in the

EU Concerted Action project. Working document for the Concerted Action of the Evaluation of the

Sustainability of Agricultural Systems in the Southern Cone of South America. RIMISP, Santiago,

Chile.

Hansen, MH., Hurwitz, WN. and Madow, WG. (1989) Sample Survey Methods and Theory. John Wiley

and Sons, New York.

Massoni, S. (1992) Communicational diagnosis. Entre la desazón de la intemperie y la euforia de la

construcción. In: Solís , B. and Núñez Gornés, L. (eds.) Generación de Conocimientos y

Formación de Comunicadores. Volume IV. Federación Latinoamericana de Asociaciones de

Facultades de Comunicación Social, Editorial OPCION, México.

Published on

DEEPENING THE BASIS OF RURAL RESOURSE MANAGEMENT – Proceedings of a workshop –

February 16-18, 2000 – pp 100-108 - ISNAR, The Hague, Netherlands