An ethnography of knowledge : knowledge production and dissemination in land resettlement areas in Zimbabwe: the case of Mupfurudzi

This research is an ethnographic study carried out among farmers inMupfurudziresettlement area inZimbabweover a period of 30 months. The research was carried out inShamvaZimbabwe as an offshoot of an IFPRI study I had been involved in, accessing the impact of agricultural research on poverty reduction with a particular focus on High Yielding Varieties (HYVs) of Maize in Zimbabwe. The multi-disciplinary study looked at the pathways of dissemination of knowledge about hybrid maize. As the study progressed and I was confronted with situations in the field, I decided that there was a need to go beyond this rather narrow angle of study to look at the production, growth and dissemination of knowledge about farming in general and not just focus on maize cultivation as a poverty reduction strategy.The main research question that informed this research was: how knowledge is produced, reproduced, socialised and reworked in farming areas and how locally existing conditions filter themselves into the new practices. Hence the research aimed to accomplish three aims: (1) to analyse how social processes impact on the adoption, adaptation and dissemination of knowledge and technology; (2) To investigate how differences between actors (e.g. based on age, gender, social and economic standing, institutional affiliation, and the knowledge networks used by various actors) can impact on knowledge dissemination and appropriation; (3) To explore existing knowledge frameworks affect knowledge analysis and acceptance and how people bridge the gap between 'outside' and 'local' forms of knowledge.The main research method employed in this study was the ethnographic method with a focus on case studies. The case studies were based on detailed observation of the families throughout the year. I spent thirty-months in the field, covering two agricultural cycles. The principal research technique was participant observation focusing on the collection of extended case studies and life histories In-depth interviews, observation and participation constituted the main data gathering process. During the early days I had in-depth discussions with various members of the households in the sample, depending on who was available at that moment. At times I had to make special requests to speak to other members of the household, such as women and children. Ethnographic interviews (which were largely unstructured and extensive) were also important for data gathering especially when looking at household dynamics in respect of the process of knowledge formation.The research led to different conclusions. Firstly the thing that came out clearly was that usually government ignores the interests of farmers in the interests of some abstract concept of development that they develop in research institutions. As a result farmers are recruited into projects they have little interests in and the projects fail. To be successful experts have to incorporate the farmers' views into their projects. Depending on where actors are socially situated they observe things and interpret them differently, such that the same thing can be attributed to different causal factors Rural development workers must not be overly scientific ignoring the different perceptions and meanings that people attach to activities and interventions, since this can spell the failure of scientifically sound projects. For intervention to be effective, AREX and other 'experts' should understand the people's belief systems and the meanings they attach to certain things.It also became clear that farmers strategise in their dealings with other actors and agents they do not follow blindly whatever the expert says and neither did they divorce themselves altogether from 'knowledge experts'. They employed various linking and de-linking strategies in an attempt to maximise their gains from each encounter. Power is always contested and negotiated. Local farmers are not always powerless and dependent and neither is the state always powerful and dominant. Although farmers recognised that the control of government they did not regard it as an entity that had to be obeyed all the time. It is a conclusion of this study that knowledge is not always positive for the people who are equipped with it. Although modern scientific knowledge is very efficient, it has made farmers more dependent on agro-business as opposed to the independence they had enjoyed when all the resources were locally available. It was not only scientific knowledge that was disempowering to the farmer but even local knowledge also restricted farmers in certain ways.Farming knowledge is not only about the practice of farming but also about the knowledge of politics, resistance, economics, how to resolve conflicts and knowledge of witchcraft, magic and religion. An ability to tread the delicate ground between knowledge, politics and economics is an essential tool for the rural development worker otherwise his or her effectiveness is limited.The fragmentary and contradictory nature of knowledge allowed farmers to manoeuvre within their social system and to negotiate to their advantage. This allowed farmers to work with a multiplicity of understandings, beliefs and commitments enabling them to bridge the gap between external and local knowledge. It is sustained therefore in this study that one cannot distinguish between different forms of knowledge but knowledge should be regarded as an outcome of negotiations that take place between actors and theirlifeworlds