Abstract
Purpose: This work investigated the narratives of development extensionists in relation to natural resource conflict, in order to understand the competing discourses surrounding the wicked problems of natural resource management in Laikipia County, Kenya.
Methodology: Q methodology was used to elicit the conflict narratives present among extension professionals. A concourse of 221 statements were devised from interviews and group discussions with key informants and a final sample of 49 statements was used for the sorting. Thirteen Q-sorts were undertaken with among rural extension professionals from government, non-government, faith-based and private organizations.
Findings: Four factors were elicited from the data, labelled—A: ‘Improved Leadership’; B: ‘Resource-centred conflict’; C: ‘Improved Governance’; and D: ‘Improved Management’.
Practical Implications: Narratives of neo-Malthusianism and pastoral ‘backwardness’ persist among extension professionals in Laikipia, thereby perpetuating the received wisdom of natural resource conflict. However, narratives of the human dimension of conflict are also evident where power, politics and socio-economic inequalities are at the fore of natural resource conflict.
Originality: This work contributes to a growing body of literature interested in the role of extension agents in conflict management. By applying Q methodology, this work has shown that while extension agents are involved in conflict management, their perceptions of these conflicts are subjective and have the potential to exacerbate conflict. Conflict management processes need to explicitly consider the conflicting and overlapping world views of extension agents if they are to act as process facilitators.
Methodology: Q methodology was used to elicit the conflict narratives present among extension professionals. A concourse of 221 statements were devised from interviews and group discussions with key informants and a final sample of 49 statements was used for the sorting. Thirteen Q-sorts were undertaken with among rural extension professionals from government, non-government, faith-based and private organizations.
Findings: Four factors were elicited from the data, labelled—A: ‘Improved Leadership’; B: ‘Resource-centred conflict’; C: ‘Improved Governance’; and D: ‘Improved Management’.
Practical Implications: Narratives of neo-Malthusianism and pastoral ‘backwardness’ persist among extension professionals in Laikipia, thereby perpetuating the received wisdom of natural resource conflict. However, narratives of the human dimension of conflict are also evident where power, politics and socio-economic inequalities are at the fore of natural resource conflict.
Originality: This work contributes to a growing body of literature interested in the role of extension agents in conflict management. By applying Q methodology, this work has shown that while extension agents are involved in conflict management, their perceptions of these conflicts are subjective and have the potential to exacerbate conflict. Conflict management processes need to explicitly consider the conflicting and overlapping world views of extension agents if they are to act as process facilitators.
| Originalsprog | Engelsk |
|---|---|
| Tidsskrift | Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension |
| Vol/bind | 22 |
| Udgave nummer | 1 |
| Sider (fra-til) | 81-96 |
| Antal sider | 16 |
| ISSN | 1389-224X |
| DOI | |
| Status | Udgivet - 1 jan. 2016 |