Activity analysis through the course-of-action research program: an innovative method for analyzing farmers' practices

International audience

Английский. Moving towards sustainable and input-efficient cropping systems involves analyzing farmers' practices, particularly those related to managing plant health. Understanding the knowledge they use and the underlying logic guiding their practices (Altieri, 2004) is crucial. Agronomy often focuses on describing and evaluating the technical sequences adopted by farmers but pays less attention to their specific knowledge and implementation methods. Farmers have various ways of assessing their agroecosystem health, using different criteria, indicators, and threshold levels (Toffolini et al., 2016). This diversity is reflected in their choice of diverse agricultural practices to manage crop health.Therefore, our objective is to specifically analyze how Ivorian cocoa farmers manage cocoa tree health during the implementation of practices. To achieve this, we used the Activity Analysis method from the field of education sciences, specifically the “Course of Action” research program. This program studies human activity in various social domains and situations. A course of action refers to "the activity of a stakeholder in a specific state, actively engaged in a specific physical and social environment, belonging to a specific culture, which is meaningful for him/her, or can be shown, narrated, and commented on by the stakeholder at any moment of its unfolding to an observer-interlocutor under favorable conditions" (Theureau et al., 2003). A stakeholder's activity is defined as the dynamic of asymmetric interactions between him/her and his/her environment, meaning these two parts in this series of interactions do not have the same level of influence. In our case, activity represents the implementation of a farming practice resulting from interactions between the farmer (the stakeholder) and the cropping system (the environment).The activity analysis methods, as described by Theureau (2010), aim to closely approach the reality of farming practice implementation. They seek to understand the inherent complexity of these practices and highlight key indicators. This approach considers activity as a succession of signs (Theureau, 2006).In this study, we applied the activity analysis method, specifically self-confrontation and simultaneous, deferred, and interruptive verbalizations, to a sample of eight cocoa-based agroforestry systems—four managed organically and four conventionally—in the Agnéby-Tiassa region of Côte d'Ivoire. These plots differ in associated agrobiodiversity (high or low) and agricultural management intensity (high or low). We hypothesize that cocoa farmers' plant health management practices vary and are influenced by the structure and composition characteristics of the associated agrobiodiversity, whether in an organic or conventional plot. Activity analysis has allowed us to highlight varied rationale explaining the diversity of practices implemented for cocoa tree health management, clearly linked to associated agrobiodiversity. This original method allows us to understand these practices more in detail compared to a classic agronomic diagnosis. This interdisciplinary approach, borrowing from education sciences to adapt a method to agronomic sciences, should lead to the emergence of new knowledge and a better understanding of health management practices. This will be particularly useful, among other things, for contributing to the co-design of innovative and sustainable cropping systems.References:Altieri M.A. 2004. Linking ecologists and traditional farmers in the search for sustainable agriculture. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2 (1) : 35‑42. doi: 10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0035:LEATFI]2.0.CO;2.Astier P., Gal-Petitfaux N., Leblanc S., Sève C., Saury J., Zeitler A. 2003. Les approches situées de l’action : quelques outils. Recherche & Formation, 42 (1) : 119‑125. doi: 10.3406/refor.2003.1833.Theureau J. 2006. Le cours d’action: Méthode développéeTheureau J. 2010. Les entretiens d’autoconfrontation et de remise en situation par les traces matérielles et le programme de recherche « cours d’action ». Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 4 (1) : doi: 10.3917/rac.010.0287.Toffolini Q., Jeuffroy M.-H., Prost L. 2016. Indicators used by farmers to design agricultural systems: a survey. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 36 (5) : np. doi: 10.1007/s13593-015-0340-z.