Project Overview
Annual Reports
Commodities
- Agronomic: corn, potatoes, soybeans, wheat, grass (misc. perennial), hay
- Vegetables: sweet potatoes, artichokes, asparagus, beans, beets, broccoli, cabbages, carrots, cauliflower, celery, cucurbits, eggplant, garlic, greens (leafy), leeks, lentils, onions, parsnips, peas (culinary), peppers, sweet corn, tomatoes, brussel sprouts
- Additional Plants: herbs, trees
- Animals: bovine, poultry, goats, swine, sheep
- Animal Products: dairy
Practices
- Animal Production: housing, grazing management, livestock breeding, pasture fertility, pasture renovation, range improvement, stocking rate, watering systems, feed/forage
- Crop Production: conservation tillage
- Education and Training: demonstration, farmer to farmer, on-farm/ranch research, participatory research, study circle, technical assistance
- Farm Business Management: new enterprise development, community-supported agriculture, budgets/cost and returns, marketing management, agricultural finance, market study, value added
- Natural Resources/Environment: habitat enhancement, wildlife
- Production Systems: agroecosystems, holistic management, organic agriculture, transitioning to organic
- Soil Management: composting
- Sustainable Communities: leadership development, local and regional food systems, new business opportunities, public participation, urban/rural integration, analysis of personal/family life, social capital, social psychological indicators, sustainability measures
Abstract:
A comparison of measured motivation sources between producers and researchers/educators and between SARE-funded and non-SARE-funded individuals representing the same professional groups is integrated with interview data from representatives from similar groups related to motivation to adopt, promote or research sustainable agriculture practices and principles. The combination of quantitative and qualitative data allow for a richer understanding of persons’ motivations to adopt and help provide context that can inform SARE program administrators related to grant selection and program improvements.
To assess motivation quantitatively, a survey was taken of 447 SARE-funded and non-funded producers, researchers/educators from the 12-state North Central Region, who completed the Motivation Sources Inventory (Barbuto & Scholl, 1998). This instrument measures motivation in terms of intrinsic process (the fun of doing the work, itself), instrumental reward, self-concept external, self-concept internal, and goal internalization. Analysis revealed a significant difference between funded and non-funded groups in both the self-concept external (SCE) and instrumental reward motivation source, although results involving instrumental motivation must be interpreted with caution because of response bias.
When looking at the differences between SARE producers and all other groups, a significant difference (p<.05) was shown in three of the five motivation sources (intrinsic process, instrumental reward and self-concept external), with the differences between the first and last of those sources being highly significant (p<.005). These data suggest that SARE-funded individuals, in general, are significantly less concerned with the impression they make on others, such as “what the neighbors might think,” than are non-funded people. The data further indicate that, when compared with both their non-funded peers and researchers and educators, as a whole, SARE-funded producers are significantly less motivated by money or by what other people think about them.
To assess motivation qualitatively, a total of 38 interviews were held with producers (n=13 SARE; n=6 non-SARE), and researchers and educators (n=13 SARE; n=6 non-SARE), all residing within the 12-state NCR region at the time of their interview. Analysis of these data revealed that, at the core of the differences between SARE-funded and non-funded participants, there appeared to be an underlying propensity to be engaged in learning by the SARE-funded subjects. Admittedly, the initial motivation was often identified as some instrumental trigger – e.g., one needed to get water to a remote part of the pasture; one needed to control leafy spurge; one wanted to prove he could turn a weed-infested farm he’d just been given into a high-producing farm; one believed he could get better feed value from his pasture. But once they’d identified their instrumental need to make some kind of change, SARE-funded subjects – more so than non-funded counterparts -- concentrated their conversations around something related to their interest in learning. They most typically described their motivation in terms of a story. Their stories revealed ways in which what they did led them to one more thing and one more adaptation or innovation and, yet, another extrapolation of their experience. Even the subtle cues, such as body language, rate of speech, and vocal inflection, provided insights into their excitement for the process they were engaged in as part of their SARE-funded project. In exploring the differences between these two groups, this researcher identified a love of – an excitement for – learning as being at the core.
Integration of these data provide the opportunity to explore the connections between -- and relevance of -- the fun of doing the work, itself, (high intrinsic process motivation), the lack of concern about what others think (low self-concept external), and the apparent propensity to enjoy learning. In personality terms, this last element is referred to as, “openness” (Digman, 1990). While the data collected in the course of this study deserve further analysis, it is this researcher’s opinion that SARE-funded individuals are significantly different than their peers, especially in their love of trying new things and using “simply learning something new” as a tool that motivates them to embrace sustainable agriculture.
It is beyond the scope of this study to determine whether the involvement in a SARE project is a catalyst for this propensity to want to learn or if an inherent propensity exists that can predict a level of success should they receive a SARE grant. Combined with a 2004 predictive study by this author, however, the present study would suggest the latter – that the personality characteristic of openness – is a key predictor of one’s willingness to embrace sustainable agriculture. In the 2004 study, Trout concluded that positive environmental behaviors, which could include adoption of sustainable agricultural practices, were best predicted by a combination of goal internalization motivation, high openness, low resistance to positive environmental behaviors (PEBs), and fewer years in the business. Trout’s model explained 30 percent of the variance in that study.
This study helps to inform SARE administrators as they determine which proposals they want to fund, or more proactively, which individuals they want to target in order to increase the probability of achieving a greater adoption rate across the region and, ultimately, across the continent. This information, combined with other empirical frameworks, such as diffusion theories (e.g., Rogers, 1995) and efficiency-efficacy models, such as Lean Six-Sigma, could conceivably serve SARE leaders well to make a greater impact with greater efficiency.
Project objectives:
Compare results of the Motivation Sources Inventory (Barbuto & Scholl, 1998) among 6 groups: SARE-funded producers
(1) educators
(2) and researchers
(3) and comparable groups who had not received SARE funding
(4-6) at the time of data collection.
Interview a representative sample of participants to explore ways they describe their personal motivation to engage in SA (SARE-funded interviewees) or innovation (non-SARE-funded interviewees) to seek greater understanding of the motivation process from the lived experience.
Integrate the quantitative and qualitative findings to reveal significant differences among the groups and provide deeper understanding of the results in context.
Report findings and contribute to the scholarship of motivation in sustainable agriculture.