


































15-Manuscript-215-4-11-20200213


Dooley et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 1, Issue 1, 2020 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. Kim Dooley, Professor, Texas A&M University 
600 John Kimbrough Dr., Office 240, College Station, Texas 77843-2116 
k-dooley@tamu.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5654-5988  

2. Catherine E. Dobbins, Ph.D. Graduate Assistant, University of Georgia 
204C Four Towers, Athens, GA 30602 
catherine.dobbins@uga.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5787-8752  

3. Leslie D. Edgar, Associate Dean and Director, Agricultural Experiment Station, New Mexico State University 
Box 30003, MSC 3BF, Las Cruces, NM 88003-8003 
ledgar@nmsu.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7987-8670 

4. Bradley D. Borges, Senior Lecturer, Texas State University 
601 University Dr., San Marcos, TX 78666 
B_b518@txstate.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5350-2405  

5. Sarah L. Jones, University of Arkansas 
1371 W Altheimer Dr., Fayetteville, AR, 72704 
slj017@uark.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9569-222X 

6. Jose A. Hernandez, University of Arkansas 
21280 N. Kennefick Rd., Acampo, CA  95220 
Jose.hernandez@ejgallo.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5010-5148  

7. Amanda Birnbaum, Texas A&M University 
TAMU 2133, College Station, TX 77843-2133 
abirnbaum@tamu.edu, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9425-3815  
 

   1 

A Cross Case Synthesis of the Social and Economic 
Development of Three Guatemalan Coffee Cooperatives 

 
K. Dooley1, C. E. Dobbins2, L. E. Edgar3, B. D. Borges4, S. L. Jones5, J. A. Hernandez6, A. Birnbaum7 

 
 

Abstract 
Cooperatives in the international coffee sector can help build farmer capacity, increase coffee 
productivity, and improve farmer welfare. The purpose of this research was to examine Guatemalan 
coffee cooperatives to determine unique attributes, social capital perspectives, and social impacts on 
small holder farmers. Four perspectives on social capital and economic development were examined 
across cases: (a) the communitarian view, (b) the networks view, (c) the institutional view, and (d) 
the synergy view. The research design was mini-ethnographic case study with cross-case synthesis. 
The emerging themes were (a) economic impacts, (b) multiple generation farmers, (c) capacity 
building trainings to improve crop management, (d) use of shade trees and organic matter for soil 
amendments, (e) service learning/agritourism, and (f) use of microloans to enhance economic 
development. Based upon the exploratory cases, each community had similar and unique internal 
and external interactions that could be triangulated with social capital perspectives. Networks were 
formed between members of the co-ops (intracommunity) giving a sense of community and purpose 
(i.e. agritourism, service learning) and external sources (i.e. workshops/trainings and a USAID 
research plot). The concept of social capital perspective gives insight into an explanation of economic 
development. 
 
Keywords 
Social Capital Perspectives; Impacts; Networks; International Agricultural Development 



Dooley et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.15   2 

 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
Guatemala, despite a rich cultural tradition and vibrant history, is considered one of the poorest 
countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, due to unequal incomes, malnourished children, 
political insecurity, and a lack of skilled workers and infrastructure (cia.gov/the-world-
factbook). Many of these factors result from the destabilization of Guatemala’s political 
structure and its agricultural sector. Around 50% of Guatemala’s population resides in rural 
areas and relies on agriculture to meet daily needs (Aguilar-Støen, Taylor, & Castellanos, 2016). 
Rural poverty and food insecurity are major issues facing Guatemala (Lopez-Riadura et al., 
2019). Over 70% of those impoverished live in rural areas and rely on agriculture for their 
livelihood and food source. Thus, agricultural means for improved livelihoods are critical for 
these regions of Guatemala. 
 
The country’s location and climate make it well suited for the production of coffee. Coffee is the 
third largest industry in Guatemala with approximately 100,000 coffee farmers and 250 coffee 
cooperatives. Coffee production has transformed dramatically in Guatemala over the past two 
decades, mostly driven by changing tastes among international consumers for high-quality 
coffee (Fischer & Victor, 2014). Previously, the coffee industry in Guatemala consisted of a few 
large producers, who operated fincas (plantations) producing a high-volume, low-cost, and low-
quality product. Today, many former coffee laborers support their families by producing and 
selling coffee outside of the finca production model. These small-scale producers view coffee as 
an opportunity for a better life through upward social and economic mobility (Fischer & Victor, 
2014). Coffee not only represents income-generating potential, but also a way to educate their 
children, buy more land, and obtain greater financial security.  
 
Studies have shown that cooperatives in the international coffee sector can build farmer 
capacity, increase coffee productivity, and improve farmer welfare (Ortega et al., 2019). 
Cooperatives and the institutions that support cooperatives help smallholder coffee farmers 
access alternative income sources, such as agritourism (Lyon, 2013). The International 
Cooperative Alliance (ICA.coop/en) defines a cooperative as a people-centered enterprise 
controlled by and for the members to realize a common economic, social, and cultural need in a 
democratic and equal way. The role of cooperatives and institutional relationships in the coffee 
sector cannot be underestimated, as the coffee industry is socioeconomically fragile, primarily 
due to the coffee rust epidemic and its impact on farmer food security, climate change, and 
other pests and diseases (Avelino et al., 2015). Cooperatives focus on fairness, equality, and 
social justice to create sustainable enterprises. However, little is known about individual co-op 
function within El Café Guatemalteco (ECG, pseudonym) to determine what is working across 
various communities and under what social capital perspective they function. 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
In developing countries, improvement in income and welfare often depend upon generating 
productive employment and value-added opportunities from agricultural production. Farmers 



Dooley et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.15   3 

 

face higher costs, have limited access to bank loans, and are vulnerable to price fluctuations. 
Thus, belonging to a cooperative can provide a collective advantage to improve economic 
development and sustainability. However, the “performance of agrarian cooperatives strongly 
depends on the interaction between internal cohesion and external exchange” (Ruben & Heras, 
2012, p. 463). Agricultural cooperatives must be established based upon mutual trust and 
reciprocity among members. The creation of agricultural cooperatives helps smallholder 
producers develop economies of scale and scope (Blokland & Gouet, 2007). 
 
Social capital theory has been used as a theoretical framework in a variety of disciplines such as 
corporate governance (Kim & Cannella, 2008), marketing (Glenane-Antoniadis, Whitwell, & Bell, 
2003), and community resilience (Aldrich & Meyer, 2014).  Diaz, Drumm, Ramirez-Johnson and 
Oidjarvstu (2002) used social capital theory to study economic development and food security 
in Peru.  These authors describe the theory as “social relationships, ties and networks 
characterizing human social systems (p. 483).  Woolcock and Narayan (2000) add to this 
definition with the “norms and networks that enable people to act collectively” in reference to 
economic development (p. 226). Woolcock and Narayan (2000)  describe four perspectives on 
social capital and economic development: (a) the communitarian view, (b) the networks view, 
(c) the institutional view, and (d) the synergy view. The perspective of the communitarian view 
is that of local associations with community groups and voluntary organizations as the primary 
actors. The policy prescriptions of the communitarian view recognize social assets of the poor. 
In the networks view, bonding and bridging within community ties are the perspective, with 
actors being entrepreneurs, business groups, and information brokers. Here the policy is 
decentralized to create enterprise zones and bridge social divides. For the institutional view, 
political and legal institutions are the perspective with private and public sectors giving policy 
more transparency and accountability. In the synergy view, community networks and state-
society relations provide the perspective with community groups, civil society, firms, and states 
being the actors. In the synergy perspective, policy is focused on co-production, 
complementarity, participation, and linkages to enhance capacity and scale of local 
organizations (Wookcock & Narayan, 2000). 

 

Purpose 
The purpose of this research was to examine three coffee cooperatives that are working with 
ECG to determine unique attributes, social capital perspectives, and social impacts on small 
holder farmers in Guatemala. The research objectives were to: (a) describe each cooperative 
for common and unique attributes; (b) determine unique and common characteristics across 
communities; and (c) analyze social capital perspectives to evaluate social impact within the 
communities for economic and agricultural sustainability.  
 

 



Dooley et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.15   4 

 

Methods 
Case study is best used as a research design to illuminate decisions made within a bounded 
system (community) and the results or impacts of those decisions (Yin, 2018). Historically the 
case study design comes from the Chicago school of sociology with participant-observation as a 
data collection technique (Platt, 1992). Its epistemological orientation is interpretivist or 
naturalistic. Case study “investigates a contemporary phenomenon (the case) in depth and 
within its real-world context” (Yin, 2018, p. 15). The researchers specifically used the mini-
ethnographic case study design (Fusch et al., 2017) to guide data collection in the field, which 
blends ethnographic and case study research designs and is beneficial when researchers are 
bounded by a short time in the field (specifically two weeks for this case). Ethnography is “the 
description and interpretation and interpretation of a culture or social group” (Holloway, 
Brown, & Shipway, 2010, p. 76); however, this research design is often accompanied by 
extensive time and immersion within a specific cultural or social group. A mini-ethnography, by 
contrast, is used for a specific and narrow inquiry when time constraints exist (White, 2009). 
Researchers are able to understand the cultural norms, values, and roles of participants within 
a particular context, while limited by time constraints, due to the various methods employed 
with this approach. This research design uses an ethnographic approach “bounded within a 
case study protocol that is more feasible” for researchers with limited time and resources and 
thus was an appropriate design for this project (Fusch et al., 2017).  
 
This study conducted three exploratory cases with a cross-case synthesis (Yin, 2018). Four 
participant observers visited three coffee cooperatives in Guatemala through a service-learning 
experience, each through different lenses: sustainable agriculture, crop management, 
motivation, and improved livelihoods. The specific methods used by the researchers included 
direct observation, field notes, reflective journals, informal and unstructured interviews, and 
participant observation (Fusch et al., 2017). The service-learning experience was designed for 
the researchers to extract as much observation and dialogue from each day as possible, and 
this was further assisted through the questioning route developed by the researchers aligning 
with the research questions. Each researcher conducted daily observations and conversations 
in the natural setting over a two-week period with field notes and narrative write-ups after 
each interaction. Debriefing sessions with the research team were conducted with reflective 
journals kept throughout the process. The NGO and three cooperatives were given pseudonyms 
to protect their confidentiality. 
 
Data themes emerged through open coding from multiple sources of evidence based upon 
interactions with the participants and communicated through a translator. It is assumed that 
the translators were able to adequately communicate the views of the farmers. Each researcher 
created an individual case report from their data collected from individual interviews, the daily 
field notes, participant observations, and reflective journals. Within-case patterns were cross-
examined for data triangulation. The use of participant quotations offered a deeper 
understanding of “a day in the life of a Guatemalan Coffee Farmer.” 
 



Dooley et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.15   5 

 

The criteria used for judging the quality of the cases were (a) construct validity, (b) internal 
validity, (c) external validity, and (d) reliability (Yin, 2018). For construct validity, multiple 
sources of evidence were collected from each key informant (participant observer) who created 
a case from their emic perspective. Observations, informal interviews, and field notes/reflexive 
journals provided triangulation for data sources. For internal validity, open coding was used 
across the cases created by the participant observers to determine emergent themes and 
patterns to begin building explanations. For external validity, social capital theory perspectives 
were considered for each case with the use of replication logic across the three cooperatives 
(cross-case analyses). Reliability was ensured with maintaining a chain of evidence in an audit 
trail. 
 

Findings 
El Café Guatemalteco (ECG, pseudonym) is a non-profit agency that works with smallholder 
coffee farmer cooperatives in Guatemala to create economic opportunities that improve their 
quality of life. Coffee requires a great deal of processing and specialized machinery for 
processing. Selling unprocessed coffee (cherries) brings in much less money so the ECG coffee 
cooperative focused on organizing co-op farmers to produce specialty coffee and to share the 
cost of obtaining processing equipment. It began in 2005 after the founder had served as a 
volunteer in Guatemala and wanted to turn coffee production into a sustainable livelihood. The 
goal was for smallholder farmers to work collaboratively to improve coffee quality through 
better processing techniques and improving cooperative infrastructure. The NGO purchased the 
coffee and negotiated a fair price, offered microloans with low interest rates, and provided 
training and support to improve farming practices. ECG empowered farmers to process their 
coffee, allowing farmers to increase profits from their sales.  
 
There are five partner co-ops with about 300 farmers currently working with ECG. This agency 
helps facilitate opportunities for these smallholder farmers to increase self-sufficiency and 
financial stability, which can lead to business growth and increased access to education, as well 
as assist with financial mobility for the farmers and their families. The co-ops share exporting 
licenses to get their coffee to United States and Canada markets. Most farmers had been 
working the same way with the crops before the co-op. Coffee farmers were able to sell their 
product for higher prices in new markets. Thus, providing them the ability to give their children 
an opportunity for education. As with many small-scale farming operations, family members 
are all engaged during the four months of the coffee harvest season. Most of the farm lands 
were located on the sides of volcanoes where soils were fertile but acidic. Farmers readily 
manage their lands with the use of organic matter to feed and amend the soils. The pruning of 
shade trees was done at a time where sun exposure was needed by the coffee trees, but also 
the debris was used to assist with the retention of moisture in the soil. Coffee trees were also 
pruned every 14-20 years (about 12 trees a year in rotation to ensure enough trees were 
fruiting for the next season) to ensure the trees were fruitful and productive. It takes about two 
years to begin harvesting from the same tree after heading [trimming the top back] the tree 
compared to three years to harvest when planted from seed. 



Dooley et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.15   6 

 

 
Case One: Entre las Montañas de Fuego (EMF) (the cooperative between the 
volcanoes) 
This cooperative was initially persuaded by an American company to grow zucchini. After this 
crop failed, the farmers were hesitant to start a coffee cooperative. Initially only seven farmers 
agreed to participate. The first export of coffee into the United States was stopped by customs, 
causing further hesitation. However, the coffee cleared customs and the income generated was 
more than they expected. They now roast all of their coffee “in house” and have an exporting 
license. Currently, this coffee cooperative has 28 active members. 
 
Most of the children in the community had some schooling, but some were returning to the 
community and have started a youth coffee co-op (Segunda Generación). These children have 
returned to the community after their education to work on their family’s land or to purchase 
their own land through ECG loans. In addition to education, cooperative members used their 
income from coffee to add rooms onto homes, improve infrastructure, purchase a vehicle to 
transport goods, and to expand existing services. Having additional income also improved 
access to healthcare and the overall lifestyle with additional economic stability. A participant 
indicated that “…[Coffee] allowed me to have cinder block walls instead of [sugar] cane.” The 
coffee fields are often planted on the side of the volcanoes with long walks [from their homes] 
required. One participant stated, “joining the coffee cooperative allowed me to purchase a 
truck.” EMF has an extensive service-learning program (agritourism) that is coordinated 
through ECG. The farmers offer tours of their farm with the option to assist with agricultural 
work—picking coffee. They offer dinner or lunch at the farmers’ homes, roasting and grinding 
coffee by hand, Pepian cooking (traditional Guatemalan stew made with pumpkin seeds), and 
textile workshops. 
 
ECG provided low interest microloans for EMF to purchase mechanized de-pulpers, mills, a 
coffee roaster, and an export license. Farmers were able to purchase more land as well. One 
farmer in this cooperative participated in a USAID experimental plot to conduct variety and 
cultivar trials to determine which cultivar grows and produces best in the climate and elevation. 
There were three cultivars being grown (two trials, one control) and also one hybrid variety. 
 
Case Two: Boxha’ (Mayan word for coffee) 
Boxha’ is located in an area known for its strong Mayan cultural traditions. The community was 
founded with the original intent to create a seed bank of the native plants around the region to 
serve as a teaching tool for future generations. Coffee cultivation provided improved economic 
opportunities. A tropical storm hit this region and Boxha’ lost 15 years of documented work 
with the seed bank and land conservation efforts. ECG began working with them in 2015. There 
are now 35 active members of the co-op, most who are second or third generation coffee 
farmers.   
 
Some youth came back after their education to farm coffee, but the youth have not organized 
into their own co-op. One farmer had eight children, with three of them receiving degrees in 



Dooley et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.15   7 

 

mechanics and one returning to Boxha’ to continue coffee farming and finding other ventures 
to increase income. Boxha’ received a microloan from ECG to set up six vermicompost boxes 
where worms are managed to create vermicompost tea and humus, both beneficial for 
amending soil. Additionally, microloans assisted in the purchase of a washing/fermentation 
station, a de-pulping platform, and back-pack sprayers for treating leaf rust. “Financial security” 
and “education” were words that described the impact of joining the cooperative.  
 
This co-op coordinated with ECG to provide service-learning experiences at the farm, including 
sharing meals with the farmers and women’s artisan groups in a common area. This community 
raised rabbits for food and used the litter as part of their fertilizer. Unique characteristics of this 
cooperative include the highest organic matter content among soil types, growing of Pache 
(arabica coffee variety), including one plot that was 100% organic, and the preservation of 
native and culturally significant plants. 
 
Case Three: Ts’oon por el Café (TC) (Mayan word for gun [traded] for coffee) 
TC members were not historically farmers; rather, their history was forged from a 30-year civil 
war. Members were previously guerilla fighters for equal opportunities and rights against an 
oppressive and abusive government who had disregard for Mayan populations. Even with many 
hardships, TC began to cultivate and produce coffee to provide revenue for their community 
after building and rebuilding from complete destruction and relocation. TC was the smallest co-
op and in the most remote area of the three co-ops, with eight households as active members. 
After many years of fighting they were able to purchase land and create a community based on 
coffee farming. 
 
Most members were first-generation farmers due to the civil war. They were still learning and 
innovating cultural practices to figure out how to grow higher quality coffee. Therefore, most of 
the knowledge they had about coffee farming was through capacity trainings and workshops. 
Children were going to school, and some were staying in the community and learning the 
practices of coffee production. “Satisfaction” and “stability” were words used to describe the 
impact from the cooperative. One participant stated, “we traded the art of war for the art of 
coffee.” 
 
This co-op also gave tours of the farm and led hikes through the forest. It was at the lowest 
elevation which allowed them to grow a different species, Coffea canephora, known as robusta. 
They also grew chili peppers as a companion plant to attract birds to the red peppers, 
preventing the birds from eating the coffee cherries. Rather than using Grevillea robusta for 
shade, like the other co-ops, this co-op planted native fruit trees (avocado, mango, etc.) that 
provide food and shelter for native wildlife, and an additional source of income and nutrition 
for the community. This co-op was at a lower elevation and thus struggled with coffee leaf rust, 
as well as additional insect and disease pests. This co-op was the only one monitoring the insect 
pest population. Additionally, it has received microloans to purchase a de-pulper and build a 
drying patio and bodega (store) that is used for storage and co-op meetings. 
 



Dooley et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.15   8 

 

Cross Case Synthesis: Explanatory Themes 
Across all three cases, cooperatives had long-term visions of sustainability for their coffee 
production, in terms of environmental conservation and cultivation of coffee. Next-generation 
farming, improvements to cultural practices, extensive use of organic matter, and the 
management of their lands and trees (coffee and shade) were prevalent. All farmers were 
aware of and showed concern for climate change and how it would affect coffee production. 
The themes that emerged across cases were (a) economic impacts, (b) multiple generation 
farmers, (c) training to improve crop management, (d) use of shade trees and organic matter 
for soil amendments, (e) service learning/agritourism, and (f) use of microloans to enhance 
economic development. 

 
Economic impacts  
In the examination of individual exploratory cases, one participant observer stated that “all 
farmers we met had their children in school or had given their children the opportunity for 
schooling and higher education (college and university)”. One farmer in the case indicated that 
“the biggest impact coffee has had in the community was that kids did not have to drop [out of] 
school to help on the farms, and coffee allows them to pay for school and educate their kids.” 
This was the overall goal of most farmers: to have their children become professionals and be 
able to have a career of their choosing. Another farmer stated: “…with coffee, the children can 
stay in school.” 

 
Multiple generation farmers 
Most farmers were second or third generation farmers who have learned the cultivation 
practices from their fathers and grandfathers. They would like to see the “legacy” of their 
coffee continue for future generations. 

 
Training to improve crop management 
Most of the farmers in the co-ops improved their knowledge of coffee cultivation through 
trainings, workshops, previous experience working the fincas (plantations), and help from other 
members of the co-op. These workshops were hosted by local and international organizations 
that were geared toward helping small-scale farmers. In general, being a member of the co-op 
did not change any specific management practices in the field, but it did change their 
management practices in terms of becoming more business-minded. 

 
Use of shade trees and organic matter for soil amendments  
Across all cases, the use of trees to provide shade and aid in erosion control, and the 
incorporation of organic matter back into the soil, were prevalent. Farmers understood these 
practices sustain the microbiota naturally rather than overusing chemical nutrients. In 
comparison to the U.S. where it is typical to prepare “clean” plots for disease control, the 
elevation alleviates many pathogens. For example, coffee leaf rust decreases around 1,600 
meters, but its pervasive presence causes farmers to continue using control for preventative 
reasons. Most farmers have a ratio of using 80 percent organic matter for soil amendments and 
only using 20 percent chemical amendments. The organic soil amendments include bi-products 
from the processing of coffee (coffee pulp, parchment), animal litter from chickens, horses, and 



Dooley et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.15   9 

 

rabbits, and organic food waste, letting little go to waste. The co-ops met to decide timing of 
pesticide sprays and fertilization so that label instructions were followed and no farmer would 
use excess chemicals that may damage the crop and environment. 

 
Service-learning/Agritourism 
All three cooperatives had incorporated agritourism and service learning as an additional 
source of income (one of the goals of ECG). Helping with harvesting and preparing coffee for 
the market, having a meal or cooking class in the community, and learning more about native 
plants and natural areas were common. 

 
Microloans as an Incubator for economic development 
 One fundamental component to jump-start economic development was the use of microloans 
(also part of the mission of ECG). It was evident that communities discussed purchasing 
equipment, acquiring additional land, and building meeting space as things that could benefit 
individual families and the community. Vermicompost boxes, de-pulpers, mills, coffee roasters, 
back-pack sprayers, and a washing/fermentation station were examples of items purchased to 
improve farmer production. 
 
The cooperative involvement holistically improved livelihoods by giving farmers a greater sense 
of security. Partnering with ECG increased tourism and diversified income. This case study 
indicated that each co-op had gone through some kind of negative experience (failed crop, 
natural disaster, guerrilla warfare), yet they were able to persevere and improve the human 
condition for their children and community. It was not evident that management practices 
among farmers changed dramatically after joining a co-op, but they were able to take their 
production to the next level. Working cooperatively and pooling their resources improved the 
coffee quality and prices to increase income and stability to the farmers. 
 
Social Capital Perspectives 
The basic assumption of agricultural cooperative success depends upon the interaction 
between internal cohesion and external exchange (Ruben & Heras, 2012), with mutual trust 
and reciprocity among members. Based upon the exploratory cases, each community had 
similar and unique internal and external interactions that could be triangulated with social 
capital perspectives. For example, EMF had developed a ‘next generation’ co-op that was 
evidence of a communitarian view in regard to a ‘local organization’ providing social solidarity. 
But that alone will not lead to economic prosperity. Networks were formed between members 
of the co-ops (intracommunity) giving a sense of community and purpose (i.e. agritourism, 
service learning) and external sources (i.e. workshops/trainings and a USAID research plot). 
Granovetter (1995) argued that “economic development takes place through a mechanism that 
allows individuals to draw initially on the benefits of close community membership but that 
also enables them to acquire the skills and resources to participate in networks that transcend 
their community” (as cited by Woolcock & Narayan, 2000, p. 232). The institutional view was 
not evident because the success of the co-op was not directly tied to a political, legal, or 
institutional environment. However, the NGO (ECG) did provide access to external markets (in a 
legal sense) through contracts/export licenses. Lastly, the synergy view builds upon the network 



Dooley et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.15   10 

 

and institutional perspectives. If the intent is to broaden the “positive manifestations of social 
capital—cooperation, trust, and institutional efficiency” (Woolcock & Narayan, 2000, p. 238) 
then synergy was apparent in the improved livelihoods of the coffee farmers. The NGO (as an 
‘institution’) was providing microloans to improve individual and collective infrastructure. The 
concept of social capital perspective gives insight into an explanation of economic 
development. 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
The farmers highlighted several major impacts that cooperative membership had on their 
livelihood. The first included increased access to education for their children. This concept was 
mentioned by almost every farmer interviewed in this project. Additionally, many farmers 
expressed that they were able to improve upon the traditional agricultural knowledge they had 
(from their families and from work on the fincas) though the training and capacity building 
facilitated by the cooperative and ECG. All farmers were affected by agritourism—an 
opportunity provided by their relationship with ECG. Co-op Two (Boxha’) and Co-op Three 
(Ts’oon por el Café) emphasized that this was the major impact they experienced through their 
work with ECG. These two organizations indicated that their local cooperative membership 
assisted more in their upward economic mobility, while Co-op One (Entre las Montañas de 
Fuego) more heavily emphasized how ECG contributed more toward their financial gains. It 
agritourism (facilitated through service learning activities) was the most cited benefit for 
involvement with ECG with Co-op Two and Co-op Three, next to fair trade market access. Co-op 
One was located in the same city as ECG; thus, they had greater access to immediate resources 
than the other two cooperatives due to geographic location. 
 
By viewing the economic development of the cooperatives through the lens of social capital 
theory, there is greater insight gained about improved farmer livelihoods through cooperative 
membership. Intracommunity relationships and access to external resources (human, training, 
market access, and agritourism) are critical factors explaining the impacts of cooperative 
membership with these three cases. Lyon (2013) expressed how agritourism helps strengthen 
cooperatives organizational capacities, which is further increased through the involvement of 
ECG, which Lyon’s research supports by identifying the necessity of substantial external support 
for successful cooperative ventures. Agrotourism was an important alternative income source 
for Co-op Two and Co-op Three, which relates to Lyon’s (2013) finding that “alternative income 
sources are especially critical for small and medium scale farmers in countries […] such as 
Guatemala” (p. 188). The three cooperatives detailed the various ways through which ECG 
benefitted them; however, the researchers noted that increased geographical separation 
between ECG and each cooperative diluted the amount of success attributed to involvement 
with ECG. Other cooperatives working with variously located cooperatives or communities 
should examine their impacts based on geographic location of their clients to better serve all 
who rely on their services. 
 



Dooley et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.15   11 

 

The mini-ethnographic case study design enabled the researchers to conduct a cross-case 
analysis that examined the experiences of three cooperatives working with a local agency 
focused on improving smallholder coffee farmers’ livelihoods through economic development. 
These results were shared with the staff of ECG to give an external perspective to the work ECG 
does in country. This research process was facilitated through a service-learning experience 
which enabled the researchers to seamlessly integrate the necessary methods for the mini-
ethnographic case study due to the existing infrastructure in place by the design of the service-
learning component. The implications of these results for practice include using the mini-
ethnographic case study design to conduct rigorous, in-depth research with communities with 
whom researchers only have a limited amount of time, constrained by the service-learning 
experience being only two weeks long. This research design allows for rapport to be built 
quickly through participant observation and the conversational nature of informal, 
unstructured interviews. At the end of the service-learning experience, the researchers were 
able to present ECG with evidence-based results about the work they do and how each 
cooperative interprets and shares their experiences with the agency. This evidence-based 
practice is a way to disseminate research findings to the stakeholders in a comprehensive and 
easily understandable way. Future research should be conducted with ECG with similar 
methods as they experience a change in leadership. Other researchers in international settings 
with a limited time frame are encouraged to embrace the use of the mini-ethnographic case 
study to extract the most meaning, interpretation, and evidence from their experience as 
possible. 

 

References 

Aguilar-Støen, M., Taylor, M., & Castellanos, E. (2016). Agriculture, land tenure, and 
international migration in rural Guatemala. Journal of Agrarian Change, 16(1), 123-144. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/joac.12091  

Aldrich, D. P., & Meyer, M. A. (2015). Social capital and community resilience. American 
Behavioral Scientist, 59(2), 254–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214550299  

Avelino, J., Cristancho, M., Georgiou, S., Imbach, P., Aguilar, L., Bornemann, G., Läderach, P., 
Anzueto, F., Hruska, A. J., & Morales, C. (2015). The coffee rust crises in Colombia and 
Central America (2008-2013): Impacts, plausible causes and proposed solutions. Food 
Security, 7, 303-321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0446-9   

Blockland, K., & Gouet, C. (2007). Peer-to-peer farmer support for economic development. In 
Producer Organization and Market Chains. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen 
Academic Publishers. 

 



Dooley et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.15   12 

 

Central Intelligence Agency (2019).  World factbook. Retrieved from 
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-
factbook/attachments/summaries/GT-summary.pdf  

Diaz, H. L, Drumm, R. D., Ramirez-Johnson, J. & Oidjarv, H. (2002).  Social capital, economic 
development and food security in Peru’s mountain region.  International Social Work, 
45(4), 481-495. 

Fischer, E. F., & Victor, B. (2014). High-end coffee and smallholding growers in Guatemala. Latin 
American Research Review, 49(1), 155-177.  

Fusch, P. I., Fusch, G. E., & Ness, L. R. (2017). How to conduct a mini-ethnographic case study: A 
guide for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 22(3), 923-941.  

Glenane-Antoniadis, A., Whitwell, G., Bell, S. J., & Menguc, B. (2003). Extending the vision of 
social marketing through social capital theory: Marketing in the context of intricate 
exchange and market failure. Marketing Theory, 3(3), 323–
343. https://doi.org/10.1177/147059310333002  

Holloway, I., Brown, L., & Shipway, R. (2010). Meaning not measurement: Using ethnography to 
bring a deeper understanding to the participant experience of festivals and events. 
International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 1(1), 74-85. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/17852951011029315  

 
International Co-operative Alliance (2019). Retrieved from https://www.ica.coop/en.  

Lopez-Riadura, S., Barba-Escoto, L., Reyna, C., Hellin, J., Gerard, B., & van Wijk, M. (2019). Food 
security and agriculture in the Western Highlands of Guatemala. Food Security, 11(4), 
817-833. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-019-00940-z  

Lyon, S. (2013). Coffee tourism and community development in Guatemala. Human 
Organization, 72(3), 188-198. 

Ortega, D., Bro, A., Clay, D., Lopez, M., Tuyisenge, E., Church, R., & Bizoza, A. (2019). 
Cooperative membership and coffee productivity in Rwanda’s specialty coffee 
sector. Food Security, 11(4), 967-979.  

Social Capital Perspectives; Impacts; Networks; International Agricultural Development 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-019-00952-9  

 
Ruben, R., & Heras, J. (2012). Social capital, governance and performance of Ethiopian coffee 

cooperatives. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 83(4), 463-484. 
 



Dooley et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 

 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i1.15   13 

 

White, K. L. (2009). Meztizaje and remembering in Afro-Mexican communities of the Costa 
Chica: Implications for archival education in Mexico. Archival Science, 9, 43-55. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-009-9102-5  

 
Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, 

research, and policy. The World Bank Research Observer, 15(2), 225-249. 
 
Yangmin, K., & Cannella, A. A. (2008).  Toward a social capital theory of director selection.  

Corporate Governance, 16(4), 282-293. 
 
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Los Angeles, CA: 

Sage. 
 
© 2020 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 

 


