
































Microsoft Word - 305-Final.docx


   Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 4, Issue 2, 2023 
  agdevresearch.org 

 

1. T. Grady Roberts, Professor and Distinguished Teaching Scholar, University of Florida, PO Box 110504, Gainesville, FL 

32611, groberts@ufl.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7618-7850 
2. Sarah Cardey, Associate Professor, School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Whiteknights, 

Reading, RG6 6AH, UK, s.p.cardey@reading.ac.uk,  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8504-8027  
3. Perry den Brok, Chair/Full Professor, Wageningen University & Research, Social Sciences Group, P.O. Box 8130, 6700 EW 

Wageningen (bode 68), perry.denbrok@wur.nl,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4945-763X  
1 

 

Developing a Framework for Using Local Knowledge Systems 
to Enhance Capacity Building in Agricultural Development 

 
T. G. Roberts, S. Cardey2, P. den Brok3 

 
 

Article History 
Received: March 21, 2023 
Accepted: April 6, 2023 
Published: April 14, 2023 
 
 
Keywords 
indigenous knowledge; education; 
learning; training 
  

Abstract 
Building human capacity through education and training programs is a 
key component of agricultural development. This article lays out a 
framework for educators working in agricultural development to use local 
knowledges to enhance capacity building efforts. Local knowledge 
systems are complex social phenomena consisting of unique 
combinations of ontologies/epistemologies, worldviews, and cultures of 
the people in a particular social/ecological context. To embrace local 
knowledge systems, educators should: (a) understand power, 
positionality, and privilege; (b) understand your learners and yourselves; 
(c) use participatory approaches; and (d) embrace new knowledges. The 
framework presented provides guidance for agricultural development 
practitioners; agricultural development organizations; educational 
institutions and others who train agricultural development practitioners; 
and researchers and evaluators. 



Roberts et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.305   2 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
Building human capacity through education and training programs is a key component of 
agricultural development (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO], 
2010; Tropical Agriculture Platform, 2016). This occurs through nonformal programs delivered 
by Extension or other rural development organizations. It also occurs through formal education 
programs delivered through vocational, secondary, or tertiary education systems. Regardless of 
the delivery system, both the educator and the curriculum impact outcomes of the educational 
program (Seidel & Shavelson, 2007). A standardized approach delivered across all settings with 
all audiences rarely has universal success. Rather, educators, instructional designers, and 
program planners should consider existing local knowledge systems when developing and 
delivering educational programs.  
 
Viewing knowledge through a local knowledge systems perspective allows for the consideration 
of social and ecological variance about what people know about a given phenomenon and how 
they know it (Grenier, 1998). Local knowledge systems consist of the unique knowledge 
developed in a given context over extended periods of time (Naess, 2013). Local knowledge 
systems account for unique knowledges which individuals or groups of individuals develop in 
spatially bound settings (Grenier, 1998). Local knowledge systems are inclusive of indigenous 
knowledge systems, which embrace the ways indigenous peoples understand the world around 
them (Grenier, 1998). From hereafter, we will use the term local knowledge systems as 
inclusive but acknowledge power differentials which are often associated with indigenous 
knowledge systems.  
 
Although practitioners may see the value in embracing local knowledge systems, many struggle 
to do so in practice (Druker-Ibáñez & Cáceres-Jensen, 2022; Thrupp, 1989). This paper presents 
a framework to guide capacity building efforts in agricultural development by embracing local 
knowledge systems which can lead to better educational programs, thereby increasing human 
capacity and addressing the complex problems faced by communities. 
 

Methods 
 
This study employed an integrative literature review process (Torraco, 2005; 2016). Integrative 
literature reviews allow researchers to use existing scientific literature as data for answering 
research questions. Based on purpose of this study, a critical synthesis of the literature was 
used to propose new models of the phenomenon being studied (Torraco, 2016). A conceptual 
structure was used to organize the results (Torraco, 2016). 
 
To begin, key informants with expertise in education, training, and/or development at 
Wageningen University and Research in The Netherlands, the University of Reading in England, 
and the University of Florida in the United States were queried about local and indigenous 
knowledge systems. This generated dozens of concepts which became the initial search phrases 
to identify relevant literature. A snowballing technique was used to expand the amount of 



Roberts et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.305   3 
 

literature reviewed. In all, hundreds of articles were considered for inclusion, with 85 being 
selected based on relevance to local knowledge systems and agricultural development. Google 
Scholar was used due to the inclusive nature search results, allowing representation from 
researchers in developing countries whose work may not appear in the more exclusive indices. 
 

Findings 
 
Our results are organized into three themes: (a) Theoretical Explanations of Local Knowledge 
Systems; (b) Dimensions of Local Knowledge Systems; and (c) Strategies for Embracing Local 
Knowledge Systems in Educational Programs.  
 
Theoretical Explanations of Local Knowledge Systems 
The existence of local knowledge systems can be explained using several widely accepted 
learning theories which focus on how individuals make meaning out of their environment. First, 
social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978) outlines how learning is socially constructed based on 
interactions in the learning environment, with emphasis on language, culture, and the context. 
The distinctive social and ecological conditions in a local context provide a unique environment 
for individuals to develop their understandings of the world around them, thus leading to local 
knowledge systems. 
 
Secondly, social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997) emphasizes the importance of considering 
the environment in which learning occurs, especially the other people which co-occupy the 
learning environment. The development of the individual person is directly influenced by the 
environment in which they learn (Bandura, 1997). Similarly, situated learning theory (Lave & 
Wenger, 1991) focuses on how individuals become full members of community through their 
prolonged engagement in that community. Social cognitive theory and situated learning theory 
highlight the importance of social interactions and context in learning.  
 
Thirdly, experiential learning theory (Dewey, 1938; Kolb, 2015; Roberts, 2006), adult learning 
theory (Knowles et al., 2015), and transformative learning theory (Mezirow, 1991) highlight the 
role of experiences in learning. Experiential learning highlights how new learning builds on prior 
learning experiences. Adult learning theory emphasizes that prior experiences are critical when 
facilitating new learning. Transformative learning highlights how critical reflection on some 
experiences can transform how the individual sees the world around them. Collectively, these 
three experience-focused theories highlight how shared and individual experiences in a local 
context contribute to the development of local knowledge systems.  
 
Collectively, these theories create the basis for how local knowledge systems may develop. 
However, we fully acknowledge that these theories are informed by Western scientific 
traditions and may not fully frame local knowledge systems. We also acknowledge that our 
biases as researchers trained in the Western scientific tradition influenced our decision to use 
these theories to help explain local knowledge systems. 
 



Roberts et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.305   4 
 

Dimensions of Local Knowledge Systems 
Local knowledge systems are complex social phenomena bound in social/ecological contexts. 
Our research showed that local knowledge systems consist of unique combinations of three 
interrelated dimensions: ontologies/epistemologies, worldviews, and cultures of the people in a 
social/ecological context. Culture appears to be the broader dimension which includes 
worldviews and ontologies/epistemologies. 
 
Ontology/Epistemology 
A discussion of knowledge must begin by considering ontology and epistemology. Ontology 
focuses on the nature of what exists, whereas epistemology is a philosophical way of explaining 
what can be considered legitimate knowledge (Crotty, 1998). Crotty differentiates the two by 
saying ontology focuses on “what is” and epistemology focuses on “what it means to know” 
(Crotty, 1998, p. 10). The two concepts are often linked together and can be confusing (Crotty, 
1998). Ontology is often expressed on a continuum of realism to relativism (Guba & Lincoln, 
2005). A realist ontology assumes an external reality which exists independent of a person, 
whereas a relativist ontology assumes reality depends on peoples’ interpretations. 
Epistemologies fall into variants of objectivism, constructionism, and subjectivism (Crotty, 
1998). Objectivism explains knowledge as being independent of any human consciousness and 
thus existing objectively in the world. Constructionism emphasizes that human interactions 
with phenomena in the world allow for the construction of knowledge. Subjectivism stresses 
that knowledge or meaning for a given phenomenon is imposed on by humans without 
interaction with the phenomenon. Local knowledge systems can be based on realist or relativist 
ontologies and any of these epistemologies. This may differ from the Western scientific training 
of many agricultural development practitioners, which is often rooted in a realist ontology and 
objectivist epistemology (Aikenhead & Ogawa, 2007; Conner et al., 2013).  
 
Worldviews 
A worldview captures how an individual views the world around them (Hart, 2010). Olsen et al. 
(1992) described worldviews as mental lenses used by people to perceive the world. 
Operationalizing worldviews can be quite challenging, as numerous scholars from a variety of 
academic disciplines have studied this concept. Koltko-Rivera (2004) presents a very 
comprehensive examination of worldviews from a psychological perspective. A worldview is a 
person’s individual interpretation of reality, is quite complex, and consists of many dimensions 
(Koltko-Rivera, 2004). Koltko-Rivera (2004) synthesized the literature and presented a model 
which includes 42 dimensions organized into seven groups. Among these dimensions are 
ontology, knowledge (epistemology), agency, deity (spirituality), morality, and relationships. 
Differences in worldview are often expressed in the relational dimensions of individualism or 
collectivism (Williams, 2003). Worldviews are often used as a tool to study different cultures, as 
members of a culture share similar worldviews (Cobern, 1996).  
 
The importance of considering worldviews has been frequently considered in agricultural 
development efforts. Worldviews of indigenous communities may differ from non-indigenous 
communities (Hart, 2010). For example, Western worldviews were inadequate to understand 
sustainability competencies among indigenous groups in Ethiopia (Demssie et al., 2020) and 



Roberts et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.305   5 
 

First Nation groups in Canada (Castleden et al., 2009). There is growing interest in embracing 
differing worldviews by decolonizing knowledge systems and the power structures associated 
with Western scientific knowledge (Apffel-Marglin & Marglin, 1996; Cummings et al., 2022). 
Worldviews are also linked with how people perceive the importance of ecosystem services 
(Wardropper et al., 2020). The worldviews of people in a local area may differ than agricultural 
development practitioners. 
 
Culture 
As noted above, culture is often studied through a lens of worldviews, and considerable overlap 
exists. Culture is a complex term with dozens of definitions in the literature often with nuanced 
differences based on sociological, psychological, or anthropological traditions (Jahoda, 2012). 
Most definitions include something about common attributes shared by a group of people, 
although there is no universally agreed set of attributes. As an example, Delaney (2011) 
proposed a framework of eight elements which define a culture. These include: (a) space; (b) 
time; (c) language; (d) relatives and relations; (e) our bodies; (f) food; (g) clothing; and (h) 
important people, places, and performances (Delaney, 2011). As another example, Hofstede et 
al (2010) presented six factors: (a) power distance; (b) uncertainty avoidance; (c) individualism 
versus collectivism; (d) masculinity versus femininity; (e) long term versus short term 
orientation; and (f) indulgence versus restraint. The term culture has been used to describe 
various size groups including: (a) smaller groups like sports teams and specific organizations; (b) 
intermediate size groups like villages and regions/provinces; and (c) large groups of people like 
citizens from the same country and transnational ethnic groups (e.g., Latin Americans). 
 
Culture has been connected to agricultural development practices in several ways. Local culture 
has been linked to agricultural practices unique to a specific location (Koohafkan & Altieri, 
2016), and culture is often interconnected with food (Delaney, 2011; Sumner et al., 2010). The 
importance of culture is also associated with the conservation of agricultural biodiversity in 
developed and developing countries (Castleden et al., 2009; Shepherd, 2010). Culture is also 
connected with how indigenous knowledge is shared in various communities (Lwoga et al., 
2010a). Failure to consider local cultures has been shown as a factor in the failure of 
agricultural development efforts (Pawluk et al., 1992). Agricultural development practitioners 
should understand that many cultures may exist in a local area and differ from their own 
culture. 
 
Strategies for Embracing Local Knowledge Systems in Educational Programs 
Understanding local knowledge systems is the first step. The second step is embracing local 
knowledges when developing and delivering educational programs. Doing so may require 
educators to rethink their approach to teaching by crossing boundaries (Akkerman & Bakker, 
2011). Crossing boundaries requires identification, coordination, reflection, and transformation 
(Akkerman & Bakker, 2011). Our research identified four boundary crossing strategies for 
educators: (a) understand your learners and yourself; (b) embrace new knowledge; (c) 
understand power, positionality, and privilege; and (d) use participatory approaches. 
 
 



Roberts et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.305   6 
 

Understand Your Learners & Yourself 
A critical step to embrace local knowledge is to invest effort in really understanding the 
learners, including their epistemologies; their worldviews; their cultures; and the power, 
positionality, and privileges within the given social system (Brouwer et al., 2015; Castagno & 
Brayboy, 2008; Demssie et al., 2020; Wahlgren, 2016). Within a larger educational program, this 
may be framed as understanding the context (Brouwer et al., 2015). In general, understanding 
the learners is a prerequisite to being learner-centered (Engel & van den Bor, 2008). 
Understanding learners also allows for the design of much more meaningful learning 
experiences which build off local knowledge (Merriam, 2018). Agricultural development 
professionals acknowledge the importance of being learner-centered (Conner et al., 2013; 
Ghimire & Martin, 2012).  
 
Understanding your learners can be more complex than it might first seem. First, local 
knowledge may not be shared equally across all members of a community (Briggs, 2005) and 
some knowledge may be tacit (Lwoga et al., 2010b). Further complicating the situation, some 
marginalized learners may not be heard (Kantor et al., 2015), and gender differences may be 
present (Belenky et al., 1986; Briggs, 2005). Some communities may have gatekeepers, which 
could control access to some groups of learners (Broekel & Mueller, 2018). Additionally, 
understanding what your learners know is not static as local knowledge changes over time 
(Briggs, 2005). Understanding the learners also means understanding the underlying structural 
conditions in which they live and work (Hermans et al., 2015).  
 
Needs assessments are commonly used to understand the current situation and learner needs 
(Dooley et al., 2018), but efforts should be made to gain input from all stakeholders, not just 
the most accessible ones (Stufflebeam et al., 2012). Implementing participatory approaches 
also allow the educator to understand learners through frequent interactions (Chambers, 1994; 
Engel & van den Bor, 2008; Grenier, 1998) by a process of socialization and knowledge sharing 
(Lwoga et al., 2010b). Understanding individual learners also means understanding the broader 
context. Common tools include historical analysis, stakeholder analysis, participatory 
engagement, and participatory observation (Hermans et al., 2015; Middelveld et al., 2021).  
 
It is also important for educators to understand themselves, including their epistemologies; 
their worldviews; their own culture; and the power, positionality, and privileges they bring to 
the local learning environment (Merriam, 2018; Sparks & Butterwick, 2020; Wahlgren, 2016). 
This can occur through an on-going critical self-reflection (Schön, 2017). Educators should 
recognize that their approaches to teaching are often informed by their own beliefs, values, and 
experiences (Heimlich & Norland, 2002), and those may differ from the learners in the local 
context. It is also important for agricultural development practitioners to consider how their 
connection a given organization, institution, or funding agency can impact power, positionality, 
and privilege (Cummings et al., 2022). As noted earlier, cultural differences may exist and 
educators should understand that cross-cultural communication could present challenges in 
understanding (Druker-Ibáñez & Cáceres-Jensen, 2022). Educators should engage in critical self-
reflection as part of the iterative planning process for an educational program.  
 



Roberts et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.305   7 
 

Embrace New Knowledge 
Understanding local knowledge systems requires educators to embrace new knowledge. This 
means not applying Western standards to evaluate local knowledge (Thrupp, 1989). Educators 
should move beyond an either/or approach to comparing local knowledge with Western 
scientific knowledge (Aikenhead & Ogawa, 2007; Briggs, 2005; Connell, 2020) and seek to 
understand the complementary relationship among diverse knowledge systems (Castagno & 
Brayboy, 2008). Educators should shift mindsets from separate knowledge systems to 
knowledge integration (Chapman & Scott, 2020; Druker-Ibáñez & Cáceres-Jensen, 2022). This 
means moving beyond understanding to applying that knowledge in “joint learning processes” 
(Tengö et al., 2017, p. 24). Embracing new knowledge may require educators to view 
themselves as co-learners in the process, rather than the expert source of information.  
 
Understand Power, Positionality, & Privilege 
Power, positionality, and privilege are social constructs which differentiate people. Power and 
positionality are present any time two people interact (Merriam et al., 2001). Numerous 
theories about power exist, but the work of French and Raven (1959) is frequently cited. Power 
is the ability of one person to influence the behavior of another person (French & Raven, 1959). 
In this seminal work, the authors describe five types of power: legitimate, reward, expert, 
referent, and coercive. They later added a sixth power, informational (Raven, 1965). Legitimate 
power means the person has the right to make demands on others. Reward power is when the 
person can compensate others. Expert power is based on the person’s level of competence. 
Referent power is based on interpersonal skills. Coercive power is the ability to punish others. 
Informational power comes from the ability to control information (Raven, 1965). 
Understanding power and empowerment are critical for development interventions (Rowlands, 
1995). 
 
The concept of positionality is informed by positioning theory (Harré & Langenhove, 1991) 
which explains how an individual is placed within a given social discourse. People can be self-
positioned (i.e., they define their role in a given interaction) or they can be positioned by others 
(Harré & Langenhove, 1991). The way individuals are positioned influences the actions they 
take in a given situation (Harré et al., 2009).  
 
Privilege occurs when one group of people have advantages over another group of people 
based on some aspect of social identity (Black & Stone, 2005; Du Bois, 2001). Privilege can be 
based on race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, social economic status, age, 
ableness/disability, religion, education, and other social identities (Black & Stone, 2005). 
Sometimes a person may be in a position of privilege based on one identity (e.g., race) but in a 
disadvantaged position based on another identity (e.g., gender). Crenshaw (1989) used the 
term intersectionality to describe this situation. Gender has long been linked to power and 
privilege, with men typically having the advantage (Halford, 2001; Moser, 1989).  
 
Education and training programs can be viewed as a means of elevating or emancipating groups 
people who may be disadvantaged in a given context (Freire, 2007). Scholars use the term 
colonization of knowledge to describe how colonizers imposed Western knowledge systems in 



Roberts et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.305   8 
 

the regions they colonized (Mignolo, 2007). Efforts to address this situation are often called the 
decolonization of knowledge (Apffel-Marglin & Marglin, 1996; Cummings et al., 2022). Many 
agricultural development efforts occur in post-colonial regions in Africa, Latin America, and Asia 
where food insecurity is most severe (Townsend, 2015). Many of these efforts are also funded 
by governments, NGOs, and companies from nations in the Global North who were once 
colonizers (Alston et al., 2000; van Wessell, 2021). Some of these regions were also 
characterized by one group of people (often the colonizer) oppressing other people (Memmi, 
1991; Middelveld et al., 2021). Other agricultural development efforts seek to improve the 
conditions of marginalized people, even within the most developed countries (Coté, 2016).  
 
Given this situation, agricultural development practitioners should consider their own power, 
positionality, and privilege as well as differences in power, positionality, and privilege within 
groups of people from a given local context. Agricultural development practitioners should be 
aware that power and positionality are present in all cross-cultural communication (Merriam et 
al., 2001). Power and positionality are also present in insider/outsider situations (Merriam et 
al., 2001). Sometimes marginalized people go unheard without targeted efforts to give them a 
voice (Kantor et al., 2015). As an example, failing to address gender negatively impacts of 
agricultural development efforts (Kristjanson et al., 2017). Agricultural development 
practitioners should also consider that policy-making decisions in agricultural development 
efforts are often limited to the people with power in a given context (Yami et al., 2019).  
 
Use Participatory Approaches 
Participatory approaches have long been advocated in agricultural development work under 
labels like Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) (Chambers, 1994; Engel & van den Bor, 2008; 
Grenier, 1998) and Multi-Stakeholder Platforms (MSP) (Brouwer et al., 2015). The general 
premise is that people are involved in decisions about their learning (Thrupp, 1989). This occurs 
best when educators create opportunities for learners to engage with each other and with the 
content (Demssie et al., 2020). Participatory learning approaches can be an effective approach 
to teach groups with differing worldviews (Grudens-Schuck, 2000). As an example, Jordan et al. 
(2008) highlighted how scenario planning can be a valuable participatory tool for embracing 
learners with differing worldviews. However, as we noted earlier, power and privilege must be 
considered and may impact equal participation (Cooke & Kothari, 2001). 
 
PRA describes a variety of related development approaches whereby local people actively 
participate in the discovery of solutions for the problems faced in their communities 
(Chambers, 1994; Grenier, 1998). PRA evolved from Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), with the 
biggest distinction being that PRA empowers local people to be involved in the process and RRA 
relies on outside assessments (Chambers, 1994). More recently, PRA has been called 
Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) (Narayanasamy, 2009). A wide variety of PRA tools and 
methods can be used (see Grenier, 1998; Narayanasamy, 2009). A general feature of PRA 
techniques is that local people are trained or guided in collecting, analyzing, and interpreting a 
variety of different kinds of data and then use that data to develop solutions to problems.  
 



Roberts et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.305   9 
 

The Multi Stakeholder Platform (MSP) is a participatory problem-solving approach established 
at Wageningen University and Research (Brouwer et al., 2015). MSPs are viewed as a form of 
governance where groups of people come together to make collaborative decisions about 
complex issues. MSPs typically go through a cyclical process which includes: (a) initiating, (b) 
adaptive planning, (c) collaborative action, and (d) reflective monitoring (Brouwer et al., 2015). 
As the name implies, MSPs involve diverse groups of stakeholders at every stage.  
 
Participatory approaches have been successfully used for an array of agricultural development 
challenges, including scaling of agricultural innovations (Wigboldus et al., 2016), restoring 
forests (McLain et al., 2021), addressing water insecurity (Quentin Grafton, 2017), capacity 
building of farmers (Ochago et al., 2023), and developing sustainable agri-food value chains 
(Pancino et al., 2019). Some noted weaknesses in participatory approaches include power 
dynamics among participants, ineffective training to implement participatory methods, and 
unclear/ill-defined goals for the program (Grenier, 1998). 
 
Using participatory approaches requires a mind shift to embrace a bottom-up approach which 
leads to developing and delivering educational programs which appropriately consider local 
knowledge based on a deep understanding of the local context (Jovchelovitch, 2007; Thrupp, 
1989). Researchers express this approach using phrases like consider the needs of local people 
(Thrupp, 1989), use indigenous knowledge (Demssie et al., 2020), connect to everyday life 
(Castagno & Brayboy, 2008), and build on learners’ experiences (Demssie et al., 2020). 
Researchers also emphasize the importance of situating learning within context (Jovchelovitch, 
2007; Lave & Wenger, 1991) and the presence of context-specific knowledge networks 
(Davidson-Hunt & O’Flaherty, 2007). Other researchers found it important to consider place-
based education (Barnhardt & Oscar Kawagley, 2008) and learning communities (Davidson-
Hunt & O’Flaherty, 2007). By using a bottom-up approach, “capacity building can start to 
confront inequalities and shift dominant power dynamics” (Ziervogel et al., 2022, p. 607). 
 
Implementing a bottom-up approach means that educators should enter the learning 
environment seeking to understand and work with learners to co-create knowledge necessary 
to address whatever problems are being faced (Armitage et al., 2011). Within a context of 
sustainability, Tengö et al. (2017) used the phrase bridging knowledge systems to emphasize 
the co-creation of knowledge. They emphasized the importance of considering the social 
networks of actors within the system, the local institutions, and the processes for collaboration 
(Tengö et al., 2017). These researchers propose five tasks for bridging knowledge systems: (a) 
mobilize the actors in the local system to start gathering evidence of local knowledge, (b) 
translate the gathered knowledge in ways which local actors can understand, (c) negotiate 
among local actors to create useful representations of knowledge, (d) synthesize the accepted 
local knowledge to inform the overall purpose, and (e) apply the local knowledge to take action 
(Tengö et al., 2017).  
 
Using participatory approaches means it is inappropriate to use pre-prepared programs and 
curricula developed without input from local partners (Campbell & Burnaby, 2005). Educators 
and program planners should focus their advanced efforts on developing collaborative 



Roberts et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.305   10 
 

processes, rather than on content (Campbell & Burnaby, 2005). As noted previously, this may 
require additional training for agricultural development practitioners (Grenier, 1998).  
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
This article lays out a framework to improve capacity building efforts in agricultural 
development by considering local knowledge systems (see Figure 1). The center explains local 
knowledge systems. The outer ring provides strategies for educators working in agricultural 
development. Agricultural development practitioners should examine their current practices 
using this framework. Agricultural development organizations should examine their approaches 
to program development to ensure local knowledge systems are adequately addressed. 
Educational institutions and others who train agricultural development practitioners should 
ensure their programs adequately address local knowledge systems. Researchers and 
evaluators can use this framework to investigate local knowledge systems and program 
outcomes. 
 
Figure 1 
 
A Framework for Using Local Knowledge Systems to Inform Agricultural Development Practices 

 

 



Roberts et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.305   11 
 

Acknowledgements 
 
This research was supported with funds from the University of Florida, UF/IFAS, and USDA/NIFA 
Hatch Project FLA-AEC-006179. 
 
Author Contributions: G. Roberts – conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, writing-
original draft; S. Cardey – writing-review and editing; P Brok – writing-review and editing 
 

References 
 
Aikenhead, G. S., & Ogawa, M. (2007). Indigenous knowledge and science revisited. Cultural 

Studies of Science Education, 2(3), 539-620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-007-9067-8  

Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of 
Educational Research, 81(2), 132-169. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311404435  

Alston, J. M., Chan-Kang, C., Marra, M. C., Pardey, P. G., & Wyatt, T. J. (2000). A meta-analysis 
of rates of return to agricultural R&D: Ex pede Herculem? (Vol. 113). International Food 
Policy Research Institute. https://www.ifpri.org/publication/meta-analysis-rates-return-
agricultural-r-d  

Apffel-Marglin, F., & Marglin, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). Decolonizing knowledge: From development to 
dialogue. Clarendon Press. 

Armitage, D., Berkes, F., Dale, A., Kocho-Schellenberg, E., & Patton, E. (2011). Co-management 
and the co-production of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada's Arctic. Global 
Environmental Change, 21(3), 995-1004. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.006  

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.  

Barnhardt, R., & Oscar Kawagley, A. (2005). Indigenous knowledge systems and Alaska Native 
ways of knowing. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 36(1), 8-23. 
https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.2005.36.1.008  

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: 
The development of self, voice, and mind. Basic Books. 

Black, L. L., & Stone, D. (2005). Expanding the definition of privilege: The concept of social 
privilege. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 33(4), 243-255. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2005.tb00020.x  

Briggs, J. (2005). The use of indigenous knowledge in development: Problems and 
challenges. Progress in Development Studies, 5(2), 99-114. 
https://doi.org/10.1191/1464993405ps105oa  



Roberts et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.305   12 
 

Broekel, T., & Mueller, W. (2018). Critical links in knowledge networks–What about proximities 
and gatekeeper organisations? Industry and Innovation, 25(10), 919-939. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2017.1343130  

Brouwer, H., Woodhill, J., Hemmati, M., Verhoosel, K., & van Vugt, S. (2015). The MSP guide: 
How to facilitate multi-stakeholder partnerships. Practical Action Publishing. 
https://edepot.wur.nl/358948  

Campbell, P., & Burnaby, B. (Eds.). (2005). Participatory practices in adult education. Routledge. 

Castagno, A. E., & Brayboy, B. M. J. (2008). Culturally responsive schooling for indigenous youth: 
A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 941-993. 
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308323036  

Castleden, H., Garvin, T., & Nation, H. A. A. F. (2009). “Hishuk Tsawak” (everything is 
one/connected): A Huu-ay-aht worldview for seeing forestry in British Columbia, 
Canada. Society and Natural Resources, 22(9), 789-804. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802098198  

Chambers, R. (1994). The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World 
Development, 22(7), 953-969. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(94)90141-4  

Chapman, J. M., & Schott, S. (2020). Knowledge coevolution: Generating new understanding 
through bridging and strengthening distinct knowledge systems and empowering local 
knowledge holders. Sustainability Science, 15(3), 931-943. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00781-2  

Cobern, W. W. (1996). Worldview theory and conceptual change in science education. Science 
Education, 80(5), 579-610. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-
237X(199609)80:5%3C579::AID-SCE5%3E3.0.CO;2-8  

Connell, R. (2020). Southern theory: The global dynamics of knowledge in social science. 
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117346  

Conner, N. W., Roberts, T. G., & Harder, A. (2013). Competencies and experiences needed by 
entry level international agricultural development practitioners. Journal of International 
Agricultural and Extension Education, 20(1), 19–32.  

Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (Eds.). (2001). Participation: The new tyranny?. Zed books. 

Coté, C. (2016). “Indigenizing” food sovereignty: Revitalizing indigenous food practices and 
ecological knowledges in Canada and the United States. Humanities, 5(3), 57. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/h5030057  

 



Roberts et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.305   13 
 

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique 
of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of 
Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, Article 8. 
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8  

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. Sage. 

Cummings, S., Munthala, N., & Sharpland, P. (2022). A systemic approach to the knowledge 
decolonization: Implications for scholars of development studies. In D. Ludwig, B. 
Boogaard, & C. Leeuwis (Eds.), The politics of knowledge in inclusive development and 
innovation (pp. 65-79). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003112525    

Davidson-Hunt, I. J., & Michael O'Flaherty, R. (2007). Researchers, indigenous peoples, and 
place-based learning communities. Society and Natural Resources, 20(4), 291-305. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920601161312  

Delaney, C. (2011). Investigating culture: An experiential introduction to anthropology (2nd ed.). 
Wiley-Blackwell.  

Demssie, Y. N., Biemans, H. J. A., Wesselink, R., & Mulder, M. (2020). Combining indigenous 
knowledge and modern education to foster sustainability competencies: Towards a set 
of learning design principles. Sustainability, 12(17), 6823. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176823  

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Simon & Schuster. 

Dooley, K. E., Dobbins, C., & Edgar, L. D. (2018). Using participatory rural appraisal for a 
community needs assessment in Timor-Leste. Journal of International Agricultural and 
Extension Education, 25(4), 63-73.  

Druker-Ibáñez, S., & Cáceres-Jensen, L. (2022). Integration of indigenous and local knowledge 
into sustainability education: A systematic literature review. Environmental Education 
Research, 28(8), 1209-1236. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2022.2083081  

Du Bois, W. B. (2001). Black reconstruction in America, 1860-1880. Racism Essential Readings, 
27-34. 

Engel, P. G. H., & van den Bor, W. (1995). Agricultural education from a knowledge systems 
perspective: From teaching to facilitating joint inquiry and learning. European Journal of 
Agricultural Education and Extension, 1(4), 1-23. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13892249485300311  

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2010). Learning module 1: Enhancing 
FAO’s practices for supporting capacity development of member countries. Rome. 
https://www.fao.org/3/i1998e/i1998e.pdf  



Roberts et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.305   14 
 

Freire, P. (2007). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum. 

French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven., B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.). 
Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). University of Michigan Press.  

Ghimire, N. R., & Martin, R. A. (2012). Learning systems competencies: Their importance to 
extension educators. International Journal of Learning Annual Review, 18(3), 95-112. 
https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v18i03/47512 

Grenier, L. (1998). Working with indigenous knowledge: A guide for researchers. International 
Development Research Centre. 

Grudens-Schuck, N. (2000). Extension and grassroots educators’ approaches to participatory 
education: Interrelationships among training, worldview, and institutional support. 
Adult Education Research Conference. 
https://newprairiepress.org/aerc/2000/papers/29  

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging 
confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative 
research (pp. 191–215). Sage. 

Halford, S. (2001). Gender, power and organisations: An introduction. Bloomsbury Publishing. 

Harré, R., Moghaddam, F. M., Cairnie, T. P., Rothbart, D., & Sabat, S. R. (2009). Recent advances 
in positioning theory. Theory & Psychology, 19(1), 5–31. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354308101417  

Harré, R., & Van Langenhove, L. (1991). Varieties of positioning. Journal for the Theory of Social 
Behaviour, 21(4), 393-407. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1468-
5914.1991.tb00203.x  

Hart, M. A. (2010). Indigenous worldviews, knowledge, and research: The development of an 
indigenous research paradigm. Journal of Indigenous Voices in Social Work, 1(1), 1-16. 
https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/jisd/article/view/63043  

Heimlich, J. E., & Norland, E. (2002). Teaching style: Where are we now? New Directions for 
Adult and Continuing Education, 2002(93), 17-26. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.46 

Hermans, F., Klerkx, L., & Roep, D. (2015). Structural conditions for collaboration and learning in 
innovation networks: Using an innovation system performance lens to analyse 
agricultural knowledge systems. The Journal of Agricultural Education and 
Extension, 21(1), 35-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2014.991113  

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J. & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the 
mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. 



Roberts et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.305   15 
 

Jahoda, G. (2012). Critical reflections on some recent definitions of “culture.” Culture & 
Psychology, 18(3), 289-303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X12446229  

Jordan, N. R., Bawden, R. J., & Bergmann, L. (2008). Pedagogy for addressing the worldview 
challenge in sustainable development of agriculture. Journal of Natural Resources and 
Life Sciences Education, 37(1), 92-99. https://doi.org/10.2134/jnrlse2008.37192x  

Jovchelovitch, S. (2007). Knowledge in context: Representations, community and culture. 
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203968895  

Kantor, P., Morgan, M., & Choudhury, A. (2015). Amplifying outcomes by addressing inequality: 
The role of gender-transformative approaches in agricultural research for 
development. Gender, Technology and Development, 19(3), 292-319. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0971852415596863  

Knowles, M. S., Holton III, E. F., Swanson, R. A. (2015). The adult learner: The definitive classic in 
adult education and human resource development (8th ed.). Routledge. 

Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development 
(2nd ed.). Pearson.  

Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2004). The psychology of worldviews. Review of General Psychology, 8(1), 
3-58. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.8.1.3  

Koohafkan, P., & Altieri, M.A. (2016). Forgotten agricultural heritage: Reconnecting food 
systems and sustainable development. Routledge. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315470092  

Kristjanson, P., Bryan, E., Bernier, Q., Twyman, J., Meinzen-Dick, R., Kieran, C., Ringler, C., Jost, 
C., & Doss, C. (2017). Addressing gender in agricultural research for development in the 
face of a changing climate: Where are we and where should we be going? International 
Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 15(5), 482-500. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2017.1336411  

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge 
university press. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1017/CBO9780511815355 

Lwoga, E. T., Ngulube, P., & Stilwell, C. (2010a). Managing indigenous knowledge for sustainable 
agricultural development in developing countries: Knowledge management approaches 
in the social context. The International Information & Library Review, 42(3), 174-185. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iilr.2010.07.006  

 Lwoga, E. T., Ngulube, P. & Stilwell, C. (2010b). Understanding indigenous knowledge: Bridging 
the knowledge gap through a knowledge creation model for agricultural development. 
SA Journal of Information Management, 12(1), Art. #436. 
https://doi.org/10.4102/sajim.v12i1.436   



Roberts et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.305   16 
 

McLain, R., Lawry, S., Guariguata, M. R., & Reed, J. (2021). Toward a tenure-responsive 
approach to forest landscape restoration: A proposed tenure diagnostic for assessing 
restoration opportunities. Land Use Policy, 104, 103748. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.053  

Memmi, A. (1991). The colonizer and the colonized. Routledge. 

Merriam, S. B. (2018). Adult learning theory: Evolution and future directions. In K. Illeris (Ed.), 
Contemporary theories of learning (pp. 83-96). Routledge. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315147277  

Merriam, S. B., Johnson-Bailey, J., Lee, M., Kee, Y., Ntseane, G., & Muhamad, M. (2001). Power 
and positionality: Negotiating insider/outsider status within and across 
cultures. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20(5), 405-416. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370120490  

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass. 

Middelveld, S., Maat, H., & Macnaghten, P. (2021). Making knowledge from below. In D. 
Ludwig, B. Boogaard, Macnaghten, P., & C. Leeuwis (Eds.), The politics of knowledge in 
inclusive development and innovation (pp. 34-47). Routledge. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003112525    

Mignolo, W. D. (2007). Introduction: Coloniality of power and de-colonial thinking. Cultural 
Studies, 21(2-3), 155-167. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380601162498  

Moser, C. O. N. (1989). Gender planning in the Third World: Meeting practical and strategic 
gender needs. World Development, 17(11), 1799-1825. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-
750X(89)90201-5  

Naess, L. O. (2013). The role of local knowledge in adaptation to climate change. Wiley 
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 4(2), 99-106. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.204 

Narayanasamy, N. (2009). Participatory rural appraisal: Principles, methods and application. 
SAGE Publications India. 

Ochago, R., Dentoni, D., Lans, T., & Trienekens, J. (2023. Disentangling the experiential learning 
process of coffee farmers in Uganda’s innovation platforms. The Journal of Agricultural 
Education and Extension, 29(1) 117-148. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2021.1977664  

Olsen, M. E., Lodwick, D. G., & Dunlap, R. E. (1992). Viewing the world ecologically. Westview 
Press. 

 



Roberts et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.305   17 
 

Pancino, B., Blasi, E., Rappoldt, A., Pascucci, S., Ruini, L., & Ronchi, C. (2019). Partnering for 
sustainability in agri-food supply chains: The case of Barilla Sustainable Farming in the 
Po Valley. Agricultural and Food Economics, 7(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-
019-0133-9  

Pawluk, R. R., Sandor, J. A., & Tabor, J. A. (1992). The role of indigenous soil knowledge in 
agricultural development. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 47(4), 298-302. 
https://www.jswconline.org/content/47/4/298  

Quentin Grafton, R. (2017). Responding to the ‘wicked problem’ of water insecurity. Water 
Resources Management, 31(10), 3023-3041. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1606-
9  

Raven, B. H. (1965). Social influence and power. In I. D. Steiner & M. Fishbein (Eds.), Current 
studies in social psychology (pp. 371–382). Holt, Rinehart, Winston. 

Roberts, T. G. (2006). A philosophical examination of experiential learning theory for 
agricultural educators. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(1), 17–29. 
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2006.01017  

Rowlands, J. (1995). Empowerment examined. Development in Practice, 5(2), 101-107. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/0961452951000157074  

Schön, D. A. (2017). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Routledge. 

Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The 
role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of 
Educational Research, 77(4), 454-499. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307310317 

Shepherd, C. J. (2010). Mobilizing local knowledge and asserting culture: The cultural politics of 
in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity. Current Anthropology, 51(5), 629-654. 
https://doi.org/10.1086/656424  

Sparks, B., & Butterwick, S. (2020). Culture, equity and learning. In G. Foley (Ed.), Dimensions of 
adult learning (pp. 276-289). Routledge. 

Stufflebeam, D. L., McCormick, C. H., Brinkerhoff, R. O., & Nelson, C. O. (2012). Conducting 
educational needs assessments (Vol. 10). Springer Science & Business Media. 

Sumner, J., Mair, H., & Nelson, E. (2010). Putting the culture back into agriculture: Civic 
engagement, community and the celebration of local food. International Journal of 
Agricultural Sustainability, 8(1-2), 54-61. https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2009.0454  

 



Roberts et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.305   18 
 

Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C. M., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., Elmgvist, T., & 
Folke, C. (2017). Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons 
learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26-27, 17-25. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005  

Thrupp, L. A. (1989) Legitimizing local knowledge: From displacement to empowerment for 
third world people. Agriculture and Human Values, 6(3), 13–24. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02217665  

Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human 
Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283  

Torraco, R. J. (2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to 
explore the future. Human Resource Development Review, 15(4), 404–428. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606  

Townsend, R. (2015, April 1). Ending poverty and hunger by 2030: An agenda for the global food 
system. World Bank Group. 
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/700061468334490682/Ending-poverty-
and-hunger-by-2030-an-agenda-for-the-global-food-system  

Tropical Agriculture Platform. (2016). Common framework for capacity development for 
agricultural innovation systems. CABI. https://cdais.net/wp-
content/uploads/2016/02/Guidance-note.pdf  

van Wessell, M. (2021). The politics of evidence-based advocacy by civil society organization. 
In D. Ludwig, B. Boogaard, & C. Leeuwis (Eds.), The politics of knowledge in inclusive 
development and innovation (pp. 181-195). Routledge. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003112525  

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. 
Harvard University Press. 

Wahlgren, B. (2016). Adult educators’ core competences. International Review of 
Education, 62(3), 343-353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-016-9559-4  

Wardropper, C. B., Mase, A. S., Qiu, J., Kohl, P., Booth, E. G., & Rissman, A. R. (2020). Ecological 
worldview, agricultural or natural resource-based activities, and geography affect 
perceived importance of ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning, 197, 
103768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103768  

Wigboldus, S., Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., Schut, M., Muilerman, S., & Jochemsen, H. (2016). 
Systemic perspectives on scaling agricultural innovations: A review. Agronomy for 
Sustainable Development, 36(3), Article 46, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-
0380-z  



Roberts et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v4i2.305   19 
 

Williams, B. (2003). The worldview dimensions of individualism and collectivism: Implications 
for counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81(3), 370-374. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2003.tb00263.x  

Yami, M., van Asten, P., Hauser, M., Schut, M., & Pali, P. (2019). Participation without 
negotiating: Influence of stakeholder power imbalances and engagement models on 
agricultural policy development in Uganda. Rural Sociology, 84(2), 390-415. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12229  

Ziervogel, G., Enqvist, J., Metelerkamp, L., & van Breda, J. (2022). Supporting transformative 
climate adaptation: Community-level capacity building and knowledge co-creation in 
South Africa. Climate Policy, 22(5), 607-622. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1863180 

 
© 2023 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/). 
 


