2.4.3 Differences Between Ethnic Groups and Depth
of Knowledge
Clear differences between the ethnic groups and their depth of soil knowledge did
not appear during the classification exercise, in the description of soil properties or
in ranking the results, but did so when obtaining additional information during the
narrative parts of the group discussions. This information was difficult to document
because knowledge gained by experience is often tacit knowledge which cannot be
described explicitly (Hoffmann 2010). In terms of the main difference between the
Thai and Hmong ethnicities in north-west Vietnam, Hagel (2011) found a tendency
for the Hmong to focus on plant growth and development, as they gave additional
information and details mainly about soils’ impacts on plant growth, such as
problems found when cultivating maize on certain soils. On the other hand, Thai
farmers tended to describe the economic aspects of agriculture, such as the different
amount of fertilizers needed to generate higher yields. The information given by
the Hmong, such as about soil erosion and soil changes, seemed rather superficial,
whereas the Thai farmers presented detailed descriptions and explanations e.g.,
about topsoil, flows or the mineralization of organic material. Contrary to this
general experience, we received detailed soil information in the Hmong village
of On Oc during a workshop facilitated by a local extension worker named
Mr. Dung, when the language barrier and participants’ shyness levels seemed to
be overcome. In On Oc, villagers mentioned the necessity for site specific fertilization on wet and dry Black Soils, plus the effects of different fallow duration periods
on different soils.
Even though there were hints at a deeper level of knowledge among Thai
farmers, the impression might be superimposed by the fact that Thai farmers appear
more self-confident and talkative than the Hmong, partly due to the lack of a
language barrier (as communication between the facilitator and the participants in
Vietnamese was only possible in the Thai villages), but also due to differences in
culture and the location of the villages. Hmong villages in Yen Chau district are
mostly quite remote, which has tended to have a negative impact on education plus
the capacity of farmers to deal and articulate themselves with foreign researchers
(Hagel 2011). The interdependence between surveyors and farmers was experienced in different interview situations, and the quality and depth of information
obtained also depended on the clarity and depth of the explanations given by the
interviewers, as well as their communication skills and knowledge of the environmental and socio-economic conditions of the indigenous people in a given location.
2.4.4 Comparison Between Farmers’ Soil Quality Assessments
and Scientific Soil Fertility Assessments
In Vietnam, local soil knowledge was investigated by Hagel (2011) in 5 out of the 6
study villages, with soil profile descriptions and soil analyses made available
70
K. Stahr et al.
of Knowledge
Clear differences between the ethnic groups and their depth of soil knowledge did
not appear during the classification exercise, in the description of soil properties or
in ranking the results, but did so when obtaining additional information during the
narrative parts of the group discussions. This information was difficult to document
because knowledge gained by experience is often tacit knowledge which cannot be
described explicitly (Hoffmann 2010). In terms of the main difference between the
Thai and Hmong ethnicities in north-west Vietnam, Hagel (2011) found a tendency
for the Hmong to focus on plant growth and development, as they gave additional
information and details mainly about soils’ impacts on plant growth, such as
problems found when cultivating maize on certain soils. On the other hand, Thai
farmers tended to describe the economic aspects of agriculture, such as the different
amount of fertilizers needed to generate higher yields. The information given by
the Hmong, such as about soil erosion and soil changes, seemed rather superficial,
whereas the Thai farmers presented detailed descriptions and explanations e.g.,
about topsoil, flows or the mineralization of organic material. Contrary to this
general experience, we received detailed soil information in the Hmong village
of On Oc during a workshop facilitated by a local extension worker named
Mr. Dung, when the language barrier and participants’ shyness levels seemed to
be overcome. In On Oc, villagers mentioned the necessity for site specific fertilization on wet and dry Black Soils, plus the effects of different fallow duration periods
on different soils.
Even though there were hints at a deeper level of knowledge among Thai
farmers, the impression might be superimposed by the fact that Thai farmers appear
more self-confident and talkative than the Hmong, partly due to the lack of a
language barrier (as communication between the facilitator and the participants in
Vietnamese was only possible in the Thai villages), but also due to differences in
culture and the location of the villages. Hmong villages in Yen Chau district are
mostly quite remote, which has tended to have a negative impact on education plus
the capacity of farmers to deal and articulate themselves with foreign researchers
(Hagel 2011). The interdependence between surveyors and farmers was experienced in different interview situations, and the quality and depth of information
obtained also depended on the clarity and depth of the explanations given by the
interviewers, as well as their communication skills and knowledge of the environmental and socio-economic conditions of the indigenous people in a given location.
2.4.4 Comparison Between Farmers’ Soil Quality Assessments
and Scientific Soil Fertility Assessments
In Vietnam, local soil knowledge was investigated by Hagel (2011) in 5 out of the 6
study villages, with soil profile descriptions and soil analyses made available
70
K. Stahr et al.