Finally, another one of the participants in these processes of intervention in
rural contexts is the university system. According to multiple authors (Bonfil 1991;
Morin 2007; Argueta et al. 2011; Bocco et al. 2000; among others), today,
universities play one of the most important roles in the construction of alternatives
aimed at the reflection upon and transformation of social problems. As institutions
for the creation of new knowledge and the training of professional workers,
universities must, as a necessary condition for social relevance, directly engage in
the construction of innovative intervention processes.
Before discussing a model that could qualify as a Via UAQ, the subject of
the following and final section, we must first consider some challenges related to
the initiation of a socially and culturally relevant process of intervention: the
knowledge of the participants as to their characteristics, values, sensitivities, and
possessions, which are the intellectual, symbolic, and material elements with
which they build their daily lives. This phase is widely known as a diagnosis,
which is aimed at recognizing the experiences of previous interventions. Usually
there are two poles of action; one of them is the conduct of an external investigation in which the researcher establishes a set of questions and techniques in
order to document the aforementioned features of the place and its population. The
other option has to do with a so-called self-diagnosis, which is done by the
inhabitants themselves, based on a self-reflection upon their surroundings, identifying those aspects that they consider necessary in order to understand their
surroundings and the intervention thereupon.
Based on the experiences analyzed and implemented, we are able to suggest
that both schemes are very useful if over time procedural stages can be established
therefor. We suggest that a diagnosis initially be done from an external perspective, to subsequently be analyzed by an exchange of perspectives (the external with
the internal), which can complement each other and create greater dialog and
discussion for the generation of information and specific actions.
In consideration of the points mentioned thus far, we also suggest that everyday
practices can become a pathway for discussion on and incorporation of new
technologies. This synergy requires a transformation in the old methodological
schemes established in order to understand the inhabitants, which implies that the
knowledge of the representatives of the institutions, the academics, and politicians,
must defeat the a priori hierarchies that generate conditions of inequality, marginalization, or the exclusion of the inhabitants’ views. What we propose is a
paradigm shift in which the voice of the people would be essential for the planning,
execution, and management of actions.
Based on these premises for the design of interventions, can we speak of an
intervention in the agri-food domain that is able to reduce poverty, promote
production, and be sensitive toward the preservation of nature? Can we speak of
one that is able to look at the frontiers of market policy as possible options for the
exchange of economic and political methodologies? How can we enhance local
knowledge so that it might function as an important component of the incorporation of new technologies such as biosystems engineering? And, to what extent is
it possible to create from this union a pedagogical process that is able to generate a
16 When Modernity is Not Enough
471
rural contexts is the university system. According to multiple authors (Bonfil 1991;
Morin 2007; Argueta et al. 2011; Bocco et al. 2000; among others), today,
universities play one of the most important roles in the construction of alternatives
aimed at the reflection upon and transformation of social problems. As institutions
for the creation of new knowledge and the training of professional workers,
universities must, as a necessary condition for social relevance, directly engage in
the construction of innovative intervention processes.
Before discussing a model that could qualify as a Via UAQ, the subject of
the following and final section, we must first consider some challenges related to
the initiation of a socially and culturally relevant process of intervention: the
knowledge of the participants as to their characteristics, values, sensitivities, and
possessions, which are the intellectual, symbolic, and material elements with
which they build their daily lives. This phase is widely known as a diagnosis,
which is aimed at recognizing the experiences of previous interventions. Usually
there are two poles of action; one of them is the conduct of an external investigation in which the researcher establishes a set of questions and techniques in
order to document the aforementioned features of the place and its population. The
other option has to do with a so-called self-diagnosis, which is done by the
inhabitants themselves, based on a self-reflection upon their surroundings, identifying those aspects that they consider necessary in order to understand their
surroundings and the intervention thereupon.
Based on the experiences analyzed and implemented, we are able to suggest
that both schemes are very useful if over time procedural stages can be established
therefor. We suggest that a diagnosis initially be done from an external perspective, to subsequently be analyzed by an exchange of perspectives (the external with
the internal), which can complement each other and create greater dialog and
discussion for the generation of information and specific actions.
In consideration of the points mentioned thus far, we also suggest that everyday
practices can become a pathway for discussion on and incorporation of new
technologies. This synergy requires a transformation in the old methodological
schemes established in order to understand the inhabitants, which implies that the
knowledge of the representatives of the institutions, the academics, and politicians,
must defeat the a priori hierarchies that generate conditions of inequality, marginalization, or the exclusion of the inhabitants’ views. What we propose is a
paradigm shift in which the voice of the people would be essential for the planning,
execution, and management of actions.
Based on these premises for the design of interventions, can we speak of an
intervention in the agri-food domain that is able to reduce poverty, promote
production, and be sensitive toward the preservation of nature? Can we speak of
one that is able to look at the frontiers of market policy as possible options for the
exchange of economic and political methodologies? How can we enhance local
knowledge so that it might function as an important component of the incorporation of new technologies such as biosystems engineering? And, to what extent is
it possible to create from this union a pedagogical process that is able to generate a
16 When Modernity is Not Enough
471