| Abstract: |
| Methods, subject to scrutiny of underlying assumptions and sources of bias, define the scientific approach to knowledge more than any other aspect, but they are driven by questions and judged by the results (data) they generate and the implications these are considered to have. Agroforestry research methods are ‘horses for courses’; there is no single method that stands out across all purposes of research. Similarly, there are no research methods that are unique to agroforestry, and few that are completely new rather than modifications of something used earlier. Agroforestry research, like all applied research, has borrowed, used and sometimes improved methods from other fields – with all the hidden assumptions and potential biases these methods may have. The borrowing has not always been easy. For examples, methods from agronomic research may not be feasible with trees that take 30 years to mature. The value of method in advancing the field of agroforestry research is judged not only on credibility of results – judged, for example, by those assumptions and biases – but also their feasibility determined by cost, practicality in field conditions or ease of learning them. In this chapter we will give examples of how research methods have evolved alongside the articulation of the second (landscape) and third (policy) agroforestry paradigm (see Chapter 1), while enriching those that are used within the first (field/farm level) paradigm. |
|
