Social Sustainability and Collaborative Learning

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions,research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.

Social Sustainability and Collaborative LearningAuthor(s): Helena Nordström Källström and Magnus LjungSource: AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 34(4):376-382. 2005.Published By: Royal Swedish Academy of SciencesDOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-34.4.376URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1579/0044-7447-34.4.376

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological,and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and bookspublished by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance ofBioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.

Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercialinquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-34.4.376

http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1579/0044-7447-34.4.376

http://www.bioone.org

http://www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use

Helena Nordstrom Kallstrom and Magnus Ljung

Social Sustainabilityand Collaborative Learning

The social dimension is central to sustainable develop-ment of agri-food systems. If farmers are not satisfiedwith their situation or motivated to continue farming, manyof today’s environmental goals will be impossible toachieve. Between 1997 and 2003, several case studieswere carried out on social sustainability, the importanceof recognition in the farming system, and the potentialrole of increased collaboration between actors. The mainhypothesis was that improved recognition is a basis forsustainable social conditions. Our findings show thatmany farmers today perceive an impoverished socialsituation. They believe they lack control over decisions,which hinders their ability to continue farming. Publicimages and political decisions show a lack of respect forfarmers’ skills and knowledge. However, increased col-laboration among actors is believed to be one importantway forward, creating stronger relationships and net-works, as well as a stronger identity for farmers. Ourfindings emphasize the need for authorities and otherorganizations to support farmers and to facilitate collab-orative learning and decision-making processes for socio-ecological sustainability.

INTRODUCTION

The social dimension of farming is a crucial part of sustainabledevelopment of Swedish agriculture. It is clear that the agri-food system faces some important social challenges:

– Strengthening social conditions for farmers (e.g. improvingsocial services and working conditions for farmers and otherrural workers, enabling participation in civic discourse,creating a sense of community and place).

– Supporting both diversity in rural lifestyle (i.e. the aestheticsof a diverse landscape, and the cultural aspects of biologicaldiversity; that is, preserving the cultural heritage).

– Balancing the negative effects of ongoing size and structuralrationalization caused by economic pressure and decreasingviability of farms, largely in regions of Sweden far fromdensely populated areas.

Among the objectives of the research program Food 21, themany social aspects are summarized in a perspective arguingthat farmers need to be content with their social situation, aswell as not unnecessarily exposed to hazardous substances orrisk of injury.

Sustainable development is a moving target. The complexnetworks of institutions and stakeholders in society easily createa sense of incomprehensibility and lack of control. Policy-makers and other decision-makers emphasize that there is nosingle expert or actor with the definitive answer to what con-stitutes a sustainable agri-food system or the necessary means toachieve it. Instead, collaborative, community-based, and trans-disciplinary learning, dialogue, and deliberation have beendescribed as desirable or even necessary approaches to today’ssituation (1–3). This may be seen as a rational conclusion basedon findings in many fields—ideas about participatory de-mocracy (4); the importance of local knowledge in sustainablenatural resource management (5); the processes of experiential

learning, adaptive management, and institutional change (6);critical discourse in environmental sociology (7); and so on.Together, these insights create a strong foundation for anemerging new paradigm that emphasizes the need for partici-pation, systemic thinking and action, critical assessment ofexisting social order, and especially how we organize andinteract within the agri-food system.

Role of Farmers

At the very core of sustainable development of agri-foodsystems is the farmer. Farmers’ perspectives and actions willultimately enable or hinder society in the implementation ofmethods for sustainable development of agriculture and thelarger agri-food system. But what motivates farmers to act in anenvironmentally friendly way? What keeps farmers farming andin good health? What basic needs have to be fulfilled in orderfor farmers to be content with their work and life situation?Farming is as much a way of life as it is a business. Farming isa social activity, although farming is seldom described in suchwords. The unique life-form and the social aspects of farminghave implications on farmers’ decision-making, and thus on thepossibility of realizing sustainable development, including itsecological dimensions.

Today, the average age of farmers is relatively high, the vastmajority of those working on farms are men, and the physicaldistance between farm units is growing. Our hypothesis is thatthe ongoing changes in the Swedish farming system are notsustainable from a social point of view, and that thisunsustainable social development within the farming commu-nity will prevent society from achieving its environmental andwelfare goals. One field of potential measures is associated withfarmer participation and involvement. It appears there are atleast three strong arguments for farmers’ involvement indecision-making processes (8). First, farmers have importantknowledge when developing management strategies adapted tosite-specific conditions. A high degree of farmer participationenables this potential to be utilized. The best way for society tolearn from the ecosystems’ responses to new managementtechniques is to let citizens with a thorough knowledge of localcircumstances provide feedback, communicate their findings,and fine-tune the recommended approaches. Large bureaucra-cies operating according to standard procedures will never beable to achieve this efficiently enough to be sustainable (9).Second, farmers must feel motivated (i.e. they must perceive itas meaningful) to change their practices, something that can bereinforced by a higher degree of social interaction and publicappreciation. Third, it is the human and democratic right offarmers to be able to participate in decisions that will affecttheir future.

Aim of the Paper

The aim of this paper is twofold: to conceptualize and describeimportant social conditions for Swedish farmers, and to identifythe potential of collaborative processes in improving theseconditions. Core research questions concerned the role offarmers’ social relations, how farmers are perceived both by

376 Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4–5, June 2005� Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005http://www.ambio.kva.se

significant others and by society at large, and how recognitioncontributes to identity creation, which involves a personalcommitment and willingness to learn more about and strive forsustainable development.

THEORY

Social Sustainability

Sustainable development is a quality of resilient social-ecologicalsystems (10). Although the social dimension of farming isnecessary to conceptualize an integrated whole, it couldparticularly be described as the living and working conditionsof farmers (11). This should include strong social relations;individual satisfaction with work tasks; the potential to discussand share responsibility with other people; and confidence in thefuture and experience of recognition from family, friends, andsociety. However, the social dimension could also be describedusing more universal social-psychological concepts (i.e. fulfill-ment of basic human needs; for instance, protection, freedom,understanding, participation, creativity, affection, etc.) (12).

The analytical model applied was relational and aggregatedin its approach. Figure 1 summarizes the different componentsthat contribute to the social situation of farmers in Swedishagriculture. Our theoretical model aims to give an integratedview of the social conditions in agriculture as experienced by thefarmer. The model also captures different dimensions of relatingto the world, and thus the potential for both social learning (13)in which farmers can be involved, and experiential learning (14),which involves processes of learning-by-doing in both the socialand ecological environment. Figure 1 focuses on the farmers’relationships, emphasizing that both meaning and action arerelational, but also that some specific actions contribute towardfulfilling certain dimensions of social sustainability, while otherstend to do the opposite.

By participating in decisions regarding the future conditions offarming such as regulations and incentives, and by taking part inthe public debate, day-to-day farming becomes more meaningful(15). Through collaborative activities together with colleagues,neighbors, and others within the local community, social iden-tities are strengthened and a relational network is built that is ofhigh importance in both good times and bad. Finally, the uniquerelationship and interactionwith the physical world, animals, andthe land enables a stronger sense of self-in-place (16), which isimportant for the development of self and a personal identity.

Many farmers perceive themselves as marginalized in society(11). Their relative power in society is decreasing, both fromeconomic and cultural points of view. On the other hand,farmers tend to value their personal skills and consider themrelevant for the development of functional managementstrategies in farming and for rural development (8). Suchexperiential knowledge originates from farmers’ daily interac-tion with the environment when managing the naturalresources. Nevertheless, creating opportunities for participationis not enough. Designing the processes in such a way thatfarmers’ experiences are integrated and that they feel involvedand empowered is also necessary, and their engagement musthave an impact on decisions made [what Senecah (17) callsvoice, standing, and influence]. This is a process of social andcollaborative learning (18) in which farmers become part of thewider community and develop new knowledge together.

Recognition

Central to our theoretical perspective and analytical model isthe notion of recognition as important for social well-being as itwas developed by Honneth (19) and Taylor (20)]. Our modeldescribes three levels of recognition, how recognition affectsidentity, and the effects of nonrecognition.

Identity and recognition. Aperson’s identity canbedefined asone’s perception of who he or she is andwhat characteristics he orshe has as a human being. Personal or group identity develops inthe complex interrelationship between self/individuality andculture/society. Identity is thus influenced by the amount ofrecognition the person or group receives from other people orother groups (20). Our identity is partially created by both recog-nition and the absence of recognition. The absence of recognitioncould be a form of oppression and could cause great damage,forcing people into a false, distorted, and narrow way of life. Todevelop a strong personal identity, or a positive relationship tooneself, one needs multidimensional recognition from others.Individuals need to be able to refer to themselves from the per-spective of approving and encouraging significant others (i.e.a friend or partner) and generalized others [i.e. politicians andconsumers (21)]. Recognition affects people’s identity by leadingto a disparaging image of people and groups. The image of in-feriority gets internalized within the group or individual identity:‘‘Due recognition is not only a courtesy we owe people, it is a vitalhuman need,’’ according to Taylor (20). Without recognition,farmers might develop a weak personal and social identity.

Figure 1. Relationships that con-tribute to the social dimension insustainable development ofSwedish agriculture.

Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4–5, June 2005 377� Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005http://www.ambio.kva.se

Three levels of recognition. Recognition can be found inthree independent modes (19). The three different levels ofrecognition are as follows (Fig. 2):

i) The individual is recognized as a person whose needs anddesires are of unique value to another person. This mode ofrecognition is often referred to as love or care and impliesa conditional care for the well-being of the other for his or hersake. Love and care build a person’s self-confidence.ii) The individual is recognized as a person who is ascribed thesame moral accountability as every other human being. Thiskind of recognition has the character of universal equaltreatment and is often referred to as moral respect. It impliesthe moral duty to recognize the accountability of all others. Theexperience of moral respect builds a person’s self-respect.iii) The individual is recognized as a personwhose capabilities areof constitutive value to a specific community. This kind of recog-nition has the character of particular esteem and is often referredto as solidarity or loyalty. It implies the conditional care for thewell-being of the other for the sake of our common goals. Theexperience of solidarity or loyalty builds a person’s self-esteem.

The three dimensions of recognition present us with moralobligations and duties. In the context of sustainable developmentof agriculture, this implies that we have a moral obligation toemotionally care for farmers from the perspective of the first levelof recognition.We also have themoral obligation to treat farmersequally from the perspective of the second level of recognition.And finally, we have the moral obligation to show solidarity,interest, and commitment to farmers’ work and activities in thelight of the third level of recognition. If so, farmers, as all people,will develop a strong personal and social identity.

The consequence of nonrecognition. What happens whenpersons and groups lack recognition on one or more levels?Here are examples of violations on the three different levels ofrecognition:

i) On the first level, the lack of love and care deprives us of thefeeling of security that derives from physical well-being. Aperson can lose trust in the value of his own needs from thepoint of view of others. This might happen if one perceivesoneself as being exposed to the will of other people or if onelacks close, affectionate relationships.ii) There are several acts of moral violation in which a person’smoral accountability is disregarded. A person’s perception ofself-respect can be damaged if people do not recognize the valueof his or her judgment. The feeling of betrayal could be createdby violations of trust (such as broken promises), by deprivationof one’s human rights (such as social welfare and democraticrights), or by the lack of ability to influence decisions that arecrucial to one’s future (not having control of one’s destiny orlost autonomy).iii) Moral violations of the third level of recognition could arisewhen farmers perceive that their skills and efforts are not

respected. This damages the feeling of being socially valuablewithin a larger community. Examples of such violations are formsof cultural degradation and could include everything from notbeing greeted in personal encounters to extreme cases ofstigmatization (i.e. generalizations about farmers in the media).

From the perspective of sustainable agriculture, socialdisrespect must be seen as the mental equivalent of physicalillness. Symptoms of social disrespect could be negativeemotional reactions ranging from shame and indignation toanger and projection of guilt (22). Within both cognitive andmoral points of view lies an expectation of being recognized byothers. It is the disappointment prompted by the lack ofrecognition in relation to these expectations that causes damageto the identity of a person or a group. The response might bewhat Honneth (19) describes as a struggle for recognition.

Recognition is undoubtedly important when elaboratingsocial sustainability and it involves basic human needs, whichboth emerge and are fulfilled through interactions and relation-ships. In what ways are farmers’ social needs not being recog-nized today? How can such an understanding be transformedinto policy recommendations for sustainable development ofagriculture? Collaborative processes (i.e. shared learning anddecision-making processes between actors) might be one wayforward. Perhaps this is a new potential or role of collaboration.

Collaboration among Farmers

Collaborative approaches for sustainable development empha-size systems and discovery learning in natural resourcemanagement (23). Such learning processes can be organizedboth through vertical and horizontal collaboration within theagri-food system (24, 25). Gray (26) defines collaboration as ‘‘aprocess through which parties who see different aspects ofa problem can constructively explore their differences andsearch for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision ofwhat is possible.’’ It is an instrumental but innovative process,in which new perspectives develop when people learn together.

In Sweden during recent years, we have worked primarilywith subsystems for food production (27) such as horticulture,local food markets, and agricultural machinery. These processeshave been practiced and studied, and are working well toaccomplish their objectives, such as an increase in locallyconsumed agricultural products or lower costs for agriculturalmachines at the farm level. However, these processes also havea social impact. Collaborative processes contribute to theestablishment of new and sustainable relationships amongactors in the countryside. Local food systems in particular(28) and other forms of innovative collaboration between actorscould be favorable when creating social networks and partner-ships, thus keeping financial resources in a region and enablingsustainable rural livelihoods. Collaborative processes might alsobe important for strengthening an individual farmer’s socialconditions. Furthermore, collaboration is a way to achieveparticipation in decision-making, and it can serve as a venue forincreased input to policymakers and authorities.

The economic possibilities of collaboration between farmshave recently been studied in three master’s theses (29–31). Thestudies show that farmers choose to work together partlybecause of economic advantages, but also because of theloneliness and isolation they perceive. Reasons such as wantingto share important decisions with other people or wanting tohave a working companion are frequent in the three studies.Working and learning together is a social activity and has socialimplications for farmers and the rural community. These studiessupport our hypothesis that collaboration in the agri-foodsystem has an important social potential, connecting people

Figure 2. The three levels of recognition and their effect on theindividual (19, cit. 22).


with people and improving the level of recognition and thusself-confidence, self-respect, and self-esteem.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The research presented in this paper is empirically grounded in10 case studies conducted between 1997 and 2003. Each waschosen to reflect different responses to new social-ecologicaldemands on the Swedish farming system. According to Yin(32), a case study is defined as:

– An empirically grounded study used to elaborate contem-porary phenomena, appreciating that there is a context thatput forward the need for methodological pluralism.

– A research method that is especially good in which many non-measurable variables need to be managed simultaneously.

Consequently, rather than a specific method, case-studyresearch is more of a research strategy in which the empiricaldata are collected from many sources and by applying severalmethods (i.e. a multimethodological approach). One mightdescribe the overall research design as iterative. Every new casestudy has a function and purpose, but it is never fully possible topredict the outcome. The 10 case studies enabled an elaborationof similarities (literal replication), as well as differences orcontradictions in the material (theoretical replication). Morespecifically, the methods used were semistructured interviews (intotal, approximately 130 farmers were interviewed), focus groupinterviews, participant observations, and facilitated workshops.This was an action-oriented case-study approach (8).

The purpose of each case study was to add to our totalunderstanding of the measures that might be taken to createmore sustainable development of the Swedish agri-food system.Together, the cases provided a deeper insight into the individualresponses among farmers, and into how structures andinstitutions influence both the content and forms of socialdevelopment. The collected data were analyzed qualitativelyusing a pluralistic and multimethodological approach. Eachcase study resulted in separate evaluation reports. In this paper,the findings are aggregated.

Although the studies had different contexts and focuses, threemain themes were common to all: i) in-depth interviews withfarmers regarding their relationships and social conditions,ii) farmers’ perception of how society at large regards them andvalues their efforts, and iii) the potential of collaborativelearning processes when trying to create sustainable developmentof the Swedish agri-food system from a social point of view.

Social Conditions on Farms and their Influence

on Decisions Made

In a case study conducted in autumn 2001 (11), in-depthinterviews were carried out with 30 farmers in three marginalareas of Sweden, with questions that covered the mainconditions for farming in those areas. One area was in Smaland,in southern Sweden, and two areas were in Lappland, in thenorth. Ten farmers were chosen in each of the three areas.Strategic sampling was applied with the aim of obtainingdifferent perspectives of being a farmer. With the help of localfarmers’ federation members, farmers of different ages, genders,and production specializations were selected.

The responses given by the farmers showed that theyexperience a lack of quality of life that they feel is a matter ofcourse for other people. They compared themselves with otherpeople in other professions. The interviews covered lack ofvacation and leisure time compared with that of normal people,bearing in mind that the average person in the countrysidetoday is not a farmer. Figure 3 summarizes the prescriptive

norms that farmers perceived as influencing their decision-making, and the main qualities of farm life they valued and towhich they related these societal norms.

The management of conflicts between societal norms andwhat farmers define as quality of life sometimes has radicalconsequences. Some of the farmers interviewed chose to quit (oldage is a contributing factor), while others converted from dairyproduction to beef production. Still other farmers expandedtheir production in order to improve profitability and create lessconstrained economic circumstances for private consumption.The study clearly illustrated that farmers’ definitions of lifequality and social sustainability are related to public images offarming and the recognition they receive from family, colleagues,the local community, and society at large.

Farmers’ Perception of Societal Recognition

The interviews showed that farmers see themselves as margin-alized by society. They perceive that they lack control over theirown future and that they are dependent on the goodwill ofpoliticians and decision-makers, often far away (i.e. theEuropean Commission in Brussels). Preconditions for farmingare created by an abstract context, without knowledge about ora relation to the place where farmers live their daily lives.Regardless of these views, the reasons farmers gave forcontinuing to farm included enjoying their autonomy, havinga deep interest in what they do (animals, crops, technology,etc.), and feeling obliged to steward what they have inheritedfrom their parents, and which they want to preserve for the nextgeneration. Farmers thus have a long-term perspective,grounded in a need for continuity and a sense of self-in-place.Therefore, when external pressure increases on farms, it is notonly the viability that is threatened, but also the self-identity asa farmer (the ‘‘who am I’’). The perceived lack of societalrecognition affects the personal identity, and thus both the self-respect and self-esteem.

Our studies show that from the farmers’ perspective:

– Recognition is valued as positive—it motivates farmers tokeep up what they perceive as good work.

– External pressures (i.e. the specific administrative andeconomic instruments used by society) are perceived to bethe real expression of recognition from society. Media andother views are added to this, but it is what is actuallydecided and implemented that is counted as important.

– Recognition, or the lack of recognition, from one actormight be very important, while it might be irrelevant toanother actor. Thus the importance of recognition isconnected to the unique relationship between two actors.

– It is especially important to be recognized by significantothers (i.e. those who, to a larger extent, build up theindividual farmer’s life-world), and such recognition oftenmotivates the farmer to continue farming.

– Interaction with consumers or citizens is perceived as some-thing positive, but today it is believed to be an interestingpotential rather than an existing foundation for stronger self-respect and self-confidence within the farming community.

One specific area, elaborated in five case studies in 1997–1999, is the development of environmental management andquality assurance systems in Swedish agriculture. The compo-nents in quality and environmental management systemsstimulate good management practice, and enhance the de-velopment of more environmentally friendly agriculture. Theuse of quality and environmental management systems supportsthe farm manager’s work by fulfilling different conditions andrequirements, from his most personal aspirations to environ-mental legislation. Systems such as these have been imple-


mented in most production systems in Swedish agriculturetoday. Nonetheless, farmers seldom perceive that they get creditfor the measures they take. Consumers continue buyingimported food products, the legislative restrictions becomestronger, and the viability of many farms is decreasing, manyfarmers argue. To farmers, the gap between society’s demandfor high environmental and quality standards and the actualpolitical and consumer actions taken is an expression ofsociety’s lack of recognition. Recognition is expressed onlyrhetorically. Consequently, farmers perceive that they get theirbasic support from family, colleagues, and close neighbors. Therelative importance of these relationships is thus growing, soa parallel process of deterioration of the life-world of farmers(such as loneliness in peripheral areas) leaves them very exposedfrom a social point of view.

Simultaneously, and partly as a response, farmers havestarted to interact directly with consumers through newentrepreneurial activities. They argue that people who knowmore about what farmers are striving for and doing, and thereason for this, and with whom they have a personal relation-ship, are less negative than others. Such consumers recognizefarmers’ skills and efforts as well as the changes made inproduction. These networks and emerging recognition perhapsalso represent a growing potential from a social point of view,a potential that might counteract some of the problems ofunsustainable social development in the Swedish farmingcommunity. New venues might contribute toward an improvedsocial situation, as well as toward managing the environment ina more sustainable way.

The Potential of Collaborative Processes

Due to factors such as the deteriorating social situation onfarms, Ljung (8) argues that an urgent need exists to developvenues for collaborative learning—meeting places where farm-ers are able to collaborate with their colleagues, rural citizens,and other stakeholders within the agri-food system. Ljungproposes using collaborative learning as a model for managingenvironmental problems in Swedish agriculture. Most studies ofcollaboration are made for similar purposes (i.e. managinga physical or administrative problem such as an agri-environ-mental issue), or getting better financial conditions. Ourhypothesis was that the effects that collaboration might haveon social conditions, such as network-building, positive

feedback, and better relationships with colleagues, are equallyimportant from the perspective of sustainable development.However, it is important to remember that collaboration isnothing new—it has a long history and tradition within thefarming community.

Based on experiences obtained from traditional forms ofsocial networking and nonformal learning among Swedishfarmers [i.e. the study circle tradition, in combination with newinsights from shared and social learning initiatives around theworld (13, 18, 24, 25, 33–38)], several collaborative learning anddecision-making processes were initiated within the FOOD 21research program (8, 39). The aim was twofold: to improve themanagement of an environmental dilemma and to create strongsocial relationships between actors involved in a complexsituation. In these processes, farmers were the key actors,regardless the composition of the groups.

We found the following [grounded primarily in the resultsreported by Ljung (8)]:

– Building on self-directed and shared learning activities isfamiliar to farmers, and fits well with the experiencesobtained within existing study circles, so using such a contextincreases the implementation rate of new participatorymethods.

– Understanding the importance of interdependence betweenactors in the agri-food system creates momentum for actionand increased social and personal responsibility. Further-more, it enables a collective identity to emerge within thegroup.

– Farmers highly value meeting other actors and hearing theirviews on their own production and products, and areprepared to fulfill the demands of other stakeholders. Theyare interested in knowing the perspective of others, in orderto reflect on their own situation and world view.

– If facilitated successfully, collaborative learning groupsenable each individual to have voice (to have a say), standing(to be respected for what you say), and influence over theoutcomes. This becomes a concrete expression of solidaritybetween participants, and a strong foundation for self-respect and self-esteem for the farmer.

– The strength of a collaborative process comes from itscombination of reflection and action. Trust between actors isreinforced by the experience that one takes practicalresponsibility for one’s verbal commitments.

Figure 3. How norms of society and qualitiesof farm life contribute to changes at farm level.


Collaboration might potentially help the actors improvea fuzzy environmental situation and lead to individual self-realization, an individual process that has social and relationalorigins. Being recognized by others in a collaborative processstrengthens the identity of participants—both as a person andas a group. Basic social needs among farmers might therefore bepartly met in such activities (although finding a life-companionmore seldom happens in such organized venues).

Main Findings

To summarize our findings, the interviews and participantobservations showed that Swedish farmers perceive their way oflife as unsatisfactory in terms of working hours and financialposition, but also in terms of social conditions (8, 11, 40). Someconclusions concerning the social conditions are as follows:

– Farmers perceive an impoverished social situation with fewcontacts with other farmers and with the consumers of theirproduce. Decreasing interaction with other farmers derivesfrom long working hours, many farmers living alone on thefarm (without a family), and farms shutting down, leavingonly a few large farms in the countryside. Lack of contactwith consumers derives from the dominance of large-scaleretailers and to some extent from ongoing specialization atthe farm level.

– Farmers sense that they have too little influence on decisionsthat affect their farmbusiness. Farmers also sense that they arein an exposed position regarding authorities and consumers.They feel controlled and under suspicion from authorities whohandle regulations and subsidies, as well as powerless andundesired by consumers who, via the news media, complainabout farmers not caring for their livestock or polluting theenvironment. Farmers today perceive a great distance existsbetween them and policymakers and consumers.

– Farmers believe that new initiatives such as collaborationregarding local agri-food systems might be one way to in-crease society’s recognition of farmers and their products.However, this places a high demand on the quality of collab-orative processes. A physical meeting alone is not sufficient;the interaction taking place must be characterized by somespecific qualities, preconditions, and enabling structures.

Altogether, these deficiencies contribute to a perceivedunsatisfactory quality of life and make many farmers retirefrom farming or leave the countryside. Simultaneously, ourfindings support the hypothesis that initiating collaborativeprocesses might be one way to manage some of thesedeficiencies and to improve the social sustainability in theSwedish agri-food system. Motivating farmers to stay infarming is a most important measure if society takes ecologicaland cultural objectives seriously. It is necessary to definesustainable agriculture as a social-ecological system and to actaccordingly.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Social Relations and Recognition

The case studies show that the experience of recognition isimportant for motivation. Honneth (19) even suggests that it iscrucial to survival. Some farmers lack recognition on all threelevels. Loneliness is one level; other levels are equal rights andrespect for agricultural production and their way of life. A farmermay be very lonely and lack recognition from family or friends(love/care), may feel unjustly treated in relation to his equalrights as a member of society (moral respect), and he may notreceive appreciation for his work or products from consumersand society (solidarity/loyalty). If these three levels of recogni-

tion are unsatisfactory, they must be improved separately oneach particular level. Being recognized as an individual, as anequal member of society, and as a member of a particular groupor as someone with particular skills is the foundation of humanexistence. The themes from the interview results are illustratedbelow to clarify the impact on the farmer (Fig. 4).

Collaborative learning among farmers, between farmers andconsumers, and within local agri-food systems can provideconditions for increased contact between consumers andfarming colleagues. It can also, to a certain extent, reduceloneliness. In the process of collaboration, it is also possible toinfluence political decisions and improve unfair treatment offarmers in comparison to other people. Even more important isthe effect on the feeling of being treated unjustly. Collaborativelearning can help a farmer improve the image of farming andalso discover the consumers’ appreciation of the farmer’s work.Collaborative learning is a process in which the collaboratingactors learn about each other, themselves, the actual issues(such as local food production and consumption), and theprocedure of collaboration itself. In this learning process,people develop new images of the other actors that become thenew foundation for appropriate recognition. For instance,consumers recognize farmers and, therefore, have the satisfac-tion of recognizing the producers of the food they consume.

Consequences for Policy and Action

The results of this discussion can be summarized in two basicconclusions, which might form the basis for action:

i) The farmer perceives both the public image of farmingactivity and the politics implemented as negative. Thisperception tells the farmer that the general public of Swedendoes not appreciate him and what he produces. This is notnecessarily an accurate interpretation of the public opinion, butit is what the farmer perceives through the media. Working onpublic education, partly through the media, is probablyimportant in the long run.ii) Collaboration that involves farmers and consumers, such aslocal agri-food systems, provides an opportunity for improvedcontacts between participants and gives them an opportunity todiscover each other’s perspective and to develop a betterunderstanding and shared identity. It is about raising theknowledge level and showing each other one’s doubts,appreciations, or values. Collaborative learning is necessary ifwe are to create sustainable agri-food systems.

Figure 4. Nonrecognition from different actors in society hasa negative impact on the farmer’s social situation.


Farmers lack contact with consumers and citizens. Muchcould be gained by establishing closer connections betweencitizens and farmers, especially on a local level. In the notion ofrecognition lies also the duty to show appreciation, respect, andcare for others. This duty, if carried through, gives satisfactionto those showing it (citizens, consumers, and society) andrenders recognition to those receiving it (in this case thefarmers).

We believe that agriculture needs different processes ofcollaborative learning to manage the problems of sense of lackof respect and nonrecognition at different levels. Collaborationis needed among farmers and between farmers and other actors.Collaboration between businesses can produce food on a locallevel, but can also act on a larger scale, together, when it comesto buying supplies, delivering products, and coping during timesof heavy workload. Hence collaboration provides measures forstrengthening the local economy and keeping control ofresources within the region in order to create sound ruraldevelopment. This is especially useful in regions not suitable forlarge-scale agriculture.

It is crucial to appreciate that social issues are equallyimportant to sustainable development when it comes todecisions at the farm level, which is why established institutionssuch as advisory services ought to focus more on thesedimensions in the future. Authorities, advisory organizations,and other important actors should be made aware of theirtwofold roles: they have the task of supporting farmers’learning, but they can also take responsibility for creatingarenas for collaboration. This means putting the pedagogicdimension more in focus. Many actors need to cooperate inorder to change today’s development, but we would argue thatadvisors can play an especially important role by recognizingfarmers as qualified professionals with unique skills in these newarenas for dialogue, and by developing their own pedagogic andfacilitative skills. Focusing on the advisors, and not solely thefarmers, might be an important mission for future action-oriented research.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. Milbrath, L. 1989. Envisioning a Sustainable Society. Learning Our Way Out. StateUniversity of New York Press, Albany, NY.

2. Bell, M.M. 1998. An Invitation to Environmental Sociology. Pine Forge Press, ThousandOaks, CA.

3. Wondolleck, J. and Yaffee, S. 2000. Making Collaboration Work: Lessons fromInnovation in Natural Resource Management. Island Press, Washington, DC.

4. Moote, M., McClaran, M. and Chickering, D. 1997. Theory in practice: applyingparticipatory democracy theory to public land planning. Environ. Manage. 21, 877–889.

5. Warburton, H. and Martin, A. 1999. Local people’s knowledge in natural resourcesresearch. In: Socio-Economic Methodologies Best Practice Guidelines. Natural ResourceInstitute, University of Greenwich, London.

6. Lee, K. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for theEnvironment. Island Press, Washington, DC.

7. Irwin, A. 2001. Sociology and the Environment. Polity Press, Cambridge.8. Ljung, M. 2001. Collaborative Learning for Sustainable Development of Agri-Food

Systems. Doctoral thesis, Agraria 308, SLU, Uppsala, Sweden.9. Dryzek, J. 1997. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford University

Press, Oxford.10. Berkes, F., Colding, J. and Folke, C. (eds.). 2002. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems.

Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge.

11. Nordstrom Kallstrom, H. 2002. Att vara lantbrukare eller inte: En studie avforutsattningar for livskraftigt lantbruk i tre nedlaggningsdrabbade omraden i Sverige.Jordbruksverkets rapport nr 10-2002. SJV, Jonkoping, Sweden.

12. Max-Neef, M., Elizalde, A., Hopenhayn, M., Herrera, F., Jataba, J. and Weinstein, L.1989. Human scale development: An option for the future. Development Dialogue 1, pp. 5-81. Dag Hammarskjold Foundation, Uppsala.

13. Leeuwis, C. and Pyburn, R. (eds.). 2002. Wheelbarrows Full of Frogs. Social Learning inRural Resource Management. Koninklijke van Gorcum, Assen, The Netherlands.

14. Kolb, D. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning andDevelopment. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

15. Ljung, M. and Sonnvik, P. 2005. Miljoarbete och Arbetsmotivation i Lantbruket—enStudie av Erkannandets Psykosociala Effekter. Final report for the SLO project. SLU,Uppsala, Sweden.

16. Cantrill, J. and Senecah, S. 2001. Using the ‘sense of self-in-place’ construct in thecontext of environmental policy-making and landscape planning. Environ. Sci. Policy 4,185–203.

17. Senecah, S. 2001. The Trinity of Voice, Legitimacy, and Influence: The Role of PracticalTheory in Evaluating and Planning for the Effectiveness of Environmental ParticipatoryProcesses. Paper presented at the 6th Biennial Conference on Communication andEnvironment, 27-31 July 2001 at University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.

18. Daniels, S. and Walker, G. 2001. Working through Environmental Conflicts: TheCollaborative Learning Approach. Praeger, Westport, CT.

19. Honneth, A. 2000. Erkannande. Praktisk-Filosofiska Studier. Daidalos, Goteborg,Sweden.

20. Taylor, C. (ed.). 1999.Det Mangkulturella Samhallet och Erkannandets Politik. Daidalos,Goteborg, Sweden.

21. Mead, G.H. 1934. Mind, Self and Society—From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist.University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

22. Heidegren, C.-G. 2002. Antropologi, Samhallsteori och Politik. Radikalkonservatism ochKritisk Teori. Gehlen – Schelsky – Habermas – Honneth – Joas. Daidalos, Goteborg,Sweden.

23. Meppem, T. and Gill, R. 1998. Planning for sustainability as a learning concept. Ecol.Econ. 26, 121–137.

24. Cerf, M., Gibbon, D., Hubert, B., Ison, R., Jiggins, J., Paine, M., Proost, J. and Roling,N. (eds.). 2000. Cow up a Tree: Knowing and Learning for Change in Agriculture. CaseStudies from Industrialised Countries. INRA, Versailles, France.

25. Leeuwis, C. (ed.). 1999. Integral Design: Innovation in Agriculture and ResourceManagement. Bakhuys Publ., Mansholt Studies 15, Leiden, The Netherlands.

26. Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

27. Eksvard, K. 2003. Tillsammans kan vi Lara och Forandra: Deltagardriven Forskning forSvenskt Lantbruk. Centrum for uthalligt lantbruk, SLU, Uppsala, Sweden.

28. SLU. 2000. Lokal Livsmedelsforsorjning och Regional Mat. Fakta och Rad for FortsattUtveckling. SLU Kontakt 10. SLU, Uppsala, Sweden.

29. Blad, F. 2003. Ekonomisk Analys av Driftsamverkan mellan Vaxtodlingsforetag. Master’sthesis no. 45, Department of Economics, SLU, Uppsala, Sweden.

30. Samuelsson, J. 2003. Samverkan mellan Mjolk—och Spannmalsproducenter—vilkaEkonomiska Incitament Foreligger? Master’s thesis no 48,. Department of Economics,SLU, Uppsala, Sweden.

31. Skargren, P. 2003. Riskattityder och Forhandlingsstyrka i Optimala Mellangardsavtal.Master’s thesis no 34, Department of Economics, SLU, Uppsala, Sweden.

32. Yin, R. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, London.33. Assouline, G. and Just, F. 2000. Making Agriculture Sustainable (MAS): The Role of

Farmers’ Networking and Institutional Strategies. Final report of the European researchproject ENV4-97-0443 within the Environment and Climate Programme, DG XII.

34. Doppler, W. and Koutsouris, A. (eds.). 2000. Rural and Farming Systems Analyses:Environmental Perspectives. Proceeding of the 3rd European Symposium of theAssociation of Farming Systems Research and Extension, 25–27 March 2000.Weikersheim Margraf Verlag, Hohenheim, Germany.

35. King, C. 2000. Systemic Processes for Facilitating Social Learning: Challenging theLegacy. Doctoral thesis, Agraria 233, SLU, Uppsala, Sweden.

36. Paine, M. and Tarbotton, I. 1998. The Study Group Process: A Group Learning Approachto the Alignment of Production and Resource Management Goals. AgResearch, Ruakura,New Zealand.

37. Proost, M.D.C. and Vogelzang, T. 1996. The Role of Farmers’ Study Groups in theAcceptance and Implementation of Sustainable Agriculture. Report No 3 from the EUSEER-project ‘Incentives and obstacles to the implementation of more sustainable methodsin agriculture in Denmark, the Netherlands and Spain’. Landbouw UniversiteitWageningen, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

38. Roling, N. and Wagemakers, A.M. (eds.). 1998. Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture:Participatory Learning and Adaptive Management in Times of Environmental Uncertainty.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

39. Westberg, L. 2003. Aktorssamverkan i livsmedelskedjan. Det handlar om att ge och ta.Fakta Jordbruk 7-2003. SLU, Uppsala, Sweden.

40. Nordstrom Kallstrom, H. 2002. How Changes in Farmers’ Views of Quality of Life bringabout Structural Changes: The Case of Farming in Three Marginal Areas of Sweden. In:Cristovao, A. and Zorini, L.O. (eds.). Proceedings of the 5th IFSA EuropeanSymposium Farming and Rural Systems Research and Extension: Local Identities andGlobalisation, 8–11 April 2002, at Agenzia Regionale per l’Innovazione e lo Sviluppo inAgricultura Regione Toscana, Florence, Italy.

41. Acknowledgments: The research presented in this article was made possible with thefinancial support of Mistra, and its research program, Food 21. Additional funding wasprovided by the SLO fund, KSLA, supporting research on farmers’ working conditions.

Magnus Ljung is an extension officer, researcher, and lectureraffiliated with the Department of Landscape Planning Ultuna,and with the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences(SLU). His research involves agricultural extension, environ-mental communication, and processes of collaborative learn-ing for sustainable development. His address: SLU, ExternalRelations, P.O. Box 234, SE-532 23 Skara, [email protected]

Helena Nordstrom Kallstrom is a PhD student at the De-partment of Landscape Planning Ultuna at the SwedishUniversity of Agricultural Sciences (SLU). Her researchfocuses on the social dimension of sustainable developmentof Swedish agriculture, and the role that locally produced foodor increased diversity in production can play. Her address:Department of Landscape Planning Ultuna, SLU, P.O. Box7012, SE-750 07 Uppsala, [email protected]


Documents

Social Sustainability and Collaborative Learning