Bridging Cultures: A Q Methodological Examination of International Agricultural Educators’ Curriculum Preferences
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.v67i1.3027Keywords:
culture, instructional design, curriculum development, international development, UgandaAbstract
For society to increase agricultural productivity, regional knowledge must be leveraged. In international settings, educational resources are often influenced by diverse beliefs, norms, behaviors, and underpinnings of various cultures. To increase the knowledge transfer between developed and less developed countries, researchers must consider the cultural perspectives that educators may or may not subconsciously integrate into curriculum. We used framing theory to investigate the impact that cultural frames have on the dissemination of educational resources. The purpose of this study was to investigate instructional designers’ cultural preferences when creating Field of Hope resources for agricultural educators in Uganda. We used Q methodology to identify seven viewpoints—realists, structuralists, cultivators, achievers, generationalists, moralists, and globalists. The findings of this study supported previous findings noting that it can be challenging for instructional designers to separate their personal backgrounds and cultural perspectives when creating learning materials. We recommend that educators and instructional designers seek strategies to identify differences between their personal cultural nuances and the cultures of the audiences they hope to reach through their designed materials. We also recommend learning designers and practitioners carefully consider the impact of personal cultural preferences when writing materials, especially when creating resources for use in developing nations. Educators should balance the implementation of Westernized resources and practices with regionally relevant knowledge and culture in developing countries. To support international development, future research should further examine the relationship between culturally relevant instructional materials and positive behavior change in both students and teachers of agriculture in developing nations.
Downloads
References
Aker, J. C. (2011). Dial “A” for agriculture: A review of information and communication technologies for agricultural extension in developing countries. Agricultural Economics, 42(6), 631–647. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2011.00545.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2011.00545.x
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 611–639. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611
Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Brown, S.R. (1980) Political Subjectivity: Application of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Brown, S. R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 16(3), 91–138. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/244998835_A_Primer_on_Q_Methodology DOI: https://doi.org/10.22488/okstate.93.100504
Campbell, K., Schwier, R. A. & Kenny, R. F. (2005). Agency of the instructional designer: Moral coherence and transformative social practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(2), 242–262. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1337 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1337
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1), 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054
Damon, A., Glewwe, P., Wisniewski, S., & Bixuan, S. (2016). Education in developing countries: What policies and programmes affect learning and time in school?. Elanders Sverige AB. https://www.oecd.org/derec/sweden/Rapport-Education-developing-countries.pdf
Doerfert, D., Evans, J., Cartmell, D., & Irani, T. (2007). Developing an international framework and agenda for agricultural communications research. Journal of Applied Communications, 91(3), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1245 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1245
Farmer-to-Farmer. (2021). Where we work. https://farmer-to-farmer.org
Field of Hope. (2021a). What we do. https://www.fieldofhope.org
Field of Hope. (2021b). 2021 Impact Report. Field of Hope. https://www.fieldofhope.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/2021ImpactReport.pdf
Field of Hope. (2021c). Youth Agricultural Education. https://www.fieldofhope.org
Framing theory. (n.d.). Communication Studies. https://www.communicationstudies.com/communication-theories/framing-theory
Goodwin, J. N., Chiarelli, C., & Irani, T. (2011). Is perception reality? Improving agricultural messages by discovering how consumers perceive messages. Journal of Applied Communications, 95(3), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1162 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1162
Hayami, Y. (1969). Sources of agricultural productivity gap among selected countries. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51(3), 564–575. https://doi.org/10.2307/1237909 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1237909
Hayami, Y., & Ruttan, V. W. (1970). Agricultural productivity differences among countries. The American Economic Review, 60(5), 895–911. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1818289
Hazell, P., & Wood, S. (2008). Drivers of change in global agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363(1491), 495–515. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2166 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2166
Headey, D., Alauddin, M., & Prasada Rao, D. S. (2010). Explaining agricultural productivity growth: An international perspective. Agricultural Economics, 41(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2009.00420.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2009.00420.x
Hofstede, G. H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 23(3), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02289233 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289233
Kana’iaupuni, S., Ledward, B., & Jensen, U. (2010). Culture-based education and its relationship to student outcomes. Kamehameha Schools, Research & Evaluation. https://www.ksbe.edu/assets/research/collection/10_0117_kanaiaupuni.pdf
Lam, Q. K. H. (2020). Framing theory for higher education research. In Huisman, J. and Tight, M. (Ed.), Theory and Method in Higher Education Research (pp. 167–184). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2056-375220200000006011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/S2056-375220200000006011
Leggette, H. R., & Redwine, T. (2016). Using Q methodology in agricultural communications research: A philosophical study. Journal of Applied Communications, 100(3), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1230 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.1230
Legro, J. W. (1996). Culture and preferences in the international cooperation two- step. American Political Science Review, 90(1), 118–137. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082802 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2082802
Lutfallah, S., & Buchanan, L. (2019). Quantifying subjective data using online Q-methodology software. The Mental Lexicon, 14(3), 415–423. https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.20002.lut DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.20002.lut
McCarty, R. (2022). Tailoring the message: Framing agricultural information in the context of culture (Publication No. 29996656) [Master’s thesis, New Mexico State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2778377307?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true&sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses
McCarty, R., Norris-Parish, S. L., Edgar, D., Roberts-Hill, L., & Witte, J. (2023). Designed by culture: A Q methodological examination of international agricultural education curriculum developers’ cultural preferences [Oral Presentation]. Association of International Agricultural and Extension Education (AIAEE) Annual Conference. Guelph, Canada. https://www.aiaee.org/2023Conference
McCarty, R., Norris-Parish, S. L., Edgar, D., Roberts-Hill, L., & Witte, J. (2024). Examination of Ugandan educators’ cultural preferences when teaching agriculture: A Q methodological study. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 31(1), 74–91. https://doi.org/10.4148/2831-5960.1169 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4148/2831-5960.1169
Q Method Software. (2024). An easy-to-use tool to create & conduct your Q methodology research online. https://qmethodsoftware.com
Sharif, A., & Gisbert, M. (2015). The impact of culture on instructional design and quality. International Journal of Instruction, 8(1), 143–157. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1085297.pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2015.8111a
Sianturi, M., Chiang, C. L., & Au Hurit, A. (2018). Impact of a place-based education curriculum on indigenous teacher and students. International Journal of Instruction, 11(1), 311–328. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11122a DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11122a
Smith, G. A. (2002). Place-based education: Learning to be where we are. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 584–594. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170208300806 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170208300806
Smith, G. A., & Sobel, D. (2010). Place- and community-based education in school. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203858530 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203858530
Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. (2010). Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4), 690–709. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.85 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.85
Stephenson, W. (1993). Introduction to Q-methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 17(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.22488/okstate.93.100509 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22488/okstate.93.100509
United Nations. (2021). Least developed countries (LDCs). Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/least-developed-country-category.html
USAID. (2021). Feed the future. https://www.feedthefuture.gov
Valenta, A. L., & Wigger, U. (1997). Q-methodology: Definition and application in health care informatics. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 4(6), 501–510. https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.1997.0040501 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.1997.0040501
van Exel, N. J. A., & de Graaf, G. (2005). Q methodology: A sneak preview. https://qmethod.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/qmethodologyasneakpreview referenceupdate.pdf
Vivayic, Inc. (2018, June 21). Field of hope impact update: First year of curriculum is greeted with joy. https://vivayic.com/field-of-hope-impact-update-first-year-of-curriculum-is-greeted-with-joy/
Vivayic, Inc. (2020, January 16). Field of Hope Year 3. https://vivayic.com/field-of-hope-year-3/
Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method and interpretation. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446251911 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446251911
Witte, E. H., Stanciu, A., & Boehnke, K. (2020). A new empirical approach to intercultural comparisons of value preferences based on schwartz’s theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(1), Article 1723, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01723 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01723
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
