Convenience Sample of On-Farm Research Cooperators Representative of Wisconsin Farmers | Weed Technology | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Article contents

• Abstract
• References

Abstract

Researchers interested in describing or understanding agroecological systems have many reasons to consider on-farm research. Yet, despite the inherent realism and pedagogical value of on-farm studies, recruiting cooperators can be difficult and this difficulty can result in so-called “convenience samples” containing a potentially large and unknown bias. There is often no formal justification for claiming that on-farm research results can be extrapolated to farms beyond those participating in the study. In some sufficiently well-understood research areas, models may be able to correct for potential bias; however, no theoretical argument is as persuasive as a direct comparison between a randomized and a convenience sample. In a 30-cooperator on-farm study investigating weed community dynamics across the state of Wisconsin, we distributed a written survey probing farmer weed management behaviors and attitudes. The survey contained 59 questions that overlapped a large, randomized survey of farmer corn pest management behavior. We compared 187 respondents from the larger survey with the 18 respondents from our on-farm study. For dichotomous response questions, we found no difference in response rate for 80% of the questions (α = 0.2, β > 0.5). Differences between the two groups were logically connected to the selection criteria used to recruit cooperators in the on-farm study. Similarly, comparisons of nondichotomous response questions did not differ for 80% of the questions (α = 0.05, β > 0.9). Exploratory multivariate analyses failed to reveal differences that might have been hidden from the marginal analyses. We argue that our findings support the notion that the convenience samples often associated with on-farm research may be representative of the more general class of farms, despite lack of bias protection provided by truly randomized designs.

Keywords

Information

Type

Education/Extension

Copyright

Copyright © Weed Science Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arnett, B. and Rikli, R. 1981. Effect of method of subject selection (volunteer vs. random) and treatment variable on motor performance. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 52:433–440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Beck, M. W. 1997. Inference and generality in ecology: current problems and experimental solution. Oikos 78:265–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drinkwater, L. E. 2002. Cropping systems research: reconsidering agricultural experimental approaches. HortTechnology 12:355–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eberhardt, L. L. and Thomas, J. M. 1991. Designing environmental field studies. Ecol. Monogr 61:53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ghersa, C. M., Roush, M. L., Radosevich, S. R., and Cordray, S. M. 1994. Coevolution of agroecosystems and weed management. Bioscience 44:85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goodwin, B. K., Schurle, B. W., Norman, D. W., Freyenberger, S. G., Bloomquist, L. E., and Regher, D. L. 1997. Determinants of Kansas farmers' participation in on-farm research. J. Agric. Appl. Econ 29:385–396.CrossRef. Pages 251–278. In Powles, S. B. and Shaner, D. L. Herbicide Resistance and World Grains. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Peters, R. H. 1991. A Critique for Ecology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 366.Google Scholar

Riley, J. and Alexander, C. J. 1997. Statistical literature for participatory on-farm research. Exp. Agric 33:73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rzewnicki, P. E., Thompson, R., Lesoing, G. W., Elmore, R. W., Francis, C. A., Parkhurst, A. M., and Moomaw, R. S. 1988. On-farm experiment designs and implications for locating research sites. Am. J. Altern. Agric 3:168–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

SAS. Statistical Analysis Systems 2003. SAS Procedures Guide. Version 9.1. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar

Sassenrath, G. F., Heilman, , Luschei, E., Bennett, G. L., Fitzgerald, G., Klesius, P., Tracy, W., Williford, J. R., and Zimba, P. 2008. Technology, complexity and change in agricultural production systems. Renewable Agric. Food Syst 23:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Warner, K. D. 2006. Extending agroecology: grower participation in partnerships is key to social learning. Renewable Agric. Food Syst 21:84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wiens, J. A. 2000. Ecological heterogeneity: an ontogeny of concepts and approaches. Pages 9–32. In Hutchings, M. J., John, E. A., and Stewart, A. J. A. The Ecological Consequences of Environmental Heterogeneity. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science.Google Scholar

Wilson, D. R. and Martinez, T. R. 1997. Improved heterogeneous distance functions. J. Artif. Intell. Res 6:1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wolfram Research 2005. Mathematica. Version 5.2. Champaign, IL: Wolfram Research.Google Scholar

Wuest, S. B., McCool, D. K., Miller, B. C., and Veseth, R. J. 1999. Development of more effective conservation farming systems through participatory on-farm research. Am. J. Altern. Agr 14:98–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar