• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文会议>Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences International Symposium >Agriculture Development and Area Studies: An Experience from Southeast Asia
【24h】

Agriculture Development and Area Studies: An Experience from Southeast Asia

机译：农业发展与地区研究：东南亚的经验

获取原文
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The agricultural and agrarian structure in Southeast Asia have changed considerably over the last two or three decades due to the introduction of new technologies in crop management and expansion of economic development. However, these changes have raised a number of complex problems and constraints that crop scientists, agronomists or agriculturalists alone have not been able to address. One major question is whether the high-input-type production technologies that have been adopted in intensified and diversified agricultural systems in Southeast Asia will be sustainable from socio-economic, cultural and environmental viewpoints. The suburban areas that have achieved high agricultural production have been disregarded to a great extent due to the spectacular expansion of industrialization and urbanization. Even if the agricultural sector is almost relegated to the sidelines in national development plans, there remain many rural areas in which agricultural research activities should be implemented with new approaches and scopes in order to sustain agricultural production and improve social welfare. To deal with this situation, it might be useful to explore relevant methodologies in the "area studies," that is, studies that focus on an "area" as a whole through the collaboration of natural, social and cultural scientists. As discipline-oriented research or science deals with its own field of studies and specific methodologies, it eventually has limitations in terms of research implementation and application of research results. Agricultural economists, for example, tend to analyze the economic conditions of households or communities without due consideration of the natural conditions in which they exist. Researchers specialized in cultural studiesand social sciences like to interview local people in order to analyze issues such as kinship relations, power structures, and basic principles and concepts controlling life solely for their own theoretical purposes. Natural scientists, such as ecologists, also carry out research to understand the "natural" ecosystems that concern them without due consideration of human and social interactions with them. Although these norms seem to prevail in discipline-oriented sciences, various efforts for reformingor reconstructing them have been made in the face of various problems and constraints associated with modernization and globalization. Ecologists, for example, were usually and traditionally interested in "natural" ecosystems and their successions, butsome of them have begun to carry out research on artificially sustained ecosystems such as agriculture and forestry. Their attention is drawn not only to weeds and pests but also to "ordinary" plants and animals that are not visibly related to the production, and they have tried to reevaluate the farmers' roles in maintaining such "artificially sustained" ecosystems (actually, "natural" for both weeds and pests and "ordinary" plants and animals). Some anthropologists have also paid attention to local people's indigenous knowledge and technologies and tried to reevaluate them to substitute them for modern technologies. Agricultural scientists have traditionally conducted field experiments either in experimental plots or in farmers' plots in order to develop and disseminate improved, more productive technologies. However, it has not been common for them to extend their interest from the "field" of experiments to the "field" of area's social or cultural conditions. Taking this into account, I will present some of my case studies carried out in Vietnam (related to cropping systems and farming systems research), Laos (related to rural development) and Indonesia (related to social forestry) to call attention to the need to develop more productive collaboration between agricultural scientists and area-study researchers. "Area" is both a "field" of complex interaction of nature, human beings and society, and a "field" of scholarship in which intensif
机译：在东南亚的农业和农业结构在过去二，三十年发生了很大变化，由于在作物管理和经济发展的扩张新技术的引进。然而，这些变化已经引起了一些复杂的问题和制约因素农作物科学家，农学家或农学家单独一直没能解决的问题。一个主要的问题是，已经在东南亚加剧和多样化的农业系统采用了高输入型的生产技术是否会从社会，经济，文化和环境可持续发展的观点。已实现高的农业生产郊区被忽视，在很大程度上是由于工业化和城市化的扩张壮观。即使农业部门几乎被挤到国家发展计划持观望态度，但仍有在农业研究活动应与新的方法和范围，以维持农业生产和改善社会福利来实现许多农村地区。为了应对这种情况，它可能是有用的“区域研究”，也就是说，研究，着眼于一个“区域”作为一个整体，通过自然，社会和文化的科学家合作，探索相关方法。由于拥有自己的研究和具体方法领域学科为导向的研究或科学处理，它最终在研究实施和研究成果的应用方面的局限性。农业经济学家，例如，倾向于分析家庭或社区的经济条件，没有充分考虑在其存在的自然条件。专门从事文化研究和互动的社会科学的研究人员想要采访当地人，以便分析，如亲属关系，权力结构和基本原理和概念，控制生活只为自己的理论目的的问题。自然科学家，如生态学家，也开展调研，了解“自然”生态系统关注他们没有充分考虑他们的人力和社会互动。虽然这些规范似乎侧重学科的科学为准，为reformingor重建他们的各种努力已经在与现代化和全球化相关的各种问题和障碍面前作出。生态学家，例如，通常被传统和在“自然”生态系统及其继承感兴趣的话，他们的butsome已经开始开展人工持续生态系统，如农业和林业研究。他们的注意力被吸引不仅杂草和害虫，而且还以“普通”的植物和动物都没有明显相关的生产，他们试图重新评估维持这种‘人为地维持’生态系统（实际上是农民的角色，“自然”两种杂草和害虫和‘普通’的植物和动物）。一些人类学家也重视当地民众的本土知识和技术，并试图重新评估它们来代替他们的现代技术。农业科学家历来以开发和推广改良，更高效的技术进行了实地实验无论是在试验田或农民的地块。但是，一直没有共同为他们从实验的“场”他们的兴趣延伸到的区域的社会和文化条件“场”。考虑到这一点，我将介绍在越南我的一些案例研究的进行（与耕作制度和农业系统的研究），老挝（与农村发展）和印度尼西亚（涉及社会林业）呼吁关注需要发展农业科学家和区域研究的研究人员之间更加富有成效的合作。 “区”是自然，人与社会的复杂互动关系既有“场”，和奖学金的“场”，其中intensif

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号