Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorChan, KWR
dc.contributor.authorEnticott, G
dc.date.accessioned2023-04-11T12:47:19Z
dc.date.issued2023-04-08
dc.date.updated2023-04-11T11:37:36Z
dc.description.abstractThis paper explores two questions facing the use of the concept of the ‘good farmer’ in rural studies: what are the most appropriate methods to understand good farming; and what is the relevance of the concept in non-western countries? The paper explores these issues in the context of pig farmers' biosecurity decisions and daily disease management practices in the New Territories of Hong Kong. Specifically, we argue that to broaden the relevance of the good farming concept, we need to devise specific methodologies to capture the relational practices among farmers, non-human life forms and substances that construct the ‘good farmer’ meaning in different cultural contexts. Firstly, we consider the language of ‘good farming’, its possible translations, potential meanings and alternative phrases used amongst Chinese-speaking farmers. Secondly, we develop a farmer-oriented methodology to analyse how these locally specific translations of good farming are constructed and used in relation to the management of animal disease. Drawing on 12 farmers' mapping and their interview discussion, we develop a narrated mapping methodology in which the creation of farm maps acts as a device to illustrate and talk about biosecurity and good farming. This visual method triangulates the graphical data with subsequent interview data of farmers' maps. From this we show how the idea of the ‘diligent farmer’ has much stronger resonance in Hong Kong than good farming. Farm maps identify specific symbols of diligence, highlighting values of productivism, environmentalism and social relationships. The mapping methodology also reveals the performative work involved in becoming a diligent farmer. In conclusion, the paper considers the broader methodological implications for the concept of good farming, suggesting that cultural linguistic differences need to be recognised in the concept, and arguing for further methodological advancement.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipWellcome Trusten_GB
dc.format.extent103005-103005
dc.identifier.citationVol. 100, article 103005en_GB
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.03.013
dc.identifier.grantnumber223592/Z/21/Zen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/132893
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0001-7729-6098 (Chan, Kin Wing Ray)
dc.identifierScopusID: 57164203200 (Chan, Kin Wing Ray)
dc.identifierResearcherID: P-3166-2019 (Chan, Kin Wing Ray)
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherElsevieren_GB
dc.rights© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)en_GB
dc.subjectBiosecurityen_GB
dc.subjectPigen_GB
dc.subjectGood farmingen_GB
dc.subjectDiligent farmingen_GB
dc.subjectLanguageen_GB
dc.subjectMethodologyen_GB
dc.subjectMappingen_GB
dc.subjectHong Kongen_GB
dc.titleGood methods for good farmers? Mapping the language of good farming with “diligent farmers” in Hong Kongen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2023-04-11T12:47:19Z
dc.identifier.issn0743-0167
exeter.article-number103005
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available on open access from Elsevier via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.descriptionData availability: Data will be made available on request. The research data supporting this publication are provided within this paper.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Rural Studiesen_GB
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Rural Studies, 100
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2023-03-22
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2023-04-08
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2023-04-11T12:44:49Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2023-04-11T12:47:19Z
refterms.panelCen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)