Beekeeping, Wellbeing, Transformative Change: Development Benefits According to Small Farmers in Vietnam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper seeks to show the important influence of design, both on the outcomes of an intervention and on the nature of information gathered for the research and the quality and depth of the resulting analysis. The paper presents the serendipitous findings of an evaluation of a donor-funded project in Vietnam seeking to "enhance rural livelihoods" among small farmers through modern beekeeping. Among the innovations introduced was the use of light, movable hive frames. Using mixed methods and combining audit and participatory approaches, we probed into the process of diffusion, that is, the type of training provided, post-training technical assistance and the associated benefits and opportunity costs. A sociometric survey was complemented with key informant and focus group interviews. The survey results indicated successful diffusion of the innovation beyond the target group and project site. The interview results allow us to suggest that the successful diffusion of beekeeping innovations in this Project can be partly explained by the fact that beekeeping increased household incomes from the sale of beekeeping products, but further, it also enhanced the participants' wellbeing as recorded by improved health, happier family relations, maintenance of cultural tradition and greater community respect. Keywords: beekeeping, wellbeing, Vietnam small scale farmers, participatory evaluation, mixed methods. -------------------------------------------------- Cet article cherche à démontrer l'importance de l'influence du design, tant dans les conséquences d'une intervention que sur la nature de l' information collectée pour la recherche et la qualité ainsi que la portée des analyses obtenues. Cet article présente les constats inattendus d'une évaluation d'un projet financé par des donateurs au Vietnam, cherchant à "améliorer les conditions de vie rurales" de petits fermiers à l' apiculture moderne. Parmi les innovations introduites, il y a l'utilisation de cadres de ruches légers et mobiles. À l'aide de méthodes mixtes et en combinant l'audit et les approches participatives, nous avons exploré le processus de diffusion, c est a dire le type de formation fournie, une assistance technique post-formation, les avantages associés et les coûts d'opportunités. Une enquête sociométrique fut complétée avec un informateur clé et des groupes de discussion. Les résultats de l'enquête indiquent le succès de la diffusion de l'innovation au delà du groupe cible et du site de projet. Les résultats de l'entrevue nous permettent de suggérer que le succès de la diffusion des innovations apicoles de ce projet peut être en partie expliqué par le fait que l'apiculture a augmenté les revenus domestiques via la vente des produites apicoles, et de plus, il a permis aux personnes impliquées d'améliorer leur bien-être grâce à la santé, à de meilleures relations familiales, au maintien des traditions culturelles et à un plus grand respect communautaire.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".