Content uploaded by Douglas William Hume
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Douglas William Hume on Jun 20, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
REPORT OF THE ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELD
SCHOOL IN BELIZE (SUMMER 2019)
CENTER FOR APPLIED ANTHROPOLOGY, NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY
REPORT OF THE ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELD
SCHOOL IN BELIZE (SUMMER 2019)
CENTER FOR APPLIED ANTHROPOLOGY, NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY
Prepared, published, and copyrighted by the Center for Applied
Anthropology, Northern Kentucky University, June 1, 2021.
Douglas William Hume1, Lydia Alvarez3, Julia Arzu3, Abigail Burbank2,
Christian Cansino3, Miranda Kaplan2, Musseit M'Bareck2, Jordan Myers2,
Madalyn Roberts2, Edward Stephens2, and Christy Valdez3
1 Primary investigator, ethnographic field school director, report author, data
analysis
2 Ethnographic field school student intern
3 Ethnographic field school student participant
Primary Investigator Contact Information
Douglas Hume Ph.D., Director
Center for Applied Anthropology
Northern Kentucky University
1 Nunn Drive, Landrum 228
Highland Heights, Kentucky 41099, USA
humed1@nku.edu
001-859-572-5702
http://nku.edu/cfaa
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ............................................................................... i
Introduction ........................................................................................ 1
Background ........................................................................................ 1
Methods ............................................................................................. 2
Community Development .................................................................... 3
Demographics ................................................................................. 3
Child Labor ..................................................................................... 3
Traditional Medicine ......................................................................... 4
Sugar Cane Price Drop .................................................................... 4
Fair Trade Monies ............................................................................ 5
Climate Change .............................................................................. 5
Sugar Cane Farming ........................................................................... 5
Perceptions of Sugar Cane Farmers’ Organizations ............................... 6
Sugar Cane Farming Knowledge Transmission ..................................... 6
Additional Topics ................................................................................. 8
Conclusion .......................................................................................... 9
Appendices
Appendix I: Informed Consent Statement – English ........................... 11
Appendix II: Informed Consent Statement – Spanish ......................... 12
Appendix III: Ethnographic Interview Schedule (Procedure), Part I ...... 13
Appendix IV: Ethnographic Interview Schedule (Procedure), Part II ..... 14
Appendix V: Fertilizer (Degree Prestige/inDegree Centrality) ............... 15
Appendix VI: Herbicide (Degree Prestige/inDegree Centrality) ............ 16
Appendix VII: Pesticide (Degree Prestige/inDegree Centrality) ............ 17
Appendix XIII: Sugar Cane (Degree Prestige/inDegree Centrality) ....... 18
Appendix IX: Full Model (Degree Prestige/inDegree Centrality) ........... 19
Appendix X: Additional Topics ......................................................... 20
Sources Cited .................................................................................... 21
i
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the partnerships with the following agencies
and individuals that made this field school and research possible:
Jerry Barnaby, Executive Director
Cooperative Center for Study Abroad
Western Kentucky University
Tate Page Hall, Room 104
1906 College Heights Blvd
Bowling Green, KY 42101 USA
info@ccsa.cc
001-270-745-2231
Rolando Cocom, Senior Research and Education Officer
Institute for Social and Cultural Research
National Institute of Culture and History
Corner Constitution Drive
Belmopan City, Belize, Central America
rolando.cocom@nichbelize.org
011-0822-3307
Nigel Encalada, Director
Institute for Social and Cultural Research
National Institute of Culture and History
Corner Constitution Drive
Belmopan City, Belize, Central America
iscr@nichbelize.org
011-0822-3307
François Le Roy Ph.D., Director
Office of Education Abroad
Northern Kentucky University
1 Nunn Drive, University Center 330
Highland Heights, KY 41099, USA
studyabroad@nku.edu
001-859-572-6908
Marcos Osorio, Director
Sugar Industry Research and Development Institute
Mile 66-1/2 Phillip Goldson Highway
Buena Vista Village, Corozal District, Belize, Central America
sirdi.belize@gmail.com
011-501-677-4734
ii
Denise Knisely, Lecturer (On-site Administrator)
Sociology, Anthropology & Philosophy
Northern Kentucky University
1 Nunn Drive, Landrum 216
Highland Heights, KY 41099, USA
kniselyd1@nku.edu
001-859-572-6359
Antonio Novelo
Jungle River Tours
20 Lover’s Lane
Orange Walk Town Belize, Central America
lamanaimayatour@btl.net
011-501-670-3035
We also appreciate the aid of Sarah Hume for editing drafts of this report,
although any errors still contained within are our own.
1
Introduction
This report documents the findings of the Ethnographic Field School in Belize
organized by the Center for Applied Anthropology (CfAA) at Northern Kentucky
University (NKU) in Orange Walk District, Belize, during summer 2019.
Ethnographic interviews were conducted within the communities of San Lazaro, San
Pablo, and Yo Creek in cooperation with the Sugar Industry Research and
Development Institute (SIRDI), Belize Sugar Cane Farmers Association (BSCFA),
Progressive Sugar Cane Producers Association (PSCPA), and the three communities
within which interviews took place. This field season’s research focused on the
following topics: child labor, traditional medicine and health concerns, drop in price
of sugar cane, fair trade community investment, climate change, organizations, and
networks of information sharing. This report presents the preliminary findings of the
2019 field season and recommends what research questions should be pursued in
the next field season.
Background
While the educational aim of the ethnographic field school is to train students in
basic ethnographic methods, the applied purpose of the field school is to collect and
analyze data that can then be used by SIRDI, BSCFA, PSCPA, and community
members in the development of programs for betterment of the sugarcane farming
communities in northern Belize. As posted on the field school’s web site (CfAA
2021):
This course immerses students in Belizean culture and trains them in
contemporary anthropological field methods. Students will gain valuable
research skills (e.g., ethnographic interviewing and qualitative data analysis)
to apply anthropology in their future careers (e.g., applied anthropology or
other social/behavioral discipline), an appreciation for Belizean cultural
diversity, and further their personal growth. While in Belize, students will be
primarily engaged in guided applied ethnographic fieldwork. Students will
learn about the local culture by doing participant-observation and conducting
ethnographic interviews in a community-based research project. Students
will learn research ethics, unobtrusive observation, participant observation,
field note writing and coding, ethnographic and life history interviewing,
ethnolinguistic data collection, community mapping, rapid assessment
procedures, qualitative data analysis, and other ethnographic methods in
addition to basic ethnographic writing. After successful completion of this
course, students will have:
• developed a basic understanding of Belizean culture,
• formulated an understanding of ethical and validity issues in
ethnographic research,
• practiced skills in research design and ethnographic methods of data
collection,
• applied basic ethnographic research methods in a non-western culture,
• engaged in a community-based research project, and
• analyzed ethnographic data resulting in an ethnographic monograph.
2
Since the literature review was written for last season’s report (Hume et al. 2019),
there have been several scholarly publications related to this field school’s research.
Several articles have been written on social and cultural factors in environmental
conservation: 1) the environmental impact of milpa farming on forested areas
(Dexler 2020), 2) the impacts of highway construction on community infrastructure
and environment (Haines 2018), 3) the impacts that climate change will have on
agricultural practices (Haines 2019; Requena, Garcia, and Vasquez 2020), and 4)
the relationship between wildlife conservation and farmers (Shapiro, Willcox, Tate,
and Wilcox 2020). Research has also been published on family involvement in their
elementary school children’s education (Garbacz, Hall, Young, Lee, Youngblom, and
Houlihan 2019) and how urban life may be contrasted with village life (Troccoli
2019). Two articles examined the pact of tourism, on issues of race and gender
(Johnson 2020) and the other on coastal development (Vitous and Zarger 2020). In
response to the recent Zika virus, Gray and Mishtal (2019) examined government
interventions and community responses to the epidemic. Finally, Chibnik (2020)
used his experience in Belize to discuss issues of ethics in participatory research.
Methods
As in previous field seasons, upon arrival in the villages of San Lazaro, San Pablo,
and Yo Creek, Antonio Novelo (Jungle River Tours) introduced the field school
members to village council representatives and assisted Douglas Hume in
explaining our collaborative research project to gain local approval for our presence
in the community. Each village council gave their permission and was supportive of
our efforts. We presented printed copies of last year’s report to the councils of San
Estevan, San Lazaro, San Pablo, and Yo Creek (Hume et al. 2019).
Participants of the field school (Abigail Burbank, Miranda Kaplan, Musseit M'Bareck,
Jordan Myers, Madalyn Roberts, and Edward Stephens) as well as the Belizean
student interns (Lydia Alvarez, Julia Arzu, Christian Cansino, and Christy Valdez)
conducted house-to-house interviews in a census sampling methodology. The
Cooperative Center for Study Abroad hired Antonio Novelo (Jungle River Tours) as
the field school’s land agent. He served as both as cultural liaison and research
assistant during field research. Mr. Novelo explained our general purpose and
introduce students to community members. Students would then present the
informed consent statement in both English (Appendix I) and Spanish (Appendix II)
and upon agreement to take part, have the informant sign a copy (on file) and offer
an unsigned copy for the informant’s records.
Interviews were conducted on the informant’s property (e.g., porch, house, et
cetera) with a pair of students, one serving as the primary interviewer and the
other as observer. The standard method used for this research was the
ethnographic interview (Spradley 2016), which is informant centered (Levy and
Hollan 1998) rather than interviewer centered. Interviews were from five minutes
to an hour in length, depending upon the informant’s time constraints and
willingness to be interviewed by the students. Ideally the interview would flow
naturally from topic to topic and would end when the interviewer or the informant
3
perceived a natural stopping point or when the informant no longer seemed
comfortable or interested in continuing the interview (Levy and Hollan 1998).
All informants were asked about education support sources, child labor issues,
traditional medicine and health concerns, sugar cane price drop, fair trade
community investment, and climate change perceptions and effects (see Appendix
III: Ethnographic Interview Schedule [Procedure], Part I). Self-identified sugar cane
farmers were additionally asked about sugar cane organizations and networks of
information sharing (see Appendix III: Ethnographic Interview Schedule
[Procedure], Part I. Students digitally recorded interviews and took field notes
during and directly after each interview.
Upon return from the field, data from each interview were aggregated and
analyzed. After analysis, the digital audio recordings were securely erased. Douglas
Hume then conducted both statistical and network analyses as well as wrote this
field report.
Community Development
Demographics
A total of 321 informants were interviewed: 96 (29.9%) in San Lazaro, 107
(33.3%) in San Pablo, and 118 (36.8%) in Yo Creek. The median age of the
informants was 40 years with a minimum age of 18 and maximum age of 85 years
old. Forty-five percent of the informants were male and the remaining 55% were
female. Of the 321 total informants, 65 (20.2%) self-identified as sugar cane
farmers.
Child Labor
During the prior field season, informants were asked about the appropriate age for
each type of child labor collected during the preceding season (Hume et al. 2019).
This field season, we asked community members if they thought children should
work, what were the reasons that children worked, and what could help keep
children from working. Of the 321 informants, 139 (43.3%) responded that children
should never work, 103 (32.1%) responded that children should work, 63 (19.6%)
responded that children should only work in certain circumstances, and 16 (5%) did
not answer. For those informants that responded that children should never work,
their reason was that children should stay in school because education is important.
Those informants that responded that children should work explained that working
would teach children responsibility and life skills that they can apply to their future
careers and that working keeps children out of trouble. For those informants that
responded that children may work under certain conditions most commonly listed
working to support an extremely poor family or being a young father/mother and
having to support children as necessary reasons for children to work. Some also
suggested that safe part-time jobs during school vacations were appropriate for
older children. When asked what could possibly reduce child labor, informants most
4
commonly suggested educational financial aid, better paying jobs for parents, and
community programs to keep children busy (e.g., organized sports and clubs).
In the next field season, we will continue to have conversations with community
members about child labor, with an emphasis on how families are responding to
financial hardships they have suffered due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Traditional Medicine
In previous field seasons, several informants spoke about traditional medicines that
they used for kidney disease and other ailments. After a discussion with Hugo
Carillo (U Chan Muul Yaax K'aax [Maya Community Museum in San Lazaro]) about
the preservation of local traditional medicine knowledge preservation during the
second week of the field school, we began asking informants about the traditional
medicine remedies that they use. In our discussion with informants, we collected
ingredients used in traditional medicine, but our collection of each use of the
components resulted in unclear data. Informants have reported that the most
common ingredients for traditional medicine include oregano, lime, aloe, honey,
garlic, sable, and soursop. Many informants were confused by the wording of the
questions about “traditional” medicinal ingredients. In the next field season, we will
rephrase questions and focus on acquiring information on the medicinal use of
materials not acquired through the pharmacy rather than “traditional” medicines.
The most common ailments that informants listed as treatable by traditional
medicine included high blood pressure, fever, cough, pain, stomach ailments,
vomiting, diabetes, kidney disease, and cuts. In comparison, informants reported
that they were most concerned about dengue, diabetes, fevers, cancer, malaria,
garbage, blood pressure, and access to medical care. The concern about the
distance to medical care was more prominent in San Lazaro and San Pablo than it
was in Yo Creek. In the coming field season, we will continue to speak with
information about the ailments that they are concerned about and how these are
treated.
Sugar Cane Price Drop
As with the previous three field seasons, informants were asked about their
preparation for and impact of the continuing drop in prices for processed sugar
cane, which results in less income for sugar cane farmers. Of the 321 informants,
76 (23.7%) reported that the drop in sugar cane prices has not affected them. A
few of these informants explained that they were not affected because they were
not sugar cane farmers. The remaining community members (245, 86.3%)
reported that they have been affected by a drop in sugar cane prices. The most
common response to decreased discretional spending is consistent with previous
field seasons. Community members predict that they would buy fewer non-
essential items, diversify their incomes, and would not be able to pay off loans.
Though the answer has been consistent over time as the sugar cane price continues
to drop, the informants are not reporting a more precise or clearer plans to mitigate
what is becoming a chronic issue for the farmers. Over several years of research,
5
the general response has been that they will buy less, diversify their income, or
stop farming all together.
In the coming field season, we will continue to ask about the impact of the dropping
sugar cane price, but also explore how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected their
household income as well as their response to this impact.
Fair Trade Monies
Monies acquired by those famer’s associations that are fair trade certified must use
a portion of their income on community development in addition to investing in
farming ventures. In prior field seasons, community members have responded to
questions about the farmer’s associations that the associations were not doing
enough for the community as a whole. This field season, community members were
asked how fair trade monies should be spent. Those community members that were
sugar cane farmers most commonly responded that the associations’ fair trade
income should be used exclusively for sugar cane farming (e.g., investments in field
and equipment). Non-famers, on the other hand, most commonly responded that
the monies should be spend on community development (e.g., parks, schools, and
roads). As in earlier field seasons, informants did not report any knowledge of any
specific investments that were made by the associations within the informants’
communities.
In the coming field season, we will ask community members about specific farming
and community development investments made historically and in the past year by
the farmers associations as well as other sugar cane industry related groups (e.g.,
SIRDI and ASR/BSI).
Climate Change
In previous field seasons, community members have been asked about their
perceptions of climate changes, but not specifically about the effects of climate
change upon them. When asked about the effects of climate change within their
community, of the 321 informants, most community members reported that there
is less rain (111, 34.5%) and higher average temperatures (134, 41.7%) due to
climate change. Informants reported that the effects of the decrease in rain and
increase in temperature temperatures is leading to smaller yields for sugar cane,
other crops and fruit, as well as increasing the amount of sickness—mostly flu and
respiratory illness—within the communities that is placing hardships on people
already in financial difficulty due to the falling sugar cane prices.
In the coming field season, we will continue to collect information about community
perceptions and effects of climate change.
Sugar Cane Farming
Sixty-five of the 321 informants self-identified as sugar cane farms and were asked
additional questions about their perception of sugar cane farmers’ associations as
6
well as information sharing networks. Of those 65 farmers, 27 (41.5%) in San
Lazaro, 23 (35.4%) in San Pablo, and 15 (23.1%) in Yo Creek. The median age was
53 years with a minimum age of 30 and maximum age of 85 years old with 67.3%
being male and 22.7% female. The farmers were members of either the Belize
Sugar Cane Producers Association (59, 90.7%) or the Progressive Sugar Cane
Producers Association (6, 9.3%). There were no members of the Corozal Sugar
Cane Producers Association in our informant sample.
Perceptions of Sugar Cane Farmers’ Organizations
In prior field seasons, community members were asked about the roles of sugar
cane farming organizations, both in open-ended questions and structured questions
for each organization. During this field season, the 65 sugar cane farmers were
asked about farmer’s association meetings and activities. Farmers most commonly
reported that they do not attend the meetings. The reasons for why they do not
attend the meetings is twofold. The first barrier to attending the meetings is that
the meetings are scheduled when the farmers cannot attend. This is due to the time
of day, actual date, and/or the meeting is announced at the last minute. The
second barrier to attending meetings is the perception of efficacy of the meeting to
produce meaningful outcomes for the farmers. The farmers state that nothing
productive results from the meetings. The most common perceptions of the
meetings are that they are designed for top-down political talk and ideas while
concerns of the individual farmers that are presented during the meeting are not
taken into account and not included in any final product of the meetings. Outside of
the meetings, farmers want the association to lend them equipment and provide
them pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer for their fields.
In the coming field season, we will continue to collect information about community
perceptions of the farming associations, with an emphasis on what both the general
community and farmers recommend that the farmers’ associations do to improve
their communities.
Sugar Cane Farming Knowledge Transmission
In prior field seasons, sugar cane farming knowledge concerning sugar cane
varieties, fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides was collected as well as how
knowledge is shared among farmers. In other words, we sought to discover what
social networks (i.e., kinship, friendship, and farming collaboratives) contribute to
the intracultural variation of farming knowledge among farmers.
This field season involved the collection network data on how agricultural
knowledge is shared between farmers, associations, agencies, and businesses from
the perspective of the farmer. Farmers were asked who they asked for or received
information from for each subject of information (e.g. fertilizer, herbicide, pesticide,
and sugar cane) from each organization (farmers, Belize Sugar Cane Farmers
Association [BSCFA], Corozal Sugar Cane Producers Association [CSCPA],
Progressive Sugar Cane Farmers Association [PSCPA], Sugar Industry Research and
Development Institute [SIRDI], store/supplier, village chairman, Belize Sugar
7
Industries/American Sugar Refineries [BSI/ASR], and sugar board). Data were then
analyzed using UCINET (Borgatti, Everett, and Freeman 2002) and Netdraw
(Borgatti 2002). Demographic variables such as age, sex, home village, and
farmers association membership appear to have no effect on which sources of
information farmers use. Additional characteristics of the farmers will be collected
during the next field season do determine what characteristics of the farmers may
affect information sharing.
The sociograms/network diagrams (Appendices V through IX) were constructed
with the following parameters:
1. node and label size are by degree prestige/indegree centrality (node size is
determined by the number of inbound arcs/connections where the larger
node size is an indication of more connections);
2. node color indicates source of information (blue) and individual farmer (red,
with anonymized informant code); and
3. layout is based on node repulsion and equal edge length bias adjusted for
readability.
The following are explanations of the network diagrams (Appendices V through IX)
listing the sources of information which farmers use to access information about
sugar cane farming. The explanations are presented in order of frequency
reported.
• Informants reported that they gain information about fertilizer from: 1)
BSCFA, 2) other farmers, 3) SIRDI, 4) store/supplier, 5) sugar board, and 6)
BSI/ASR with few farmers consulting their village chairman, PSCPA, or other
sources (see Appendix V: Fertilizer [Degree Prestige/inDegree Centrality]).
Seven farmers reported that they do not receive information about fertilizers
from any source.
• Informants reported that they gain information about herbicides from: 1)
BSCFA, 2) store/supplier, 3) SIRDI, 4) other farmers, and 5) the sugar board
with some farmers consulting other sources (see Appendix VI: Herbicide
[Degree Prestige/inDegree Centrality]). Eight Farmers reported that they do
not receive information about herbicides from any source.
• Informants reported that they gain information about pesticides from: 1)
BSCFA, 2) SIRDI, 3) store/supplier, 4) other farmers, and 5) the sugar board
with some farmers consulting other sources (see Appendix VII: Pesticide
[Degree Prestige/inDegree Centrality]). Nine Farmers reported that they do
not receive information about herbicides from any source.
• Informants reported that they gain information about sugar cane varieties
from: 1) BSCFA, 2) SIRDI, 3) other farmers, and 4) the sugar board with
some farmers consulting other sources (see Appendix VIII: Sugar Cane
[Degree Prestige/inDegree Centrality]). Seven Farmers reported that they do
not receive information about herbicides from any source.
• Combing the data on the sharing of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and
sugar cane varieties, farmers reported that the received the most information
from: 1) BSCFA, 2) other farmers, 3) SIRDI, 4) store/supplier, 5) sugar
board, 6) ASR/BSI, 7) village chairman, 8) CSCPA, and 9) PSCPA (see
Appendix IX: Full Model [Degree Prestige/inDegree Centrality]).
8
The findings from these network analyses are as follows:
1. farmers within our sample acquire the most information about sugar cane
farming for each subject (i.e., fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and sugar
cane varieties) from the Belize Sugar Cane Farmers Association;
2. both the Sugar Industry Research and Development Institute and other
famers share the second most common source of information for farmers in
our sample;
3. the store/supplier is more important for herbicides that it is for pesticides
and fertilizer as a source of information—farmers do not seek information
about sugar cane varieties from stores/suppliers;
4. the sugar board is not as prominent of a source of information as the BSCFA,
SIRDI, other farmers, or stores/suppliers, but is still an important source of
information for several farmers for each subject of information;
5. the village chairman, PSCPA, CSCPA, and ASR/BSI have the fewest farmers
receiving information from them—during interviews it was common for a
farmer who mentioned one of these people/groups to have had a long-
standing relationship with that group or person (e.g., friends with the village
chairman, member of PSCPA, and employee of ASR/BSI); and
6. the complexity of this problem requires further data collection and analysis.
In the next field season, farmers will again be asked who they gain information
from about fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and sugar cane varieties allowing
farmers to respond that they receive information from more than one source and
that there may be additional sources of information. In addition, the farmers will be
asked about their farming role (e.g., farmland owner, group leader, and/or cutter).
Additional Topics
As with previous field seasons, community members were asked about what topics
they believe we should address in future years. Responses that could be addressed
within the scope of this project fell within two categories: 1) community issues that
we could ask the community about, and 2) questions about how our research was
being used to assist the community (see Appendix X: Additional Topics). The first
category of questions that may be addressed within local communities is the
increase in both alcohol/drug use (22) as well as issues related to garbage disposal
(13).
The second category of questions was about how the data we collected would be
used to assist the community (11). It was initially planned that the field school
would host community forums within in the next field season to discuss the findings
and invite discussion. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, community
meetings are not feasible this coming field season. Instead, as in previous years,
hard-copies and digital access will be provided to all village councils, but also every
community member we meet will be given access to digital copies of a summary of
our prior findings as well as each individual report.
9
Conclusion
This report documents the findings from the summer 2019 season of the
Ethnographic Field School in Belize. This field season successfully met the goals of
collecting ethnographic data on topics suggested by community members and prior
research: community development (i.e., child labor, traditional medicine, sugar
cane price drop, fair trade monies, and climate change) and sugar cane farming
(i.e., sugar cane organization perceptions and sugar cane farming knowledge
transmission). There were mixed responses to our questions about child labor, the
majority of informants either not work at all or only under certain conditions and
not full-time. We will continue to discuss child labor with informants in the coming
field season, but with an emphasis on the financial impact of the COVID-19
pandemic. We were able to collect additional information on traditional medicine,
but much of our data is unclear. In the coming field season, we will focus on non-
prescribed remedies in hopes of recording knowledge that is fading from the
community. While the price of sugar cane products continues to decline, the effects
upon the communities have not been fully felt and both farmers and other
community members are still grappling with their options for a secure future. In
place of asked directly about dropping sugar incomes, we will focus on collecting
the communities’ financial impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic. Climate change is
affecting the ability for sugar cane farmers to grow crops and also the community
at large due to their loss of income. We will continue to collect the community
members’ perceptions of climate change in the coming field season. We collected
information on why farmers do not attend association meetings as well as what aid
they want from the associations. The coming field season’s inquiries about farmers
associations will be guided from conversations with have with the associations
before community interviews begin. The documentation on how sugar cane farming
knowledge is transferred to farmers, while finding clear patterns of transmission, is
incomplete and based upon a small sample of farmers. In the coming field season,
further data on information networks will be collected. Finally, based upon
community member suggestions, we will begin collecting data on issues of
alcohol/drug use and garbage disposal. In addition, we will make a concerted effort
to communicate our findings from previous field seasons to individual community
members, not just our institutional and association community partners.
In conclusion, this field season (June 2019) successfully collected and analyzed
ethnographic data from three communities in the Orange Walk District, Belize. The
collected data helped answer questions from prior research and has resulted in
further questions for future field seasons. Our aim is to continue to allow data to
drive future research as well as involving the communities, associations, and
agencies with which we partner to guide research towards answering questions that
are important for community development that will benefit all community members,
regardless of whether or not they farm sugar cane or are involved with any of the
agencies or associations.
11
Appendix I: Informed Consent Statement – English
12
Appendix II: Informed Consent Statement – Spanish
13
Appendix III: Ethnographic Interview Schedule (Procedure), Part I
All Informants
1. Note approximate age and sex
2. Educational support - Free list types and amounts
3. Child labor
A. Should it continue?
B. If so, under what circumstances?
C. What support/programs would help?
4. Traditional medicine - Free list ingredients and uses
5. Community health concerns - Free list
6. Kidney disease - Free list
7. Sugar cane price drop - Free list - response and future
8. Fairtrade - Free list
9. Climate change - Free list
10. Additional topics
14
Appendix IV: Ethnographic Interview Schedule (Procedure), Part II
Farmers Only
1. Organizations
A. Membership (i.e., BSCFA, CSCPA, PSCPA)
B. Non-attendance reasons
C. What do they want from?
2. Ego-centric information networks
A. Sets
i. Fertilizer
ii. Herbicide
iii. Pesticide
iv. Sugar cane
B. Entities
i. Farmers
ii. BSCFA - Belize Sugar Cane Farmers Association
iii. CSCPA - Corozal Sugar Cane Producers Association
iv. PSCPA - Progressive Sugar Cane Producers Association
v. SIRDI - Sugar Industry Research and Development
Institute
vi. Store/supplier
vii. Village Chairman
viii. ASR/BSI - American Sugar Refineries/Belize Sugar
Industries
ix. Sugar Board
x. Others?
15
Appendix V: Fertilizer (Degree Prestige/inDegree Centrality)
SL-003
SL-011
SL-012
SL-014
SL-020
SL-021
SL-023
SL-026
SL-031
SL-033
SL-036
SL-037
SL-052
SL-054
SL-065
SL-067 SL-070
SL-074
SL-075
SL-076
SL-081
SL-082
SL-083
SL-089 SL-092
SL-094
SL-095
SP-002
SP-006
SP-007
SP-009
SP-018
SP-020
SP-022
SP-029
SP-030
SP-032
SP-039
SP-042
SP-043
SP-044
SP-057
SP-062
SP-067
SP-078
SP-084
SP-086
SP-088
SP-091
SP-093
SP-098
YC-008
YC-059
YC-064
YC-065
YC-068
YC-069
YC-080
YC-093
YC-103
YC-106 YC -109
YC-111
YC-114 YC -115
Farmers
BSCF A
CSCPA
PSCPA
SIRDI
Store/supplier
Village chairman
ASR/BSI
Sugar Board
16
Appendix VI: Herbicide (Degree Prestige/inDegree Centrality)
SL-003
SL-011 SL-012
SL-014
SL-020
SL-021
SL-023
SL-026
SL-031
SL-033
SL-036
SL-037
SL-052
SL-054
SL-065
SL-067
SL-070
SL-074
SL-075
SL-076
SL-081
SL-082
SL-083
SL-089
SL-092
SL-094
SL-095
SP-002
SP-006
SP-007
SP-009
SP-018
SP-020
SP-022
SP-029
SP-030
SP-032
SP-039
SP-042
SP-043
SP-044
SP-057
SP-062
SP-067
SP-078
SP-084
SP-086
SP-088
SP-091
SP-093
SP-098
YC-008
YC-059
YC-064
YC-065
YC-068
YC-069
YC-080
YC-093
YC-103
YC-106
YC-109
YC-111
YC-114
YC-115
Farmers
BSC FA
CSCPA
PSCPA
SIRDI
Store/supplier
Village chairman
ASR/BSI
Sugar Board
17
Appendix VII: Pesticide (Degree Prestige/inDegree Centrality)
SL-003
SL-011
SL-012
SL-014
SL-020
SL-021
SL-023
SL-026
SL-031
SL-033
SL-036
SL-037
SL-052
SL-054
SL-065
SL-067
SL-070
SL-074
SL-075
SL-076
SL-081
SL-082
SL-083
SL-089
SL-092
SL-094
SL-095
SP-002
SP-006
SP-007
SP-009
SP-018
SP-020
SP-022
SP-029
SP-030
SP-032
SP-039
SP-042
SP-043
SP-044
SP-057 SP-062
SP-067
SP-078
SP-084
SP-086
SP-088
SP-091
SP-093
SP-098
YC-008
YC-059
YC-064
YC-065
YC-068
YC-069
YC-080
YC-093
YC-103
YC-106
YC-109
YC-111
YC-114
YC-115
Farmers
BSC FA
CSCPA
PSCPA
SIRDI
Store/supplier
Village chairman
ASR/BSI
Sugar Board
18
Appendix VIII: Sugar Cane (Degree Prestige/inDegree Centrality)
SL-003
SL-011
SL-012
SL-014
SL-020
SL-021
SL-023
SL-026
SL-031
SL-033
SL-036
SL-037
SL-052
SL-054
SL-065
SL-067
SL-070
SL-074
SL-075
SL-076
SL-081
SL-082
SL-083
SL-089
SL-092
SL-094
SL-095
SP-002
SP-006
SP-007
SP-009
SP-018
SP-020
SP-022
SP-029
SP-030
SP-032
SP-039
SP-042
SP-043
SP-044
SP-057
SP-062
SP-067
SP-078
SP-084
SP-086
SP-088
SP-091
SP-093
SP-098
YC-008
YC-059
YC-064
YC-065
YC-068
YC-069
YC-080
YC-093
YC-103
YC-106
YC-109
YC-111
YC-114
YC-115
Farmers
BSC FA
CSCPA
PSCPA
SIRDI
Store/supplier
Village chairman
ASR/BSI
Sugar Board
19
Appendix IX: Full Model (Degree Prestige/inDegree Centrality)
SL-003
SL-011
SL-012
SL-014
SL-020
SL-021
SL-023
SL-026
SL-031
SL-033
SL-036
SL-037
SL-052
SL-054
SL-065
SL-067
SL-070
SL-074
SL-075
SL-076
SL-081
SL-082
SL-083
SL-089
SL-092
SL-094
SL-095
SP-020
SP-029
SP-0 30
SP-032
SP-039
SP-0 42
SP-044
SP-0 57
SP-0 62
SP-067
SP-078
SP-084
SP-086
SP-0 88
SP-091
SP-093
SP-098
YC-008 YC-059
YC-064
YC-065
YC-068
YC-069
YC-080
YC-093
YC-103
YC-106
YC-109
YC-111
YC-114
YC-115
Farmers
BSCFA
CSCPA
PSCPA
SIRDI
Sto re/ s upp lier
Village chairman
ASR/BSI
Sugar Board
20
Appendix X: Additional Topics
Count
Item
22
Alcohol/drug use
21
Crime in village (violence, theft, and contraband)
20
Educational aid
14
Youth programs
13
Garbage disposal
11
Concerns about our data, how we help
10
Job creation
10
Road Quality
10
Water supply
8
Access to healthcare/Village clinic-doctor
7
Association politics/fair trade monies
6
Climate change/environmental conservation
21
Sources Cited
Borgatti, S.P. 2002. NetDraw: Graph Visualization Software. Harvard, MA:
Analytic Technologies.
Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. and Freeman, L.C. 2002. UCINET 6 for
Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic
Technologies.
CfAA. 2021. Ethnographic Field School in Belize. Center for Applied
Anthropology, Northern Kentucky University.
https://inside.nku.edu/artsci/centers/cfaa/ethnographic-field-school.html
Chibnik, Michael. 2020. "Practical and Ethical Complications of Participatory
Research." Annals of Anthropological Practice 44: 208-212.
https://doi.org/10.1111/napa.12153.
Drexler, Kristin. 2020. “Government Extension, Agroecology, and
Sustainable Food Systems in Belize Milpa Communities: A Socio-
Ecological Systems Approach.” Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and
Community Development 9 (3): 85-97.
https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2020.093.001.
Garbacz, S. Andrew, Garret J. Hall, Kaitlyn Young, Yen Lee, Rachel K.
Youngblom, and Daniel D. Houlihan. 2019. “Validation Study of the
Family Involvement Questionnaire–Elementary Version with Families in
Belize.” Assessment for Effective Intervention.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508419862857.
Gray, Deven, and Joanna Mishtal. 2019 “Managing an Epidemic: Zika
Interventions and Community Responses in Belize.” Global Public Health
14 (1): 9-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2018.1471146.
Haines, Sophie. 2019. "Managing Expectations: Articulating Expertise in
Climate Services for Agriculture in Belize." Climatic Change 157: 43-59.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2357-1.
———. 2018. "Imagining the Highway: Anticipating Infrastructural and
Environmental Change in Belize." Ethnos 83 (2): 392-413.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2017.1282974.
Hume, Douglas W., Adelle Bricking, Rosa Christophel, Jesse Hendricks, Sofia
Javed, Gabrielle Locke, Lydia Schuldt, Evan Steelman, Nicholas Thaxton,
and Stephanie Zach. 2014. “Report of the Ethnographic Field School in
Belize (June 2013 Season).” Highland Heights: Center for Applied
Anthropology, Northern Kentucky University.
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21149.44001.
Hume, Douglas W., Clara Maxine Bone, Hannah Grace Howard, Charlee
Hutchinson, Stefan Kienzle, Marguerite Kinne, Samantha Louise Krieger,
et al. 2016. “Report of the Ethnographic Field School in Belize (June 2015
Season).” Highland Heights: Center for Applied Anthropology, Northern
Kentucky University. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21988.30087
22
Hume, Douglas W., Colin Bindas, Stephanie Feltner, Gabriella Locke, Ian
Takaoka, Nicholas Thaxton, Jade Michel Underland, and Gina Yoon. 2015.
“Report of the Ethnographic Field School in Belize (June 2014 Season).”
Highland Heights: Center for Applied Anthropology, Northern Kentucky
University. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24504.88320.
Hume, Douglas W., Karin Floyd-Glutz, Autumn Gilbert, Rachael Haupt,
Fantasia Mejia, Laura Oprisch, Adriane Pontecorvo, and Andrea
Shiverdecker. 2019. “Report of the Ethnographic Field School in Belize
(June 2018 Season).” Highland Heights: Center for Applied Anthropology,
Northern Kentucky University.
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10244.24964.
Hume, Douglas W., Kourtney Zigelmier, Allison Cate, Anna Cloud, Tessa
Forwalt, Emily Fox, Laura Bronte Murrell, et al. 2018. “Report of the
Ethnographic Field School in Belize (June 2016 Season).” Highland
Heights: Center for Applied Anthropology, Northern Kentucky University.
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18632.85760.
Johnson, Melissa. 2020. "Gender, Race and Ecotourism Assemblages in Rural
Creole Belize." Bulletin of Latin American Research 39: 175-190.
https://doi.org/10.1111/blar.12883.
Levy, Robert, and Douglas Hollan. 1998. “Person-Centered Interviewing and
Observation.” In Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology, edited
by H. Russell Bernard, 333–64. Walnut Creek: Altimira Press.
Murrell, Laura Bronte, and Douglas W. Hume. 2018. “A Comparison of
Farmers’ Perceived Impacts on the Environment in Belize and Kentucky.”
Contemporary Journal of Anthropology and Sociology 8 (1): 19–33.
Requena, Gustavo, Christina Garcia, and Marvin Vasquez. 2020. "Building
Resilient Communities in Belize through Climate-smart Agricultural
Practices." Parks Stewardship Forum 36 (1).
http://dx.doi.org/10.5070/P536146401.
Spradley, James P. 2016. The Ethnographic Interview. Long Grove, Illinois:
Waveland Press, Inc.
Sabbagh, Stephanie M., and Gordon M. Hickey. 2020. "Social Factors
Affecting Sustainable Shark Conservation and Management in Belize."
Sustainability 12 (1): 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010040.
Shapiro, Hannah G., Adam S. Willcox, Mallory Tate, and Emma V. Willcox.
2020. "Can Farmers and Bats Co-exist? Farmer Attitudes, Knowledge, and
Experiences with Bats in Belize." Human–Wildlife Interactions 14 (1).
https://doi.org/10.26077/5wwp-sp53.
Troccoli, Giuseppe. 2019. "The Village in the City: Urban Experiences
through Accounts of Rural Life in Belize." Etnofoor 31 (2): 51-66.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26856485.
Vitous, Crystal Ann, and Rebecca Zarger. 2020. "Visual Narratives: Exploring
the Impacts of Tourism Development in Placencia, Belize." Annals of
23
Anthropological Practice 44: 104-118.
https://doi.org/10.1111/napa.12135.
Wade, Eric, and Kelly Biedenweg. 2019. "Exploring the Diversity of Mental
Models Associated with Belize’s Managed Access Fisheries Policy." Ocean
& Coastal Management 178.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104868.
Zach, Stephanie, and Douglas W. Hume. 2014. “Changing Mortuary Rites:
An Ethnohistory of 19th Century and Contemporary Religion in Northern
Belize.” Contemporary Journal of Anthropology and Sociology 4 (2): 149–
61.
