Content uploaded by Douglas William Hume
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Douglas William Hume on Aug 23, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
REPORT OF THE ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELD
SCHOOL IN BELIZE (SUMMER 2021)
CENTER FOR APPLIED ANTHROPOLOGY, NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY
REPORT OF THE ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELD
SCHOOL IN BELIZE (SUMMER 2021)
CENTER FOR APPLIED ANTHROPOLOGY, NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY
Prepared, published, and copyrighted by the Center for Applied Anthropology,
Northern Kentucky University, September 1, 2022.
Douglas William Hume1, Rebbecca Eder2, Chantal Kifunga2, Diego Salinas2, and
Joshua Stephenson2
1 Primary investigator, ethnographic field school director, report author, data
analysis
2 Ethnographic field school student participants
Primary Investigator Contact Information
Douglas Hume Ph.D., Director
Center for Applied Anthropology
Northern Kentucky University
1 Nunn Drive, Landrum 230
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
Job Opportunities in the Community ............................................................ 3
Job Opportunities for Women ..................................................................... 4
Child Labor .............................................................................................. 4
Children’s Education Support ..................................................................... 5
Alcohol/Drug Use ...................................................................................... 6
Climate Change ........................................................................................ 6
Farmer’s Association Investment ................................................................ 7
Garbage Disposal ..................................................................................... 7
COVID’s Impact on the Community ............................................................. 8
Did COVID Aid Help? ................................................................................. 9
COVID Aid Priorities .................................................................................. 9
Traditional Medicine ................................................................................ 10
Sugar Cane Farming ................................................................................... 10
Meeting Attendance ................................................................................ 10
Association Concerns .............................................................................. 11
Santander Sugar Group ........................................................................... 11
Network Analysis ........................................................................................ 12
Conclusion ................................................................................................ 15
Appendices
Appendix I: Informed Consent Statement – English .................................... 17
Appendix II: Informed Consent Statement – Spanish ................................. 18
Appendix III: Ethnographic Interview Schedule (Procedure), Part I .............. 19
Appendix IV: Ethnographic Interview Schedule (Procedure), Part II .............. 20
Appendix V: Fertilizer Sources by Association Membership .......................... 21
Appendix VI: Fertilizer Sources by Sex (Female and Male) .......................... 22
Appendix VII: Fertilizer Sources by Role in Sugar Cane Farming .................. 23
Appendix VIII: Herbicide Sources by Association Membership ...................... 24
Appendix IX: Herbicide Sources by Sex (Female and Male) .......................... 25
Appendix X: Herbicide Sources by Role in Sugar Cane Farming .................... 26
Appendix XI: Pesticide Sources by Association Membership ......................... 27
Appendix XII: Pesticide Sources by Sex (Female and Male) ......................... 28
Appendix XIII: Pesticide Sources by Role in Sugar Cane Farming ................. 29
Appendix XIV: Aggregated Sources by Association Membership ................... 30
Appendix XV: Aggregated Sources by Sex (Female and Male) ...................... 31
Appendix XVI: Aggregated Sources by Farming Role .................................. 32
Bibliography ............................................................................................... 33
i
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the partnerships with the following agencies and
organizations that made this field school and research possible:
Belize Sugar Cane Farmers Association
34 San Antonio Road
Orange Walk Town, Belize, Central America
bscfacom.management@gmail.com
011-501-322-3670
Cooperative Center for Study Abroad
Western Kentucky University
Honor College International Center
3rd Floor, Suite 3041
1906 College Heights Blvd
Bowling Green, KY 42101
info@ccsa.cc
001-270-745-4512
Institute for Social and Cultural Research
National Institute of Culture and History
Corner Constitution Drive
Belmopan City, Belize, Central America
rolando.cocom@nichbelize.org
011-501-822-3307
Jungle River Tours
20 Lover’s Lane
Orange Walk Town Belize, Central America
lamanaimayatour@btl.net
011-501-670-3035
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
Progressive Sugar Cane Producers Association
Philip Goldson Highway
Orange Walk, Belize, Central America
alotpscpa@gmail.com
001-859-614-1568
ii
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
We sincerely thank the village councils and community members of San
Estevan, San Lazaro, and San Pablo for participating in interviews and allowing us
to learn from them about their communities.
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 2021.
Ethnographic interviews were conducted within the communities of San Estevan,
San Lazaro, and San Pablo 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: job opportunities, children’s educational support, child labor,
alcohol/drug use, climate change, farmers association investment, garbage
disposal, COVID's
1
effect on the community, farmers association meeting
attendance and association concerns, and networks of information sharing. This
report presents the preliminary findings of the 2021 field season and recommends
topics of research for 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 written on the field school’s web site (CfAA
2022):
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,
1
The shortened term COVID will be used throughout this report for Coronavirus disease
(COVID-19).
2
• 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.
Since the literature review was written for last season’s report (Hume et al. 2021),
there has been additional scholarly research published related to this field school’s
research. Several articles have been published on traditional medicine of Belizean
Mayas (Arnason et al. 2022; Schmidt 2022; Waldram and Hatala 2022) as well as
non-Maya Belizeans (Mphuthi and Husaini 2022). Research on the political economy
of community management of natural resources (Smith 2021) as well as
development in Belize in general (Ferrell and Wainwright 2022) have also been
published. Issues related to food consumption (Cleary et al. 2022), insecurity
(Stevenson et al. 2022), and revitalization (Griffith and Griffith 2021) are also
recent additions to the scholarly literature on Belize’s culture. Two articles have
been published related to farming, one on sustainable milpa farming (Drexler 2021)
and another on crop protection and hunting with dogs (Pacheco-Cobos and
Winterhalder 2021). In northern Belize, research has been published on the
migration of sugar cane labor (García Ortega 2021) and the effects of COVID on
adolescent learning (Mathias Vairez 2022). There continues to be an important
scholarship published about the people and natural resources of Belize.
Methods
As in previous field seasons, upon arrival in the villages of San Estevan, San
Lazaro, and San Pablo, 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 (Hume et al. 2021) to
the councils of San Estevan, San Lazaro, San Pablo, and Yo Creek. In addition, we
printed business cards with shortened URL links to previous reports to give to
individual community members.
Participants of the field school (Rebbecca Eder, Chantal Kifunga, Diego Salinas, and
Joshua Stephenson) 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). Upon an informant’s consent to be interviewed, the students
would have the informant sign a copy of the informed consent statement (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
3
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 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 job opportunities in the community, job
opportunities for women, children’s educational support, child labor, alcohol/drug
use, climate change, farmers association investment, garbage disposal, COVID's
effect on the community, did COVID aid help, and COVID aid priorities (see
Appendix III: Ethnographic Interview Schedule [Procedure], Part I). Self-identified
sugar cane farmers were additionally asked about meeting attendance, association
concerns, the Santander Sugar Group, and networks of information sharing (see
Appendix IV: Ethnographic Interview Schedule [Procedure], Part II. 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 compiled this
field report.
Community Development
Demographics
A total of 155 informants were interviewed: 55 (35.5%) in San Estevan, 46
(29.7%) in San Lazaro, and 54 (34.8%) in San Pablo. The median age of the
informants was 45 years with a minimum age of 18 and maximum age of 78 years
old. Ninety (58%) of the informants were female and 65 (42%) were male. Of the
155 total informants, 33 (21.3%) self-identified as sugar cane farmers. Due to the
COVID pandemic, fewer informants were interviewed this field season than prior
field seasons.
Job Opportunities in the Community
In prior years, the community was concerned about job opportunities, specifically
within the communities in which they live. In addition, the farmers associations are
concerned about what job opportunities exist outside of sugar cane farming, as
sugar cane farming alone cannot support the needs of the community. The most
common response to what opportunities should be created within the community
included agriculture (e.g., more cane as well as other crops, such as citrus,
cannabis, beans, vegetables, cattle, wheat, and corn) [43
2
]. The next most
2
The numbers within brackets “[ ]” indicate the number of informants that made the
statement. The statements are listed by most common to least common throughout this
report.
4
common source of community jobs was in industry/factories (e.g., clothing, shoes,
makeup, recycling, and tourist goods) [13]. Informants also suggested jobs in
construction (e.g., solar and housing) [7]. Finally, a couple of informants mentioned
that vocational schools should be built for adults and more opportunities should be
created for younger people to have jobs within their communities.
The informants stated that it was difficult to suggest jobs when they do not foresee
new companies, industries, or opportunities of work coming to their villages. They
did see new opportunities within Orange Walk Town and Corozal, but transportation
and family obligations made working outside of the village difficult. In the next field
season, when we visit different communities, we will again ask about job
opportunities within the community. The responses may differ in the future due to
changes in the COVID pandemic’s effects within smaller communities.
Job Opportunities for Women
There are more job opportunities for men than women within Belize in general, but
even more so within small communities. The farmers associations asked us to
explore ideas that the community members had about possible sources of work and
income for women within village communities. The most common responses
included: sewing (e.g., dressmaking and embroidery) [37], baking/decorating
cakes [21], growing and selling food (e.g., fruits and vegetables from gardens)
[19], housekeeping [15], working in an office (e.g., administration and secretaries)
[11], and working at shops/cashiers [10]. One informant mentioned that a
community farm cooperative (growing and selling fruits and vegetables) and
community market cooperative (selling food and clothing) could be created locally
with little or no outside assistance.
The ability to work outside of the home is more difficult for women than men within
the village communities due to family obligations (e.g., children and aged parent
care). In addition, fewer women than men are taught career-oriented skills as
children and young adults. However, most of the women that we spoke with wanted
jobs outside of the home using skills they already had (e.g., sewing and baking). As
with the opportunities for work within the community, women found it difficult to
imagine careers for them being created within the local community. In the coming
field season, we will continue to ask about what job opportunities there are or could
be created for women within their communities.
Child Labor
Child labor remains a difficult issue in Belize. During the prior field season,
informants were asked about the reasons that children worked, what would keep
children from working, and what could be done to possibly reduce child labor
(Hume et al. 2021). Boys have historically worked alongside their fathers in the
sugar cane fields. Some children must work to help support their families. Now with
pressure from Fair-Trade and other aid agencies, child labor is illegal or
discouraged, depending upon the type of work and age of the child. In previous
years we have collected information on the community’s thoughts on child labor.
5
For example, why it occurs, how it can be prevented, and both the positive and
negative aspects of child labor. This year, we continued the conversation as more
Fair-Trade and government rules take effect and the COVID pandemic complicates
the situation.
Informants told us that child labor is now forbidden both by Fair-Trade regulations
and the government [84]. Informants reported that they have seen a decrease in
the number of children working in cane farming related work [57]. Some
informants said that children should stay in school and only work part-time on the
weekends in non-cane related jobs [33]. However, there were several informants
that suggested that there were benefits for children working, especially those that
are not in school. First, there is a concern that if children are not kept occupied by
either school or work, they will start using drugs or commit crimes [12]. Second, by
working, especially alongside their parents, children can learn skills, trades, and a
work ethic to prepare them for supporting their own family in the future [9]. Finally,
there are families who are struggling financially and must rely upon their children to
assist the family by working [8]. Informants reported that since COVID has forced
students to stay home and learn remotely as well as there being a general lack of
work in the community, children have not had enough to do.
While the farmers associations and communities report than child labor has
decreased, there are still children that are engaged in cutting sugar cane—although
their participation may follow the guidelines of the Fair-Trade agreement. It is
important that we continue to collect data to enable the associations to work with
communities to find alternatives to child labor. In the coming field season, we will
consult with the associations to determine what line of research would best aid
them in forming policies and programs to this end.
Children’s Educational Support
In prior field seasons we collected information on the exact amounts and categories
of educational aid that was available within the community. This year, our
conversations were broader, collecting an overview of how educational aid may be
changing due to COVID and changes in the national government’s political party
leadership. Informants reported that government aid is available for tuition and
books that is need dependent [24], schools receive financial aid from farmers
associations [9], high performing students may receive scholarships (e.g.,
British/Taiwan Embassies, SIRDI, Banks/Credit Unions, Social Security Board, and
farmer's associations) [6], non-government schools receive financial aid from their
associated church [4], Ministry of Education loaned students computers during
COVID, they have now been returned [3], government gave small grants (about
$300
3
) pre-COVID [2], scholarships from churches to specific families based upon
financial need [2] and that an American woman provides scholarships for some
children [1]. Most informants stated that they have either never received aid or
that education aid ended during COVID due to home schooling. Some informants
3
All dollar amounts within this report are in Belize Dollars (BZD), which is set at a fixed rate
of 1 BZD to two United States Dollars.
6
also told us that only those with close personal ties to the political party in power
are the only ones who receive aid from the government.
It is not only educational support where community members report that their
political party membership in relation to the village or federal government’s party
determine the aid that they receive. This past field season’s collection of education
data was made more difficult by disruptions to schools due to the COVID pandemic,
as the usual aid was disrupted. We will continue to collect information on
educational aid in the next field season to, in part, find what effects the pandemic
has had on the long-term education within the communities.
Alcohol/Drug Use
Informants in past field seasons have mentioned alcohol and drug use was a
significant problem within their community. Specifically, they worried about public
safety issues, such as robbery, accidents, and fights. This field season informants
reported that: alcohol and drug use is about the same as it has always been,
alcoholism has always been a problem in Belize [95], alcohol and drug use has
increased among minors specifically [14], alcohol use has increased with lack of
employment and being stuck at home during COVID [13], crack/cocaine use is
becoming more common [6], alcohol and drug use has decreased due to COVID,
because of lack of money or people staying home and not being drunk in public [4],
and other informants were worried about legalization of marijuana and influence of
drug dealers in their community [2].
When we asked informants about alcohol and drug use, we asked about what was
happening in the community rather than personally or within their own family. This
was done to protect the informants, but also tended to result in informants
describing how other people misbehaved. In the next field season, we will also
include within our discussions opportunities that might support people who abuse
alcohol or drugs.
Climate Change
For several field seasons, we have been asking about people’s perceptions about
climate change to track how community perceptions change over time. This field
season informants said they had recently experienced: hotter temperatures/the sun
is hotter [59], weather that is less predictable/more variable (e.g., it is dry during
the rainy season, rains during the dry season) [32], no changes to the
climate/weather, it is normal [27], more rain resulting in flooding [24], less rain
resulting in drought [20], and increased frequency of hurricanes/intense storms
[4]. With the change in climate, people are experiencing different effects, such as:
too little rain prevents sugar cane growth/poor crop [8], too much rain floods sugar
cane fields/hinders harvesting [8], cane cutters are affected by heat more, work
earlier, take a longer mid-day break [5], too much rain floods villages and houses
[5], people are using fans and air conditioning more [5], there is more frequent
respiratory illness (e.g., asthma and influenza) [4], streams and rivers have less
water [3], people are drinking more water due to heat [2], and ponds have become
7
dry [2]. Less commonly, informants said that fruit trees are dying due to heat [1],
people are starting to irrigate fields [1], too much rain affects road quality [1], and
vegetable gardens negatively affected by heat [1].
Over the past few field seasons there is an increasing number of informants that
report both dryer/hotter weather as well as more variable weather. In the next field
season, we will continue to ask informants about their perceptions of climate
change in their community.
Farmers Association Investment
A stipulation of the Fair-Trade agreements with the farmers associations, the Belize
Sugar Cane Farmers Association and the Progressive Sugar Cane Producers
Association, is that a portion of Fair-Trade monies be spent on general community
development, not specifically sugar cane farmers and their families. Both farmers
associations that we are collaborating with have asked us to ask the community
about the impact of the programs that they have done in the community.
Informants reported to us that the farmers associations: either have done nothing
or that the informant was unaware of any activities by the farmers associations to
develop or benefit the general community [102], invest in education by giving
schools funds or through student grants [6], give grants for coffins and funerals
[3], give food support to the elderly [3], supply chairs and tents for community
events [2], and gave cooking pots to women [2]. While we did not ask about what
investment the farmers associations made to farmers and their families, informants
told us that the farmers associations support farmers and their families through:
giving fertilizer, herbicide, and pesticide to the farmers [28], giving a one-time
COVID support payment (e.g., $100, $2-300, or $500) [8], giving food assistance
to members [3], and organizing training for farmers [2].
The overwhelming response from informants was that they did not witness any
community investment by the farmers associations that was not directed at farming
or farming families. In the next field season, we will consult with the farmers
associations to learn about what programs they have done in the community so
that we can ask about concrete examples, which may affect informant’s responses
in what they have noticed within their community.
Garbage Disposal
Garbage disposal, especially the burning of trash in yards and the dumping of trash
alongside of the road or within sugar cane fields has been a topic of concern for
community members in past field seasons. Many informants reported that they
dispose of their garbage at a dump site [56]. Informants told us that there is a
truck that comes around, either supported by the village council or a community
member that for a small fee (varies $2, $5, or $10) to take garbage away, but it is
too expensive for some, and the service is irregular [31]. Some of the same
informants that disposed of their garbage at the dump also burn trash in their
yards, especially paper products [35]. Informants also reported that they or
someone that they knew dumps their garbage illegally outside of the community,
8
due to the distance of the dumping site or the difficulty of access (e.g., bad road)
[27]. There were complaints that people dump garbage on other people’s property
or on the side of the road [13] as well as burying garbage on their own property
[4]. There is a significant difference between communities. San Estevan informants
report that it is clean, people pick up after themselves, and everyone takes trash to
the dump, or pays someone to do it for them. San Lazaro informants told us that
they are farther from a dump site and people complain about the distance. In San
Pablo, people say that they are far from a dump, and they complain of people
throwing trash on their property or the side of the road.
Since garbage disposal has been a repeated concern of informants, we will continue
to ask about this issue with different communities in the next field season. It may
be that different communities each have their own specific garbage disposal issues.
COVID's Impact on the Community
This past field season was the first time we had been back to Belize since the start
of the COVID pandemic. We shared our community partners’ concern about the
impact that COVID had on sugar cane farming communities. We asked about the
impact of COVID in the community along three topics: (1) what was the effect of
COVID on the community, (2) did the aid you received help, and (3) what should
the priorities be for future aid?
When informants were asked what were the effects of the COVID pandemic on their
community, they responded most commonly that: there was higher unemployment,
people were laid off and/or could not find employment [52]; the medical treatment
for COVID was expensive, which resulted in people treating themselves at home
rather than going to the hospital or purchasing medicines [19]; people died in the
community [16]; prices have risen in Belize for food, fuel, and supplies [13]; people
stayed home more and did not go out [12]; people were not able to visit family and
friends in other communities [11]. Additionally, informants responded that: children
were not in school, are not learning social skills, and did not learn well due to not
having access to computers or the Internet [7]; the COVID Pandemic did not affect
them much [7]; people are not spending as much money as before; they are either
saving more or do not have enough [7]; people cannot buy cheap goods from
Mexico; the Free Zone was closed [7]; people cannot move freely/go out whenever
they want due to curfews [7]; people must wear masks [6]; tourism was greatly
reduced, which impacting the availability to work [4]; people are finding creative
ways to earn money, such as growing garden crops [3]; people could not sell their
goods [3]; people went to the store less frequently [3]; the curfew did not affect
them [2]; parties are not allowed [2]; people are more frightened [2]; people
cannot attend church; church attendance limited [2]; people have begun stealing
because they do not have any money [2]; people washed their hands more [2];
people's businesses closed because people were not buying things [2]; the
community experienced an economic downturn [2]; there were food shortages [2];
and vaccines are now required for some jobs [2]. The impacts of COVID were
varied and specific to each informant based upon their own family, work, and
community membership.
9
In the next field season, we will continue to ask about COVID’s impact on their
community, as we assume the effects will be long-term and we will be visiting
different communities.
Did COVID Aid Help?
Everyone we asked said that the government aid helped, but that it was not
enough, if not for them, then the poor. While we did not directly ask, informants
told us about the amounts that they received, which were based upon income,
assets, employment status, and family size: $300 every two weeks [4], $150 every
month [3], $150 every month [3], $300 every two months [3], $100 every two
months [2], $150 every two weeks [2], $300 every month [2], $100 every month
[1], $400 every month [1], and $75 every two weeks [1]. Others mentioned that
there was aid for other reasons, including unemployment: $1,800 unemployment
for tourism industry employees from government, and $1,000 for general
unemployment relief. Several informants mentioned that their church or other
community organization organized and gave food or money to those in need [11]. A
few informants mentioned that the BSCFA gave masks and hand sanitizer to them
[4]. Finally, many informants reported that they received groceries multiple times
from the government [35]; one informant told us this included "2 condensed milk
cans, two sticks of butter, one can of baking soda, two pounds of flour, two hot
chocolate mixes, five pounds of sugar, 10 pounds of beans, 8 pounds of rice, one
bar of soap for dishes, 2 pounds of carrots, 2 pounds of onions, 1 pound of
potatoes, to a total of $76.75.” While the groceries did help, informants stated that
they were not enough to offset their poverty due to the pandemic.
Respondents reported that it was difficult to apply for aid, as it was online and not
everyone has access to the Internet or knew how to apply. Informants told us that
they did not receive aid due to their income or employment status. There were a
few informants that suggested that people submitted false information to gain more
aid [3]. Several informants reported that some aid was dependent upon whether
you were of the same political party as the government [5]. They told us that
before the elections and change of government in summer 2021 from the United
Democratic Party (red) to the People's United Party (blue), everyone received aid,
regardless of political affiliation. They added, after this summer, if you were red,
you did not receive the same aid as those who were blue. As with education aid,
COVID aid was perceived to be determined by the relationship between the
informants’ and the governments’ political affiliation.
COVID Aid Priorities
Community members recommended that future aid include the following: food aid
needs to continue [24], financial aid needs to continue [24], medical aid is needed
(e.g., funding local clinics and medicine) [11], and educational aid (e.g., computers
and Internet [3], adult career training [3], children's educational supplies [2], and
train more teachers [1]) [10] as well as farm aid (e.g., fertilizer, land, goats, and
cows) [4], ensure everyone is vaccinated [4], create more jobs [3], distribute
10
masks and hand sanitizer [3] and continue unemployment assistance [3]. Prioritize
aid to those that need it (e.g., the elderly [18], single mothers [10], poor [7], and
families [6]) [64], not by people’s political affiliation [7]. There was a strong
opinion by several of our informants that any aid must go to those that need it, not
just to those with certain political affiliations or abilities to apply for the aid.
Since the COVID pandemic is ongoing, although not at as high levels as just before
the prior field season, we will continue to collect data on the community impacts of
COVID, the impact of aid, and opinions on future aid as many of the impacts of the
COVID pandemic will be long lasting.
Traditional Medicine
In previous field seasons, several informants spoke about traditional medicines that
community members 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 a prior 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 data that is difficult to analyze due to differences in plant
names and applications among informants. 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
and use other techniques for finding consensus on names and uses.
Sugar Cane Farming
Thirty-three of the 155 informants self-identified as sugar cane farmers and were
asked additional questions about their perception of sugar cane farmers’
associations as well as information sharing networks. The median age among the
farmers interviewed was 51 years old with 73% being male and 27% female. The
farmers were members of either the Belize Sugar Cane Producers Association (28,
85%) or the Progressive Sugar Cane Producers Association (4, 10%) with one
informant (3%) claiming no membership, as he was retired. There were no
members of the Corozal Sugar Cane Producers Association within our informant
sample. The informants reported that their roles in sugar cane farmers included: 17
owners (4 are women that said that their husbands managed the farm), 10 cutters,
2 apply herbicide/fertilizer, 3 truck drivers, 3 planters, 1 former farmer, and 1
group leader. As suspected from prior field seasons, identification as a sugar cane
farmer is a cover term for different roles and does not only include farm owners.
Meeting Attendance
In prior field seasons, community members were asked about the roles of sugar
cane farming organizations as well as about farmer’s association meetings and
activities. When we asked the self-reported farmers about their association meeting
attendance this field season, 11 (33%) attend nearly every meeting, 3 (10%)
11
attend some meetings, 11 (33%) rarely attend meetings, and 6 (18%) said that
they used to attend more, but COVID has prevented them from being more active.
Several farmers (6 [18%]) remarked that they were only a member, not a leader,
so they were rarely invited to attend meetings (e.g., for elections only).
It appears that from these responses, the owners and group leaders are more
active in meetings than are the laborers. In the coming field season, we will learn
more about meetings from the farmers associations and collaborate on additional
ways to understand meeting participation.
Association Concerns
At the request of the BSCFA and PSCPA, we asked farmers about what concerns
they had with the farmers’ associations. Most informants responded that they did
not have any concerns about the farmer's associations 16 (48%). Three (9%)
farmers said that farming associations need backing from the government. Two
(6%) farmers said that farming subsidies from government should be given to the
farmers due to drought. Two (6%) farmers said that there is not enough funding
going to individual farmers. Other farmers individually voiced the following
concerns: social security benefits for farmers, need suppliers outside of Orange
Walk Town, disagreements between farming association, issues at local meetings
do not make it to the larger association's leadership, fertilizer can be bought more
cheaply from other sources than the associations, association leadership is too
interested in helping themselves rather than the farmers they serve, the number of
local politicians should have had experience in the sugar industry, splitting the
farmers associations has made it easier for the government to control the farmers,
the BSCFA pushes farmers to work for BSI/ASR, small farmers should create their
own association to represent their interests, promises by one leader are not fulfilled
by the next leader of the association, associations encouraged planting more cane,
but their quota does not allow them to deliver it all, there are too many farmers as
the price of sugar cane declines, the associations should have more of a local
presence and action, the low price of sugar cane prevents them from investing or
expanding, there is no way to transfer quotas between family members,
associations should provide more equipment for husbandry and planning, farmers
should diversity their crops with fruit trees and other products for local
consumption, and associations must become Fair-Trade certified and train farmers
in these practices.
In the next field season, as we interview informants from other communities, we
will continue to ask farmers about their concerns with the farmers associations.
Santander Sugar Group
During this past field season, the option of delivering sugar cane to the Santander
Sugar Group as an alternative to ASR/BSI became a widely discussed topic. We
asked farmers about their opinion on delivering sugar cane to Santander. Most
farmers did not have a problem with selling sugar cane to Santander rather than
ASR/BSI, but the main issue that they cited as a barrier was that the cost to
12
transport cane to Santander would result in little, if any profit. The costs of
production and transportation are too high. In addition, other farmers mentioned
that the expected surplus did not materialize, so sending cane to Santander is not
an option; Santander does not yet have a mechanism for paying farmers like
ASR/BSI does; large farmers will benefit from a partnership with Santander more
than small farmers; mills in Mexico pay better than Santander, so they should be
considered as an alternative to ASR/BSI; the government is supporting ASR/BSI
over Santander, which makes negotiation between Santander and farmers difficult;
instead of considering Santander, another mill should be built closer to the sugar
cane farmers; and ASR/BSI has a monopoly on milling sugar cane, which makes it
impossible for farmers to consider other options.
As the relationships between ASR/BSI and Santander develop, we will continue to
ask farmers about their opinions about their relationships with the sugar cane mills.
Network Analysis
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 (e.g., 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 from whom they requested or
received information on 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, American Sugar
Refineries/Belize Sugar Industries [ASR/BSI], and sugar board). Data were then
analyzed using UCINET (Borgatti, Everett, and Freeman 2002) and Netdraw
(Borgatti 2002).
The network diagrams (Appendices V through XVI) were constructed with the node
sizes determined by eigenvector centrality. The eigenvector centrality measure
accounts for both the number of connections a node has to other nodes as well as
the number of connections those nodes have with other nodes. A higher
eigenvector centrality score indicates that a node has more connections with other
highly connected nodes. Eigenvector centrality finds those nodes that are important
because they are more connected to other important (highly connected) nodes. In
the case of this analysis, the larger the information source's node (BSCFA, PSCPA,
SIRDI, ASR-BSI, etc.), the more connections it has with farmers who are connected
with other information sources. The larger the farmer's node, the more connections
the farmer has with information sources who are connected with other farmers. In
sum, the larger the node, the more information the node is connected to as
13
compared with all other nodes within the network. The 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 XVI)
listing the sources of information which farmers use to access information about
sugar cane farming. The explanations are presented in order of frequency reported.
Appendices V through VII – Fertilizer Sources – Farmers received information about
fertilizer mostly from the BSCFA, followed by other farmers, the stores/suppliers,
the sugar board, SIRDI, ASR/BSI, and other sources.
Appendix V: Network Diagram – Fertilizer Sources by Association Membership –
Although most informants claim membership to the BSCFA, there does not appear
to be a strong effect of association membership to which source of information
farmers gain their fertilizer knowledge.
Appendix VI: Network Diagram – Fertilizer Sources by Sex (Female and Male) – The
majority of informants were male and their does not appear to be a significant
pattern of preference on where females and males differ in their fertilizer
information sources.
Appendix VII – Network Diagram – Fertilizer Sources by Role in Sugar Cane
Farming – While not a defining relationship, it does appear that the laborers do not
have as strong of a connection with ASR/BSI, stores/suppliers, and the Sugar Board
as the owners.
Appendices VIII through X – Herbicide Sources – Farmers received information
about herbicides mostly from the BSCFA, followed by other farmers, SIRDI,
stores/suppliers, the sugar board, ASR/BSI, and other sources.
Appendix VIII: Network Diagram – Herbicide Sources by Association Membership –
The non-BSCFA members appear to rely upon ASR/BSI, stores/suppliers, and the
Sugar Board more than BSCFA members.
Appendix IX: Network Diagram – Herbicide Sources by Sex (Female and Male) –
The women who have more sources of information rely upon ASR/BSI,
stores/suppliers, and the Sugar Board much more than men. It appears that most
women are not connected with the village chairman or other sources.
Appendix X – Network Diagram – Herbicide Sources by Role in Sugar Cane Farming
– It appears that owners share connections with other farmers, SIRDI, and the
BSCFA, but then fall into two groups: one with connections to ASR/BSI,
stores/suppliers, and the Sugar Board and another with connections to the village
chairman and other sources.
Appendices XI through XIII – Pesticide Sources – Farmers received information
about herbicides mostly from the BSCFA, followed by closely by SIRDI, the Sugar
14
Board, other farmers, and stores/supplies. ASR/BSI, village chairmen and other
sources are not as prominent.
Appendix XI: Network Diagram – Pesticide Sources by Association Membership –
There is a noticeable tendency for PSCPA member to gain information from PSCPA,
while BSCFA members do not.
Appendix XII: Network Diagram – Pesticide Sources by Sex (Female and Male) –
There does not appear to be any significant differences between how females and
males gain information about pesticides.
Appendix XIII – Network Diagram – Pesticide Sources by Role in Sugar Cane
Farming – There does not appear to be any significant difference between how
farmers with different roles gain information about pesticides.
Appendices XIV through XVI – Aggregated Sources – Farmers received most of
their information about farming (fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides) from other
farmers and the BSCFA about equally. SIRDI, stores/suppliers, and the Sugar Board
are nearly equal in being second of importance in the source of information. Lastly,
ASR/BSI is followed by other sources, the village chairman, PSCPA, and CSCPA, and
information providers.
Appendix XIV: Network Diagram – Aggregated Sources by Association Membership
– There is a noticeable tendency for PSCPA members to gain information from
PSCPA, while BSCFA members do not. There were far more BSCFA members than
PSCPA members in the sample, so this finding is not definitive.
Appendix XV: Network Diagram – Pesticide Sources by Sex (Female and Male) –
There does not appear to be any significant differences between how females and
males gain information in this aggregated data set.
Appendix XVI – Network Diagram – Pesticide Sources by Role in Sugar Cane
Farming – There does not appear to be any significant differences between how
farmers with different roles gain information in this aggregated data set.
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 (e.g., fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides) from the
Belize Sugar Cane Farmers Association and other farmers;
2. both the Sugar Industry Research and Development Institute,
stores/suppliers, and the Sugar Board share the second most common
source of information for farmers in our sample;
3. there is a difference in how female owners and male owners gain information
about herbicides—females are not as connected with the village chairman or
other sources;
4. there is a difference between how owners and laborers gain information
about fertilizer—owners are more connected with ASR/BSI, stores/suppliers,
and the Sugar Board; and
5. the complexity of this problem requires further data collection and analysis.
15
Due to the number of field researchers (four) this past field season, we were not
able to interview as many farmers as in prior field seasons. Since we have
discovered that a farmer’s role and their sex have potential effects in how they gain
farming knowledge, we will continue collecting this data in the next field season.
Conclusion
This report documents the findings from the summer 2021 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. Opportunities for jobs within the villages are difficult for community
members to find, let alone imagine creating during the COVID pandemic. Jobs
within the community are even more difficult for women to find. Child labor
continues to be an issue along with the availability of support for their education.
Alcohol and drug abuse remain a problem within communities, without clear
solutions. The effects of climate change are being felt locally as the weather
become more variable. Garbage disposal is still a concern, although there is
variability between communities as to the severity. The impacts of the COVID
pandemic are unequally affecting the poor and the effects will be long-term. Finally,
the use of traditional medicines varies widely within the communities, as the
knowledge is not clearly shared.
The sugar cane farming industry involves complex and changing relationships
between multiple stakeholders. The community development projects by the
farmers associations is not seen by community members as benefiting anyone who
is not involved in sugar cane farming. In addition, those farmers who are not
owners or group leaders do not see that they have a voice or leadership role within
the farming associations. The roles that community members take within the sugar
cane industry and their sex appear to affect the transference of knowledge, which
may lead to differential farming successes or failures. Both the relationships and
knowledge sharing among and between sugar cane farming industry stakeholders
continue to develop and change and the industry evolves.
The collected data helped answer questions from prior research and has resulted in
further questions for future field seasons. The findings from this field season were
affected by the COVID pandemic that is still impacting people’s ability to find work,
access food, educate their children, manage their health, and plan for the future.
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.
17
Appendix I: Informed Consent Statement – English
18
Appendix II: Informed Consent Statement – Spanish
19
Appendix III: Ethnographic Interview Schedule (Procedure), Part I
All Informants
1. Job Opportunities in the Community
2. Job Opportunities for Women
3. Children’s Educational Support
4. Child Labor
5. Alcohol/Drug Use
6. Climate Change
7. Farmers Association Investment
8. Garbage Disposal
9. COVID's Effect on the Community
10. Did COVID Aid Help?
11. COVID Aid Priorities
20
Appendix IV: Ethnographic Interview Schedule (Procedure), Part II
Farmers Only
1. Meeting Attendance
2. Association Concerns
3. Santander
4. Organizations
A. Membership (i.e., BSCFA, CSCPA, PSCPA)
B. Role (i.e., owner, group leader, cutter, etc.)
C. Involvement
D. Association Concern(s)Ego-centric information networks
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?
21
Appendix V: Fertilizer Sources by Association Membership
Membership where dark gray is BSCFA, medium gray is none (node SP-23), light
gray is PSCPA (nodes SP-53, SL-26, SE-13, and SE-18), and the sources of
information are white boxes.
SE-02
SE-11
SE-12
SE-28
SE-32
SE-33
SE-38
SE-45
SL-05 SL-15
SL-19
SL-22
SL-23
SL-30
SL-35
SP-01
SP-09
SP-16
SP-21
SP-25
SP-36
SP-39
SP-52
SP-23
SE-13
SE-18
SL-26
SP-53
Farmers
BSCF A
CSCPA
PSCPA
SIRDI
Store-Supplier
Village-Chairman
ASR-BSI
Sugar-Board
Other
22
Appendix VI: Fertilizer Sources by Sex (Female and Male)
Sex where light gray are females, dark gray are males, and the sources of
information are white boxes.
SE-02
SE-11
SE-12
SE-28
SE-32
SE-33
SE-38
SE-45
SL-05 SL-15
SL-19
SL-22
SL-23
SL-30
SL-35
SP-01
SP-09
SP-16
SP-21
SP-25
SP-36
SP-39
SP-52
SP-23
SE-13
SE-18
SL-26
SP-53
Farmers
BSCF A
CSCPA
PSCPA
SIRDI
Store-Supplier
Village-Chairman
ASR-BSI
Sugar-Board
Other
23
Appendix VII: Fertilizer Sources by Role in Sugar Cane Farming
Role where dark gray are owners (circles are those who actively manage their farm
and triangles have a family member manage the farm), medium gray are laborers
(cutters, fertilizer, herbicide, drivers, and planters), light gray triangle (SP-09) is a
former farmer, and the sources of information are white boxes.
SE-02
SE-11
SE-12
SE-28
SE-32
SE-33
SE-38
SE-45
SL-05 SL-15
SL-19
SL-22
SL-23
SL-30
SL-35
SP-01
SP-09
SP-16
SP-21
SP-25
SP-36
SP-39
SP-52
SP-23
SE-13
SE-18
SL-26
SP-53
Farmers
BSCF A
CSCPA
PSCPA
SIRDI
Store-Supplier
Village-Chairman
ASR-BSI
Sugar-Board
Other
24
Appendix VIII: Herbicide Sources by Association Membership
Role where dark gray are owners (circles are those who actively manage their farm
and triangles have a family member manage the farm), medium gray are laborers
(cutters, fertilizer, herbicide, drivers, and planters), light gray triangle (SP-09) is a
former farmer, and the sources of information are white boxes.
SE-02
SE-11
SE-12
SE-28
SE-32
SE-33
SE-38
SE-45
SL-05
SL-15
SL-19
SL-22
SL-23
SL-30
SL-35
SP-01
SP-09
SP-16
SP-21
SP-25
SP-36
SP-39
SP-52
SP-23
SE-13
SE-18
SL-26
SP-53
Farmers
BSCF A
CSCPA
PSCPA
SIRDI
Store-Supplier
Village-Chairman
ASR-BSI
Sugar-Board
Other
25
Appendix IX: Herbicide Sources by Sex (Female and Male)
Sex where light gray are females, dark gray are males, and the sources of
information are white boxes.
SE-02
SE-11
SE-12
SE-28
SE-32
SE-33
SE-38
SE-45
SL-05
SL-15
SL-19
SL-22
SL-23
SL-30
SL-35
SP-01
SP-09
SP-16
SP-21
SP-25
SP-36
SP-39
SP-52
SP-23
SE-13
SE-18
SL-26
SP-53
Farmers
BSCF A
CSCPA
PSCPA
SIRDI
Store-Supplier
Village-Chairman
ASR-BSI
Sugar-Board
Other
26
Appendix X: Herbicide Sources by Role in Sugar Cane Farming
Role where dark gray are owners (circles are those who actively manage their farm
and triangles have a family member manage the farm), medium gray are laborers
(cutters, fertilizer, herbicide, drivers, and planters), light gray triangle (SP-09) is a
former farmer, and the sources of information are white boxes.
SE-02
SE-11
SE-12
SE-28
SE-32
SE-33
SE-38
SE-45
SL-05
SL-15
SL-19
SL-22
SL-23
SL-30
SL-35
SP-01
SP-09
SP-16
SP-21
SP-25
SP-36
SP-39
SP-52
SP-23
SE-13
SE-18
SL-26
SP-53
Farmers
BSCF A
CSCPA
PSCPA
SIRDI
Store-Supplier
Village-Chairman
ASR-BSI
Sugar-Board
Other
27
Appendix XI: Pesticide Sources by Association Membership
Membership where dark gray is BSCFA, medium gray is none (node SP-23), light
gray is PSCPA (nodes SP-53, SL-26, SE-13, and SE-18), and the sources of
information are white boxes.
SE-02
SE-11
SE-12
SE-28
SE-32
SE-33
SE-38
SE-45
SL-05
SL-15
SL-19
SL-22
SL-23
SL-30
SL-35
SP-01
SP-09
SP-16
SP-21
SP-25
SP-36
SP-39
SP-52
SP-23
SE-13
SE-18
SL-26
SP-53
Farmers
BSCF A
CSCPA
PSCPA
SIRDI
Store-Supplier
Village-Chairman
ASR-BSI
Sugar-Board
Other
28
Appendix XII: Pesticide Sources by Sex (Female and Male)
Sex where light gray are females, dark gray are males, and the sources of
information are white boxes.
SE-02
SE-11
SE-12
SE-28
SE-32
SE-33
SE-38
SE-45
SL-05
SL-15
SL-19
SL-22
SL-23
SL-30
SL-35
SP-01
SP-09
SP-16
SP-21
SP-25
SP-36
SP-39
SP-52
SP-23
SE-13
SE-18
SL-26
SP-53
Farmers
BSCF A
CSCPA
PSCPA
SIRDI
Store-Supplier
Village-Chairman
ASR-BSI
Sugar-Board
Other
29
Appendix XIII: Pesticide Sources by Role in Sugar Cane Farming
Role where dark gray are owners (circles are those who actively manage their farm
and triangles have a family member manage the farm), medium gray are laborers
(cutters, fertilizer, herbicide, drivers, and planters), light gray triangle (SP-09) is a
former farmer, and the sources of information are white boxes.
SE-02
SE-11
SE-12
SE-28
SE-32
SE-33
SE-38
SE-45
SL-05
SL-15
SL-19
SL-22
SL-23
SL-30
SL-35
SP-01
SP-09
SP-16
SP-21
SP-25
SP-36
SP-39
SP-52
SP-23
SE-13
SE-18
SL-26
SP-53
Farmers
BSCF A
CSCPA
PSCPA
SIRDI
Store-Supplier
Village-Chairman
ASR-BSI
Sugar-Board
Other
30
Appendix XIV: Aggregated Sources by Association Membership
Membership where dark gray is BSCFA, medium gray is none (node SP-23), light
gray is PSCPA (nodes SP-53, SL-26, SE-13, and SE-18), and the sources of
information are white boxes.
SE-02
SE-11
SE-12
SE-28
SE-32
SE-33
SE-38
SE-45
SL-05
SL-15
SL-19
SL-22
SL-23
SL-30
SL-35
SP-01
SP-09
SP-16
SP-21 SP-25
SP-36
SP-39
SP-52
SP-23
SE-13
SE-18
SL-26
SP-53
Farmers
BSCF A
CSCPA
PSCPA
SIRDI
Store-Supplier
Village-Chairman
ASR-BSI
Sugar-Board
Other
31
Appendix XV: Aggregated Sources by Sex (Female and Male)
Sex where light gray are females, dark gray are males, and the sources of
information are white boxes.
SE-02
SE-11
SE-12
SE-28
SE-32
SE-33
SE-38
SE-45
SL-05
SL-15
SL-19
SL-22
SL-23
SL-30
SL-35
SP-01
SP-09
SP-16
SP-21 SP-25
SP-36
SP-39
SP-52
SP-23
SE-13
SE-18
SL-26
SP-53
Farmers
BSCF A
CSCPA
PSCPA
SIRDI
Store-Supplier
Village-Chairman
ASR-BSI
Sugar-Board
Other
32
Appendix XVI: Aggregated Sources by Farming Role
Role where dark gray are owners (circles are those who actively manage their farm
and triangles have a family member manage the farm), medium gray are laborers
(cutters, fertilizer, herbicide, drivers, and planters), light gray triangle (SP-09) is a
former farmer, and the sources of information are white boxes.
SE-02
SE-11
SE-12
SE-28
SE-32
SE-33
SE-38
SE-45
SL-05
SL-15
SL-19
SL-22
SL-23
SL-30
SL-35
SP-01
SP-09
SP-16
SP-21 SP-25
SP-36
SP-39
SP-52
SP-23
SE-13
SE-18
SL-26
SP-53
Farmers
BSCF A
CSCPA
PSCPA
SIRDI
Store-Supplier
Village-Chairman
ASR-BSI
Sugar-Board
Other
33
Bibliography
This bibliography includes all past Center for Applied Anthropology Reports and
Publications, whether or not they are cited in the text.
Arnason, John, Victor Cal, Todd Pesek, Rosalie Awad, Natalie Bourbonnais-Spear,
Sean Collins, Marco Otarola-Rojas, et al. 2022. “A Review of Ethnobotany and
Ethnopharmacology of Traditional Medicines Used by Q’eqchi’ Maya Healers of
Xna’ajeb’ Aj Ralch’o’och’, Belize.” Botany 100 (2): 219–30.
https://doi.org/10.1139/cjb-2021-0069.
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.
Cathy Smith. 2021. “From Colonial Forestry to ‘Community-Based Fire
Management’: The Political Ecology of Fire in Belize’s Coastal Savannas, 1920 to
Present.” Journal of Political Ecology 28 (1). https://doi.org/10.2458/jpe.2989.
Cleary, Patrick, Kristin Mercer, Kareem Usher, Richard Wilk, and Joel Wainwright.
2022. “Changes in Food Consumption in an Indigenous Community in Southern
Belize, 1979-2019.” Food, Culture & Society 25 (1): 89–107.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15528014.2021.1884403.
CfAA. 2022. Ethnographic Field School in Belize. Center for Applied Anthropology,
Northern Kentucky University.
https://inside.nku.edu/artsci/centers/cfaa/ethnographic-field-school.html.
Drexler, Kristin. 2021. “Climate-Smart Adaptations and Government Extension
Partnerships for Sustainable Milpa Farming Systems in Mayan Communities of
Southern Belize.” Sustainability, no. 6: 1.
Ferrell, Jacob, and Joel Wainwright. 2022. “The Political Economy of Development in
Belize under the People’s United Party.” Economic History of Developing
Regions, June, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/20780389.2022.2057294.
García Ortega, Martha. 2021. “Multiethnic Borders: Mexico-Guatemala-Belize
Migrations of Agricultural Sugar Workers: Fronteras Multiétnicas: Migraciones
México-Guatemala-Belice de Trabajadores Agrícolas Cañeros.” Estudios
Fronterizos 22 (January): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.21670/ref.2116079.
Griffith, Lauren, and Cameron Griffith. 2021. “Let Them Eat Chaya: Cultural
Revitalization through Culinary Offerings in Belize.” Heritage (2571-9408) 4 (3):
1511–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage4030083.
Hume, Douglas W., Lydia Alvarez, Julia Arzu, Abigail Burbank, Christian Cansino,
Miranda Kaplan, Musseit M’Bareck, Jordan Myers, Madalyn Roberts, Edward
Stephens, and Christy Valdez. 2021. “Report of the Ethnographic Field School in
Belize (Summer 2019).” Highland Heights: Center for Applied Anthropology,
Northern Kentucky University. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34166.11842.
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.
34
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
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.
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.
Mathias, Frank Gomez, Carolyn Gentle-Genitty, Janeen Quiroz, and Olga
Manzanero. 2022. “Effects of Risk Factors on Belizean Adolescents’ Academic
Behaviors and Grit after Prolonged Absence During the COVID-19 Pandemic.”
Continuity in Education 3 (1). https://doi.org/10.5334/cie.41.
Mphuthi, David D., and Danladi Chiroma Husaini. 2022. “Traditional Medicinal Plants
Used by Hypertensive Patients in Belize: A Qualitative Evaluation of Beliefs and
Practices.” Bulletin of the National Research Centre 46 (1): 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-022-00789-x.
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.
Pacheco-Cobos, Luis, and Bruce Winterhalder. 2021. “Ethnographic Observations on
the Role of Domestic Dogs in the Lowland Tropics of Belize with Emphasis on
Crop Protection and Subsistence Hunting.” Human Ecology: An Interdisciplinary
Journal 49 (6): 779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-021-00261-w.
Schmidt, Michelle. 2022. “Cultivating Health: Diabetes Resilience through Neo-
Traditional Farming in Mopan Maya Communities of Belize.” Agriculture and
Human Values 39 (1): 269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10245-7.
Spradley, James P. 2016. The Ethnographic Interview. Long Grove, Illinois:
Waveland Press, Inc.
Stevenson, Laurel D, Melissa M Reznar, Elizabeth Onye, Lynna Bendali Amor, Andre
J Lopez, and Rita DeFour. 2022. “A Qualitative Inquiry of Food Insecurity in
Belize.” Public Health Nutrition 25 (4): 977–86.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980021002615.
35
Waldram, James B., and Andrew R. Hatala. 2022. “Does ‘susto’ Really Exist?
Indigenous Knowledge and Fright Disorders among q’eqchi’ Maya in Belize.”
Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry: An International Journal of Cross-Cultural
Health Research, March. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11013-022-09777-2.
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.
