Socioeconomic determinants of organic cotton adoption in Benin, West Africa

Organic cotton relies on ecological processes and the use of natural resources to sustain the production system, unlike conventional cotton, mainly characterized by massive utilization of synthesis chemicals. In West Africa, where rural livelihoods are particularly vulnerable, organic cotton is expected to contribute not only to poverty reduction but also to strengthen households’ resilience. The objective of this study was to assess institutional and socioeconomic factors determining farmers’ decisions to adopt organic cotton. For this purpose, we applied a probit model on empirical data collected from producers of the Centre and the Northern parts of Benin. Overall, we found that organic cotton adoption is mainly determined by farmers’ socioeconomic characteristics, the physical distance between farm and house, and contact with extension and advisory services. Organic farming is more attractive to women compared to conventional farming. This because such type of cotton farming enables women to hold a separate cotton farm and thus increase their economic independence, whereas with the conventional system they depend mainly on the farm of the (male) head of the household. Older, less educated and low-income farmers who express environmental concern are more likely to adopt organic cotton. Subsequently, organic cotton should be considered as a prospective policy option to reach the poor and strengthen their livelihoods conditions while contributing to preserve the environment and natural resources. Furthermore, farmers who have their farm near home are more likely to adopt organic farming than those who have the farm far from their home. It also came out that organic farmers have more contacts with advisory and extension services. Finally, the study noted that there is still a need to enhance the extension system by: (1) exploring, designing, and upgrading innovative pedagogic tools such as videos and mobile phone technology to foster learning; and (2) strengthening organic farmer’s organizations and the linkage with agricultural research organizations for technology development

Minimizing harm while maximizing engagement: using identity affinity groups to engage with diversity, equity, and inclusion topics in LIS courses

While diversity in the LIS field has made some progress during the last two decades (Kung et al., 2020), the whiteness of the discipline remains a problem (Brown et al., 2018) for patrons and practitioners. One way to address LIS’s whiteness problem is to better prepare pre-service librarians to effectively and respectfully engage with diverse communities (Jaeger et al., 2013) and LIS professionals of color (Mehra, 2020). However, the field still has progress to make in how it discusses diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ) issues within LIS curricula (Pawley, 2006). Centering DEIJ topics with a humble and self-critical approach may better encourage and support students of color to enter the LIS field (Jones, 2020). With the majority of LIS faculty being white, we need to be ‘called in’ (Arroyo-Ramirez et al., 2018) to more effectively address DEIJ issues in our pedagogy and courses. An important part of social justice education is providing learners with the tools they need to critically analyze systems of oppression and to develop the capacity and agency to interrupt personal and systemic behaviors (Collins, Biniecki, & Polson, 2016). White faculty must support and respect the agency of students from marginalized groups while reducing the potential for retraumatization as they engage with the course contents and their non-marginalized peers. As a group of white faculty and students from marginalized groups, we will discuss a recent effort to address DEIJ topics within a specific course. To reduce the potential for harm as students worked to interrogate DEIJ issues in LIS, the faculty introduced identity affinity discussion groups in a virtual classroom setting and allowed students to self-select into these groups. We will discuss how this approach allowed students who identify as members of traditionally marginalized groups the option to engage with potentially difficult content without simultaneously managing interaction with peers from non-marginalized groups. Each of us will reflect on this experience, including discussing what worked well and what should be improved for future efforts. References Arroyo-Ramirez, E., Chou, R. L., Freedman, J., Fujita, S., & Orozco, C. M. (2018). The reach of a long-arm stapler: Calling in microaggressions in the LIS field through zine work. Library Trends, 67(1), 107–130. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2018.0028 Brown, J., Ferretti, J. A., Leung, S., & Méndez-Brady, M. (2018). We here: Speaking our truth. Library Trends, 67(1), 163–181. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2018.0031 Collins, R. A., Biniecki, S. Y., & Polson, C. (2016). Social justice education and U.S. military adult learners. Adult Education Research Conference. Jaeger, P. T., Bertot, J. C., & Subramaniam, M. (2013). Preparing future librarians to effectively serve their communities. Library Quarterly, 83(3), 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1086/670699 Jones, R. (2020). Social justice in library science programs: A content analysis approach. Journal of Librarianship & Information Science, 52(4), 1102–1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000620904432 Mehra, B., & Gray, L. (2020). An “owning up” of white-IST trends in LIS to further real transformations. The Library Quarterly, 90(2), 189–239. https://doi.org/10.1086/707674 Pawley, C. (2006). Unequal legacies: Race and multiculturalism in the LIS curriculum. Library Quarterly, 76(2), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1086/50695