How Do Networks Matter?

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INNOVATIVE PRACTICE OF CARE FARMING IN AUSTRIA AND THE NETHERLANDS

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Dr.rer.soc.oec

Created within the framework of the Doctoral School Sustainable Development (dokNE) University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna

Mag.a Renate Renner

Supervisors:

Univ.Prof. Michael Pregernig (Albert-Ludwigs-University, Freiburg) Univ.Prof. Bernhard Freyer (University of Natural Ressources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna) Univ.Prof. Karl Werner Brand (Technical University, Munich) Univ.Prof. James Bingen (Michigan State University, USA)

Reviewers: Univ.Prof. Karl Werner Brand (Technical University, Munich)

Priv. Doz.in Dr.in Ika Darnhofer (University of Natural Ressources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna)

Vienna, January 2010

This thesis was realised within the framework of the Doctoral School for `Sustainable Development` (dokNE) at the University of Natural Ressources and Applied Life Sciences. The Doctoral School was subsidised by the University of Natural Ressources and Applied Life Sciences (BOKU), the Federal Ministry for Science and Research (research program proVISION), the Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management, the federal states of Lower Austria and Styria and the city of Vienna.

Abstract
Keywords: Care Farming, Social Network Analysis, Innovation, Social Capital Challenges like technical progress and increasing competition through the globalisation of markets often lead farmers to either abandon their farm, to intensify their business or to offer multifunctional farming. An increasing phenomenon in Europe is care at farms, which is one form of multifunctional agriculture in order to reach new income possibilities at the farm. The new practice of care farming allows integration, care and rehabilitation of people with special needs by using an agricultural surrounding. Care farming ranges from elderly care at the farm to animal assisted therapy for people with special needs etc. Care farming addresses current social problems such as migration, the growth of the population, the question of rural development etc. Care farming could be one new alternative for care, which is why this social innovation is highly socio-politically relevant. A premise of this work is that social relations have a variety of functions and influence social life, particularly because human beings are social beings. Social relations influence self-esteem directly by social recognition or social learning processes and produce the feeling of being backed up by somebody. In this respect, this supports the development of an innovative practice like care farming. Within social networks resources can be produced that could facilitate actors within the network with larger options for their action. In this respect the term of social capital is relevant, because different theorists believe that through the relationship between actors, social capital, or otherwise resources, can be produced, which could enhance the development and later the stabilisation of a new practice. Consequently, the leading question of this research is How does farmers personal support network and social capital influence the innovation process in the case of care farming? In order to adapt the research, innovation-, network- and social capital theory is applied in order to structure the process of innovation and to emphasise characteristics of different periods and the obtained and needed form of support, similarly of social capital. This sample contains interviews with 38 farmers from Austria and the Netherlands that practice this form of care at the farm. Hence it allows considering firstly the importance of care farmer unions through which a varying amount of group social capital is obtained, secondly it considers

the importance of further forms of support provided by different actors and thirdly support of national differences in terms of a different political cultures that influences the demand to professionalise. This is why a comparative research design was applied and realised by the research cooperation with the University of Wageningen. Methodologically, the qualitative personal network approach was applied and verbal and visual data, as well as care farmer interviews and expert interviews, were triangulated in order to increase the understanding about the process of innovation. In addition to that, expert interviews were realised in order to increase context information and to better interpret the interviews with care farmers, and also to understand the development and positions of different experts in terms of the new practice. Findings have shown that some supporters and forms of support are indispensable, while others only increase the probability of stabilising the project. Findings have also shown that a dynamic of the support network exists. For instance new information that initiates the innovation is important at the beginning and predominantly transferred by people someone meets only occasionally, whereas family members esteem support and later also their practical support is important during the whole process of innovation. It was observed that business tasks, the demand to professionalise and emotional stress can be challenging for care farmers and that different support networks are used in order to cope with that. Regional care farmer unions with high group social capital have an impact on the stabilisation of projects for some types of care farmers, but ultimately represent additional profit for all. Differences between most terminators and adopters are related to the match of clients and care farmers, the perceived emotional stress and the willingness for or the state of professionalisation in terms of education and/or farm adaption. This research proved the importance of a continuing contact between care farmers and clients key carer givers and care experts to be indispensable in order to stabilise a care farming project and to decrease emotional stress. In addition to that the comparative study discovered that the existing political culture of both countries generally becomes visualised in the case of care farming. Austrian care farmers have a higher demand to professionalise and a lower disposition to experiment with the new practice, whereas the contrary can be said for the Dutch.

Acknowledgement
The first doctoral school at the University of Natural Ressources and Applied Life Sciences, named Doctoral School for `Sustainable Development (dokNE), was started in March 2007 and finished at the end of January 2010. A multidisciplinary team guided seventeen PhD students from different disciplines to realise their theses, with the individual projects showing a different extent of interdisciplinary interconnection. Participants of the doctoral school had the chance to contribute to sustainability research in a narrow or wider sense, and to realise the thesis by cooperating with a larger research network. First of all I would like to thank my supervisors Michael Pregernig, Karl-Werner Brand and Bernhard Freyer, who have guided me through the research process for three years, invested many hours of discussions that provided me with important insights and helped me to concretise and to realise this study. I have had substantial discussions with them from which I have benefited considerably. Michael, Werner and Bernd were always available at short notice for meetings if there was an urgent necessity to talk and I am very grateful for everything I have learned from them. I am aware that I had many more chances for discussions with them than a PhD student can normally expect to have. Ika Darnhofer played a special role; she helped me to narrow down the field of study and significantly influenced the choice of the focus on care farming, which stabilised the research. I am grateful for having met her and for the long talks during lunch through which I learned much more than aspects that are visible within the final academic end product. Jim Bingens interest in this research and his demand of high standards motivated me, his critical comments and questions induced me to once more reflect my research and to make necessary modifications. He helped me to analyse the data with a stronger focus and even if he only started to influence the dissertation in the last phase of writing, which was beyond question a challenge for both of us, I owe an advance of the dissertations qualitiy to him. Any study based on fieldwork as this one is, involves the cooperation of many people who invest their precious time to answer a lot of questions, farmers who worked the whole day and offered their sparse spare time mostly in the evening, but also experts who are often under time pressure were willing to spend a minimum of one hour for an interview. Therefore, I want to thank all respondents for taking part in this research process. Many thanks to Dorit Haubenhofer, who was my direct cooperation partner, provided me with literature from the care farming field, helped to realise my research stay in the Netherlands and realized the interviews with Dutch care farmers by following the interview guideline accurately. I

am very thankful for that. Furthermore, I cherish the offered credit of trust coming from Jacques Neeteson and Hein Korevaar who enabled realising the research cooperation through their approval to funding the Dutch part of this cooperation. Moreover, I would like to express my gratitude to Jan Hassink and Marjolein Ellings with whose help I was able to come into contact with the right experts of the Dutch care farming sector. They have been doing research in this field for years and I am very obliged for shared knowledge and providing me with context information that was important for interpreting and understanding the interplay of different actors in terms of care farming within this country. Thanks to Harald Katzmaier, who provided information about how to transfer the qualitative data into a network diagram and how to make it possible to present them visually. In order to put his quickly explained formulas into practice it proved to be advantageous to be a member of a multidisciplinary team. I am especially grateful for the support of my colleague and computer scientist Johannes Schmidt. Although he could have taken holidays, as he had already finished his thesis, he decided to adapt the formulas for my research and showed me how to apply them. Many thanks to Ulla Klopf who helped to improve the design of the network diagrams. I also want to thank Sarah Maier and Philip Reid for their careful proofreading of the manuscript. Sarah taught me a lot and has always been available for me. I would like to express my gratitude to Heidi Leopold, Anja Bauer and Judith Feichtinger, who I had many discussions about different scientific approaches with, but who also became important friends during the time of my study. I really appreciate the many inspiring discussions about our work and a pleasant working atmosphere with Sebastian Helgenberger, my office and Dokne colleague. Overall I want to thank all members of the doctoral college, doctoral students and training staff, who came from different disciplines and expressed various views and thus helped me to get a broad picture of science. Last but in no way least I would like to thank my sister Maria Renner for always believing in me, and Arno Studeregger, who has always supported me, took my mind off things with many climbing and ski tours togehter and helped me to get new energy for my work through many talks.

Contents
1 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 3 3.1 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.4 4 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.3 5 5.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 13 Care Farming ..................................................................................................................................... 19 Definition, forms and distribution of care farming across Europe.................................. 21 Care and farming: A short historical review ........................................................................ 25 Current relevance of care farming......................................................................................... 27 State of knowledge in terms of care farming - a brief review ........................................... 29 Premises and leading question ............................................................................................... 32 The innovative practice of care farming...................................................................... 32 Why is it essential to focus on networks at all? .......................................................... 34 Theories.............................................................................................................................................. 37 Theories of innovation............................................................................................................ 39 Social network theory.............................................................................................................. 44 Historical development of social network theory...................................................... 44 Relevant concepts of social network analysis ............................................................. 47 Social capital theory................................................................................................................. 58 Different perspectives on social capital by Bourdieu, Coleman, Burt and Putnam.. ........................................................................................................................................... 58 Comparison of the different perspectives on social capital...................................... 61 Forms of social capital and its importance for innovations ..................................... 62 Operationalisation of social capital at a group level .................................................. 64 Connection of theoretical strands and working hypotheses ............................................. 71 Methods and Techniques................................................................................................................. 77 Case selection ........................................................................................................................... 79 Expert interviews............................................................................................................ 79 Interviews with care farmers......................................................................................... 80 Data collection - Techniques applied.................................................................................... 82 The expert interview....................................................................................................... 82 The narrative interview .................................................................................................. 83 The problem-centred interview .................................................................................... 84 Network diagram ............................................................................................................ 86 Additional information about the procedure of data collection.............................. 88 Data analysis ............................................................................................................................. 90 Exploration and Specification of the Samples Context ............................................................. 93 Austria and the Netherlands: geographical characteristics ................................................ 95 9

5.2 Characteristics and differences in terms of the political culture of Austria and the Netherlands .................................................................................................................................................97 5.3 5.4 Characteristics and differences in terms of agriculture.....................................................101 Characteristics and differences in terms of care farming .................................................103

5.5 The care farming development within different political cultures from experts perspective.................................................................................................................................................111 5.5.1 5.5.2 5.6 5.6.1 5.6.2 capital 6 6.1 6.1.1 6.1.2 6.2 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 The Dutch development of care farming..................................................................111 The Austrian development of care farming ..............................................................115 Case profiles............................................................................................................................120 Socio demographic and business related characteristics of the case profiles.......120 Categorisation and characteristics of groups of care farmers in terms of social .........................................................................................................................................123 Characteristics of the initiation period................................................................................135 Prehistories and motifs for starting up a care farm .................................................135 Obtained and needed forms of support and of social capital ................................137 Characteristics of the developmental period......................................................................145 Perceived problems and challenges when developing a care farming project .....145 The role of social capital in order to cope with the demand to professionalize..149 The role of social capital in order to cope with business questions ......................153

The Innovation Process, Characteristics and Needs from Care Farmers Perspective ........133

6.2.4 Supporters and obtained and needed forms of support when developing the care farming project .........................................................................................................................................161 6.3 6.3.1 Characteristics of the implementation period....................................................................169 Occurring problems and challenges when implementing care farming................169

6.3.2 The role of social capital in order to deal with emotional stress and further relevant supporters...................................................................................................................................172 6.3.3 farming 6.4 6.4.1 capital 6.4.2 7 8 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 10 Supporters and obtained and needed forms of support when implementing care .........................................................................................................................................176 Adoption or termination of the project and relevant circumstances .............................181 Terminators circumstances and obtained forms of support and of group social .........................................................................................................................................181 Adopters circumstances and obtained forms of support.......................................186 Resume and Final Conclusions .....................................................................................................191 Appendix ..........................................................................................................................................199 Care farmer interview guideline ...........................................................................................201 Short questionnaire care farmer...........................................................................................210 Expert interview guideline ....................................................................................................212 Interview appendix Protocol.............................................................................................216

8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9

Operationalisation of forms of social capital..................................................................... 218 List of abbreviations.............................................................................................................. 221 List of tables ........................................................................................................................... 222 List of figures.......................................................................................................................... 224 Literature................................................................................................................................. 225

11

12

1 INTRODUCTION

13

14

An increasing phenomenon in Europe is Care Farming, a new practice that provides people with special needs with meaningful work and offers new forms of therapy and care. This research focuses on original farmers that offer care at their farm and regards them as an economically and politically weak group; hence the author assumes that this group needs different forms of support in order to stabilise the new practice. The weakness of the group of farmers and why they are struggling with a lot of difficult conditions is rooted in the past. According to DIPPER (2008) if modernity means a radical end of tradition, then it started in the agricultural sector in the second half of the 20th century. Economic historians name it industrialisation of agriculture, meaning the intensive use of fertiliser and pesticides and engineered mono-cultural farming to increase food production. Environmental historians report of increasing environmental problems as a result of industrialised agriculture (cf. DIPPER 2008, 111). Intensive agriculture increased but this is in the meantime not recognised positively anymore and less desired by society. For instance one indicator of this is food trends that show an orientation towards health and fairness (cf. BUNDESMINISTERIUM FORSTWIRTSCHAFT 2008, 157-160). In the contemporary time, agriculturalists have to cope with major challenges like technical progress and the increasing competition through globalisation of markets. Additionally, agricultural policy has changed and financial support for agriculture in Europe by national governments and the European Union is decreasing. Beside the fact that today many farms become abandoned because potential successors do not perceive positive future perspectives in continuing a farm (WIESINGER 2000, 219-220), there are two contrasting trends within the European agricultural sector in the present time. The number of agricultural enterprises and agricultural population tend to decrease while the size of agricultural areas managed by farmers increase, with the consequence of high specialisation (cf. BUNDESMINISTERIUM FR LAND- UND FORSTWIRTSCHAFT 2009, 206). As a second strategy to cope with current challenges, different types of diversification, such as value-added agriculture and agri-tourism, emerge. Value-added agriculture, for instance the production of innovative products or organic farming, has increased, especially in Austria (cf. BUNDESMINISTERIUM FR LAND- UND FORSTWIRTSCHAFT 2007, 194). According to RENTING et al. (2008) activities of agricultural diversification correspond to the strategy of deepening activities and that of broadening activities. The former means that relations between a farm and the agro-food supply chain are reconfigured by converting for instance from conventional to organic farming, whereas broadening activities means expanding the relations between the farm and the rural area by providing services for the non-food market, 15
FR

LAND-

UND

such as agri-tourism, care farming etc. (cf. RENTING, OOSTINDIE et al. 2008, 372). The latter is also understood as multifunctional agriculture and the increasing amount of scientific work related to that topic e.g. KNICKEL and RENTING (2000), RENTING, OOSTINDIE et al. (2008);
RANDALL (2002) and VAN HUYLENBROECK, DURAND et al. (2003) can be seen as an indicator for

the importance of this expanding phenomenon. In the process of industrialisation, agriculture lost social and environmental functions although this has changed again recently, especially because of the trend of the diversification of agriculture. Compared to the above-mentioned current popular and widely known forms of diversifications, the minor development of care farming is relatively unknown. As defined by the SOFAR
RESEARCH GROUP

(2007), care farming means that care, rehabilitation or integration of socially

disadvantaged groups or people with special needs is provided in an agricultural surrounding. Its target group can be manifold; it ranges from children to elderly, from long-term unemployed to mentally or physically disabled people (cf. IBID. 2007, 88). Beside the fact that farmers try to enhance their own situation, we can also say that the signs of the times enable the development of care farming. Past experiences have shown negative effects of institutionalisation in the care sector. In the present time society is shifting towards clientoriented care and responsibilities for care are decentralised and shifted to municipalities. Beyond that, individualised society has to cope with new forms of diseases or problems such as the superannuation of society, with the consequence of a lack of places to care for elderly etc. Care farming seems to offer some solutions to counteract current social developments. The special offer of care farming meets the current need for calm places that are distinguished by a close touch with nature and simplicity. Furthermore, through the individualisation in our globalising world, choices and pressure to perform are increasing. The western world has to cope with a lot of new problems, for instance overworked people, loss of contact to nature and a superannuation of the population. Agriculture can offer a special surrounding to society with easy manual work and new forms of relaxation, for the lifestyle and rehabilitation of people who need a decrease of the speed of life. However, the short description of current developments shows the importance of supporting innovative forces to make sure that society will be able to overcome these new challenges. Care farming has been overlooked for its potential to help assure or enhance rural livelihoods and sustainability. Among other projects, care farming can be an auspicious practice to answer the outcomes of social change and is socio-politically and scientifically highly relevant. New practices in general need to be supported in order to enable its diffusion and stabilisation. Hence, the focus 16

of this study explores the form of support that is necessary at a particular stage of the innovation process and from whom this support can be provided in order to find out how the new practice can be stabilised.

17

18

2 CARE FARMING

19

20

2.1 Definition, forms and distribution of care farming across Europe

There is a wide range of different terms used to describe the expanding phenomenon of care on farms, hence names like Farming for Health, Social Farming, Green Care, Care Farming, Green Exercise, Agricultural Therapy etc. are used within different European countries (cf. DESSEIN 2008, 15). In German speaking literature the phenomenon is termed Soziale Landwirtschaft (VAN ELSEN 2008, 20) and zorglandbouw (BLOM-ZANDSTRA and HASSINK 2008) in Dutch literature. In this research I use the term care farming, which is defined by the SoFar-research group (2007) as follows:
Social farming (or care farming or green care) is a term used to describe a wide range of diverse farming practices aimed at promoting disadvantaged peoples rehabilitation or care and/or contributing towards the integration of people with low contractual capacity. (SOFAR-RESEARCHGROUP 2007, 88).

BRAASTAD, GALLIS et al. (2007) define green care as

[] the utilisation of agricultural farms as a base for promoting human mental and physical health. [] In the countryside and on farms, the animals, the plants, the garden, the forest, and the landscape are used in recreational or work-related activities [] (BRAASTAD, GALLIS et al. 2007, 14).

The above-mentioned definition by Braastad, Gallis et al. (2007) in my point of view includes animal assisted therapy and horticulture. HASSINK and
VAN

DIJK (2006) on the other hand

distinguish between green care, horticultural therapy and animal assisted therapy to put the focus on diverse forms of care on farms. The dominance of different forms of care farming varies in European countries. The terms are defined as follows:
Green care farms represent a working environment where a diversity of target groups is performing meaningful activities. Horticultural therapy, therapeutic horticulture, healing gardens and healing landscapes. Plants, horticulture, gardens and landscapes are used in therapy or in a recreative setting in order to improve well-being or to reach predefined goals. Animal-assisted therapy, education and activities. Animals are used in therapy or in a recreational or educational setting in order to improve well-being or to reach pre-defined goals (HASSINK and VAN DIJK 2006, 347-348).

21

HASSINK and

VAN

DIJK (2006) outline that for instance horticultural therapy is significant in the

UK (with a number of around 800 projects) and in Germany with around 400 hospitals and rehabilitation centres that provide horticultural therapy as part of work therapy. In Austria and Sweden it has also obtained status but in other European countries this form of therapy is not recognised (cf. HASSINK and
VAN

DIJK 2006, 351). Additionally, animal assisted therapy, which

means providing therapy with farm animals, is not widespread and not widely accepted. Horse therapy is acknowledged in Finland, Germany, Switzerland and Austria. Animal assisted therapy with farm animals e.g. goats, pigs, cows etc. seems to be an Austrian phenomenon (cf. HASSINK and VAN DIJK 2006, 351-352). Broadly speaking, following HASSINKS
AND VAN

DIJKS definition, green care is predominantly

practiced in the Netherlands, Norway, Italy, Belgium, Slovenia and Switzerland. Horticultural therapy is recognised predominantly in the UK and Sweden, whereas there is a focus on animalrelated therapy in Finland. In Germany and Austria a development of all three forms of care on farms is registered (cf. HASSINK and VAN DIJK 2006, 248). The term care farm has to be understood as an umbrella term for all above-mentioned forms of care on farms. The number of care farms differs strongly in European countries. According to HASSINK (2006, 347) care farms are not centrally registered and numbered in many countries, wherefore the following numbers have to be seen as estimations, but still a rough ranking can be made.
Country The Netherlands Italy Germany Flanders Ireland Slovenia France Number 700 350 170 260 90 20 >1200 % of total 0.7 0.01 0.03 0.4 0.08 <0.01 >0.02

Table 1: Number of care farms compared to the total number of farms in percent. In: SoFar-research group, 2007, 47.

According to the SOFAR-RESEARCH-GROUP (2007) the Netherlands, with a number of about 700 care farms (in the meantime it is estimated that they already have about 1000 care farms), which is 0,7% of the total number of farms, seems to be the leading country, followed by Flanders. Slovenia and Italy come in last with 0.01% of care farms within their country (cf. SOFAR22

RESEARCH-GROUP

2007, 47). Austria is not included in the table above and care farms are not

numbered in this country, but it is estimated that there are about 250 care farms in existence in Austria (cf. WIESINGER, NEUHAUSER et al. 2006, 233). In addition to differences in forms of care on farms and the number of care farms in Europe, the target group can be manifold e.g. psychiatric patients, mentally disabled persons, people with learning disabilities, people with burnout problems, people with drug problems, young people, elderly people, and clients of social service (BRAASTAD, GALLIS et al. 2007, 14). According to HASSINK (2006, 350) children and psychiatric clients as a target group are dominant in Norway, whereas vulnerable children are the main clients of care farms in Switzerland. A mixed client group is common in Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands, e.g. drug addicts, people with mental problems and people with burn-out are working together at the same care farm (cf. HASSINK and
VAN DIJK

2006, 350).

Real worldly care farming can be practiced by a (farming) family business but also by a large (care) institution. It can be distinguished between care farms that predominantly focus on either agricultural production or on care. The terms used to describe this difference are diverse in European countries. According to HASSINK (2006) in Italy for instance care farms that offer care for a certain client group but are predominantly oriented on production are called family farms, in Austria they are termed traditional household-based schemes and in the Netherlands, Belgium and Slovenia they are called independent farms cooperating with health institutions (cf. HASSINK and
VAN

DIJK 2006, 350). Farms that are more care oriented are not necessarily

started up by or employ a professional farmer, rather utilise clients and social workers to fulfill agricultural duties - the aim of agricultural production is secondary to the aim of care. Care oriented farms are known in Italy as social cooperatives, which means that specialised social units [] start with professional training and therapeutic practices with specific target groups but have agreements with local farms in order to practice the care activities on their land (DI IACOVO, SENNI et al. 2006, 300). Similar to that, Austria offers nursing places, refering to care institutions that incorporate agricultural work (cf. WIESINGER, NEUHAUSER et al. 2006, 235). Furthermore, there are institutional farms in the Netherlands, Belgium and Slovenia (cf. HASSINK and
VAN

DIJK 2006, 350). Institutional farms are farms that occupy the status of a

health organisation (cf. ELINGS and HASSINK 2006, 168). In this case the focus is on care farms practiced by a farming family business, the different duties of which are detailed below.

23

If professional farmers start up a care farm, a variety of farmers duties emerge, depending on the goals in terms of care. Goals can range from daytime occupation, work training, social inclusion, rehabilitation, education, place to live, to specific therapeutic goals (HASSINK and
VAN

DIJK

2006, 350). Hence, farmers can be responsible for instructing clients on what to work on and how to work at the farm, provide them with easy manual work and organise a daily schedule, or alternatively simply provide a section of their farm for clients and their caretakers. If the latter is the case, farmers have to offer for instance rooms, toilets and canteens accessible for people with impairments. If animal assisted therapy is offered, farmers have to train their animals for therapeutic use and assist the therapist. Usually farmers do not undertake a therapeutic function but cooperate with professional therapists. That is also why the Austrian Education Centre for Animal Assisted Therapy requires cooperation of participating partners (professionals from the social/care sector and from the agricultural sector) who attend a course for animal assisted therapy together. Moreover, depending on the existence of and membership to support organisations, farmers have to do administrative work such as the acquisition of clients and are accountable for the outsourcing of duties.

24

2.2 Care and farming: A short historical review

Care farming is only relatively new, as the practice already existed before industrialisation. It is known that people with psychological diseases were employed for therapeutic reasons at european agricultural care stations, for instance, on a farm at Sargossa Hospital, Spain in the 15th century (cf. FOUCAULT 1969, 344). However, intellectually disabled people were employed predominantly in the farming sector during this time rather as maids and menials than as clients who received working therapy. In this respect agriculture assumed the role of an important employer in the countryside because a lot of manual work demanded a large number of maids and menials. But in the time of industrialisation requirements on society changed drastically. Agriculture became more technical and intense, hence maids and menials where not needed at farms anymore and the migration to cities increased. Subsequently, healthy and ill people were separated in society due to the development of institutions for (mentally) ill people. According to WIESINGER (2006) it was common before industrialisation to care for elderly, disabled (family members) or people with learning difficulties within the extended family at farms in rural areas. The transition from the extended to the nuclear family was a consequence of technical innovations. The development of smaller family systems effected the care situation in a way that it was less possible to care for people with special needs within the family system because the nuclear family offered less contact partners or people to care for e.g. disabled family members (cf. WIESINGER, NEUHAUSER et al. 2006, 234). Moreover, Hoffmann (2004) describes that European industrialised countries started to establish highly hierarchically organised institutions for psychiatric patients in the mid 19 century. These mental institutions called asylums were supposed to offer a protected living space for mentally ill people, to save them from exploitation, pauperisation, abuse etc. (cf. HOFMANN 2004, 4). The therapy of inhabitants of those mental institutions was oriented on medication and daily life was organised in terms of hygiene and safety from violence and suicide only, but not in terms of social life. As a consequence of that, people became hospitalised and socially isolated (cf. IBID. 2004, 5).
th

25

HOFMANN (2004) argues that the reformation of this care system in the 60s and 70s of the 20th century was propelled by Goffmann who criticised the `total institution` and by Simon Hermann who reformed the Gterlsoher Hospital in a way which implemented working therapy for mentally ill clients. Moreover, ideas by Maxwell Jones about group therapy or an equal relationship between patients and health institution staff influenced the whole reformation process within this sector in Europe. Extramural facilities were established and instead of the old hierarchically organised institution a multi-professional team supported the clients in their process of selfdiscovery. A decentralisation of those institutions was realised to save inhabitants from alienation of social life and to decrease other negative side effects like hospitalisation (cf. HOFMANN 2004, 5-8). In the 1960s the idea of how to care for the elderly shifted from a mainly medical oriented model to a model with an emphasis on individual demands and an increasing focus on the quality of life for people in long-term care, for instance in the Netherlands (cf. ELINGS and HASSINK 2006, 165) care at farms, otherwise known as Care Farming. Contemporary European trends in psychiatric care are focused on decentralisation of facilities, on ambulant therapy and on moving care to the municipalities (cf. BAUER 2005, 19). Similar to the negative effects of centralisation and institutionalisation in the care sector, the trend of intensive farming after industrial revolution proved to be a failure because of the lack of sustainability in the long term. Today, society and farmers are beginning to perceive that again a wide range of functions beside food production are undertaken by agriculture, for instance services for the non-food market like tourism and education or [e]nvironmental functions such as increasing biodiversity or maintaining landscape. Cultural functions (identity, heritage, etc.) and [e]thical functions (fair trade, animal welfare, etc.) are perceived as less valuable, similar to [s]ocial functions e.g. food security, social cohesion [], employment, etc.) (RENTING, OOSTINDIE et al. 2008, 366). Generally, a care farm provides more functions than those normally provided by social services HERMANOWSKI (2006, 14); hence a social surplus value is produced by care farming (cf. ELSEN 2008, 21). To draw a conclusion, care farming is only relatively new, as just shortly before industrialisation people with special needs were often integrated into farming. During the time of industrialisation agriculture became more engineered and therefore offered less manual work. Subsequently, people with special needs were placed in special institutions (WIESINGER 1991, 34). At the present time, beside a variety of new duties in agriculture, the therapeutic function of farms has been rediscovered. 26
VAN

2.3 Current relevance of care farming

The fact that farmers are looking for new income possibilities with the consequence of the development of multifunctional agricultures in general and care farming in more specific terms, is strongly connected to the demand for this offer in times of individualisation and globalisation. On the one hand, it is expected that care farming represents new options of diversification of farms and enlarges the role of agriculture and improves its status within society. Care farming offers possibilities to enhance rural development because it is a new income alternative for farmers and it produces new working places for other professionals in the countryside. It offers possibilities to connect urban and rural areas as the case in the Netherlands illustrates when drug addicts or homeless people from Amsterdam do meaningful work on care farms near the city. On the other hand there are many developments in contemporary times that demand new forms of rehabilitation, long-term care etc. Hence care farming could offer alternative forms to live, to provide therapy and care for people with special needs. A survey about work-related diseases has shown that one third of all economically active Austrians were exposed to at least one mental factor at work that can have adverse effects on health, suffering most frequently from time pressure or overload of work (STATISTIK-AUSTRIA 2007, 12). Another typical development of contemporary times is that we face a growth of the population. Currently Austria has about twenty-two percent of inhabitants older than 60, but it is expected that this number will increase by about one third until the year 2075 (cf. STATISTIK-AUSTRIA 2008, 16-18). The demand for care at farms originates from the negative side-effects of a globalised and individualised world that is characterised by a high multi-optionality; time runs faster and decisions have not only to be made more often but also more quickly. Demands of the professional world often do not accord with the capacity of individuals. Subsequently burn-out or drug abuse for instance accumulates within the time of individualisation because one has to be able to cope with having multiple options. According to BARKER (1998) living within a wellarranged collective with a clear division of responsibilities in which people know exactly what they will have to do in every moment does not only mean a restriction of freedom but can also decrease fears and insecurity. Consequently it releases people from responsibilities and allows them to develop skills and talents within a relatively secure and promotive atmosphere (cf. BARKER 1998, 141). 27

The aim of care farms is to offer people with special needs a surrounding in which they not only have clear schedules but also meaningful work based on clients' capabilities in order to support them to develop further talents and skills and in the best case to become reintegrated into the normal labor market. At this point it is interesting to mention that in the Netherlands there are already successfully established care farms that specialise in the rehabilitation of burnout patients. It is recognised that new forms of long-term care will be necessary in the near future, while some auspicious projects already exist. Examples of these types of projects include a group of approximately 10 farms in Perg (Upper-Austria) that offer 24h care for the elderly or the Adelwhrerhof in Styria that offers 14 people highly professionalised care on a farm. Care farming offers a specific form of easy manual work, contact to nature and animals, a place to decrease the speed of life and social inclusion by being integrated within the farmers family system. This new approach focuses on a fruitful connection of modern therapeutic knowledge and that of longterm care with positive effects of a less specialised agricultural surrounding. In recent history agriculture has played an important role in the production of food, while also playing important roles in social cohesion within rural areas and social integration of socially disadvantaged people. These roles changed gradually because of technical progress; hence farms became highly specialised and mainly responsible for food production. Around this time, instead of living within the large farming family system, people with special needs e.g. mentally ill, elderly etc. were generally put into hierarchically organised institutions. In the present time health care is more oriented on a cooperative relationship between clients and carer, and care facilities are becoming decentralised. As a result, the therapeutic function of farms is being rediscovered. Multifunctional agriculture, especially care farming, can offer auspicious possibilities to answer existing problems of the individualised society. These aspects of agriculture and the need for new ideas for long-term care, for the rehabilitation of people struggling with the speed and demands of life in the current time come together in care farming. Research groups such as SoFar or the Cost Action Green Care for Agriculture start from the point that care farming offers excellent possibilities to counteract current social problems.

28

2.4 State of knowledge in terms of care farming - a brief review

Scientific work in terms of care farming increased particularly because of three trans-European projects (SoFar1, Cost Action 866: Green Care in Agriculture2 and Farming for Health3) that are aimed at enhancing the scientific knowledge about the topic and enabling the implementation of it in practice. For example, the therapeutic effect of care farming is explored in several research projects e.g. DEMATTIO and SCHOLL (2007), NEUBERGER (2007), HAIGH (2007) SEMPIK (2007)., The focus is on different forms of care on farms (animal-assisted or horticultural therapy etc.) and their effects on physical or mental health and on the well-being of different client groups. Health effects through animal assisted therapy with farm animals are being recognised. According to DEMATTIO and SCHOLL (2007, 141) clients communication skills, attentiveness to their surrounding and enjoyment of life increased by receiving animal assisted therapy with goats. Moreover, aspects of the therapeutic effect of care farming are discussed by ENDERS-SLEGERS (2008) who focuses on the importance of the clients role, highlighting the difference between being a co-worker on a farm and simply being an official client in a health institution. Some research provides information about the economic aspect of care farming, its necessary investments compared to its income and existing financial structures (OLTMER and GABE 2008). Efforts have been made by farmers and health institutions, as well as new types of business entities, to make care farming competitive enterprises and to maintain rural landscapes (VAN ELSEN, GNTHER et al. 2006), with the latter being involved in the Fordhall Project (HEGARTY 2007). This project exemplified new possibilities to maintain landscape because ordinary people [] [are] re-connect[ed] with farming by being part-owners in a community-owned enterprise committed to green principles (cf. HEGARTY 2007, 113).

http://www.sofar-d.de/ http://www.umb.no/greencare/ http://www.farmingforhealth.org/

29

Besides focusing on the potential of care farming for enhancing rural development and investigating curative or therapeutic effects on some client groups, there is an emphasis on the potential of care farming in terms of current socio-political questions, such as the problem of growth of the population and the increasing need for places for long-term care, an example being DRIEST (2006). Moreover, there are not only investigations on the potential of care farming but also on the acceptance of this new practice within different segments of society. The willingness of parents to agree to the participation of their mentally ill children in a care farming project generates wider recognition and therefore acceptance of care farming in the future e.g. VADNAL (2006). The perspective of farmers is taken into account by FJELDAVLI (2006) in investigating why farmers start up a care farm. This aspect was compared to motifs of those (clients) who utilise this offer (care at the farm) and enhances understanding about the development of this practice. In addition to that, research attention is given to the question of how the development of green care is influenced by different policy schemes and how it is compatible with national health and social care systems (OCONNOR 2008). DI IACOVO (2007) discusses the lack of a juridical and institutional framework for social farming and describes the policy process that is organised in circular steps. According to Di Iacovo (2007) the institutionalisation of this innovative practice is dependent on specific research and education in terms of care farming but also on building networks from a local to a cross-national level (cf. DI IACOVO 2007, 64). The importance of interconnection is emphasised but it is not known how social networks influence the developmental process. Moreover, care farming has not been discussed as an innovation, while the process of innovation has neither been investigated from a macro nor from a micro level. Methods used in care farming research are predominantly qualitative case studies e.g. DRIEST (2008), VAN ZONNEVELD (2008) and SCHULER (2008) but it is also described by O`CONNER that participatory photography and video methodologies are applied in research within the SoFar Project (2008, 47-48). The latter is similar to photo-voice, which is applied in several projects to give clients a voice to express their situation with their own words (BOOTH T. and W. 2003; WANG 1998; WANG, YI et al. 1998; WANG, CASH et al. 2000). However, as research in to care farming is only at an exploratory stage, quatitative studies are only considered to constitute the monority (cf. SEMPIK 2007, 83). Only few quantitative studies e.g. by VADNAL and KOSMELJ are broadly acknowledged (2006). Moreover, only a minority of studies applied mixed methods e.g. HEGARTY (2007) or compared different countries in terms of care farming. The description of current development stages related to care farming in Europe and the United States of America (HASSINK and VAN DIJK 2006) has been a very important research step, but in 30

the future it will be necessary to focus on different aspects, such as health effects, political reorganisation etc. by applying different theoretical frameworks. Only few studies are known to be based on a theoretical framework. For instance, the social constructivism perspective is applied by FJELDAVLI (2006) to understand beliefs of public authorities, farmers and health-care professionals about the health potential of care farming. RELF (2006) highlights her point of view about effective theories to investigate health effects of human-nature interaction or that of animal assisted therapy, while also pointing out the importance of the development of a common terminology, thereby concluding that research in this field is still in its early stages. In light of the short overview about current research in terms of care farming exemplifies the early stage of research in this field. Moreover, most research is rather descriptive than investigated from a theoretical viewpoint. Research about health effects of care farming seems to be dominating. To put the focus on the potential of care farming for diversifying agriculture, an investigation of farmers needs when implementing this new practice is essential. Little is known about handicaps experienced by farmers when implementing a care farming project, while care farming is not yet investigated from innovation- and network-theoretical perspectives. It is assumed that social networks play an important role when enhancing the development of care farming but it is not known why and how important social networks are. Putting the focus on farmers perspective and focusing on farmers personal network and its influence on the process of innovation could shed new light on innovation research in the broader sense or more specifically enhance the understanding of the development of care farming. The aim of the following chapters is to explain why it is meaningful to understand care farming as an innovation but also to emphasise and to constitute the importance of a social network perspective. The thesis of this work is that social networks are important to better understand and explain innovative practices. The reason for this will be explained in more detail below.

31

2.5 Premises and leading question

2.5.1 The innovative practice of care farming
So far, science and politics have been interested in technical rather than social innovations, hence the latter is rarely studied scientifically (cf. GILLWALD 2000, 1). This might be the reason for its diffuse definition, however some characteristics of a social innovation can be listed. In contrast to technical innovation, social innovation means a change of social action (cf. GILLWALD 2000, 41). This includes new practices that spread and stabilise for a longer time and that influence social development (cf.
IBID.

2000, 10). It is not explained in innovation literature

IBID.

how much a new practice needs to be diffused within a country, or how substantial and weighty the change of behavior needs to be to become a social innovation (cf. partnership, assembly-line work, fast food chains or the social insurance (cf. and social innovations. A technical innovation is termed as innovation after its market entrance, while in contrast social innovation is termed after its diffusion (cf. GILLWALD 2000, 31-32). Once it affects society beyond its innovation network, it can be institutionalised (cf. KOWOL and KROHN 2000, 240). According to GILLWALD (2000) technical innovation is rather positively honoured by society and easily implementable because politically and economically strong groups are generally responsible for its development. Quite the opposite can be said for social innovation. It is seldom positively accepted by society and difficult to implement because economically and politically weak groups often try to develop it to advance their own situation (cf. IBID. 2000, 37). Processes of decision and action underlie an innovation, which leads to the assumption that innovations are always social processes (cf. BLTTEL-MINK 2006, 30). According to GILLWALD (2000), social innovation is different to reformations and social change in a way that reformations are a subset of social innovations and social innovations are a subset of processes of social change, respectively of societal modernisation (cf. GILLWALD 2000, 6). Social innovations are a product of their time because only by considering contemporary societal beliefs of values and perceptions of problems can the development and implementation of innovations be explained. 32 2000, 8). 2000, 3-4). Nevertheless, examples of social innovations are the environmental movement, marital life
IBID.

Furthermore, social innovation can be illustrated by listing contrasting characteristics of technical

Beyond that, existing values and perceptions of problems are always strongly connected to social conditions of contemporary time. Last but not least the meeting of actors in certain circumstances influence the development of innovations (cf. IBID. 2000, 24-25). In summary, the development of care farming shows characteristics of a social innovation, as it is a relatively new form of social action and it often fails to be positively honoured within society or supported by powerful actors at the beginning. There is a growing movement within Europe towards green care in terms of the number of farmers starting up a care farm, interested clients willing to work at farms or receiving therapy at farms and an increasing number of researchers working in this field scientifically. In some countries a diffusion of this new practice has already started, for instance in the Netherlands. Still its potential is not yet noticed or widely accepted in society. Care farming can be understood as a social innovation, but in order to narrow down this quite abstract term, a specification is made by using the term new practice that contains different cognitive, normative, structural and material implications. According to RECKWITZ (2003) a precondition of a social practice is that there is a consensus about normative rules, meaning the new practice of care farming must be brought into the focus of a care farmer and understood as socially valuable. In practice theory the social is not an outcome of individual action but individual action is based on social rules (cf. RECKWITZ 2003, 287). A social practice means behavior routines realised by individuals who incorporate practical knowledge, skills, know how [] [or in other words] practical understanding in the sense of `to be skilled at something` resumes Reckwitz (cf.
IBID.

2003, 289). If not norms or a system of symbols, not discourse or

communication and also not interaction but social practice is the smallest entity of the social than someone has to search for the smallest entity of the social in a routinised nexus of doings and sayings (SCHATZKI 1996) [] (cited in RECKWITZ, 2003, 290). Practice theory emphasises the corporeity; hence a social practice is a collective occurring skilful performance and a social practice consisting of practiced movements and activities of bodies (cf.
IBID.

2003, 290).

Furthermore, there is on the one hand routinisation of a practice, but on the other hand unpredictability or relative closeness and relative openness. If a certain practice does not prove itself, no matter for what reason, a modification of the practice is likely. This is how a new practice can develop (cf.
IBID,

2003, 294). In the present time farmers are forced to find new

income possibilities beside food production in order to maintain their business, meaning they have to change their previous practice because the traditional form of farming does not stand the test. Some farmers follow the idea of multifunctional farming, whereas the innovative practice of 33

care farming is a part of it. If farmers offer care at their farm, they need to value this new practice as positive and need to know how to practice it when implementing this innovation. Nevertheless, it is significant for contemporary Western society that it values innovation as positive. Consequently we are in danger of ignoring the fact that technical or social innovation or new practices can have unintended side effects (cf. GROYS 1997, 18). It is important to note that care farming is understood as an innovative practice but it is not assumed that it is the ideal or solitary solution for social problems, especially rural problems. Hence, the term innovation is used neutrally in this work. Besides the premise that care farming is an innovative practice, it is assumed in this research that a social network perspective could shed new light on and enhance our understanding of the development of care farming. Why it is assumed to be essential to focus on social networks is explained in the next chapter.

2.5.2 Why is it essential to focus on networks at all?

Modernity means living in a world of plural choices, but only little help is provided to create lifestyles opines GIDDENS (1991, 80), because signposts established by tradition now are blank (IBID. 1991, 82). However people choose to live, it is a choice about who to be and describes selfidentity (cf.
IBID.

1991, 81). Different to modernity, it is rather a characteristic of traditional

cultures that integration and orientation about how to act was given by traditional structures and norms (cf. IBID. 1991, 81-82). Differently to past times, [d]isembedding mechanisms separate interaction from the particularities of locales in contemporary time (GIDDENS 1991, 20). Moreover, GIDDENS (1991) argues that all forms of cultures had a sense of future, present and past and an awareness about place. Daily life was highly linked to a certain place, which is not the case today when time and space are separated (cf. GIDDENS 1991, 16). Human action is coordinated, but in modernity physical contact is not necessary for that reason. Following CASTELLS (1996) deliberations, contemporary society is a network society in which information is seen as the key element of social organisation and why flows of messages and images between networks constitute the basic thread of our social structure (CASTELLS 1996, 508). Social structure is transformed by information networks because not political institutions but the power of instrumental flows, and cultural codes, embedded in networks are the site of power in the information age (CASTELLS 2000, 23).

34

Consequently, if we live in a network society where no orientation is given by traditional structures because of its resolution through individualisation, globalisation etc., it is presumed that new networks must play an enabling role when new practices such as care farming develop. We already know that innovation is a network effort and a product of societal processes. Moreover, individuals (innovators) are never isolated, which is why human action has to be understood in its context. Hence, innovative practice has to be examined from a structural and actor specific perspective, namely from a qualitative network perspective. But even if non-traditional structures determine the decision between plural choices, social relations undertake a lot of functions and do influence farmers decision about if and how to adopt or to reject an innovation. As argued by HOLLSTEIN (2001), social relations have a variety of functions that influence social life because human beings are social beings. Social relations are meaningful, structure peoples behavior and enable orientation; without social relations men and women would be socially and emotionally isolated. They offer sociality and different forms of support to solve practical problems (cf. HOLLSTEIN 2001, 19). Social relations are essential to maintain identity and motivation as well as psychological stability or the development of thoughts and action (cf. BADURA 1981, 21). HOLLSTEIN (2001) distinguishes between the direct effect of social relations and the buffer effect, whereby the latter means that social relations mitigate the burden of stressful situations (cf. IBID. 2001, 26). Moreover, social relations influence self-esteem directly by social recognition or social learning processes and produce the feeling of being backed up by somebody, to name a view examples (cf. IBID. 2001 21-24). In addition to that, within social networks resources can be produced that could facilitate actors within the network with larger options for their action. In this respect the term social capital is relevant, because different theorists believe that the relationship amongst actors social capital, or in other words resources, could enhance the development and the later stabilisation of a new practice. In this research it is assumed that especially the contact between care farmers could be relevant in order to stabilise the new practice because they might be in a similar initial situation and have to cope with similar problems and challenges. On the one hand the information exchange between care farmers about experiences in terms of care farming could be very important, and on the other hand other relevant resources can be produced within such a network. We can say that being a member of a(n) (care farming) association could enhance the consciousness about collective strength and collective identity, which could further enhance the implementation of the new practice. Farmers could be motivated by social actors within a care farmer network to continue developing this new practice, they could learn by mutual exchange of 35

information about experiences in terms of care farming and could feel in good hands under the burden of the highly unsecure and risky process of innovation. To draw a conclusion, the development of care farming understood as a new practice - is assumed to be depending on social networks, because not traditional norms and structures but new networks influence individuals decisions. It is assumed that the change of traditional duties within the farming sector is connected to the influence of farmers social networks; or rather their social relations influence the process of innovation causally. Furthermore, new practices demand an infrastructure; they need to be cognitively, emotionally and technically embedded in order to become stabilised. Consequently, the leading question of this thesis is: How does farmers personal support network and social capital influence the innovation process in the case of care farming? As a consequence of the leading question three theoretical strands need to be reviewed in more detail, particularly different concepts within the theory of the process of innovation, the social network theory and the social capital theory need to be characterised to provide the reader with basic knowledge in order to understand the whole theoretical approach of this research. Hence, a brief depiction about the theoretical concept that is applied in this work can be found at the end of the illustration of each theoretical strand. Additionally, this theoretical review is necessary in order to define the working hypothesis that leads this analysis. Therefore the following chapter contains a depiction and discussion about innovation-, network- and social capital theory.

36

3 THEORIES

37

38

3.1 Theories of innovation

According to GILLWALD (2000), innovation research started about 100 years ago and was conducted by scientists coming from a variety of different disciplines of social sciences (cf. GILLWALD 2000, 1). The anthropologists KROEBER (1923; 1931; 1944) and LINTEN (1936; 1940) are known as the pioneers in innovation research who found out that the diffusion of technical and social practices across cultures (borrowing inventions) are major factors for societal development instead of similar practices in different societies (parallels) (cf.
IBID.

2000, 33). Beside those

pioneers, SCHUMPETER (1928; 1993; 1939) developed the innovation theory to explain the economic cycle, whereas the sociologist OGBURN (1923; 1957; 1957) described social change as a permanent cultural lag. Both can be called innovation researchers of early times, according to GILLWALD (2000, 1). SCHUMPETER (1947) defines innovations as the doing of new things or the doing of things that are already being done in a new way (SCHUMPETER 1947, 151). BECHMANN
AND

GRUNWALD

(1998) define new as in a break from tradition (BECHMANN and GRUNWALD 1998, 5). Innovation can be novelty as well as novation as it is always connected to the old but also includes new aspects as a basic prerequisite (cf. IBID. 1998, 4). Innovation can be understood predominantly as an individual (SCHUMPETER 1993; ROGERS 1983) or a collective (VAN DE VEN, POLLEY et al. 1999) effort. VAN DE VEN (1988) for instance defines innovation as the development and implementation of new ideas by people who over time engage in transactions with others within an institutional order (VAN DE VEN 1988, 103). Moreover, in
VAN DE

VENS (1988) point of view [i]nnovation [] is a network-effort (ibid.

1988, 115) [] a collective achievement (IBID. 1988, 105). Others, like MC GRATH (1985), combine both views. The importance of the forces of an individual innovator is emphasised then but the idea that an innovation is a collective effort is also supported by a combination of both views. In addition to these directions in innovation theory, current entrepreneurship research shows that the demand-side perspective is preferred compared to the supply-side perspective (THORNTON 1999, 19). THORNTON (1999, 41) explains that the latter focuses on entrepreneurs features, whereas the demandside perspective considers influencing factors from the surrounding of a founder of new ventures. She recommends combining both by applying for 39

instance, [] sociological frameworks, an embeddedness perspective [] etc. (cf. leads to Schumpeter, whose research was fundamental for the sociology of innovation.

IBID.

1999,

41). The terms innovation and entrepreneurship as well as the perspective on a collective or individual

SCHUMPETER (1993) distinguishes between the manager and capitalist and the inventor because different competencies are required. A manager/capitalist does not necessarily have to be an inventor and vice versa. It is assumed that both are differing in behavior and type (cf. SCHUMPETER 1993, 129). The inventor produces ideas, the entrepreneur >gets the things done <, which may but need not embody anything that is scientifically new (SCHUMPETER 1991, 413). Although innovation is attributed to an individual (inventor) who plays a major part, it is in his point of view a product of societal processes (BRAUN-THRMANN 2005, 38). Economic and sociological views are combined by Schumpeters theory; innovation processes are characterised by cycles and phases (cf. BRAUN-THRMANN 2005, 39). In earlier assumptions, innovation was seen as a linear process, but in later research it was rather assumed as taking a non-linear course that can be recursive and disrupted (cf. BRAUNTHRMANN 2005, 30). In my point of view Rogers, as a delegate of linear innovation models, takes on an actor perspective and focuses on individual abilities of innovators. He adopts a network perspective, only when he tries to explain the diffusion of innovation. It is central in innovation research to describe the course of an innovation process. Delegates of the linear model describe ideal typical phases as described in following paragraph. There are typically four phases in a linear model: the 1.) discovery-, 2.) invention-, 3.) development- and 4.) diffusion phase (BRAUN-THRMANN 2005, 36). The chronological course and the premise of distinct phases are strongly criticised in current innovation research because it contradicts reality (cf.
IBID.

2005, 37). Asserted by MAIDIQUE and ZIRGER (1985)

innovation processes are similar to a learning cycle model by which failures and subsequent learning process are often strongly related to the original innovation (cf. MAIDIQUE and ZIRGER 1985, 299). This implies that setbacks and recursive procedures play an important role within an innovation process. VAN
DE

VEN, POLLEY

ET AL.

(1999), being delegates of the non-linear model, emphasise the

unpredictability of the development of an innovation. This is caused by the complex interplay of actors involved (cf. BRAUN-THRMANN 2005, 58). Contrary to Schumpeter and Rogers, van de Ven, Polley et al. focus on social relations (cf. IBID. 2005, 59). This model allows focusing on the

40

collective effort and assumes a non-linear very complex course of periods within an innovation process. According to
VAN DE

VEN, POLLEY ET AL. (1999) scientists studied the processes of innovation

among fourteen different technical and administrative innovations and found out that innovations neither follow a simple linear course nor a clear sequence of stages or phases. Instead, a much messier and more complex progression of events was observed in the development of each innovation. (VAN VEN, POLLEY
ET AL. DE

VEN, POLLEY et al. 1999, 23). However,

VAN DE

(1999) explain that some commonalities were explored and that those

common elements were described as parts of periods or, in other words, an ideal-typical course was depicted. Nevertheless, not all elements were observed in every estimated innovation process and also the degree in which the process occurred was differing (cf. IBID. 1999, 23). VAN
DE

VEN, POLLEY

ET AL.

(1999) describe three ideal-typical periods of the process of

innovation. Relevant preconditions develop for a long time before an innovation is developed intentionally. Neither a single moment nor a single actor achieves the development of an innovation. This gestation period, which can last many years, disembogues in the initiation of the innovation (cf. VAN DE VEN, POLLEY et al. 1999, 25). Shocks are important to activate the development of an innovation, even though there is no single reason for it (cf.
IBID.

1999, 28).

Individuals interpret shock differently, but the awareness of the need or the opportunity of the development of an innovation and the dissatisfaction with present circumstances are often the initiators of innovative behavior (cf. IBID. 1999, 30). VAN DE VEN, POLLEY ET AL. (1999) refer to SCHROEDER ET AL. (1989) who opine that shocks can happen within an organisation or external of it (cf. VAN DE VEN, POLLEY et al. 1999, 28). According to VAN DE VEN, POLLEY ET AL. (1999) the initiation period starts from the gestation process and ends at the time at which actors start to plan the budget and further steps for the development of the innovation. At the stage of planning further steps, the transition to the developmental period is marked (cf.
VAN DE

VEN, POLLEY et al. 1999, 30). The initiating idea

starts to unfold in many new ideas like a firework (cf. IBID. 1999, 34). Many different ways are tested, setbacks happen and unexpected problems appear. A lot of new relationships are made and it is a highly instable period for all members involved (cf. IBID. 1999, 34-53). The implementation period begins when activities are undertaken to apply and adopt an innovation (VAN DE VEN, POLLEY et al. 1999, 53). Implementation is realised when new and old practices are connected (cf. IBID. 1999, 53). This connection implies that the innovation process is 41

terminated because it is finished. Beyond that, the innovation terminates if it is not possible to link new and old practices or if resources run out and the innovation cannot be implemented (cf.
IBID.

1999, 54-58).

Recapitulating, innovation is understood as an individual or collective effort, whereby the research focus is either on the skills of an individual or on the characteristics of the innovation network. Contrary to former research, it is assumed that processes of innovation proceed in a non-linear nature. Moreover, van de Ven assumes that innovation is a network effort, thus the process is unpredictable because many actors are involved. I have chosen to use the above explained innovation theory by van de Ven, Polley et al. because it allows focusing on the collective effort within an innovation process and it enables a structuring view on this societal phenomenon of the development of innovation. A further relevant reason for applying this innovation theory is that it assumes innovation processes to be complex and messy and not following a linear course. This perception contradicts reality less unlike the idea of an innovation process taking a linear course. Nevertheless, commonalities or an ideal-typical course occurred in the innovation processes of this sample from van de Ven, Polley et al. The end of one and the beginning of another period within an innovation process is often not easy to identify or delimitable in empirical studies. This disadvantageous fact does occur when applying models containing phases, periods and steps. Nevertheless, the model enables to consider the context of the development of a new practice. Qualitative social methods with open questions within data collection and interpretative techniques for data analysis allow considering a more likely course of the process. Consequently, this will allow seeing relationships between periods as being iterative but not rigidly sequential, providing a definition about how to make a distinction between the different innovation periods, which is focal to this research. In this work the initiation period contains the prehistory of each investigated case, motifs for care farming and the initiating shock situation and disembogues in the developmental period as soon as the farmer has made the decision to start up a care farm. The developmental period contains actions that were realised to adopt care farming and ends when farmers offer care at the farm to official clients. It is difficult to distinguish between the different periods, especially between the developmental and implementation period because even if clients already visit the farm, a lot of adoptions need to be made or education programs need to be followed, it is an iterative course. In Austria it is generally a precondition to be educated or to adapt the farm before you are allowed to offer care to clients, but in the Netherlands many farmers offer care at their farm and they often adopt the farm posterior or alternatively be educated in terms of care 42

farming in order to offer this supply. Nevertheless, in this work the implementation period begins when official clients visit the farm and receive a form of care, hence if interviewees still offer care to official clients and receive money for that at the time the interview was held, they are treated as adapted projects and if they do not offer care at the farm anymore they are understood as terminated projects. Networks and communities of practice are seen as the typical social structure of modern society to develop innovations (cf. BRAUN-THRMANN 2005, 93). CALLON (1994) argues that innovation is a successful connection of actors, which implies the importance of focusing on social networks as the structure of an innovation (cf. CALLON and BOWKER 1994, 407). In the following chapter some selected network theories and how they intertwine are explained.

43

3.2 Social network theory

According to STEGBAUER (2008) network research (Netzwerkforschung) is a German term whereas it is internationally known as social network analysis. The term includes both, a variety of methods and theories with different perspectives on structures of relations. Social network analysis is applied in a variety of different research fields, although these fields share a focus on the importance of relation structures and use similar methods and theories (cf. STEGBAUER 2008, 12-13). The major feature of network research is that of not decontextualising social actors. In contrast to conventional variable sociology, single actors within a network are not understood as independent from each other (cf. STEGBAUER 2008, 11). An individuals social relations to other individuals and its embeddings within a social structure is central in social network analysis (cf. JANSEN 2006, 18), rather than simply the individual itself. BURT (1980) depicts [] network models offer powerful framework for describing social differentiation in terms of relational patterns among actors in a system (BURT 1980, 79). SCOTT (2005) resumes social network analysis emerged as a set of methods for the analysis of social structures, methods that specifically allow an investigation of the relational aspects of these structures. (SCOTT 2005, 38). In the meantime it has coincidentally become a statistical instrument to analyse networks, although it is also a theoretical perspective.

3.2.1 Historical development of social network theory

It is assumed that the beginning of social network theory goes back to Georg Simmel who was presumably a precursor in terms of social network analysis (cf. JANSEN 2006, 37). SIMMEL (1992) focused on forms of socialisation and emphasised it as the central subject matter of sociology. SIMMEL (1890) also investigated the relevance of characteristics of social structure and its influence on the effect and change of norms and on individualisation, states JANSEN (2006, 37). Ideas and concepts from socio-psychology and from socio-anthropology influenced the development of social network analysis. The `gestalt` tradition in socio-psychology, associated with the work of KHLER (1963), was a countermovement to the behaviouristic stimulus response models prevalent in those days for learning and behavior research. KHLER (1963) 44

stresses the organised patterns through which thoughts and perceptions are structured. These organised patterns are regarded as wholes or systems that have properties distinct from those of their parts and which, furthermore, determine the nature of those parts. (SCOTT 2005, 8). According to JANSEN (2006) this movement in psychology was followed by LEWIN (1936; 1951) who established the field theory in social science and stresses that human action happens within fields and is influenced by the living environment of actors. MORENO (1934; 1954) developed the sociometry through which he was able to illustrate the influence of structural characteristics on psychological well-being. Fundamental ideas were originated by CARTWRIGHT and HARARY (1956) who developed the mathematical graph theory, which is still applied to illustrate social structure. Leading figures in mathematical sociology were RAPOPORT (1961) and COLEMAN (1966) and in later research GRANOVETTER (1973) who investigated large instead of small networks and focused on network structure and its influence on the diffusion of information, innovation, diseases etc. (cf. JANSEN 2006, 39-42). An important countermovement at that time of prevailing structural functionalism was the work of RADCLIFFE-BROWN (1881-1955) and the Manchester anthropologists (SCOTT 2000, 26). In their point of view human behavior is rather influenced by social relations than by social norms. RADCLIFFE-BROWN (1940) pioneered the term network because he said I use the term social structure to denote this network of actually existing relations (quoted in SCHENK 1984, 3). The development of social network analysis as an own discipline began with research from the Harvard structuralists around Harrison White in the 70s, the so-called Harvard Breakthrough (SCOTT 2005, 33). WHITE (1976) emphasised the importance of social network analysis to develop a theory of social structure. The presently existing, largely categorical description of social structure have no solid theoretical grounding; furthermore, network concepts may provide the only way to construct a theory of social structure (WHITE, BOORMAN et al. 1976, 732). Granovetter, Wellman and Burt, renowned social network analysts, follow the perspective of a moderate structuralism. It is aimed at integrating the micro and macro approach in their theories to answer the question of the relationship between individuals and society, which is known in sociology as the problem of social order. GRANOVETTER (1985) deprecates the perspective of an atomised actor whose behavior is driven by self-interest only. However, he also contradicts schools of thought that assume that behaviour is determined by social structure solely; hence his theory is also opposed to models of structural functionalism. He believes that most behaviour is closely embedded in networks of interpersonal 45

relations and that such an argument avoids the extremes of under- and over socialised views of human action. (GRANOVETTER 1985, 504). According to JANSEN (2006) actors behavior is not only driven by self-interest but also influenced by the current existing social context. This network theoretical perspective also relativises the meaning of norms or subordinated institutional arrangements like the market and hierarchy (cf. JANSEN 2006, 20). Besides Granovetter, Barry Wellman, a prominent social network analyst of the contemporary time, also follows a middle course between micro and macro approaches. WELLMANS (1988) theoretical perspective follows a moderate structuralism and can be seen as distinct to PARSONS (1976), who developed a normative oriented action theory. The paradigm of structural analysis by WELLMAN (1988) considers structures and agents when explaining social action and is described by five basic premises:
Behavior is interpreted in terms of structural constraints on activity, rather than in terms of inner forces within units (e.g., socialisation to norms) that impel behavior in a voluntaristic, sometimes teleological, push toward a desired goal. Analyses focus on the relations between units, instead of trying to sort units into categories defined by the inner attributes [] of these units. A central consideration is how the patterned relationships among multiple alters jointly affect network members behavior. Hence, it is not assumed that network members engage only in multiple duets with separate alters. Structure is treated as a network of networks that may or may not be partitioned into discrete groups. It is not assumed a priori that tightly bounded groups are, intrinsically, the building blocks of the structure. Analytic methods deal directly with the patterned, relational nature of social structure in order to supplement and sometimes supplant mainstream statistical methods that demand independent units of analysis. (WELLMAN 1988, 20)

Instead of norms and values, this approach gives priority to the structural constraints influencing behaviour; hence relations between actors are in the centre of his theory. In contrast to Wellman, the actor him/herself seems to be more influential on behaviour in Burts theoretical approach. The American Sociologist Ronald BURT (1982) answered the micro/macro problem by developing a structural action theory by which he integrates structure/system and actor/action in one model, resumes JANSEN (2006, 15). BURT (1982) assumes both, that interests and resources of actors are dependant on the position within a social structure and that actors influence social structure by their behavior. According to JANSEN (2006) the theoretical perspective of social network analysis asserts the significance of networks or the embeddings of individual or corporative actors for their options 46

of action. Network analysis is an instrument to connect actor- and action theories with theories of institutions, structures and systems. Social network analysis helps to integrate macro and micro approaches in social science (cf. JANSEN 2006, 11). Social network analysis is strongly associated with (moderate) structuralism, but in the meantime social network approaches get combined with other theoretical approaches. Therefore relational characteristics are considered beside cultural, cognitive and normative variables, (cf. JANSEN 2006, 24). A central theoretical construct of social network analysis is the social capital theory (see 3.3). Moreover, network analysis is an instrument to capture social resources or social capital (cf. JANSEN 2006, 26). In this work the social capital theory is combined with the network approach rather than a moderate structuralism perspective, which is why the social capital theory is explained in more detail (see 3.3). Before discussing different theoretical approaches of social capital, the concepts of social network analysis that are of relevance for this work are explained in the next chapter.

3.2.2 Relevant concepts of social network analysis

According to BGENHOLD and MARSCHALL (2008), research results produced by applying social network analysis are not independently interpretable from the terminology of a network theory. Terms like structure, clique, strong and weak ties, for instance, are clearly defined concepts of social network analysis and in fact, research results are communicable only by using this theoretical language of social network analysis. In contrast to that, if for example regression analysis is applied, it is not necessary to use the terminology of this method to present research results. In no circumstances would we assume that regression analysis is a sociological theory (cf. BGENHOLD and MARSCHALL 2008, 396). Before defining the term network, I explain the terms actor and relation because they are a prerequisite to understand the following explanations. It is argued by WASSERMANN and FAUST (1994) that [a]ctors are discrete individual, corporate, or collective social units (WASSERMAN and FAUST 1994, 17). This implies a range of different social entities, such as a small group and their members, but also nations within the world system (cf. IBID. 1994, 17). Relation means that ties are collected which have a certain characteristic in common, for instance the characteristic of being a member of a sub-working team within an organisation. Relations can range from people within a small group, to members of larger associations and citizens of nations (cf. WASSERMAN and FAUST 1994, 20). HOLLSTEIN (2001) refers to DEIMER/JAUFMANN (1984) and classifies informal social relations, which in the majority of cases means primary contacts to family members, friends, neighbours etc., i.e. all contacts that have a personal character. Secondary contacts are 47

more formal contacts, for example to the teacher, the doctor etc. (cf. HOLLSTEIN 2001, 45). Formal and informal is a pair concept to distinguish between aspects of social organisation, different types of social relations and social groups. They are formal if planned and organised and informal if connections develop spontaneously and unplanned (cf. FUCHS-HEINRITZ, RAMMSTEDT et al. 1995, 209). After the definition of actors and relations, it is possible to define the term network, which is a virtual term; the researcher and his/her research interests define who is part of the network. A network is formally a specific amount of relations between actors (MITCHELL 1969, 2), or as JANSEN (2006) emphasises, a network is a well-defined set of edges. Knots are actors within a network and edges are their relations to each other. Clearly, knots mean actors, such as individuals, enterprises, ministries and also objects like estates etc. Edges are relations realised by communication, the transaction of material or by practical and emotional support etc. The same actors can build different networks because networks are relational (cf. JANSEN 2006, 58); the same people can build a network of friendship and a network of work.

3.2.2.1 The positional versus the relational approach

Generally, the subject matter in network analysis is the structure of relations and it is argued that [s]tructures emerge trough patterns of existing and missing relations (JANSEN 2006, 72). Structure is not the sum of individual patterns, but relations between actors, while the position of actors within a network specify the characteristic of the networks structure (cf. JANSEN 2000, 36). In this respect, based on the analytical direction, social network analysis can be relational or positional. BURT (1980) depicts that relational and positional approaches investigate networks of relations, while focussing on the relations from different perspectives. As you can see in the table below, BURT (1980) differentiates between different units of analysis: a single actor, multiple actors as a network subgroup and multiple actors as a structured system and compares it with existing analytical approaches (cf. BURT 1980, 80).

48

Actor aggregation in a unit of analysis Analytical Approaches Actor Multiple actors as a network subgroup primary group as a network clique: a set of actors connected by cohesive relations status/role-set as a network position: a set of structurally equivalent actors Multiple actors/ subgroups as a structured system system structure as dense and/or transitive

Relational

personal network as extensive, dense and/or multiplex

Positional

occupant of a network position as central and/or prestigious

system structure as a stratification of status/role-sets

Table 2: Concepts of network structure within each six modes of network analysis" (Burt 1980, 80).

In a relational approach, network models describe the intensity of relationship between pairs of actors. Network models within a positional approach describe the pattern of relations defining an actors position in a system of actors. The relational approach fosters models in which an actors involvement in one or a few relations can be described without attending to his many other relations. The positional approach fosters models in which an actor is one of many in a system of interconnected actors such that all defined relations in which he is involved must be considered. (BURT 1980, 80).

Depending on the purpose of the research, either the positional or the relational network approach offers optimal models. Shortly explained, the positional approach enables to measure the prestige or centrality of actors within a network (cf. BURT 1980, 131). Or, to put it another way, an actor is central within a network of friendship if he or she has most friends, which means having the highest degree of connections within that certain network. A high degree of centrality means for example possessing power, due to obtaining information from many different informants. Moreover, the positional approach enables one to identify cliques within a network, or, as indicated by BURT (1980) jointly occupied network position[s] can be discovered (BURT 1980, 131). Finally, subgroups can be depicted in respect to rules and positions and in terms of which actors are differentiated (IBID. 1980, 132). This is made possible by applying density tables and blockmodels (IBID. 1980, 132). To illustrate this idea,
DE

NOOY MRVAR et al. (2005) chose the

example of instructors at a university who are tutoring the same students. Those occupying the role of a tutor have contact to each other and to the students but the students do not necessarily have contact to each other. This means, all students are in the same position in regard to the supervisor, although they are not a cohesive subgroup. External ties to other positions and 49

internal ties within a position are considered by applying density tables and blockmodels and become visible in this matrix (cf. DE NOOY, MRVAR et al. 2005, 265). The relational approach is appropriate if the investigator wants to call attention to consequences, the type and amount of (dis-)integration of actors within their social environment (cf. JANSEN 2006, 65). BURT (1980) points out that the advantages of using (quantitative) ego-network models in a relational approach are firstly the possibility of collecting network data by applying ordinary survey research designs and random sampling. This means that inferences [] about typical relations in large populations can be made, because the investigated network is anchored on specific actors. In addition, personal network models allow to distinguish between separate contents of relations or, in other words, to consider multiplexity (see 3.2.2.3) (cf. BURT 1980, 131). The personal network is a special form of social network analysis and is explained here because it can be investigated from a relational perspective only. The personal network does not consider the position of the actor within a network because sets of ego-alter relationships (BEGGS, HAINES et al. 1996, 309) are investigated and defined from the standpoint of a focal individual (WELLMAN 1992, 6), which means defined by ego. BURT (1980) refers to MITCHELL (1969, 12-15) by summarising [s]ince relations in a system are only considered when they are present for a specific actor as ego, models of these relations describe an ego-network anchored on a single actor. (BURT 1980, 89). In this respect the term network is misdirecting, emphasises HOLLSTEIN (2003) because such network models are not a network in the proper sense. She recommends following BARNES (1969) using the term first order star instead (cf. HOLLSTEIN 2003, 170). Various authors use the term ego-network (e.g. BURT (1980)) but it has to be mentioned that these network models are also discussed as primary stars, primary zones, first-order zones and personal networks; the latter being the most popular term states BURT (1980, 89), which is why it is used in this work. JANSEN (2006) argues that alters are generally not being interviewed, whereas relations mentioned by ego are direct but in this situation basic and analysed as symmetric relations (cf. JANSEN 2006, 82). The unit of analysis can differ in network research from a single actor to multiple actors. Moreover, it can be distinguished between the relational and positional approach. Burt (1980) encapsulates
[][i]f the purpose is to describe social differentiation in terms of the typical relations in which actors are involved, then the relational approach offers optimal models of ego-networks and the triad census. If the purpose is to describe actors or subgroups in terms of the overall structure of social differentiation, then the positional approach offers optimal models based on the social topology of a system. (BURT 1980, 130 - 131)

50

Finally, when exploring the size of a network or the frequency of contact within a network, the focus is on the formal structure, not on the content of relations. This is the reason why those concepts are often combined with concepts that consider contentual aspects (cf. HOLLSTEIN 2006, 14).

3.2.2.2 Qualitative versus quantitative social network analysis

A typical association with network research is the application of high standardised techniques and formal structures being investigated, such as structural holes, cohesive subgroups etc. (cf. HOLLSTEIN 2006, 12). But in contemporary research a new approach has emerged, namely the qualitative network analysis. Philosophically speaking, both the qualitative and quantitative network analysis, can be combined with the relational or positional approach on all levels of units (aggregations). Practically, it is not possible to investigate large networks by applying a qualitative network approach because of monetary and temporal resources. Burt (1980, 80) refers to the quantitative network approach only, which indicates that the distinction between qualitative and quantitative network analysis is new. In quantitative or structure oriented network analysis, relations of units and not the units themselves are central (cf. WELLMAN 1988, 20). This means in practice that quantitative research methods are applied for data collection (e.g. questionnaires) and analysis (e.g. blockmodels) to focus either on the formal structure and content of relations or to investigate the characteristics of network structure, such as the centrality of actors. In contrast to that, the qualitative network analysis (HOLLSTEIN 2006, 12) focuses on both: the meaning behind an action and on underlying structures (cf. HOLLSTEIN 2006, 11). Hence, an interpretation of actors, subjective perceptions and how networks developed or are maintained, is investigated. It considers the principles of network and qualitative research. Qualitative social research approaches imply a smaller number of cases but it allows looking behind the scene. Representatives of the interpretative paradigm understand social reality as constructed (cf. HOLLSTEIN 2006, 16), like [i]f men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences (THOMAS 1970 , 572). HOLLSTEIN (2006) argues that social reality is arranged according to meaning and refers to a context or a frame of reference of this meaning. Social reality is also perspectival and depends on a certain point of view. Since it is negotiated, it is always dynamic and processual (cf. HOLLSTEIN 2006, 16). Understanding the meaning behind an

51

action, the subjective perception of actors and their action leading orientation can be mentioned as a crucial indicator of qualitative research (cf. IBID. 2006, 17). Nevertheless, [q]ualitative research [is] a continuous process of constructing versions of reality emphasises FLICK (2009, 19). He resumes that the point in time when the interview was given influences the version presented by the interviewee. One has to consider that the date might have been inconvenient or a certain experience that is in the centre of interest was too long ago. Would the same story have been told differently at another time? In addition, the interviewer as a person influences how the interviewee presents the version. Last but not least, the interpretation of the researcher and of the reader produce[s] a new version of the whole (cf. FLICK 2009, 19). However, there is a long tradition of using qualitative methods in social science because it also offers a lot of advantages (cf.
IBID.

2009, 17). The qualitative design is suitable for particular

research topics, especially for undeveloped, marginal and new phenomena (HOPF 1993, 18). The advantages of combining qualitative techniques with social network analysis, which is understood as qualitative network analysis, are manifold. A specific of this sociological network concept is that of analysing social processes by considering the interdependency of action and structure (cf. WEYER 2000, 13). Furthermore, little is known about the dynamic of networks and it is expected that this aspect can be explored seminally by applying the qualitative network analysis (cf. HOLLSTEIN 2006, 21 - 22). Qualitative network analysis in practice means applying data collection techniques similar to the quantitative approach but combining it with qualitative social research methods, for instance the problem-centred or narrative interview (WITZEL 1982, 47 and 89). In addition to that, interpretative methods for data analysis need to be applied, hence the interpretative paradigm (WILSON 1973, 58-62) is followed by applying a qualitative design because it allows a methodically controlled understanding of the other (Fremdverstehen) (SCHTZE, MEINEFELD et al. 1973, 433-495). In the qualitative personal network approach, social relations of an individual (ego) are investigated by applying name generators and name interpreters (cf. JANSEN 2006, 80). As a consequence of the research question, the name generator is developed, with particular relations are collected. Ego is asked to mention those alters who supported him/her practically, for instance in the developmental period of the care farming project. According to HOLLSTEIN (2006), in the qualitative personal network the role relation and exchange network approach can be distinguished. A role relation approach focuses on actors and their role relation; therefore the following question: Who is part of the network? Further on, the exchange network approach 52

focuses on the content of a network and asks for the effort contributed by an actor occupying a certain role (Rollentrger)(cf. HOLLSTEIN 2006, 15). The purpose of this research is to understand and explain the process of innovation by considering the relevance of care farmers (egos) social relations. Therefore, a qualitative personal network approach is applied, which implies a relational research focus (see above). In most cases both the role relation and exchange network approach are likewise combined in this research because both approaches are of relevance. My focus is on actors: Who is involved in the innovation process? What is transferred by farmers personal support network? In social network analysis it can be distinguished between the relational and positional approach on one hand and the quantitative and qualitative approach on the other hand. The most frequently applied approach is the combination of the positional and quantitative social network analysis. Recently the positional and relational approaches are often combined with the qualitative social network analysis. Nevertheless, the four concepts are independent from each other and can be variously combined, with one exception. The consideration of the position is not possible by applying the personal network approach because of its definition from the standpoint of a focal individual. In this work the qualitative personal network approach is applied and a relational research focus is realised.

3.2.2.3 Content, intensity and form of social relations

Recapitulating, a qualitative and personal network approach is applied in this work, which makes a positional analysis impossible but allows considering the relational aspect of ones (farmers) personal network. In concrete terms relations can be distinguished with regard to firstly their content, secondly their intensity and thirdly their form (cf. JANSEN 2006, 59). Through the focus on the content of a relation, the sociological research focus is put into the centre of analysis. Generally, the content of a relation can be various and relations are often multifunctional (cf. HOLLSTEIN 2001, 32). JANSEN (2006) classifies the content of a relation into transaction (purchase, present), communication (norms, information), border crossing relations (membership of one person in two boards), instrumental relations, emotional relations (friendship), power relations and relations between relatives (cf. JANSEN 2006, 59). Moreover, via social relations different forms of support can be transferred, which means support is the content of the relation.

53

Several types of social support are documented in literature and summarised by HOLLSTEIN (2001) as practical help, information related-, emotional-, motivational- and esteem support, but also social companionship, consensual or value-related solidarity. As it is shown in the table below, those forms of social support do not need to be solely positive (cf. HOLLSTEIN 2001, 32-34).

Form of support Practical help

Examples services material support advice information love affection welfare empathy respect recognition acknowledgement appreciation social activities produce feeling of belonging or backing sociality sympathy encouragement consensus in terms of norms and values

Other terms tangible aid cognitive guidance orientation help expressive support close support socioemotional support psychological support appraisal belongingness belonging
interrelational functionality

Information related support Emotional support

Esteem support

diffuse support Social companionship

Motivational support

Consensual or valuerelated solidarity Negative support

emotional burden dependency anger worries grief money time

Table 3: Content related efforts of social relations. An overview of different types of social support (cf. Hollstein, 2001, 32-34).

54

Nevertheless, even if support is provided, the individual orientation could cause a care farmer to not use the support for developing the innovative project. HOLLSTEIN (2003) emphasises that the individual orientation will affect the benefit from existing social relations. Firstly, sometimes different personal interests are conflicting and cannot be realised in the same time, the individual is challenged to rank them. Even if enough support for developing a care farm is offered, the personal ranking can prevent the realisation of the innovation. Secondly, the individual perception and interpretation schemes can be the reason for not utilising existing support networks. For example someone with a high ability of abstraction can feel close to a person, even if that person lives at the other side of the continent. The effort of that social relation can be used, whereas others with less ability of abstraction might not profit (emotionally etc.) from knowing that person. Finally, it is mentioned that milieu or culture specific orientations could influence the benefit of existing social relations, for instance some discuss very personal problems only with their husband or wife but not with friends or neighbours etc. (cf. HOLLSTEIN 2003, 159). Nevertheless, a qualitative research approach allows considering ones individual orientation and how this affects the further development of the innovation. Moreover, one relation can undertake different roles or contents, which is the so-called multiplexity (JANSEN 2006, 80). On the one hand scientists focus on a role multiplexity, which means that two nodes are connected more than once by occupying more than one role, for instance they are bound together as the boss and employee, as friends, as members of the same bowling club etc. (cf. BEGGS, HAINES et al. 1996, 309). This role understanding is different to MERTONS (1957, 110-111) role-set because role multiplexity is understood as occupying more than one role in relation to the same person whereas Merton means that one person generally occupies many roles in a different context, for instance being a teacher for pupils, a father for a child and bowling partner with a bowling colleague. On the other hand, BEGGS (1996) argues, multiplexity is understood as a content multiplexity when two nodes are tight together because friendship, emotional support, instrumental support etc. is transferred (cf. BEGGS, HAINES et al. 1996, 309). The intensity of a relation is defined through the frequency of use or its importance for an individual. Social relations can be either strong, meaning they have a comprehensive history of interactions and are part of a dense cohesive social structure or they are weak because they do not have a substantial history of interactions and become activated only occasionally (cf. RIEMER 2005, 82). A relation between actors exists only if they know each other (cf.
VAN

DIJK 1997, 6),

with simple acquaintances where only one interaction exists are defined as the weakest form of 55

ties (cf. RIEMER 2005, 132). Literature offers different criteria to define strong ties and according to RIEMER (2005, 132) depending on the context of the research, different criteria are relevant. GRANOVETTER (1973) distinguishes between strong and weak ties, hence indicators of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding), and the reciprocal services [] characterise the tie (GRANOVETTER 1973, 1361). Furthermore, some scientists opine that the mulitplexity of a relation is used as an indication for a strong tie (cf. KAPFERER 1969, 231), whereas others argue it not an indicator. Therefore strong ties can be multiplex, although not all are considered to be (cf. SIMMEL 1950, 29-317). GRANOVETTER (1973) argues that most people are able to define if a tie is weak, strong or absent on an intuitive basis (cf. GRANOVETTER 1973, 1361). Burt (1997), for instance, measures the strength of relations in terms of intimacy, activity and personal discussion (with whom the interviewee discusses personal matters or socialises) versus corporate authority (formal/informal) (cf. BURT 1997, 370-371). In contrast to that, KRACKHARDT (1992) defines strong ties as Philos ties which are characterised through regular interactions, through an affective component (mutual interest, sympathy) and a history of interactions with each other that enable the production of a common context (cf. KRACKHARDT 1992, 218f). In this work Krackhardts definition is applied because it addresses relevant criteria of this research. The regularity of interactions, mutual interest and the history of interactions will be considered in order to define ties as weak or strong. As an indicator for mutual interest, the realisation of common tasks within the care farming groups is used in this work. Moreover, the history of interactions and frequency of meetings is considered in order to define ties as weak or strong. Only strong ties within a group allow the development of group solidarity, group identity, trust etc. (see 3.3.3). The form of a relation indicates its direction. If an actor supports someone it is a directional relation while a meeting of two actors is understood as an undirected relation (cf. JANSEN 2006, 59). This aspect plays only a supplementary role as only the directional relation is of interest, in light of farmers support network. In this study the content of farmers social relations, or more precisely, farmers support network is investigated. Moreover, it is considered which forms of support are transferred via social relations while implementing a new practice (care farming). This means in this work there is a distinction between formal and informal relations but also between individuals and larger units, such as organisations that support the implementation of care farming. An additional destinction is made in terms of the content of a relation. Practical help, information, or emotional support, 56

for instance, could be needed to start up the care farm; subsequently farmers personal support network is the core of this research. Moreover, there is a focus on the concept of strong or weak ties because they undertake different tasks in terms of an innovation (see 3.3.3) and lead directly to the concept of social capital, which is explained more in detail in the following chapter.

57

3.3 Social capital theory

3.3.1 Different perspectives on social capital by Bourdieu, Coleman, Burt and Putnam
The concept of social capital is diversely interpreted and is applicable for a variety of research questions. Given the variety of different focusses on the micro-, meso- or macro-level, the concept is widely used in social sciences (cf. DETH 2003, 88). This chapter contains a discussion of interpretations and possible applications of the concept for analysing innovative practice. JANSEN (2000) illustrates that social capital is understood as an aspect of social structure that facilitates larger options for human action, for instance entrepreneurial benefit. Social capital constitutes the correlation between structures and actions of individuals within a network (JANSEN 2000, 37) or is the hinge between actors and structures. Following JANSEN (2000), social capital is produced unconsciously as a side effect of other actions and, different to human or economic capital, it is not hold solely by one social actor but dependent on direct or indirect relations to others within a network. Social capital is a characteristic of individuals and collectives; hence an investigation is possible from both points of view. It can either be investigated on a group level, accordingly the collective benefit of social capital is considered, or from the viewpoint of its private benefit (cf. JANSEN 2000, 37). Bourdieu, Coleman, Burt and Putnam influenced the scientific discussion in terms of social capital fundamentally. Consequently those theorists and their diverse definitions of social capital are explained more in detail in further paragraphs. BOURDIEU (1999 ) opines that social energy is produced by acquiring capital that comprises possibilities of action for a certain individual (cf. BOURDIEU 1999 , 194). He distinguishes between economical capital (material properties exchangeable with money), cultural capital (e.g. books, work of art, academic titles) and social capital (cf. BOURDIEU 2005, 52-53). Social capital is understood as social relations that define the membership to a certain group. Information, advice etc. can be exchanged and all relations (e.g. friendship, business relationship etc.) are maintained only if people invest time and (in)direct money (cf. FUCHS-HEINRITZ and KNIG 2005, 161 - 168). Bourdieus work emphasises the private benefit of social capital (cf. JUNGBAUER-GANS 2006, 18) and it is thematised as a resource, argues HAUG (1997, 4). Social 58

capital is the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition (BOURDIEU 2005, 49). BOURDIEU argues (2005) that to reproduce social capital, a constant interchange by which mutual recognition is confirmed is essential. While the reproduction depends on the before invested Beziehungsarbeit (BOURDIEU 2005, 67), meaning the investment for maintaining the social relationship, the amount of ones own social capital is firstly defined by social relations that can be mobilised by a certain actor. Secondly, it depends on the capital (economic, cultural, symbolic) belonging to those social actors with whom the mobilised relation exists (cf. IBID. 2005, 64). The higher the amount of capital of an individual, the more the person can improve his/her personal position or reproduce inequality. All forms of capital can be achieved via economical capital by investing transaction costs; for instance, social capital can be converted into economic or cultural capital by the investment of more or less costs (cf.
IBID.

2005, 70-75). Compared to Bourdieu,

James Coleman adopts a functional perspective in terms of social capital. COLEMAN (1987; 1988; 1990) adapted the definition of social capital from LOURY (1977) and focuses on its function. He distinguishes between human and social capital, which are interacting and influencing each other. Human capital is presentable as a knot within a network structure of a number of individuals, whereas social capital is positioned within the relations between the individuals (cf. COLEMAN 1990, 304; COLEMAN 1991, 395).
Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity, but a variety of different entities having two characteristics in common: They all consist of some aspect of a social structure, and they facilitate certain actions of individuals who are within the structure. Like other forms of capital, social capital is productive, making possible the achievement of certain ends that would not be attainable in its absence. (COLEMAN 1990, 302)

The quote above explains that social capital is an aspect of social structure and that it facilitates action. HAUG (1997) depicts that its function results from the worth of resources that emerge out of the social structure of actors and contribute to the realisation of interests (cf. HAUG 1997, 3). Three forms of social capital were identified by COLEMAN (1988), namely obligations and expectations, which depend on trustworthiness of the social environment, information-flow capability of the social structure, and norms accompanied by sanctions. (COLEMAN 1988, 119). Obligations and expectations, meaning trust, depend on the reliability of the social environment but also on the amount of obligations. 59

This means if person A does something for person B and trusts B to reciprocate in the future, this establishes an expectation in A and an obligation on the part of B. This obligation can be conceived as a credit slip held by A for performance by B. (COLEMAN 1988, 102).

The amount of obligation can differ, states COLEMAN (1988, 102; 1990, 307; 1991, 398), because social structures can vary, for instance, in terms of a persons need for help, the existence of resources and the availability of helpers (cf. HAUG 1997, 3). The potential of information - inherent in social relations is another form of social capital, as well as norms and effective sanctions. Social capital in form of norms and effective sanctions can facilitate or prohibit action (cf. COLEMAN 1988, 104-105). Its public good aspect differentiates social capital from other forms of capital (cf. COLEMAN 1988, 119). HAUG (1997) depicts that if the right to control action is transferred to one person, social capital can be accumulated. At the same time problems in terms of public goods can be solved by transferring the right to control action to powerful actors. Thus, by solving public good problems (e.g. the Free Rider Problem), social capital of a community can be increased. And last but not least, voluntary associations and purposeful associations founded for other purposes can appropriate social capital, hence social capital is mainly created as a by-product of other activities (cf. HAUG 1997, 3-4). Summarising, Coleman starts from a rational choice approach, but his intention is to consider the context of action by implementing aspects of social structure by using the term social capital (cf. HAUG 1997, 1). His perspective on social capital is a functional one, whereas Burt in contrast focuses on the structural aspect. BURT focuses on the structural aspect when defining social capital, which is different to financial and human capital, not the property of individuals but jointly owned by connected parties. Therefore no party can use social capital without another party.
Social capital: relationships with other players. [] Social capital [] is owned jointly by the parties to a relationship. [] Social capital concerns the rate of return on the market production equation. [] Social capital is the final arbiter of competitive success. (BURT 1992, 48-49)

BURT (1992) mainly focuses on the utilisation of social capital and advantages thereof, including information and control due to a certain position (structural hole) within the network (cf. BURT 1992, 13). Burt refined the theory of the strength of weak ties (GRANOVETTER 1973) were it is asserted that weak ties provide new information, because those actors with whom we are weakly connected are moving in different circles and obtain different information (cf. GRANOVETTER 1973, 1371). BURT (1995) emphasises that in addition to the weakness of the tie, the position of 60

an actor is of relevance. Only those weak ties that are occupying a structural hole can transfer new information. He called the actor who is occupying a structural hole the laughing third or tertius gaudens as it is in an autonomous position and has information from two networks that are only connected because of him- or herself. The laughing third is able to benefit, for instance, from entrepreneurial advantages by brokering relationships between other players (cf. BURT 1995, 47-48). The already discussed definitions and interpretations of social capital emphasise the importance of being embedded within a network or social structure to gain social capital. They focus on the utilisation of social capital for individuals, whereas PUTNAM (1995) considers its collective benefit. He refers to the importance of interconnectedness (e.g. membership in voluntary associations) to generate trust and to increase the sanctioning effect of norms within a society in his popular work Bowling alone. Americas Declining Social Capital (PUTNAM 1995). He defines social capital as
[] features of social life networks, norms, and trust that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives. [] Social capital in short, refers to social connections and the attendant norms and trust. (PUTNAM 1995, 664-665)

The focus is on the effect of social capital and not on its conditions of emergence. Social capital characteristically increases by use (cf. HAUG 1997, 5-6). The higher the amount of social capital within a society, the more coordination and cooperation develops (cf. PUTNAM 1995, 69).

3.3.2 Comparison of the different perspectives on social capital

Similarities are found in terms of the origin of social capital - it develops within networks. Bourdieu argues that it depends on the membership to a group, Coleman calls it the relationship between parties, Putnam defines it as the interconnection within societies, and it depends on the position of actors, when following Burts interpretation. Comparing the different perspectives on the concept of social capital, the theories of Bourdieu, Coleman and Burt have in common that they define it as a resource facilitating individual action that cannot be used independently from those with whom the actor is connected. In contrast to that, Putnam focuses on the level of trust of a society and this total amount of social capital is seen as a resource of the community to solve public good problems (cf. HAUG 1997, 9). This already shows that it can be distinguished between an external social capital definition that relates to actors social relations to other actors, 61

and an internal perspective that focuses on the interconnection within a social system (cf. RIEMER 2005, 87). Besides, two dimensions can be perceived in social capital research, namely the structure related dimension and the content related dimension. On the one hand it is opined that especially dense or cohesive networks produce social capital (Putnam, Coleman, Bourdieu), on the other hand theorists believe that the contrary is true, meaning incomplete networks enable actors to obtain social capital if they occupy a certain position (structural hole) (BURT 1992) within the network. Burts interpretation is quite useful for comparing the amount of social capital between successful and unsuccessful - regardless of how success is defined innovators, but it demands a positional research approach. He opines that actors who are occupying a specific position command more or less information that can be used for ones own entrepreneurial advantages. In contrast to Bourdieu, who explains social reproduction by applying the concept of social capital, Coleman stresses the functional perspective and emphasises the mutual influence of human and social capital. COLEMAN (1990) emphasises that social capital can be produced within a dense network that is characterised by social closure (JANSEN 2002, 95-96) and therefore focuses on the content related elements of social capital. Also Putnam stresses the importance of interconnection to increase trust and the efficiency of norms within a society and in this respect, to decrease costs. Both, the structural and content related dimension of social capital can be seen as complementary because if a group obtains new information external to the group, it can only profit from it if the group density is high and effective collaboration is possible (cf. RIEMER 2005, 111).

3.3.3 Forms of social capital and its importance for innovations

Accomplishments of social capital are family- and group solidarity [] [,] trust in the validity of universal social norms[,] information[,] odds of profit through structural autonomy [and] social influence (JANSEN 2000, 37-38). There is a strong relationship between social capital and the strength or weakness of ties, moreover strong and weak ties take on different tasks regarding to the development of an innovation (cf. WEYER 2000, 21-22). Group solidarity and trust appear from strong ties, which are the basis for social influence and refer to the collective character of social capital (cf. JANSEN 2000, 38). Strong ties can also lead to social closure as each individual can hold only a few strong ties because they bound resources, for instance emotional or temporal resources. Weak ties are an essential basis for the processes of individualisation, modernisation, 62

innovation and diffusion because they are less redundant and transfer new norms and information over large distances and allow innovative practice this way (cf. WEYER 2000, 22; JANSEN 2000, 39-40). RAMMERT and BECHMANN (1997), ELZEN, ENSERINK et al. (1996) and KOWOL (1998) argue the opposite; they found out that close collaboration allows innovation because every actor within the innovation network can concentrate on his or her competence (cf. quoted in WEYER 2000, 22). WEYER (2000) does not see these results as contradictory because as soon as organisations cooperate, they open their network and allow the flow of information (cf.
IBID.

2000, 22). JANSEN (2000) depicts that those actors who occupy a structural hole are

structurally autonym (the laughing third), for instance, and social influence increases with the degree of connection with powerful actors. Moreover, strong ties only shape collective identity, decrease transaction costs and enable social learning despite of unsecure situations, such as innovation processes (cf. JANSEN 2000, 40-42). LESSER opines that [w]ithin these social relationships, there are three primary dimensions that influence the development of the above summarised mutual benefits: the structure of the relationships, the interpersonal dynamics that exist within the structure, and the common context and language held by individuals in the structure (LESSER 2000, 4). The three dimensions are elements of social capital and are characteristics of social structure enabling social interaction between actors within the social structure (cf. NAHAPIET and GHOSHAL; cf. RIEMER 2005, 129). In this work the focus is on the function of social capital, following the idea that it is a resource that facilitates individual action that is not useable independently from those with whom the actor is connected. If farmers are affiliated in care farmer groups (unions or organisations) they are varyingly strongly connected with each other, consequently different resources are obtainable within this network. Once farmers are strongly connected, resources such as group solidarity and group identity can be developed and information-flow capability within the group can increase. Therefore these content related elements of social capital can be interpreted as implicit resources (cf. RIEMER 2005, 128). To put the focus on the function of social capital but also to follow the idea that it is a resource that facilitates individual action, the theoretical perspective of Coleman is most appropriate and is therefore applied in this research.

63

3.3.4 Operationalisation of social capital at a group level

To define the amount of social capital within a group of care farmers, three forms of social capital are considered here, namely intra-group communication, group-identity and group-solidarity. The indicators that are used in order to measure the amount of social capital are already partly described in literature to be an indicator for certain forms of social capital, for instance, rolemultiplexity is depicted by JANSEN (2000) to be an indicator for group solidarity. If the indicator is used according to a former author it is quoted below, otherwise the author assumes it to be important and to be suitable in order to measure the certain form of social capital. Nevertheless, all indicators and their characteristics are based on empirical findings in terms of differences and commonalities between the investigated care farmer groups. For instance, differences in frequency of meetings is used as an indicator for intra-group communication, meaning the author observed that there are those care farmer groups who have no meetings, no continuing meetings or continuing meetings 4, 5 or 6 times a year. The number of meetings was used as possible characteristic of the indicator. Another example of an indicator for intra-group communication is the direction of informationflow within a group of care farmers, as it is assumed that the possibility to communicate with each other is influenced by the organisation of these meetings. In other words, the possible amount of intra-group communication is influenced if the core theme of the meetings is a lecture and the discussion between participants (the care farmers) is playing only a secondary role or if the contrary is true. In this respect the characteristic of observing rather than exchanging information pertains if a lecture is the core theme of the meeting and not the discussion between care farmers. As you can see the characteristics of each indicator are thematically oriented on the topic of care farming and are based on empirical findings in terms of differences between the care farmer groups. Analysing interviews from care farming experts and members of the care farmer groups generates the evidence that a certain characteristic accords to a certain group of care farmers. The organisation structure of the care farmer union was only indirectly considered in the interviews and information about how the group is organised, which tasks are fulfilled together, what topics are discussed and how often and where they meet in general etc. is not mentioned by all members of the groups or by all care farming experts. General statements and information about the organisation of the group are used as a part of the puzzle in order to define the groups social 64

capital. The criteria used in order to prove the empirical evidence of a certain characteristic are depicted more in detail in chapter 8.5. Why intra-group communication, group identity and group solidarity are perceived to be relevant forms of social capital regarding to care farming and the relevant indicators and characteristics are depicted below. Intra-group communication: In order to implement a new practice, farmers need to use new information channels to reach relevant information, thus a lot of simple acquaintances have to be activated and new contacts must be established. Regular meetings between care farmers are opportunities to pick up a range of relevant information in order to implement care farming, but also enable orientation about ones personal situation. People dealing with the same topic might share similar experiences but they might cope differently with problems and can exchange information about that, hence they influence each other in their behaviour this way. Moreover, members of the group are partly affiliated with the same network but each member of the group can also have contact to other circles and obtain different knowledge that can be transferred to the group. In this respect, intra-group communication is a relevant form of social capital for this research and is operationalised in terms of the direction of an information flow, which sets the agenda of the personal meetings, the frequency and place of personal meetings and content of communication during these meetings, as you can see in following table.

65

Intra-group communication Indicators Characteristics

direction of information-flow who sets the agenda? place of meetings no information flow rather observe than exchange information exchange information head of organisation the group of farmers themselves no meetings direct meetings not at care farms direct meetings at care farms no meetings meetings but no continuing meetings continuing meetings 4 times a year continuing meetings 5 times a year continuing meetings 6 times a year how someone starts up the care farm problems and challenges perceived how someone copes with problems and challenges how someone adapts the farm future aims of the group disease patterns and how to deal with clients

frequency of meetings

content of communication

Table 4: Indicators and characteristics in terms of intra-group communication.

The direction of the information flow addresses the aspect of how the group and their meetings are organised and if care farmers observe information, for instance, through presentations from outsiders about care farming relevant topics or rather exchange information between each other. Additionally, it is relevant what care farmers communicate with each other during these meetings and if farmers themselves or outsiders set the agenda. The more topics in terms of care farming (dealing with clients, adopting the farm, problems and challenges perceived and dealt with) are discussed within a care farmer group, the more orientation about ones own situation is provided, but also the more care farmers can learn from each other and can influence each others behaviour. The more frequently meetings are held, the more opportunities there are to provide each other with relevant information. Further information can be provided if the place of meetings is taken into account because it makes a difference if care farmers meet at their care farms instead of functional rooms off the farm. Therefore visual and verbal information about how the farm can be adapted etc. can be transferred this way. Group identity: Identification describes the process through which actors learn to put oneself in somebodys shoes. For instance the identification with gender roles means to incur a male or 66

female perception, which is presented by the social environment, and to understand certain characteristics of behaviour as part of this gender role. Group identity is defined as understanding oneself as a part of a collective. According to LEWICKI AND BUNKER (1996, 123) and NAHAPIET
AND

GHOSHAL (1998, 256) [p]eople may in fact empathise strongly with the other and

incorporate parts of his or her psyche into their own identity (needs, preferences, thoughts, and behaviour patterns) as a collective identity develops. (quoted in RIEMER 2005, 143). RIEMER (2005, 143) opines that the strongest form of trust, which is trust based on identification between actors within a collective, can lead to identification on a group level and disembogue in a common group identity. LEWICKI
AND

BUNKER (1996, 123) mention that [i]ncreased

identification enables one to think like the other, feel like the other, and respond like the other and this influences mutual understanding in a positive way, motivates actors to cooperate with each other in order to realise group interests (cf. RIEMER 2005, 143) and is used here because of the assumption that it could be important in order to stabilise a care farming project. Group identity understood as a resource and as social capital is operationalised in terms of homogeneity of the group, the groups history of interactions, common aims and the existence of a common homepage.

Group identity Indicators

homogeneity

Characteristics
members of the group do not have the same client group members of the group have partly the same client group members of the group have the same client group members of the group do not offer the same care tasks to clients members of the group offer the same care tasks to clients there are differences within the group in terms of 24hours care or day care there is homogeneity within the group in terms of 24 hours care or day care 0 years 5 years 7 years 10 years group members attended the same education course not in the same time goup members atttended the same education course in the same time the group of farmers has common future aims the group of farmers do not have common future aims no yes

history of interactions

common aims common homepage

Table 5: Indicators and characteristics of group identity.

67

Homogeneity addresses the question if farmers implement a similar form of care farming, if they have to deal with the same client group and if they offer the same care tasks during the day or for 24 hours. It is assumed that besides the amount of time spent with each other, homogeneity also increases by understanding each others needs; hence homogeneity increases group identity. Group identity is also increased by a long history of interactions, which takes into account the period of time the group already exists and if members of the group also attended education courses together. Attending the same education course does not only enlarge the history of interaction but also provides farmers with a common (professional) language that increases mutual knowledge and composes the necessary common context in the communication that serves a reference for a precise and unmistakeable formulation of communication and therefore enables the solution of complex problems (cf. CRAMTON 2001, 347). In this work a further simple indicator for group identity is if the group presents itself as a group to outsiders in form of a common homepage and if the group of care farmers has common aims. The two forms of social capital group identity and group solidarity are closely connected but the first can exist without the second, whereas group identity is a prerequisite for the latter. Group solidarity: Group solidarity allows to help each other and to advocate for common aims and duties on ones own accord. It means to invest time and energy not only to implement ones own care farming project but also that of colleagues. Group solidarity also offers a lot of advantages because compared to a single care farmer a group has a different status when negotiating with public authorities or convincing care institutions to cooperate etc., therefore it seems to be an important form of social capital in order to stabilise a care farming project. Hence, this is the third form of social capital that is operationalised in order to define the degree of a groups social capital. The following table represents applied indicators and characteristics in order to define a care farmer unions amount of group solidarity.

68

Group solidarity Indicators

role- multiplexity

Characteristics
no member of a care farming union or organisation member of the same care farming union or organisation no member of the same region member of the same region no member of the union for general farmers some of the group are a member of the union for general farmers all members of the group are a member of the union for general farmers group members did not attend the same care farming education course some of the group attended the same education course all members of the group attended the same education course not a member of a group members of the group know each other partly all members of the group know each other information-supply in terms of how to start up a care farm public relations networking with relevant organizations (care industry, public authority ...) negotiating with relevant organizations (care industry, public authority...) adapting quality standards

network- density

group-support

Table 6: Indicators and characteristics of group solidarity.

According to JANSEN (2000), the network density and role-multiplexity (see 3.2.2.3) are indicators for group solidarity and are applied in this work. A networks density results as a quotient from the number of possible and realised social relationships [n* (n-1)] (cf. JANSEN 2000, 46-47). In this work it is relevant to categorise those who are a member of a care farming group and those who are not, and in the case where the first applies it is distinguished between members of the care farming group that know each other partly or all of them knowing each other. A more complex indicator for the potential of group solidarity is the role-multiplexity where care farmings relevant redundancies of relations are measured. If the care farmers share different roles because they are not only a member of the same care farming organisation but also a member of the union for general farmers and/or of the same education course for care farming and/or citizens of the same region, the role-multiplexity but also the probability that group solidarity develops increases. In addition to the above-mentioned two indicators for group solidarity, a third one is considered, namely the support a group provides for each member. There were five different tasks observed within the data of this sample, whereby farmers stand together. Farmers support each other with relevant information about how to start up a care farm, do public relations together, and the group networks with relevant organisations, for instance, with potential cooperation partners from the care sector. It is believed that such a group should negotiate togther with a public authority in order to establish new rules for care farming and 69

adapt already existing quality guidelines. The more often they stand together in terms of different duties, the higher the amount of group solidarity. How the investigated care farmer unions are organised and why their group social capital in terms of intra-group communication, group identity and group solidarity is ranked to be low or high is highlighted by the case profiles, where organisation structure, the group tasks etc. are described in detail (see 5.6 and 8.5).

70

3.4 Connection of theoretical strands and working hypotheses

This chapter aims to explain why it is meaningful to apply certain aspects of the innovation-, network- and social capital theory in order to understand the process of innovation and influence of social networks and social capital. Hence, it illustrates how the different theoretical strands are connected to each other and lists four working hypothesis and underlying research questions as a consequence of the review of the earlier mentioned theories. A. Theory of the process of innovation:
VAN DE

The innovation theory by

VEN

ET AL.

(1999) is applied in this research because it

considers the content of an innovation process. It follows the idea that innovations are a network effort and not developed by one single individual but by individuals who are affiliated within a social network and who reach forms of support to implement the innovation because they are socially embedded. In contrast to innovation theories that are based on the idea that innovations are an individual effort, the approach by van the Ven et al. (1999) allows the combination of innovation and network concepts, hence it regards the course of an innovation but also considers care farmers (innovators) social relations that transfer support in order to develop care farming. The ideal-typical course, described as the initiation-, developmental- and implementation periods with certain relevant characteristics within the periods, is applied in this research, on the one hand to focus on the course of an innovation, and on the other hand to enable findings in terms of support needed in certain periods of the innovation. More precisely, characteristics such as a previous history that is relevant for the later development of an innovative practice, motives and shocks; the latter are generally initiating the innovation. developmental period,
VAN DE

As a special characteristic of the

VEN

ET AL.

(1999) points out the aspect of setbacks that occur

and that especially in this period a lot of new contacts are necessary in order to develop the new practice. In this work the innovation process is separated into the initiation period, which contains a prehistory, motives and initiating shocks and disembogues into the developmental period as soon as farmers decide to start a care farm. The developmental period lasts as long as farmers do not offer care to official clients. As soon as they offer care at their farm for clients the developmental period leads into the implementation period and projects are understood as 71

adopted, when interviewees offer care in the time when the interview was given, and as terminated if they already stopped offering care at their farm when the interview was given. Working Hypothesis 1: The process of innovation involves different periods in which different forms of support and functions of social capital are important in order to stabilise the new practice. Research Dimensions & Research Questions in terms of innovation theory: What does the prehistory of care farmers during the initiation period look like and are there similarities or differences across the cases? What motivates care farmers in the initiation period to start the new practice of care farming? What and who initiates this new practice of care farming? Which form of support and functions of farmers social capital are important in the initiation period in order to enhance the further development of the new practice? Which challenges and problems arise during the developmental period and which similarities or differences across the cases can be observed? Do farmers have to invest in contacting a number of actors during the developmental period and are there differences or similarities across the cases? Which form of support and functions of farmers social capital are important in the developmental period in order to stabilise the new practice? Which form of support and functions of farmers social capital are important in the implementation period in order to stabilise and diffuse the new practice? How and why do care farmers terminate the innovation? Are there differences across the cases in terms of the different periods of innovation in which forms of support and functions of social relations are important in order to stabilise care farming?

B. Social Network Theory Moreover, a qualitative personal network approach is applied in this study, meaning the network is developed and the course of the innovation is explained by the care farmer her/himself. The qualitative approach enables to understand their needs when developing the new practice. The personal network approach does not allow a positional but a relational perspective whereas on the one hand a role relation approach is applied by focusing on who is part of the support network. 72

On the other hand an exchange network approach is applied in order to consider the content of farmers support network. As already stated in chapter 3.2 (network theories) it can be distinguished between different forms of support namely, practical-, information-related-, emotional-, esteem-support, social-companionship, motivational-support, consensual- or value related solidarity, but also negative support. Those different forms of support are considered by analysing the content of farmers personal support network because at this point it is not known which forms of support are needed in certain innovation periods in order to implement the new practice. In this respect data collection will be realised by applying rather open questions such as Who was important in order to cope with problems and challenges? or Which form of support was needed in a certain period of the innovation? instead of clear defined namegenerators and interpreters which would ask much more concrete: Who supported you practically? or Which form of support was provided by your husband?. In addition to that, the relational network approach can unveil the relations density, which means if strong or weak ties are relevant in different periods of the innovation. The density of a relation is closely linked to the social capital- and innovation theory because strong and weak ties undertake different functions in terms of an innovation but also allow the production of different resources because of interconnection (see below). Recapitulating, a relation between actors only exists if they at least know each other (cf.
VAN

DIJK 1997, 6) and the weakest form of ties are simple acquaintances

with at least one prior interaction. Adapted from KRACKHARDT'S (1992, 218f) definition, strong and weak ties are categorised by following the criteria of the regularity of interactions and the history of interactions in this work. So if a care farmer is supported by his family members who also live at the farm, it is understood as support transferred by strong ties. In contrast to that, weak ties are considered to be the transfer of relevant information in terms of care farming between a care farmer and an actor, that only meet occasionally. Working hypothesis 2: The form of support that is obtained through care farmers personal support network influences the process of innovation. Research Dimensions & Research Questions in terms of network theory: Which form of support do care farmers obtain and how does this influence the process of innovation? Who is part of care farmers personal support network and how does this influence the process of innovation? During which periods of the innovation are weak or strong ties observed to be important? 73

C. Social capital theory To put the focus on the function of social capital but also to follow the idea that it is a resource that facilitates individual action, the functional perspective of Coleman is considered similar and is therefore applied in this research. On the one hand COLEMANS (1988) perception of social capital is applied because his functional understanding of social capital agrees with the idea of investigating the content of a relation, thus it helps to understand how important different functions of farmers social capital are in order to implement care farming. These functions of social capital are understood as a resource that provides advantages such as solidarity or information etc. that might enable farmers to implement care farming easier. COLEMAN assumes that obligations and expectations, which depend on trustworthiness of the social environment, information-flow capability of the social structure, and norms accompanied by sanctions. (COLEMAN 1988, 119) develop because of a strong interconnection between actors and those that are functions of social capital. But according to Jansen, strong ties also shape collective identity, group-solidarity, decrease transaction costs and enable social learning despite of unsecure situations, such as innovation processes (cf. JANSEN 2000, 40-42). In this work Colemans functional perspective on social capital will be applied in order to understand the importance of forms of social capital for the stabilisation of this new practice of care farming, but only three forms of social capital, namely intra-group communication, group-identity and group-solidarity, are applied here for the following reasons. The concept of social capital refers only to the group of care farmers that interviewees are affiliated with, because it is assumed that a strong interconnection between care farmers enhances the stabilisation of the new practice. Farmers can better exchange their knowledge, experiences, concerns etc. in terms of care farming, and intragroup communication allows orientation about ones own situation but also allows to learn from each other or to help each other if questions and problems appear. Additionally, it is assumed that group-identity within a care farmer group influences the process of innovation positively because it allows actors not only to develop similar needs, preferences, thoughts, and behaviour patterns, but also to better cooperate with each other and to realise interests of the group. Group identity with the result of a feeling of belonging to a group can support farmers to implement care farming and to manage difficulties and hurdles that occur during the innovation process. Finally, it is assumed that group solidarity between care farmers plays an important role for the stabilisation of the new practice because it advocates common aims and allows people to help each other if someone in the group experiences problems etc. (Operationalisation of social capital see chapter 3.3.)

74

Working Hypothesis 3: The higher the amount of social capital of a group that care farmers are affiliated with, the better they are able to cope with problems and challenges during the process of innovation and to stabilise the new practice. Research Dimensions & Research Question in terms of social capital theory: How does the amount of intra-group communication within the group that care farmers are affiliated with influence the innovation process? How does the amount of group identity within the group that care farmers are affiliated with influence the innovation process? How does the amount of group solidarity within the group that care farmers are affiliated with influence the innovation process? D. Integrating Social Capital and Network theory From the methodological point of view, both the relational network approach and the functional perspective on social capital, allow focusing on the content of a relation within a farmers support network. If we focus on the content of a relation, some concepts seem to overlap. Information related support from network theory and intra-group communication from social capital theory seem to consider the same aspects at first sight, but there are relevant differences. The first only considers the form of support, namely information related support such as advice or orientation independent from a networks density. The second also implies that only strong ties can provide a good intra-group communication and also considers how care farmers communicate with each other. Combining both theoretical approaches allows considering if different forms of information can be obtained in groups of care farmers who are more or less strongly interconnected with each other. Moreover, the function of group solidarity and group identity are not considered in network theory but these forms of social capital can be seen as additional forms of support or resources in order to implement the innovation, and explains why it is meaningful to combine both theoretical perspectives. Integrating Working Hypothesis 4: The more that important forms of support are provided by farmers personal support network and the higher the amount of social capital of the group of care farmers they are affiliated with, the more likely the new practice is stabilised.

75

In addition to the focus on farmers personal social networks and the influence of the social capital of a group they are affiliated with, a comparison at a national level in terms of care farming allows a further insight into the development of this new practice, especially when the selected cases have different national conditions and are in different developmental stages as is the case with Austria and the Netherlands. The following chapter contains a short description of differences in both countries in respect to geography, political culture, agriculture and care farming that provides the reader with relevant context information. The differences in political culture then lead to further assumptions or to a further working hypothesis.

76

4 METHODS AND TECHNIQUES

77

78

4.1 Case selection

4.1.1 Expert interviews
A purposeful sampling strategy was applied to find information rich cases for this study (cf. QUINN PATTON 2002, 230). To realise the expert interview, snowball or chain sampling was predominantly applied in both countries. It started with care farming scientists who were asked: Who knows a lot about whom should I talk to (cf. QUINN PATTON 2002, 237). In each expert interview the same question was asked to find the most important experts in respect to a specific issue, like education in care farming or regional support organisations in the Netherlands etc. In this research an expert is defined as someone who has profound knowledge about care farming, owing to a work-related responsibilty in that field (cf. FLICK 2007, 215). There is a larger number of experts in the Netherlands, which is why the number of interviewed experts is higher than in Austria. Altogether, a number of twelve interviews in the Netherlands and seven interviews in Austria were realised. Dutch representative(s) of (the) Ministry for Agriculture and Food Security, Ministry for Health, Welfare and Sport, care organisations that collaborate with care farms, regional support organisations in Amsterdam and Utrecht, national agricultural lobby (LTO), former national support centre (Steunpunt Landbouw and Zorg), club Omslag (a group of farmers representing the anthroposophical style of care farming), scientific groups and of self-employed care farm advisers were interviewed.

79

Furthermore, Austrian representatives of the following groups or organisations were interviewed: care organisations that collaborate with care farms care Farms run by a social organisation Education Centre for Agricultural Pedagogic and Garden Therapy Education and Research Centre for Animal Therapy with Farm Animals (KL) Research Centre for Green Care (Federal Institute for Less Favoured and Mountainous Areas) health institution offering garden therapy

In total, nineteen experts were interviewed to reach a high understanding of the national circumstances and for additional interpretation of the interviews conducted with care farmers.

4.1.2 Interviews with care farmers

In addition to the selection of relevant experts, it was necessary to apply a different strategy to find information rich care farming projects. To reach that aim, cases were selected after heterogeneity according to the central thesis of this research: Networks matter. First of all, it was of central interest to focus on three relevant criteria, namely projects diverging in terms of national conditions, Austrian and Dutch care farming projects were investigated, a different amount of social capital within care farming groups and the fact if care farming was adopted or terminated when the interview was given. In accordance with QUINN PATTON (2002) the purpose of the maximum variation sampling strategy is to find out common patterns that occur (cf. QUINN PATTON 2002, 235). This signifies that in the current research the aim is to trace emerging patterns in respect to the importance of social networks in specific periods of innovation. Hence, further requirements for case selection were: Interviewees of this research needed to work on a real farm and to be farmers themselves or at least the partner of a farmer. The consequence of this requirement was an investigation of mainly family enterprises. The following example should clarify the case selection: The City Farm in Lower Austria was excluded because social workers fulfil farmers tasks but a professional farmer is not involved in the project. Only care farms practiced by a professional farmer to reach additional or principal income on his or her farm were selected. 80

The interview had to be arranged with the person who felt most responsible for the care farming part. The number of selected cases in Austria according to their location is: Vorarlberg 1, Carinthia 2, Upper Austria 9, Styria 2, Lower Austria 3 and Burgenland 1. The table below illustrates selected cases of adopted and terminated care farming projects in Austria and the Netherlands in respect to their membership to a care farmer union or association.

Austria group of AAT adopted terminated total number 5 0 5

group of Perg 4 2 6

independent 5 2 7

The Netherlands member of member of independent Landzijde VUZB 7 6 1 3 2 0 10 8 1

Table 7: Selected cases of care farming projects in Austria and the Netherlands.

81

4.2 Data collection - Techniques applied

To make sure the meaning behind an action can be understood, it is important to apply open techniques for data collection and interpretative methods for analysis (cf. HOLLSTEIN 2006, 18). In this research different methods are combined, namely the narrative, guideline-based and expert interview, a network diagram and a short questionnaire. Furthermore, by applying these different methods different forms of triangulation (more in detail cf. FLICK 2005, 309-318) are realised. The table below illustrates an overview about data collection and data analysis techniques that are applied in this study.

Data collection

Data analysis

Care Farming Interviews Combination of narrative and problem-centred interview Network diagram Short questionnaire Interview protocoll Thematic coding

Expert Interviews Problem-centred interview

Thematic coding

Table 8: Methods and techniques chosen for data collection and analysis.

4.2.1 The expert interview

Different to other forms of interviews, FLICK (2007) states, the focus of an expert interview is not on the interviewee as a person but as an expert for a specific field of action. Usually, employees of an organisation with a specific function and professional knowledge are interviewed (cf. FLICK 2007, 214-215). Predominantly, expert interviews are guideline-based because of time pressure (cf. LIEBOLD and TRINCZEK 2002, 33) and have the advantage that the interviewer can avoid to present himself as incompetent in the specific field. The risk that the expert gets off the point is minimal and the comparability between the cases increases by applying the guideline (cf. MEUSER and NAGEL 2002, 77). Following BOGNER and MENZ (2002), different forms of expert interviews can be mentioned. First of all, the explorative expert interview helps to broaden general knowledge about the 82

research field and can be applied to generate data collection instruments. A systematising expert interview can be applied beside other data collection techniques to generate context information. The third type is a theory generating interview, which is applied with the aim of generating a theory out of the expert interviews (cf. BOGNER and MENZ 2002, 36-38). Altogether a number of nineteen expert interviews were realised, whereas four national and international care farming experts were interviewed to explore the research field, in order to reach a broader understanding of care farming in general. Parts of the four explorative interviews and further fifteen interviews with experts (see 4.1.1) were used to generate context information to better interpret the care farming interviews and the personal network diagrams, which means that the explorative and systematising expert interview was applied. Expert interviews were partly analysed in order to understand the organisation of certain care farmer groups and to find evidence for a certain characteristic of an indicator for the amount of intra-group communication, group identity and group solidarity. Subsequently it was possible to follow the operationalisation guidelines (see 0) and to distinguish between the groups, in regard to their respective amounts of group social capital (see 5.6 and 8.5). Moreover, these interviews were used in order to comprehend the development of care farming in each country that is considered in order to increase the knowledge about the samples context (see 5.5.) Compared to the care farmer interviews, the expert interviews play a supplementary role and are of secondary importance in this research - that realises a between-method triangulation (FLICK 2009, 444).

4.2.2 The narrative interview

When analysing (innovation) processes retrospectively, one has to be aware that the stories told by the interviewees are constructions of the past. The construction is bound to an individual perspective and is therefore selective, depending on the interviewees memory as well as their reinterpretation. However, to counteract these disadvantageous aspects of a retrospective research, SCHTZE (1983) developed the narrative interview that allows a closer look at reality by generating three forms of constraints to the narration. According to SPHRING (1995), the constraint to specify (Detaillierungszwang) demands an explanation of motives and coherences. Secondly, the constraint to condense (Kondensierungszwang) forces the interviewee to set up a focal point within the story, while the constraint to round out the cognitive figures (Gestalterschlieung) means the story has to be completed. The first question of the interview should encourage the 83

interviewee to narrate in a non-directive way, whereby the constraints mentioned above should become effective (cf. SPHRING 1995, 168-169). Generally, the interviewer does not interrupt this first phase of the narrative interview. However, he/she is allowed to ask further questions after the narration is finished to get a broader understanding of unclear parts of the story. This interview technique is preferably used to obtain biographical information and subjective statements about occurrences (cf. DIECKMANN 2001, 449). In the present investigation the first question was Please start to explain: How come you started a care farm and who was important for that? The period of narration took from a few minutes to up to twenty or thirty minutes depending on the narrative competence (DIECKMANN 2001, 542) of the interviewee. The interviewer did not interrupt in this phase but was allowed to make notes and to support the continuation of the narration if necessary. At the end of this first narration the prepared interview guideline was followed, whereas questions already answered in the course of the narration were not asked again.

4.2.3 The problem-centred interview

The problem-centred interview (WITZEL 1982, 89) is more structured than the narrative and
[] characterized by three central criteria: problem centering (i.e., the researchers orientation to a relevant social problem); object orientation (i.e., that methods are developed or modified with respect to an object of research); and finally process orientation in the research process and in the understanding of the object of research. (FLICK 2009, 162).

According to Flick (2009) this form of an interview originally contains an interview guide, a postscript and a short questionnaire. The interview guide comprises questions to focus on the problem-centred interest, whereas it is the interviewers task to decide when to pose those questions (cf. FLICK 2009, 162). In principle, during the narration phase the interviewer plays an active role and is allowed to ask questions without interfering the logic course of the story (cf. FLICK 2007, 214). Besides other auxiliary functions, the short questionnaire contains questions that would disturb the narrative string during the oral interview (cf. WITZEL 1982, 90), for instance questions about age, education, civil status etc. The function of the postscript or interview protocol, argues WITZEL (1982), contains relevant context information, which means

84

[] ones own intuitions, ancillaries, doubts, conjectures, estimations of situations, observations of particular framework conditions of the interview and of non-verbal elements influencing the context and course of the conversation [] which would not adequately or not at all become expressed through the interview transcript. (WITZEL 1982, 91-92).

The postscript can provide important data and enhance the understanding of single parts of the interview (cf. IBID. 1982, 92). In the present research, the beginning of the interview was dominated by elements of the narrative, followed by elements of a guideline-based interview (problem-centred interview). The problem-centred interest was who (family, friends, neighbours, associations and agricultural lobbies etc.) was involved in the innovation process, which means a role relation approach was followed. Additionally, the exchange network approach was considered by focusing on who contributed a specific effort, such as support in economical questions or emotional support etc. Generally, a specific function is given (e.g. whom do you ask for advice?) but in this study a very open procedure was followed, as it was not known which forms of support were important for farmers. Farmers were only asked to mention who was important and why? The importance and form of support was considered and interpreted in the analysis phase. This part of the interview often ended up quickly and was considered in detail when filling in the network diagram (see 4.2.4) at the end of the oral interview. Questions about the personal awareness of ones own identity, social influence and autonomy addressed the theoretical concept of social capital directly. But similar to forms of support and its importance for farmers, the aspect of social capital became apparent when analysing the case as a whole. Generally, farmers explained the course of the innovation in the first narration phase. The guideline considered the applied innovation theory with its ideal-typical periods and inherent characteristics (motifs and triggers for starting up the care farm, setbacks and challenges) but as open questions and interpretative methods for data analysis were applied, the visibility of variations from the ideal-typical course was ascertained. Additonally, this approach enabled the research to focus on the perceived acceptance of a particular project and to incorporate aspects of the applied theories, for instance the social capital theory. The first was considered by social recognition, which was prompted with questions like How was the reaction of your family, friends, neighbours, other farmers in the region, cooperation partners etc. when you started up a care farm? 85

Moreover, enterprise (care farm)-related questions (size and type of farm, number and type of clients) as well as social demographical questions, for example interviewees age and education were asked using a short questionnaire. Particularities of the interview situation and non-recorded conversations were documented by a post interview protocol. A within method triangulation (FLICK 2009, 444) was realised by combining the narrative and problem-centred interview. The combination of these techniques minimises the problems of a retrospective research, as elements of a narrative interview are applied. Secondly, the attached guideline offers a specific level of standardisation that enables a comparison between the cases and a consideration of the applied theory. It proved to be helpful if interviewees did not have a high narrative competence (cf. DIECKMANN 2007, 542).

4.2.4 Network diagram

The two-dimensional network diagram (Netzwerkkarte) and network-drawing (Netzwerkzeichnung) is an illustration of egos social relations and visualises for instance the affiliation to cliques and sub-networks or the relation to single actors in terms of closeness and distance. Generally, the illustration is combined with oral interviews to gather information about the context of the visualised social relations. The network drawing (2006, 319) allows the interviewee to freely draw the relevance of her/his social relations to persons regarding to the research interest. In contrast to that, the network diagram offers concentric circles and the core circle illustrates the interviewee her-/himself or, in other words, the focal individuals are at the centres of their own egocentric networks (WELLMAN 1992, 6). KAHN AND ANTONUCCI (1980) developed a network diagram (see Figure 1) to visualise egos important emotional network. HUSSLING (2006) for instance applied the network-diagram to find out who (persons, databases, information centres, institutions) is more or less important for the interviewee to accomplish daily tasks and to reach information about the concern and for occupational advancement (cf. HUSSLING 2006, 145).

86

Figure 1: The emotional network by Kahn and Antonucci, 1980 (Source: simulated illustration).

In this research the interviewee was asked to fill in the higher standardised network diagram (see Figure 2), which was adapted from KAHN and ANTONUCCI (1980). Using the network diagram, interviewees were asked to define the importance of specific social relations by positioning the names of more or less important people or organisations on different places within the network diagram. In practice, interviewees were asked to write the names of very important social actors for implementing the innovation in the second, important social actors in the third and less important but relevant people in the fourth circle of the network diagram. Furthermore, the network diagram (see Figure 2) is divided into three parts which illustrate
DE VAN

VENS (1999) periods of innovation. The interviewer started with an anchor question like

Think about the time before you started up your care farm. Interviewees were then asked to write the names of very important, important and less important people or organisations on the brown part of the network diagram (see Figure 2) because this part illustrates the initiation period of the innovation process. Afterwards, interviewees were asked to think about the period of development (green part of the diagram (see Figure 2) by asking the anchor question Please think about the time up to the point were you decided to develop care farming on your farm. Finally, the interviewer asked to fill in the blue part of the diagram (see Figure 2), which illustrates the implementation period. In this case the question was Please think about the time since you have been practicing care farming. Who is important and how important are they? The function and effort of social relations was explained in the interview, while additional knowledge about the subjective defined importance of these relations became generated through the network diagram. 87

Subsequently, the dynamic of important social relations, in particular innovation periods, reached a higher visibility in the diagram.

less important but relevant people/organizations

important people/organizations

very important people/organizations

Initiation period Developmental period Implementation period

Figure 2: Network diagram (Source: Adapted from Kahn and Antonucci, 1980).

The interview as well as the statements whilst filling in the network diagram were recorded and verbatim transcribed. Supplementary to the above mentioned within-method triangulation a data triangulation (FLICK 2009, 444) was realised by generating a mix of visual (network diagram) and verbal data (interview).

4.2.5 Additional information about the procedure of data collection

To manage a comparative study between Austria and the Netherlands it was of high importance to realise research cooperation with the Netherlands, due to the difficulty of interviewing farmers in a second language. In reality, the cooperation was realised with Plant Research International in Wageningen, a research institute that has been focusing on care farming for more than ten years. It was also advantageous that the native language of the direct cooperation partner was German. It ensured that bias was minimised within the data, as care farmers were interviewed in Dutch; data was later translated and transcribed to German, which is the mother tongue of the analyser. 88

Besides the theoretical instruction given by the author to the cooperation partner, the author also participated in the first two interviews that were realised by the Dutch cooperation partner. This allowed giving further feedback to make sure that the interviews with Austrian and Dutch care farmers were kept as similar as possible but also gave the author the possibility to visit Dutch care farms and therefore attain knowledge about them in the field, which is seen as a positive secondary outcome. The author developed the whole methodological and theoretical approach, as well as all instruments for data collection and the research focus. Furthermore, the same data collection instruments were applied in both countries as well as the same procedure followed. The beginning of the procedure was the face-to-face interview, followed by filling in the network diagram. Subsequently, care farmers were asked to fill in the questionnaire. Finally, the interviewer completed the post interview protocol, which was important to understand the interview situation when analysing the data. The selection of the care farming projects seemed to be easier in the Netherlands because of the central registration of the projects. Based on the homepage (www.zorgboeren.nl) it was easy to get information about the number of projects within a region. Besides photos, a description and the contact details of each project as well as the contact details of the regional coordinator are available online. Moreover, the relevant regional care farming organisations cooperated with the research partner from Wageningen and supported them by providing the contact details of their members. Case selection in Austria was much more difficult because there are only a few existing care farms, which are also not centrally registered. Therefore no regional exception was made. Thus, case selection was primarily realised by snowball sampling and subordinated by the maximum variation sampling technique. First of all, experts were asked for addresses of care farmers. Subsequently care farmers were asked if they knew someone else who still practices or already terminated care farming. Additionally, cases were found by searching the internet. To sum up, the research cooperation partner from Wageningen conducted all interviews with Dutch care farmers. All expert interviews in Austria and the Netherlands, as well as the interviews with Austrian care farmers, were conducted by the author herself. However, the research cooperation allowed collecting data from a country where care farming is in a different developing stage. The cooperation enabled the author to spend two months in the Netherlands to conduct all Dutch expert interviews and to reach a higher understanding about care farming in this specific country. 89

4.3 Data analysis

The aim of understanding the innovation process demands a qualitative approach when collecting and analysing the data, which means the qualitative approach allows to consider the individual perception, interpretation, action and sense making practice of the interviewee. To take the individual orientation into account it is of importance to analyse the interviews as a case. Furthermore, it is of significance to find similarities and differences between the cases as well as to allow generalisation based on case and group comparisons for developing a theory. For that reason thematic coding (FLICK 2009, 318) was applied. This method was developed for comparative studies with [t]he underlying assumption [] that in different social worlds or groups, differing views can be found. (FLICK 2009, 318). Thematic coding is organised in order to assure comparability by defining topics, and at the same time remaining open to the views related to them. (FLICK 2009, 318). This is enabled by following a multi-stage procedure whereby in the first step, each case involved is described shortly, the motto of the case needs to be defined and central topics relevant to the research question are summarised (cf. FLICK 2009, 319). Subsequently, a profound analysis of single cases, or in other words coding, is realised. Coding means a comparison between different phenomenon, cases, terms and the formulation of questions about the text to identify structures and core categories. According to STRAUSS (1998) open coding is the starting point and means asking questions about the text such as: What is it about? Who is involved? Which aspects of the phenomenon are discussed? The result of open coding should be a list of codes and categories (cf. STRAUSS 1998, 57-62). Selective coding is aimed at developing a core category with sub-categories and patterns within the data, while conditions under which patterns emerge should be discovered (cf. STRAUSS 1998, 63-64). Core categories developed by selective coding of single cases are crosschecked in further cases. As a consequence, a thematic structure is developed and allows comparing cases and groups (cf. FLICK 2009, 319). In this research all interviews were analysed singularly, the central issues within the interview were described shortly and interviews were analysed by applying open and selective coding. Hence, a thematic structure and core categories was generated partly deductive and partly inductive, and used for analysing further cases, to increase comparability. The structure was modified and 90

enlarged if new categories were found in further cases and allowed case and group comparison by applying it. Only some parts of the interview were analysed in more detail by following the open and selective coding technique if these paragraphs seemed to be relevant from the authors point of view. This technique of thematic coding was applied to analyse the interviews with care farmers and experts. Moreover, the conversation whilst filling in the network diagram was verbatim transcribed and analysed by the thematic coding technique. Additonally, the diagram visual data was analysed and interpreted for additional information. The network diagrams (see Figure 2) are analysed in detail and presented in order to compare the perceived importances of certain actors in different periods. Initially, actors were clustered in groups, for instance, if farmers wrote three names of different family members within the concentric circles, they were clustered to the role of a family member (short family) etc. Depending on how important actors are perceived to be, meaning if they are located within the diagram close to ego, and in this respect perceived to be very important, or if they are ranked to be relevant only and are written in the third circle of the diagram, influenced if they were valued with a higher or lower number. The formula that is applied in order to define the distance between ego (care farmer) and a certain supporter to emphasise the supporters importance perceived by the care farmer is calculated by the formula that reads as follows. Depending on how frequently certain actors were mentioned within the certain periods multiplied by the perceived importance, results in the role impact (frequency within a sector multiplied by the importance = role impact), whereby the minimum length of the line within the diagram is 1cm and the maximum is 11cm. By applying this formula it is possible to present care farmers that belong to a differently sized group that also has a different amount of social capital within the same diagram (Group of Perg, Group of Landzijde, Group of VUZB, Group of AAT/AAP and Group of independent) and enables to compare the varying importance of supporters across the groups.

91

Formula: (11-(a*x1 b*x2 c*x3) = d) a = 5/(0.5*n) b = 5/(0.75*n) c = 5/(1.5*n) n = number of care farmers within a group x1 = a certain supporter that is perceived to be very important x2 = a certain supporter that is perceived to be important x3 = a certain supporter that is perceived to be relevant

In addition to the visualisation of supporters importance, the qualitative interview data was used in order to find out why the mentioned actors are perceived to be important and which form of support they transfer. In summary, verbal and visual data were used and analysed by the application of qualitative analysis, respectively thematic coding and network analysis. This procedure allows presenting 32 network cards within one diagram and allows in this respect to substantially interpret and present the perceived importance of actors and forms of support during the process of innovation.

92

5 EXPLORATION AND SPECIFICATION OF THE SAMPLES CONTEXT

93

94

5.1 Austria and the Netherlands: geographical characteristics

Austria and the Netherlands are members of the European Union and diverse in terms of geography and politics. The first is an alpine region without contact to the sea, whereas the latter is flat and located at the North Sea. The figure below shows the geographical position of both countries within the European Union. Austria, as one of the Alpine states, is a neighbour of Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Italy and Switzerland. The Netherlands is smaller than Austria and is a neighbour of Germany and Belgium and borders the North Sea, which explains its long history of trade. The map4 below shows the geographical position of both countries.

Figure 3: Geographical position of Austria and the Netherlands within the European Union.

http://www.weltkarte.com/europa/indexindex.htm, 25.01.2010

95

Austria can be geographically described as hilly and mountainous in many parts of the country. It is a member of the European Union and small in size, with about 83 872 square kilometres and a population of about 8.4 million (cf. WIRTSCHAFTSKAMMER-STERREICH 2009, 1). Indicated by NACE 2008, 70% of Austrians labour force is working in the service sector, about one quarter in industry and trade and only 5.4% of the economically active population is working in agriculture and forestry (cf. STATISTIK-AUSTRIA 2009, 8). The Netherlands is a very small and geographically flat country (41,500 square kilometres) (cf. DUTCH
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

2008, 7). Compared to Austria, the population density is high in the Netherlands because the countrys population is twice as large (16.5 million) but about half the area (cf. WIRTSCHAFTSKAMMER-STERREICH 2009, 1). Similar to Austria, the service sector amounts to about 73.9%, the industry about 23.9% and the agricultural sector about 2.1% of the labour force in the Netherlands. Besides the above-described differences of the investigated countries in terms of geography, important differences in politics need to be depicted for a better understanding of the whole development of innovative practices.

96

5.2 Characteristics and differences in terms of the political culture of Austria and the Netherlands
I have chosen to mention only a view selected aspects to point out the different political culture of the countries to get a broader view about the surroundings in which care farming occurs and develops differently. Similar to other advanced industrial democracies, Austria and the Netherlands are examples of neo-corporatist states. Nevertheless, the system characteristics of neo-corporatism are not visible to such an extent in the Netherlands as is the case in Austria or Sweden (cf. KEMAN 1993, 154-155). SCHMITTER (1974) distinguishes between different types of systems such as pluralism and corporatism. He recognises that both systems accept and attempt to cope with the growing structural differentiation and interest diversity of the modern polity, but they offer opposing political remedies and divergent images of the institutional form that such a modern system of interest representation will take [place] (cf. SCHMITTER 1974, 97). Corporatism is characterised by
[] advocate controlled emergence, quantitative limitation, vertical stratification and complementary interdependence. Compared to pluralists who place their faith in the shifting balance of mechanically intersecting forces; corporatists appeal to the functional adjustment of an organically interdependent whole. (SCHMITTER 1974, 97).

Neo-corporatisms aim is conflict resolution and prevention through an organised cooperation between the parties of the government and relevant socioeconomic interest groups in order to ensure political and social stability. According to KEMAN (1993) the term neo-corporatism comprises that the state and relevant socioeconomic interest groups (trade unions and employers organisations) are related in order to formulate and realise policy together (cf. KEMAN 1993, 154). In the Netherlands the most important groups of minorities for a long period were organised through prongs (multi-pronged policy) that developed historically as corporative-political camps of Catholics, orthodox protestants and later socialists (cf. KEMAN 1993, 144). This form of consociational democracy based on multi-pronged policy in the 50s and 60s led to an ideological 97

segmentation of society along vertical cleavages. Overlapping memberships and cross cutting cleavages predominantly existed within the prongs only. In the 70s this changed through secularisation and deconfessionalisation and as a consequence of that, the power of the Christian Democratic parties decreased and societal interests were no longer exclusively represented through prongs but new political parties, and social movements developed (cf. IBID. 1993, 156). KEMAN (1993) argues that this re-politicisation also led to coalitions between different interest groups as long as their own interests were followed, similar to Olsons logic of the collective action. Moreover, there was a trend for interest groups to directly contact the ministry in order to operate more effectively, for instance, the industrial association and entrepreneurs association was in contact with the Ministry for Trade almost daily, according to KEMAN (1993, 156). Presently, the Netherlands are characterised by a variety of institutionalised interlinkages between the state and organisations, and negotiations (overleg) are still a specific characteristic of political intermediation and part of the mixed economy, KLEINFELD (1993) claims. Moreover, he mentions that the currently existing interest intermediation structures offer a frame for more competition and conflicts as the role of the state is ambivalent, as it expands and degrades at the same time (cf. KLEINFELD 1993, 260). Nevertheless, KEMAN (1993) maintains that in the present time the Netherlands are closer to a model of consensus, and a proportional democracy is less existent (cf. KEMAN 1993, 154). In contrast to that, PELINKA (1993) emphasises Austria to be a party-state and this aspect is more strongly pronounced than in most other western political systems of Europe. There is a proportional representation of ruling parties in government, administration and the public sector and parties determine the political process of decision, whereas this is a tradition that has not changed in more than one century (cf. PELINKA 1993, 102). PELINKA (1993) refers to work from (GERLICH, GRANDE et al. 1983; PELINKA and PLASSER 1988) and emphasises that Austrian parties appropriate the central positions of the political system in a strict sense such as the parliament and government, but they also determine the access to other relevant social positions like economy, education etc. Moreover, he claims that Austrian parties are strongly connected with the trade associations (Champers and the Austrian Trade Union Federation) that are bipartisan, this typically being a strong connection to the large parties (i.e. the conservative party and the social democrats). Both of these factors characterise Austrias party-state (cf. PELINKA 1993, 102).

98

According to PELINKA (1993) the tight linkage between parties and organisations (social partners) was the reason for the priority of classical materialistic values like economic growth, policy of full employment and welfare state, whereas the distance to post-materialist priorities are especially large. This concentration of the party-system directed to the traditional large parties and its linkage with social partners allows a high concentration of political decision processes at the highest level (cf. PELINKA 1993, 107). Both, Austria and the Netherlands are neo-corporatist but there are important differences in terms of their political culture that might be influenced by their history. There is a long history of trade in the Netherlands with the consequence of more openness for modernisation. The contrary is true for Austria, which is characterised by a rather traditional conservative political culture. Modernisation in the Dutch system is obvious through the Dutch policy making process, which is much more characterised by participative and learning oriented models and the policy system is less bureaucratically organised than is the case in Austria. An example for applied participative models in the Netherlands is the transition management, hence the Dutch society uses transition management successfully to manage the transition of sustainable energy, mobility, agriculture and water use, but also to increase biodiversity and to save natural resources (cf. KEMP, LOORBACH et al. 2006, 402). Clearly, KEMP, LOORBACH et al. (2006) argue that transition management is a multilevel model of governance, which allows guiding the process of social transformation by bringing the state and non-state actors together. In addition to that, it often allows more innovative or radical solutions (cf.
IBID.

2006, 402).

Transition management, state KEMP, LOORBACH et al. (2006), counteracts the problem of different perspectives on nature by different people, or that of [d]istributed control, which demands an external coordinator to find common long-term goals and visions. Moreover, it helps to overcome the problem of the demand of short-term action, which is often necessary for policy makers to save their powerful position, and long term structural change. Additionally, an arena, external to the conventional short-term oriented policy, is established to enable the development of common accepted long-term goals independent from short-term political changes (cf.
IBID.

2006, 391-392). According to KEMP, LOORBACH et al. (2006), transition management connects bottom-up processes and top-town planning strategically by coordinating actors from different levels and by trying to concentrate on common visions and on common long-term goals, which is actually called the strategic level (cf.
IBID.

2006, 393). However, transition management is a

participatory instrument that allows adaptive planning by structuring certain problems and strategic experiments for learning purposes for further planning. Different interests and visions as 99

well as the whole process are coordinated outside of the regular political arena, hence multilevel governance and the development of creative common accepted solutions is enabled (cf. 2006, 400). In contrast to Austria, the Netherlands has a much more pragmatic and learning-oriented relationship to politics by exploring new political ways with low resource investment. Different instruments are applied to find new solutions for a certain problem, those experiments are accompanied intensively, results are evaluated and if they are satisfactory the certain solution will be continued or institutionalised. This is a different pragmatism that does not require classical bureaucratic segmented structures but offers a higher flexibility. It makes a difference if new solutions can only be developed within classical e.g. psychiatric institutions or if it is possible to test new forms of therapy and care within an open space in society. If these forms of trial and error are practiced in many different situations within the Netherlands, it is assumed in this work that it is more likely that Dutch people accept and realise this form of experiment in the case of care farming more than Austrians do. Thus, it is assumed that the development of care farming in Austria and the Netherlands shows characteristics minted through the political culture, typical of each nation, which is why empirical findings about the development of care farming and the acceptance of this new practice, as perceived by experts and care farmers, will be analysed in this study in order to provide the reader with further information about the samples context, independent from the main research questions.
IBID.

100

5.3 Characteristics and differences in terms of agriculture

Austria has a total of 189 591 agricultural and forestry enterprises, which were counted in 2005 (cf. BUNDESMINISTERIUM
FR

LAND-

UND

FORSTWIRTSCHAFT 2008, 8). As a result of its

geographical characteristics, agriculture is predominantly small structured and has an average size of 18.8 hectare land area, respectively 34.7 hectare of cultivated area. Small farms, in particular, have to find new income possibilities within the food production, such as the production of old sorts of vegetables or the production organic food. The latter is widespread in Austria, which is the leading country in Europe in terms of organic farming with about 13.5% organic farms in 2007 (cf.
IBID.

2008, 8). Besides converting from conventional agriculture to organic farming,

th th

agri-tourism is widely accepted and popular in Austria. About 15 500 farming enterprises offer holidaying at a farm, which is about every 5 tourism enterprise or every 7 spare bed in Austria (cf.
IBID.

2008, 50). Moreover, additional non-farming business on a farm (farm holidays, direct

marketing etc.) account for about 5% of the production value of the farming economic sector, whereas 3% were agricultural services in 2007. While the production value of agricultural services is decreasing (- 7%), that of additional non-farming business on a farm is increasing (+ 3,7%) compared to 2006 (cf. IBID. 2008, 14). However, these business strategies of practicing additional non-farming business on a farm are also enabled by subsidies by the EU, as about 59% of the total sum of subsidies is used in Austria for enhancing rural development (cf. BUNDESMINISTERIUM FR LAND- UND FORSTWIRTSCHAFT 2008, 10). In contrast to Austria, the Netherlands are one of the three leading exporters of farm products, next to the United States and France, whereaby about 3.5% of the Dutch population work in the agricultural sector (cf. DUTCH MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE 2008, 45). Half of the country (41,500 square kilometres) is farmed, whereas about 8% is woodland (cf. IBID. 2008, 7). The size of farms has increased continually in the last two decades and some farms are so called mega-farms with about 385 hectares of arable land (cf. IBID. 2008, 21). The number of farms is about 79,435, while only 2.5% of the total farmland was farmed organic, or in other words 1362 certified organic farms existed in 2006 (cf.
IBID.

2008, 25). ELINGS AND HASSInk (2006, 164) cite van der Ploeg

(2002) who states that about 40% of Dutch farmers practiced other activities apart from food production in 2002. Multifunctional agriculture is not only a phenomenon of countries with 101

predominantly small farming enterprises but also of regions with larger farms. It should also be mentioned that multifunctional agriculture, especially care farming, has prevalently developed in parts of the country where farms are relatively small and less specialised, such as in Gelderland (cf. ELINGS and HASSINK 2006, 166).

102

5.4 Characteristics and differences in terms of care farming

It is difficult to compare facts about Dutch and Austrian care farming, because in contrast to the Netherlands, only a limited amount of literature and knowledge has been generated in Austria until yet. Austrian care farms are not numbered or centrally registered, WIESINGER, NEUHAUSER et al. (2006) estimate that a number of 250 care farms exist in this country (cf. WIESINGER, NEUHAUSER et al. 2006, 233). In former times Austrias agriculture provided mentally ill people with an employee role, but since somatic causes for some diseases have been noticed, the therapeutic function of agriculture is rediscovered. The Austrian care farming sector is still in an early development stage, nevertheless some initiatives and organisations have already been established. An enthusiastic member of the regional Landwirtschaftskammer (the Austrian lobby for general farms) of Upper Austria initiated the pilot project assisted living at a farm for elderly in 1996. About ten farmers participated in this project with the aspiration of enhancing the existence of farms by a new income possibility. Most of the farms offer one or two apartments for the elderly. Mainly female farmers graduated in elderly care, but in reality 24hour care turned out to be more challenging than expected. In general, courses for elderly care contain care and medical issues, housekeeping, first aid, the mobilisation of clients but also communication and conflict management, knowledge about the professional specific legal basis. The amount of education hours differs, but in the case of Perg a 1000 hours education program was followed. In general, people with a compulsory school degree are allowed to attend the course for elderly care. The EU supported the project of assisted living at the farm in Perg financially, or more accurately the 5bprogram, which had the objective of supporting agriculture to diversify. Moreover, the noncommercial club KL, founded by the Ministry for Agriculture and responsible among other things for the implementation of new ideas within the agricultural sector to enhance rural development, wrote a guideline for assisted living at a farm for elderly in 1999. The pioneers themselves founded a regional union to increase their power of self-assertion in terms of care for elderly on the farm. However, there is no further support or evaluation of the project known and the sector itself did not extend. 103

In the meantime KL initiated animal assisted therapy and pedagogic with farm animals, which seems to be a new promising project in the care farming field and was financially supported by the Ministry for Agriculture. From 2003 to 2007 it was a so-called innovation project, since then it has been an official education programme. In 2006 a pilot education programme was started and a revised course is now offered by KL. The course animal assisted therapy, pedagogic and affirmative action at farms (Tiergesttzte Therapie, Pdagogik und Frdermanahmen am Bauernhof) is offered by KL and in the meantime has become a LFI certification course. The three main quality criteria are the education training, the preparation and suitability of the animal, animal health and species appropriate husbandry and safety at the farm, whereby those quality criteria are part of the course. The course contains four modules, namely personality education (Persnlichkeitsbildung), basics about animal assisted work at farms, business management and legal basis and applied animal assisted therapy at farms. The course is organised into two-day training packages per a month and lasts for 15 months. The target group is people from the social sector (therapists, pedagogues etc) and farmers (99% are female) (for more detail see KL5). Participants also need a cooperation partner and have to attend the course together with them. This requirement is not valid when participants are double qualified, which is the case for more than two thirds of those attending. KL informs larger organisations from the health and agricultural sector to ensure that the topic is already known by care farmers counterparts. Beyond that, they have developed the education programme based on research results of the first pilot programme, as well as a quality system to make sure that care farming will develop in a highly professionalised way. In addition the organisation negotiates fair and generally accepted wages per hour for care farmers who offer animal assisted therapy. Beside the initiatives of animal assisted therapy and/or pedagogic with farm animals and 24hour care for elderly at farms, the sector of horticultural therapy has been developing over the last ten years. This form of therapy is predominantly used in hospitals, rehabilitation centres, nursing homes, vocational training institutions, schools, day centres, farms and nursery gardens. (cf. WIESINGER, NEUHAUSER et al. 2006, 238). The Association of Horticulture (GG) developed an education programme for horticultural therapy on university level. People who attend the course for horticultural therapy are so called academic experts for horticultural therapy, whereby the education course lasts four semesters (60ECTS) and is occupationally organised. The educational program contains the topics horticulture, medicine and care, ergo therapy, pedagogic and

http://www.oekl.at/projekte/tiergesttzteTherapie/

104

psychology, with only two education hours focussing on psycho hygiene. Target groups of this course are people who already work in institutions that offer horticultural therapy and who want to work in horticultural therapy on the basis of their original profession (predominantly therapists or care professionals) or people who plan therapy gardens. The training course started in 2006 and is offered through cooperation between the two universities, University for Agrarian and Environmental Pedagogic and Donau-University Krems (for more details see Donau University)6. It is illustrated in literature (WIESINGER, NEUHAUSER et al. 2006) that four different forms of Austrian agricultural care institutions for mentally disabled people exist. Although traditional structures and the value system have changed, [t]raditional-household-based schemes exist, with clients ranging from close family members to distant relatives in most cases. Farms can also offer sheltered places of work and receive supplements by the state when registering their clients with the job centre and if paid wages are agreed upon by the social partners. Those clients have to meet at least 50% of the regular work performance. For those clients who do not meet the minimum of 50% of the regular work performance, so called nursing places and occupational therapy is offered primarily by sorts of institutions dealing with agriculture. Professionals from the social/care sector are required to guide those clients properly, whereas the government pays care rates for nursing. A fourth form of care farms is focused on the reintegration of clients into the primary or secondary labour market. Clients should appropriate skills by working in the fields of agriculture, horticulture, house-keeping etc. (cf. WIESINGER, NEUHAUSER et al. 2006, 235). There is no high awareness of care farming within the Austrian society. Science is only starting to focus on this field, although there is almost no research. This field is also unknown among politics and no special laws or political regulations are set up to support the development of care farming. There is no variety in terms of the client group, as it is predominantally the mentally and physically disabled and the elderly, but Austria is an innovative leader in terms of forms of care on farms. This country offers animal assisted therapy, horticultural therapy and provides meaningful work for people with special needs. In the Netherlands, except for less professional care for elderly or disabled people at extended family farms in former times, care farming was experimented with for the first time in 1922 when

http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/de/studium/gartentherapie/index.php

105

institutional and community care was combined in this country (cf. HASSINK and VAN DIJK 2006, 165). Nowadays there are more than 700 existing Dutch care farms and the number of farms offering care has been increasing rapidly since 1998, when about 75 care farms were counted (cf. HASSINK and
VAN

DIJK 2006, 166). Care farming has developed as a bottom-up process, forced

by some pioneers e.g. members of Omslag, who were predominantly inspired by the antroposophic philosophy (cf. HASSINK and VAN DIJK 2006, 165). Omslag is a small foundation in the Netherlands founded about 15 years ago that has only ten members who are located all over the country and are in regular contact to support the development of care farming. ELINGS and HASSINK (2006) state that the foundation organises conferences, initiates research projects in cooperation with the Wageningen University and stimulates the public debate about care farming (cf. ELINGS and HASSINK 2006, 172). The Wageningen University in particular, which is the cooperation partner of this study, has done research in this field for more than ten years. In 1999 the Association of Green Care Farmers was founded, according to ELINGS and HASSINK (2006) to protect care farmers interest. The association is a part of LTO, which is the Dutch Organisation for Agriculture and Horticulture and generally the lobby for regular farms (cf. ELINGS and HASSINK 2006, 172). Two years earlier, when about 75 non-organised care farms existed, it was thought by some pioneers that a knowledge-centre was needed. Some of them negotiated with the government to get subsidies and in 1999 the National Support Centre (Landelijk Steunpunt: Landbouw en Zorg) for care farming was founded and subsidised by the ministries of Agriculture and Welfare and Health for about 10 years. A central aim of the National Support Centre was to set up a database to register national care farming projects. Moreover, it was not only responsible for developing but also actualising the database about forms of care farms, their location and types of clients. A quality system was set up and the centre was allowed to certify care farms. In addition to that, a website was created to make the number of farms, types of farms and their location visible for clients and farmers. Guidelines for farmers about how to start up a care farm and further information were provided by these organisations. Since the beginning of 2009, the government no longer supports the National Support Centre financially and a new self-sustaining organisation has been founded. New actors have shown interest in this business field, such as LTO (Land- en Tuinbouw Organisatie Nederland) or the Rabobank, which is similar to the Raiffeisenbank in Austria. The development of the new organisation and its shareholders is not yet clear. 106

Beside this development on a national level, ELLINGS

AND

HASSINK (2006) indicate that in the

meantime there are regional groups and associations of green care farmers in almost every province, which enhance the information exchange between care farmers, introduce a quality system and also negotiate with care institutions, insurance companies etc. (cf. ELINGS and HASSINK 2006, 171). Regional groups vary in terms of form of support provided for care farmers but are also organised differently, which means some are non-commercial and generally founded by care farmers themselves to support each other, while others are commercial. Some offer regional studies in which they offer presentations for care farmers about care and medical issues, the care farming relevant legal basis etc. a few times a year. The current political trend is that of decentralisation, which means the move from political responsibilities in terms of care farming from provinces to municipalities (CF. ELINGS
AND

HASSINK 2006, 173). Both the Ministry for Agriculture and the Ministry of Welfare and Health believe that the care farming sector is important for the country, and should be able to emancipate to be self-depended in the future. ELINGS and HASSINK (2006) state that the development of care farming was a bottom-up process and at a later date enhanced by the above-mentioned Dutch organisations and associations, which has resulted in different forms of care farms in terms of the target group and activities offered at the farms. In the past, mentally ill or people with psychiatric diseases have predominant been the client base, although the number of elderly, people with an addiction, people with burn-out, long-term unemployed, children, people in isolation, homeless people and clients in a social or work integration project (ELINGS and HASSINK 2006, 166) clients are growing, presumably because of demand for these (work/care/therapy) places. Dutch care farmers are experienced in working with a mixed client group, which offers advantages such as mutual support of clients with different skills and access to different financial sources for the farmers (cf. IBID. 2006, 167). It is argued that there would be a high potential for long-term care for elderly, especially people with dementia, although currently the majority of care farms offer daytime care but not 24hour care (cf. DRIEST 2008, 111). How farmers reach payment for their care activities is dependent on their client group but also on the form of cooperation they have with health institutions or the clients directly. As pointed out by and ELINGS and HASSINK (2006), about a third of Dutch care farms hold a formal cooperation with health care institutions, which means that farmers have to negotiate with the health institution about payment for offered care at the farm. In addition to that, independent care farms (25%) exist, which means that they cooperate directly with clients who earn a so-called personal 107

budget (PGB). Clients or their representatives can use this personal budget to buy care on farms and also at other places. The number of care farms being AWBZ accredited, which means having the formal status of a health organisation, is increasing. A very small minority is part of (conventional) health institutions (cf. ELINGS and HASSINK 2006, 168). Independent from all those different forms of financial regulations and forms of cooperation, care activity offered at farms is predominantly a form of worthwhile daytime occupation (90%), work training and/or a sheltered place to work (30%) and only a small percentage (20%) offers a place to live in the Netherlands (cf. ELINGS and HASSINK 2006, 168). At the moment, a two-year course zorg en landbouw exists and is offered, for instance, by the Groenhorst- College in Dronten but also in Rotterdam and near Amsterdam through cooperation with Landzijde. People that attend this extra occupational course become educated as an attendant and manager of a care farm, the course costs about 750 Euros a year and is held for one day a week for two years, whereby participants receive a diploma that is recognised by the government. The target group are people who want to practice or already practice care farming independently if they are originally professional farmers or care givers. I attended this course in order to know how to deal with people with schizophrenia or drug addicts or alcoholics etc. (Group of Landzijde, care farmer, adopted, Ruben Z.) The course provides attendees with knowledge about care and medicine, for instance, diseases and occurring symptoms and how to deal with clients in terms of that. Moreover, social competence is an important part of these lectures, meaning how to communicate with clients and how to simplify the work at the farm in order to make it understandable for clients. The Dutch understanding of care farming differs in terms of the role relation between a client and a care giver, as it is of most importance to offer a form of meaningful work to employees, whereby the farmer undertakes the role of a boss instead of a care giver. How this role is undertaken is a further part of the course. Participants learn how to manage agricultural tasks, while clients needs are considered in order to maintain the farm but also to ensure that the client can fulfil farming tasks that are meaningful. Business questions, such as how to write a business plan, reach subsidies or loans and find cooperation partners, such as municipalities and care institutions, are additional parts of this education training. Knowledge about care farming relevant financial structures, such as the ABWZ accreditation or the personal care budget are taught, as well as how to realise the business plan in practice, meaning to put it on the ground that is also an important part of the lessons (representative of Omslag who developed the education programme). It is the care farmers choice if he/she wants to attend this specific care farming education training, as it is not a prerequisite in order to offer care at the farm or to acquire clients with a personal care budget. 108

There are no clear documentations about the different target groups of Austrian care farms but care farming seems to have originated in both investigated countries in the psychiatric sector. Furthermore, some pioneers in Austria already practice 24hour care, whereas only a minority of the Dutch projects offer more than daytime care. In daytime care the variety of the target group seems to be larger in the Netherlands, because innovative projects in cooperation with the cities offer care for homeless, long-term unemployed, people with addiction problems or burn-out patients. On the contrary, mentally or physically disabled and the elderly are the majority on Austrians care farms. Most of the activities offered in the Netherlands focus on providing meaningful work for people with special needs, whereas Austria offers ancillary animal assisted and horticultural therapy at daytime as well as long-term care for elderly. The main difference in terms of support centres and associations between both countries is that the Dutch care farming sector is centrally coordinated, its development is relatively well documented, unlike in Austria where some organisations exist but a central coordination and documentation is missing. Moreover, regional support organisations are much more pronounced in the Netherlands, which means the number of organisations and forms of support offered by them is higher. Indeed Austrians care farming sector has not developed far in terms of number of care farms, although it is conspicuous that this country has put an emphasis on the quality of the projects. The former Dutch National Support Centre developed general quality guidelines for care farming and the possibility to become certified as a care farm if you follow these guidelines, but farmers are not constrained to do so in order to acquire clients with a personal budget for instance. In Austria quality and certification guidelines have recently been developed for some forms of care farming, for instance animal assisted therapy, and in this respect farmers will have to follow them in order to reach subsidies. Moreover, in the Netherlands the quality guidelines address more the safety of farms and to a lesser extent care farmers education whereas the certification of farms in Austria that offer animal assisted therapy will include the demand of education trainings, although certifications are only in the developmental stage at the moment and have not yet been applied. Nevertheless, an education program for care farming in general has already been developed in the Netherlands and care farmers are able to attend this two-year course, although it is not compulsory. Austrian care farmers can attend a more specialised course in animal assisted or garden therapy but a care farming course in general does not exist. As soon as farmers from Austria want to offer care at their farm, they need to become educated as traditional care professionals, consequently care farmers from Austria need either to become, for instance, a professional social worker, social pedagogue, nurse etc. or to cooperate with those professionals in order to be allowed to offer care at the farm. In addition to education training in care tasks, 109

Austrian care farmers can attend general courses such as education trainings for entrepreneurs, but need to transfer the general information in order to make it useable for care farming. Considering the topic from a quantitative point of view, the Netherlands has a larger number of care farms but is forced today to professionalise the sector. Finally, care farming is rather known as an additional income possibility for farmers and also as an additional form of therapy or care in the Dutch society, in contrast to Austria.

110

5.5 The care farming development within different political cultures from experts perspective
The comparative study between Austria and the Netherlands allows a further insight into the different political cultures in order to explain why care farming as a new practice could have developed differently in both countries based on inductive generated findings by interviewing care farming experts. It is already explained in chapter 5.2 that the Netherlands generally act more in an experimental way, for instance, in environmental questions, whereas empirical findings of this research substantiate that this approach is also practiced in terms of care farming, with the contrary being true for Austria. This perspective offers additional explanatory power in order to understand why a high number of care farms but with rather low professionalised care farmers in terms of education in conventional care developed in the Netherlands and why this seems not to be applicable in Austria.

5.5.1 The Dutch development of care farming

The previous development of care farming in the Netherlands can be described on the one hand as a bottom up process because farmers who followed the anthroposophic philosophy were the first who started to practice care farming, with some of them being founders of Omslag. Omslag is a small foundation in the Netherlands founded about 15 years ago that has only ten members who are located all over the country and are in regular contact to support the development of care farming. ELINGS and HASSINK (2006) depict that the foundation organises conferences, initiates research projects in cooperation with the Wageningen University and stimulates the public debate about care farming (cf. ELINGS and HASSINK 2006, 172). Moreover, in 1997 about 75 care farmers existed in this country and at this time they were generally not organised or in regularly contact with each other. The necessity of subsidies in order to establish a knowledge centre was already recognised by some of them. Findings have shown that in the late 90s care farmers were looking for people with leadership qualities who identified with the idea of this alternative form of care and who were willing to 111

represent care farmers requirements by negotiating with different stakeholders. A former director of a knowledge centre for cattle was one of those people with leadership qualities and became not only the chairman of first meetings in order to negotiate with different stakeholders about subsidies but also the head of the board of the former National Support Centre at a later stage. First meetings between different stakeholders were in this respect initiated indirectly by care farming pioneers and not by the government or other stakeholders. The first meetings between representatives of Provincial Governments, the National Government, the Dutch agricultural and horticultural organisation and the representative of care farmers were aimed at exploring common visions and interests in terms of care farming and the question if subsidies can be obtained for enhancing its further development. The Ministry for Agriculture was interested in diversifying agriculture whereas the Ministry for Welfare and Health appreciated the development of a range of different care places, as care farming seemed for them to be one possibility in order to reach their goals, thus they agreed upon founding a National Support Centre and financed it for four years. Care farmers representative states [] and we decided to found a board, a foundation for agriculture and care. That is the beginning of the organisation also the beginning of the knowledge centre for care farming. This non-commercial knowledge centre, respectively National Support Centre, was subsidised by the government and coordinated all existing care farms, registered them, advertised for care farming and developed a website and qualification guidelines, whereby the latter are optional national guidelines, and can be used on a voluntary basis. Through the development of these qualification guidelines, the members of the National Support Centre tried to set up new rules in order to ensure safety for clients but also to enable the development of care farming, which was seen to be possible only if the rather restrictive health and care laws are not applied but adapted for care farms. Subsequently, the ministries subsidised the National Support Centre for about 10 years, but after four years and a further three years, new applications were necessary, therefore the Support Centre needed to make a kind of evaluation in order to demonstrate the necessity of its support. A scenario study was realised and the four possibilities to stop, to continue, to become a commercial organisation and the fourth possibility of a mix of selling support and offering support for care farmers for free (representative of the National Support Centre) were discussed. At this time the continuation of the non-commercial National Support Centre was understood to be important because the care farming sector was not seen as being able to support itself. 112

I think it was five or six years ago that was the time when we asked a second time for subsidies and in that moment we thought commercial is not possible because at this time we had too little care farmers and as a consequence the development of care farming would have stopped, hence closing the National Support Centre was in that moment not good. (Representative of the National Support Centre)

In the meantime the importance of the National Support Centre changed and as a consequence it was closed in January 2009. New stakeholders are presently trying to establish a reorganised commercial National Support Centre. At the moment the care farming sector is understood to be capable of surviving in the market after this initial governmental support, but it is also believed that the importance of regional support centres increased because experience has shown that some tasks need to be provided at a national level, such as quality guidelines. Other forms of support are in the long term more successful if it is provided at a regional level.
The sector is about 1000 farms now and we find that [] they are so professional that they can do it themselves without subsidies, perhaps money from the organization of agriculture, perhaps money from the rabobank but also money from the care farms, from the regional organization [] and I think that will be very good. (Representative of the Dutch Ministry for Agriculture)

Commercial and non-commercial regional support organisations and care farmer unions developed in the last years, especially in the last five years and were partly initiated by municipalities and progressed by care farmers themselves. Also entrepreneurs such as the head of Landzijde saw potential in care farming and developed a regional support centre on a commercial basis. Nevertheless, the government did not trigger the development of the regional organisations as it was a bottom up process, which the government currently advocates, as from their point of view it proved to be successful. Thus regional support centres inherit advantageous knowledge about the region that is necessary in order to connect different stakeholders such as regional care organisations and care farms etc. Findings have shown that the National Support Centre somehow undertook the responsibility of a coordinator, even if members of the board of this organisation were predominantly representatives of care farmers. This support centre was on the one hand governmentally subsidised but on the other hand its tasks were not only influenced by the government but also by care farming experts and care farmers themselves. First employees of the National Support Centre were experts from the care and the agricultural sector and pedagogies. Moreover, a close connection between this National Support Centre and the Wageningen University that does research in care farming, as well as with Omslag and other important stakeholders in terms of care farming existed. In the past not only the importance of the National Support Centre was evaluated in order to reach further subsidies but also experiments such as if care farms are 113

suitable for certain client groups were accompanied intensively. If they proved to be successful, the certain practice was distributed and continued respectively institutionalised.
We [Omslag] say we are an action foundation. We have ideas and organize that people get to know that. In several projects we develop the ideas. For example addicted people on care farms: Everyone was afraid to combine that and we made a program on questions of the government to try what is possible [] and we made an experiment and followed it and guided it and know it is an important thing and already set up. (Coordinator of Omslag, February 2009)

The National Support Centre was seen to be important for a certain period of time but in the meantime regional support organisations are understood to be more successful because the experience in the past has shown that knowledge about regions and the commitment of regional stakeholders is indispensable in order to successfully implement care farming. Adaptive planning has shown that ten years of governmental subsidising of the National Support Centre is not considered to be wasted money or time by its representatives nor by the government, rather that the circumstances have changed and that care farming needs to be supported in a different way in the present time. Findings have shown that all eleven interviewed Dutch care farming experts (see 4.2.1) agree in terms of high awareness and acceptance of care farming within this country, hence they partly call it a hype and that the Dutch society is very much in favour with this new form of care and that society knows quite well what care farming is. Also very familiar is the term zorgboerderijen. On the one hand there is a relatively high number of care farms, support centres at a national and regional level and a variety of reports in different media about care farming, but on the other hand this might increase the awareness but not necessarily increase the acceptance of this practice within society. However, care farming experts mention that they perceive this practice to be widely accepted in the Netherlands.
[][N]ow everything is fine and now we are all positive and there is a lot of goodwill [] (Dutch self-employed care farm adviser) I think it is close to reaching the point of 100% acceptance. Care farming in terms of a new way of supporting people who have problems in their daily life. (Head of Landzijde)

Nevertheless, they also mention that care institutions tend to keep clients in their own institution in order to keep the money. Most of them see an increasing problem in that the budget for the care sector is decreasing which will lead to more competition between conventional care institutions and care farms in the future.
I know that, I know for sure, because I was told that some bigger organizations keep the clients themselves because the clients are providing the money. (Dutch representative of a care institution)

114

In order to compete with care institutions, the experts assume it to be important that the sector professionalises, finds new client groups, for instance, elderly for 24hours care, and that the connection and cooperation within the sector and with care institutions at a regional level increases. Both representatives of the Ministry for Agriculture and of Health, assume that care farming can be a niche product only and that they indirectly want to support it. The latter is interested in providing a range of different forms of care for clients who should get the chance to choose which form of care they prefer, whereas the first wants to support the diversification of farms but not care farming per se. Moreover, the Ministry for Health distinguishes between medical issues and care issues and assumes that the latter offers high potential for care farming in the future. The international coordinator for long-term care from the Netherlands encapsulated that in contrast to other European countries, the Dutch society asks less for certifications and professionalisation in terms of long-term care. Thus it is more important to provide living places worth living at.
What you mention about professionalization and things like that, we seem to think very little of that because we have a kind of confidence in that kind of segments in the care sector and that is the issue it is not specifically but also related to care farming but also to general care (Representative of the Dutch Ministry of Health, international coordinator for long term care)

However, the Dutch Ministry of Health sees care farming as one form of care, whereas this is not the case in Austria at the present time.

5.5.2 The Austrian development of care farming

In Austria a less experimental way is followed to consequently implement practices that prove to be successful and to develop new rules for a new form of care. However existing laws need to be followed and are hardly adapted. Until now no comparable organisation to the former Dutch National Support Centre exists and no one has registered existing projects, provides information about care farming for farmers and clients or care institutions, or developed quality guidelines for care farming in general. In contrast to Dutch care farmers who predominantly offer working therapy, Austrias care farmers offer a range of different forms of care, such as garden- or animal assisted therapy, elderly care and working therapy. Thus this diversity makes it much more difficult to address all demands when establishing one support centre for care farming, which might be an additional reason why Austria has not yet established such an organisation for general care farming. 115

However, when focusing on the development of animal assisted therapy and pedagogic within this country, it can be stated that the KL take the part of the initiator of first research projects in order to prove health effects and to develop the form of therapy, and also how to train the animals. The KL and TAT received subsidies by the Ministry for Agriculture in order to develop and offer an education program that was tested for four years (from 2003 to 2007). Outcomes needed to be documented for and presented to the Ministry for Agriculture. In the meantime an adapted education course that lasts about one year is offered and subsidised by the Ministry for Agriculture. Representatives of the KL not only realised first research projects but also developed the education course, certification guidelines and negotiated with the Ministry for Agriculture in order to get subsidies. Moreover, they raise awareness for this new form of care to potential cooperation partners of animal assisted therapists. The KL is a non-commercial organisation but well known and accepted by representatives of agricultural organisations, thus the KL cannot be seen as an independent coordinator of different stakeholders. Until now predominantly agricultural organisations are involved in the development of animal assisted therapy, the Health Ministry has not been invited to cooperate with the Ministry for Agriculture or to partly subsidise this new development. There were no meetings in order to look for common visions and interests of all potential affected stakeholders, while experts from KL initiated the development of this strand of care at farms, rather than care farming pioneers. Professionalisation in order to make sure that not just anyone can offer animal assisted therapy and pedagogic and that only high quality is offered is one of KLs main interests. Therefore they also developed certification guidelines in order to evaluate farms, and ultimately to permit or prohibit them to offer this form of care. Subsequently, a quantitative limitation is realised and up until now only about forty people have attended the course for animal assisted therapy and pedagogic and are allowed to offer this form of care. Moreover, not only a complementary interdependence between different stakeholders, but also the high demand to professionalise are specific for Austrias political culture and become obvious from the statement below.
We (the KL) developed a handbook about guidelines in order to allow care farmers to reach subsidies when offering animal assisted therapy and we have to submit these guidelines to the Ministry for Agriculture but before we submit it we want to connect this aspect of reaching subsidies with the certification guidelines that we have developed because that is a lot of money. Farmers would reach for one morning 160 Euros and we want that only those farmers reach subsidies that are certified.

On the one hand farmers really need a form of financial support in order to reach clients because not enough clients are willing or able to pay for this form of care, but on the other hand the 116

correct development of guidelines and the normal course of bureaucracy takes time and often forces farmers to terminate care farming because of not having the necessary long breath. Representatives of the KL are socialised within a certain political culture and know that this form of therapy can only become established when ensuring that well-educated farmers offer a good quality of care. The Dutch National Support Centre also developed quality guidelines for care farming that had high priority and was one of their first tasks fulfilled. But in contrast to the Netherlands it seems to be much more necessary in Austria to prove the quality with a certification and only to allow those official qualified farmers to practice that form of care and to gain income by that. Also the development of garden therapy within Austria shows the high importance of professionalisation in order to establish a new form of therapy. An education program at university level already exists, but in order to enhance its development in practice and to search for common visions and interests of different stakeholders that are involved in this sector, no central organisation that is regulated outside of the political arena is responsible for their connection and coordination. The situation of Perg (assisted living at the farm for elderly) also represents the expert controlled system that does not adapt guidelines or laws, rather institutionalises a new form of care by experiments that hinders the development of new forms of care or the diffusion of the innovation. The pioneers from Perg have practiced care at the farm but needed to follow conventional care guidelines, were burdened by the demanded education training that lasts 1000 hours and also by the requirement to offer care external to the farm in order to be allowed to offer care at the farm, as well. The guidelines and requirements visualise the rigidity of the system that did not allow the development of a new form of care, but rather hindered other potential care farmers to imitate the pioneers.
We had many people from other federal states who asked us about the project and who wanted to realize such a project but I definitely know that it was not realized anywhere because it always failed because of public authorities and bureaucratic hurdles. (Group of Perg, care farmer, adopted, Olivia J.)

On the one hand the Ministry for Agriculture supported the idea of elderly care at the farm and delegated the KL to develop a handbook about guidelines and preconditions for elderly care at the farm after this first project was initiated by the regional union for general farmers and practiced by about 10 pioneers. Nevertheless, no meetings external to the political arena were organised in order to find common interests between the different stakeholders that were affected by the development of care farming. There was also no evaluation about the pilot project in Perg 117

in order to learn from it and to adapt requirements, laws and guidelines for elderly care at the farm.
It failed because of the top, and also at the beginning they thought, yes just go through the education courses and after that lets talk again and they just thought that we are not able to finish the course successfully because that were 1000 hours [] (Group of Perg, care farmer, adopted, Elfi J.)

Austrian experts describe the awareness and acceptance of care farming as being rather low, hence the term Soziale Landwirtschaft is not widely familiar in Austrian society. First of all care farming is neither practiced very often nor very well known. It is also seldom discussed in the media, as an expert from KL mentions there are only sometimes broadcasts about one single care farm but a wider network is not becoming visible by that. The experts that are supporting care farming assume that there is a long way to go before the agricultural and health sector reaches the necessary broader understanding and openness for combining care and farming. At the moment the Ministry for Agriculture subsidises the education in animal assisted therapy and pedagogic and does not only subsidise farmers but also health professionals that attend this course. As already mentioned the Ministry for Health is not yet involved. The acceptance of this practice is predominantly connected to the demand to professionalise in Austria. A frequently asked question by journalists, but especially by representatives of traditional care institutions, is about who takes the responsibility if farmers start to care for people with special needs. Assumptions and prejudices are that farmers and the state profit because the first have a new income possibility and the latter could face decreasing costs for care tasks. Thus it is criticised that this practice could mean doing something at the expense of clients. Not only representatives of traditional care institutions ask for a professional education of care farmers but also the attitude of those experts who very much support the idea of care farming reflect those aspirations. Experts that want to support care farming and are representatives of research centres, care professionals and members of the KL share the opinion that an education programme needs to be initially developed and that care farms need a form of certification before the sector should develop. Otherwise they assume that the risk for clients is too high and they know that care farming can become established and accepted in Austria only through this course. Those supporters of care farming assume that a central national coordination centre for care farming will be needed in the near future in order to coordinate all interested farmers, care institutions and potential clients etc. In contrast to Dutch experts they do not mention the importance of coordination centres that are located at a regional level. A competition between the 118

conventional care institutions and care farming is not perceived by Austrian care farming experts, whereas this aspect might be influenced by the early stage of the development of this innovation.
In Austria everyone mounts the barricades when you are talking about therapy. Who is allowed to do that and who not? Indirectly this influenced the development of our education program apart from our own demand of quality. Who is allowed to offer therapy and you get a lot of critique [if you are not careful about distinguishing between care and therapy]. (Representatives of the KL) Certified farms need to be in every federal state because it needs to be ensured that they offer high quality. (Representative of a care institution that offers a form of animal assisted therapy)

The national differences in the development of care farming reflect the general practiced political culture in both countries. Even if the bottom up process of care farming is not strategically connected to plans by the Dutch government, it seems that different stakeholders were looking for common visions and interests and that the development of care farming was enhanced by experiments that were accompanied and institutionalised if they proved to be satisfactory. It cannot be said that the trial and error practice is not practiced in Austria, it was for instance followed by the KL when it developed the education course for animal assisted therapy, but still many indicators show that initiatives such as that in Perg where not evaluated in order to implement those aspects that proved to be successful. In the Netherlands, the care farming sector seems to be more dynamic than in Austria, which might be influenced by their rather experimental way of dealing with this practice. There is also the demand to professionalise in the Netherlands, although this is fairly current, since a lot of experiments have already been realised and about 1000 care farms have been developed. In Austria the development is strongly connected with the demand to professionalise and hindered by a rigid system that hardly adapts care guidelines in order to enhance the development of care farming. It has been shown that powerful people and organisations need to support the idea of care farming in order to start this movement and to get a hearing. Although experts from the Netherlands also mention that care farming is supported too much by the agricultural sector and too little by the health care sector, we can still say that this fact exists to a larger extend in Austria. The Austrian Ministry for Agriculture has not involved people from the Ministry of Health in order to find common interests and to support this new practice together. This general difference in terms of the development of care farming is important context information for the samples. In the next chapter I will focus on the respective case profiles of the different care farmer groups, hence they are depicted in more detail in the following text.

119

5.6 Case profiles

There is a high variety of clients in this study because Austrian and Dutch care farming projects often offer mixed client groups. In the present study, the client group includes long-term unemployed, elderly, physically and mentally disabled and adolescents with problems to integrate in society. Farmers tasks within a care farming project were also diverse. With regard to that, the following types of care farming projects were investigated: (Type 1) Cooperation between a couple: One member of the couple is a professional nurse or social pedagogue etc. and predominantly fulfils care farming-relevant pedagogical or care tasks, while the other is a professional farmer and predominantly fulfils agricultural duties. (Type 2) All in one: Some interviewees were responsible for and also professionals in care and farm chores and managed both mainly on their own. A professional farmer is for instance also a professional social pedagogue with additional education in animal assisted therapy. In this case the farmer trains the animal for therapy but also offers therapy with clients. (Type 3) External cooperation with professionals: Finally, cooperation between professional farmers and health care or social organisations or self-employed professionals in this field can be mentioned as a third type. Farmers offer their agricultural surrounding or their animals for care farming relevant trainings. Farmers duties are respectively to train their animals for animal assisted therapy and to provide disability friendly areas at the farm. Social organisations like Caritas have a formal or informal agreement and visit the farm with a particular client group and consume the special offer of that care farm, whereas for instance a farm-extern therapist or pedagogue is responsible for the social/care tasks.

5.6.1 Socio demographic and business related characteristics of the case profiles
The focus is initially on facts about sociodemographic and business related characteristics of the sample. The aim of the following chapter is to provide the reader with additional knowledge about the investigated cases in order to epitomise a fuller picture about the sample of this study. Therefore the context information about the farming and care business and about the actors who start up this project is illustrated below. 120

About one third of the care farms within this sample are farming businesses that practice animal husbandry, 10% have an arable farming business with animal husbandry and in 5% of sampled care farms, both arable farming and horticulture is practiced. Care farming is provided by organic (44%) and conventional (56%) farmers and as the graphics below indicate, farms are rather small, while Dutch farms are typically a lot larger. About 45% of the farmers within this sample have 120 hectares and about 40% have 20-40 hectares. The rest of this sample manages a farm with a maximum size of 85 hectares. One possible explanation could be that especially farmers with a small business tend towards multifunctional agriculture in order to obtain additional income. A further explanation could be that people who are not originally coming from the farming but from the care business tend to buy a small farm in order to offer care. Nevertheless, 75% of the farmers within this sample mention that they receive their principal income through care farming, while 25% offer care at their farm simply for additional income.

Size of care farms 1 - 20 ha 21 - 40 ha 41 - 60 ha 61 - 85 ha

[%] 45,01 41,09 12,09 3,02

Table 9: Size of care farms within the sample in hectare.

The forms of care offered at farms within this sample can be categorised as day care (71%) in form of working therapy (64%) that is predominantly provided by Dutch care farmers and 24 hours care (22%) for elderly (19%) and day care in order to provide animal assisted therapy and pedagogic (16%) which is predominantly the case in Austria.

121

80 70 60 Day care 50 [%] 40 Working therapy 30 20 10 0 Form of care Elderly care Animal assisted therapy 24 hours care 24hours care and day care

Figure 4: Forms of care within this sample in percent. [N=32]

Beside context information about the (care) farming business, it is interesting to focus on care farmers education, their age and gender (illustrated below). About two thirds of this sample are female and one third is male interview partners. About 23% are between 25 and 35 years old, about 16% are between 36 and 45 years old, and 13% are between 56 and 65 years old. Care farming is a challenging job that demands high social and emotional competence, which could be one explanation for the largest number of people (48%) being between 46 and 55 years old.

Age 25-35 36-45 46-55 56-65

[%] 22,58 16,12 48,38 12,09

Table 10: Age of care farmers within this sample in percent.

Nearly half of the investigated care farmers attended a vocational school with mid-level, followed by about 20% who attended a vocational school with higher education, about 10% have a university degree and 10% underwent an apprenticeship. Only one person of the sample has a high school degree and two a compulsory school degree only. This short illustration about the form of farming and care business and about socio demographic data of the care farmer of this

122

study provides the reader with additional knowledge in order to increase the understanding about the context of the interview partners.

5.6.2 Categorisation and characteristics of groups of care farmers in terms of social capital
The sample can be categorised in five groups that are diverse in terms of the group social capital (see 8.5). Cases from Austria belong either to the group of the independent, the group of Perg or the group of animal assisted therapy. The independent were not a member of a particular care farming union on a regional or national level and predominantly did not have informal relationships to other care farmers, hence they are not a group per se, rather clustered in this study. The group of Perg have founded a regional union, like care farmers support care farmers whereby the group of animal assisted therapy knew each other from attending the same education programme but did not have much or regular contact with each other after the education course was finished. Cases within this sample from the Netherlands either belong to the commercial regional care farming support organisation named Landzijde, which provides farmers with many different forms of support, or they belong to the non-commercial care farming organisation from Utrecht that is called VUZB. VUZB was founded and is organized by care farmers to support each other when starting up a care farm. Most of Landzijde and VUZB members also have a membership to the national Green Care Association or National Support Centre, which means they were supported on a regional but also national level. The different characteristics of each group are presented below.

5.6.2.1 Independent Austrian Care Farms

Some interviewees had no membership to a special care farming association or organisation. They were pioneers in the most original form, whereby interviewees from this group range from offering a form of animal assisted therapy to elderly care to offering meaningful work for people with special needs. Most of them did not even have contact to other care farmers or do not know that someone else provides similar tasks.
Interviewer: Did you visit or even know other care farms before you started up yours? Care farmer: (Laughs) No. (Group of independent, care farmer, terminated, Claudia C.) Interviewer: Do you know other people who offer care at their farm? Care farmer: ... ... ... Interviewer: Well, any acquaintances who focused also on that connection between agriculture and

123

care? Care farmer: No, not the combination with the social. (Group of independent, care farmer, adopted, Doris Q.)

All of them are members of LWK but do have different professional backgrounds (most of them are double qualified in social and agricultural tasks). They offer different forms of care to different client groups and come from different regions. They also share in common that they are not affiliated with a care farmer group, are not supported by that and are not members of the same education course, thus they are not a group per se. There is also no existing group social capital. Through this group, a maximum contrast is offered and allows insights in how care farmers cope with problems and challenges without group social capital.

5.6.2.2 The Group of Perg in Austria

Some important aspects about this group are already explained in chapter 5.5.2. One member of the regional Landwirtschaftskammer7 (LWK) in Perg initiated the pilot project assisted living at a farm for elderly in 1996 as a new income possibility for farmers. About ten farmers participated, mainly female farmers graduated in elderly care, which means they attended a one-year course together with about 1000 hours of education. All participants invested in apartments for elderly, with most of them built two disability friendly apartments. The LWK organised the course that was organisationally oriented on farmers needs, for example considering harvest time, and chose a locality with a short distance for all participants. Further negotiation with cooperation partners, like the Red Cross, were realised by members of the care farmer group and of the LWK. Firstly, only the group of care farmers existed as a group with one spokesman, but later an official regional union was founded (in 1999). The group of care farmers is democratically organised and supports each other, distributes relevant information and questions of interested clients to all members. Farmers advertise together but still everyone is individually responsible to acquire clients. Interviewees of this group are members of the union and have adopted or already terminated care farming. The care farmers of this group exchange information about experiences in terms of problems and challenges perceived when developing and stabilising the new practice. They went through this process together at the same time and also meet each other continually at their farms roughly every second month and democratically set the agenda of the meetings themselves. By

Short LWK is represented via regional organizations under the umbrella of the Austrian Federation of Agriculture.

124

considering the predefined indicators for intra-group communication, the social capital of this group is very high. Moreover, group identity is produced through homogeneity in terms of the form of care offered at the farm, meaning all of them offer assisted living (care tasks) for elderly (same client group) at the farm (24hours care) and have in the meantime a long history of interactions (10 years). This union presents itself through a common homepage and formulates common future aims not only in terms of the group but also in a wider sense in terms of care farming, hence members highly identify with the group.
There is a working group in another region that thinks about developing a similar project and they contacted us because of that and we will discuss within the union if our union should become something like an umbrella organisation for other regional groups because I think it does not make sense if every region founds a separated union for assisted living at the farm and then they need to contact us because of questions. My future vision would be that we have in every federal state of Austria a superior union and that members can meet each other regularly and that someone can use our experiences as basis. Nothing will be easier than distributing what we know because we have been hitting our heads against a brick wall for then years. (Group of Perg, care farmer, adopted, Elfi J.)

Also the solidarity of this group is very high, as they come from the same region and are a member of the LWK, which was quite important as initiator of the project and supporter of the group when developing the new practice. They also attended the same education course at the same time which lasted one year and was very intense in terms of invested time and the level of education. The number of individuals in the group is small but its density is very high because everyone knows each other very well. The meetings are used in order to deal with occurring problems and to do common tasks such as advertising, preparing for negotiations and networking with cooperation partners or public authorities etc.

5.6.2.3 Group of animal assisted therapy (AAT) and pedagogic (AAP) in Austria
Some details about AAT are already explained above (see 5.5.2). The project animal assisted therapy started with research by one innovative member of KL who later initiated a pilot project for animal assisted therapy (AAT) and pedagogic (AAP) with farm animals and developed the education programme. to At the beginning, 83%. education KL was subsidised by with the the Landwirtschaftsministerium about Moreover, negotiates

Landwirtschaftsministerium about farmers daily wages when offering animal assisted therapy and if KL certifies them. KL is connected with important contact partners within the agricultural sector and the national and international scientific group regarding to care farming. This organisation informs possible cooperation partners of care farmers to increase the acceptance of 125

animal assisted therapy and has educated about 40 care farmers until yet. Certification and quality management is most important for them. Interviewees from the group of AAT/AAP know each other because they attended an education program together that lasted about one year (about 200 hours) but they only met regularly during that education course and are not a member of an official union of care farmers. They do not organise common meetings to exchange information or to work together on group issues, where it would be possible to exchange information about experiences during the course. I simply told the colleagues during the presentations and the education course about my experiences. (Group of AAT/AAP, care farmer, Irma F., adopted) Interviewees from this group attended the pilot project or/and the further education programme in animal assisted therapy. Communication within the group can be characterised as being observational, rather than being based on the exchange of information. They become trained as an animal assisted therapist or pedagogic or assistant based in that field with the clearly defined education programme. The regularly meetings are in functional rooms rather than at the farms, and are run over the period of about one year for members who have participated in the education course. Although in general, farmers do not have regular contact with each other afterwards. The intra-group communication can in this respect be seen as rather low, hence this form of social capital is low.
Interviewee: And do you have regular contact to your colleagues from the education course? Care farmer: Yes one member contacted me because of a question in terms of the goats and with another member I wrote the thesis together but she offers animal assisted therapy to different clients and her care farm is differently organised and so we just told each other about our experiences but except of that there is no one else from the course with whom I am in contact. (Group of AAT/AAP, care farmer, adopted, Irma F.)

Nevertheless, members attended the same education course in the same time and offer the same form of day-care at their farms, but group identity can hardly become developed, as members have a different professional background, some are professional therapists or pedagogies and farmers, while some simply just farmers, meaning they only partly have the same client group. Further indicators for a low group identity are that they do not present themselves through a common homepage and that there are also no common aims mentioned within the group. Strongly connected to that, also group solidarity is less obvious because all of them only share in order to be a member of the education course and of the LWK, and although they know each other they do not fulfil common tasks such as advertising or negotiating etc. with relevant cooperation partners or institutions.

126

5.6.2.4 Group of VUZB (Vereniging Utrechtse Zorgboeren) in the Netherlands

The VUZB is a non-commercial association of green care farmers in Utrecht, Holland. Originally, the region of Utrecht supported an initiative to enhance care farming and employed two people for about two years from another region that had knowledge about how to enhance care farming. One outcome of this initiative was that VUZB was founded as a non-hierarchical organised union of care farmers. About five years ago VUZB became an official organisation and in the present time counts about 30 members. Members offer working therapy at their farm, meaning day care for a mixed client group, all of them come from the region of Utrecht and some of them are also members of the union for general farmers (LTO8). The members have to pay 125 Euro per year and work for group issues in one of four working groups. The working groups are responsible for public relations, the regional adaption of already elaborated quality guidelines by the National Support Centre, networking with similar associations of other regions and with care organisations and serving information about how to start up a care farm. Financial questions are centrally organised, the association organises a study club five times a year where all members meet each other at their care farms and exchange ideas and their experiences in terms of care farming. Current problems are discussed, such as insurance and quality standards, but also knowledge and information is offered to all members through these meetings. Most farmers acquire their cooperation partners and clients themselves. VUZB addresses rather new care farmers than those who have already been practicing for a long time. Everyone who wants to start and to become a member of the VUZB needs to attend an introduction course (about two days) about how to be a care farmer. On the one hand it is not aimed at becoming a commercial and tightly organised association like Landzijde, but on the other hand they do not exclude it as a possibility to develop in this direction. They can presently distinguish themselves from Landzijde insofar as they do not undertake as much responsibilities for farmers. VUZB says that their members want to stay responsible for themselves and they do not want to give up their autonomy. Quality is seen as important and members need to obey the universal valid criteria of quality. At the present time the association calls itself a hobby organisation but it has also discussed demanding financial payment when consulting new care farmers and to organise them better. Interviewees who were members of this group contacted VUZB by themselves to gather information about how to start

LTO Nederland (Land- en Tuinbouw Organisatie) is the Dutch Federation of Agriculture and Horticulture, an

entrepreneurial and employers organisation.

127

up a care farm and have either adopted or terminated care farming. Considering the group social capital one can say that in terms of intra-group communication this group of farmers exchanges relevant information between each other rather than observing information from someone else, they meet continually about five times a year directly at their farms, which also provide visual information about how to be a care farmer, and also set the agenda of these meetings themselves. Moreover, this group exchanges information about how to start up a care farm and about perceived problems and challenges and experiences in terms of how to deal with clients and how to adopt the farm in order to offer care. By applying these indicators in order to define the amount of social capital in terms of intra-group communication, the result shows that this group obtains high group social capital. The second form of social capital that is applied in this work is group identity, whereby this increases the higher the homogeneity within the group in terms of their form of offered care (care tasks, 24hours care or day care, client group) and with the history of interactions. In this respect we can say all members of the group of VUZB offer working therapy to clients during the day, while only having partly the same client group, as client groups are generally mixed in the Netherlands. All current members of the group, which has existed for more than five years, democratically influences the development of common future aims, and the group presents itself as a group through a common homepage.
Interviewer: And what expectations do you have in terms of VUZB? Care farmer: A few days ago we received a questionnaire from VUZB about how we (the members of VUZB) would like to develop the union and what expectations we have regarding to that. The topics could become deeper in my point of view, more directed. More about target groups, autism, ADHD is also very relevant at the moment and about that they could provide us with more detailed knowledge. And I also mentioned in this questionnaire, hey, offer courses, provide orientation on what is possible as a care farmer []. (Group of VUZB, care farmer, adopted, Emma G.)

Altogether, the group identity in the case of VUZB is measured as medium when applying the indicators above. Group identity is a precondition for group solidarity because it enables cooperation in contrast to the first, the latter means advocating for common aims in order to be solidary. By considering the indicators for solidarity, one can say that members of VUZB sometimes share more than one role with each other, meaning all of them are coming from the same region, which is often a precondition for continual meetings or increases the number of members who know each other (network density). Some shared the same education course and are also a member of the union for general farms besides being a member of VUZB, which increases possible contact points in order to support each other. Solidarity is visible in terms of given support when a member wants to start up a care farm but also in terms of public relations, networking and negotiating with other relevant organisations and in terms of adapting national guidelines of quality standards, thus the group solidarity is rather high. 128

Yes, we knocked at their door in order to reach information about how we could start care farming because you have to start somewhere and that was a well known address. [] and they built working groups for public relations and the financial administration etc. [] (Group of VUZB, care farmer, terminated, Sven and Alida de I.)

5.6.2.5 The group of Landzijde in the Netherlands

Landzijde is a commercial organisation in the region of Amsterdam that supports care farming. Two people who are care farmers themselves today founded the organisation in 2003. In the meantime the organisation has about 12 employees, an office in the city centre of Purmerend (North-Holland) and counts about 100 members who pay 75 Euros per year for their membership but also pay part of their income (about 20%) when clients who were conciliated through Landzijde visit the farm. Landzijde does not only offer a common homepage but also recruit care farmers and also care institutions or clients directly. Moreover, it negotiates with ministries and municipalities and is highly interconnected with all relevant addresses in terms of care farming. Besides offering a strong brand, Landzijde matches clients to care farms, develops care programs for clients and does the booking of care programs, arranges all settlements for farmers, informs farmers about how to start up a care farm, is a contact partner for care farmers regardless if they start up or have already practiced care farming for a long time, and advertises care farming. Landzijde organises meetings for all members four times a year where presentations are also held by care professionals to educate farmers, for instance about clients diagnosis. Nevertheless, the head of this organisation believes that a farmer should predominantly stay a farmer and not become a care professional. A precondition for care farmers to become a member of Landzijde is that the safety at the farm is ensured and farmers should have a special insurance. The head of Landzijde appreciates it if farmers attend the meetings four times a year and if farmers attend further education in terms of care farming. But until now farmers do not have to attend special education courses in order to offer care at their farm.
Interviewee: Do farmers have to attend education courses if they want to become a member of Landzijde? Head of Landzijde: Not yet, it is a must to visit the regional studies in the region, which are organized by our regional coordinator. Interviewee: four evenings a year, is it that what you mean? Head of Landzijde: Four times a year, yes, and we promote, officially from school # state school and middle class school MAO 4 level, that is below high education level []. About 22, 26, 48 of our farmers do or have done this school programme, it is not, it is an official school, Interviewee: So do you recommend that farmers should attend this higher education training? Head of Landzijde: I would recommend it yes.

It is a subjective decision of Landzijde whether farmers become members of this organisation because Landzijde adjudges them as having a warm heart for other people (Head of Landzijde, 129

February 2009) or not. Members of Landzijde are from the region of Amsterdam, some of them are members of LTO and they offer day-care, working therapy, for a mixed client group. Interviewees were members of Landzijde who either adopted or already terminated care farming and Landzijde recruited nearly all of them.
Hetty [regional coordinator from Landzijde] is the pacemaker. She asked us many times, like we have those clients, is that someone for you? And she doesnt make that with us only but asks also other farmers. And once you dont say no and then you try it. (Group of Landzijde, care farmer, adopted, Henk K.)

The intra-group communication as one form of social capital is rather low because farmers rather observe information when participating in the (evening) study course four times a year and the commercial organisation sets the agenda of those meetings, not the farmers themselves. In addition to the fact that farmers observe information from (health) experts about diseases etc. they also have the possibility to exchange information about their experiences in terms of problems and challenges with clients and adapting the farm etc. in this setting, although they miss visual information about how the care farms of others look like, as meetings are in functional rooms and not at their farms. Landzijde members receive initial information about how to start up a care farm predominantly by employees of the organisation and less by members of the group. The identity of the group is also medium because they share being a member of Landzijde, of the region, offering day-care, more accurately, working therapy to clients but only partly have the same client group. These organisations members have generally not attended the same education course at the same time and do have a history of interactions through the abovementioned meetings, over a maximum of about 7 years. In contrast to VUZB, not the group itself but the organisation of Landzijde presents itself through a homepage and members are listed there but this does not necessarily increase group-identity. And even if your care farm is presented on their website it is still advertisement for your own farm. Group of Landzijde, care farmer, terminated, Finn and Jacoba B.) The organisation is less democratically than hierarchically organised and as a consequence there are no common aims within the group and also no possibilities for members to influence the direction of future goals of that organisation.
But I have not found out yet how a care farmer (zorgboeren) can influence Landzijde that is something I do not knowbusiness council is not the right term but, good, that is something I need to find out, I would appreciate to reach more information about Landzijde. (Group of Landzijde, care farmer, adopted, Orlando and Noa U.)

Not surprisingly it was shown that the solidarity within the group could not develop far. Members of Landzijde come from the same region (Amsterdam) but are only partly a member of the union for general farmers or of the same education course. On the one hand there are about one 130

hundred members in the group but care farmers only partly know each other (density of the network). Because receiving all services such as necessary information from Landzijde in order to start and stabilise this new practice, and the fact that the organization acquires its own clients, the necessity to advertise, to negotiate and to network with other organisations and possible cooperation partners decreases. Not the group of farmers themselves but Landzijde offers support to the group, which is a further indicator for low group-solidarity. Considering the intra-group communication, group identity and group solidarity the social capital on a group level differs between the samples of this research. The group of Landzijde in the Netherlands and that of AAT/AAP in Austria have a similar amount of group social capital and the group of Perg in Austria and of VUZB in the Netherlands are similar in kind. In terms of the intra-group communication it is shown that the group of Perg and VUZB have a similar amount, which is much higher than that of Landzijde and AAT/AAP members, meaning the exchange of information between farmers is less possible in the latter. The group of Perg shows the highest amount in terms of group identity, whereas members of VUZB, Landzijde and AAT/AAP are similar in kind. Group solidarity is strongly shown by members of Perg, closely followed by members of VUZB, whereas Landzijde and AAT/AAP members are connected less strongly and show the lowest amount in terms of that form of social capital. Austrians independent care farmers are in reality not a group at all, they do not know each other and develop their care farming project independent from each other, therefore it is obvious that they do not have a group social capital. They share in common that they are not members of a care farming organisation or union and that they organise everything by themselves in order to develop the project. The sample of the independent is very interesting in order to visualise the influence of group social capital because they offer the maximal contrast to the other samples. In the following chapters the above-mentioned groups with a varying amount of group social capital are discussed in terms of how they go through the different ideal-typical periods of the innovation and which forms of support they obtain and need.

131

132

6 THE INNOVATION PROCESS, CHARACTERISTICS AND NEEDS FROM CARE FARMERS PERSPECTIVE

133

134

6.1 Characteristics of the initiation period

The aim of the following chapter is to focus on the beginning of an innovation. In van de Vens` (1999) theory it is assumed that this initiation period contains characteristics such as a certain prehistory that leads to the further development of an innovation, but also motifs and initial triggers that initiate it. Besides illustrating findings in terms of those characteristics, the purpose here is to provide information about forms of support and functions of social capital that are obtained in the beginning of an innovation in order to subsequently find out how this influenced the further progress. By choosing this way of illustration, the working hypotheses one and two (see 3.4) are considered partly, circumscribed by focusing on the first period of the innovation only, meaning the initiation period that disembogues into the developmental period as soon as someone decides to start up a care farm.

6.1.1 Prehistories and motifs for starting up a care farm

Findings have shown that there are commonalities in all investigated cases from Austria and the Netherlands in the initiation period. All interviewees offer care at the farm in order to reach primary or additional income, but are not only economically motivated to offer this special form of care. The motivation for care farming is predominantly driven by economical needs, by the whish to find possibilities to combine working as a caregiver and fulfilling perceived obligations in terms of family and farming tasks, or by the wish to offer the non-traditional form of care at a farm. But in all cases it is a combination of economical needs and certain personal circumstances, meaning a life stage in which someone is responsible to care for ones own children, in which the chance or obligation to work at a farm and a dissatisfaction with ones own situation is perceived, which makes reorganisation necessary. Those care farmers who originally come from the agricultural field either experienced diseases/sickness themselves or are related/strongly connected to people who have had disease or sickness. As a result of this experience not only an interest in social tasks developed but also the awareness to be able to deal with these tasks were important for the further development of the innovation. In the past they had already cared for people with whom they are strongly 135

connected, for instance, close relatives or neighbors. This personal experience is connected to a strong commitment to ones own farm and that farmers are often forced to find new income possibilities in order to maintain their farm, whereby care farming is started because of the expectation to reach additional income through care tasks on the farm. In the case of original farmers who start to offer care at their farm, they are initially triggered by economical pressure, for instance, the BSE crisis or the fact that Austria becaming an EU-member state lead to low food prices, consequently forcing farmers to find new income possibilities.
Yes it started ten years ago that we had to find new income possibilities because we did not reach enough income by food production only. (Group of Perg, care farmer, adopted, Olivia J.) And then there was also that Austria became a member of the EU and then we were anxious and got the feeling that we have to find a second income possibility. (Group of Perg, care farmer, adopted, Olga Z.)

Care farmers who originally were in the social or health sector, for instance being a professional social pedagogic, nurse, social worker etc. and predominantly inherit a farm from their parents or through marring with a farmer, are also forced to find new income possibilities for their farm but predominantly want to combine their profession as a caregiver with the obligations that are perceived from the farming business. So on the one hand they want to practice their profession, but on the other hand they have obligations such as household chores, caring for ones own children, working at the farm etc. As a result of the combination of both, care farming starts to be practiced.
Renate Q. is a professional nurse, loves her job and identifies herself rather as a caregiver than as a farmer, but she married a farmer. Because of problems with her parents in law Renate and her husband lived about 1hour by car away from the farm. Both, Renate and her husband worked off the farm but her husband commuted daily and worked additionally on the farm for more than 10 years. This double burden and the fact that their children got older forced them to make a decision about how to combine her husbands strong commitment to the farm and her wish to work as a nurse and to be independent from her parents in law. They started to offer care and assisted living at the farm, offer this 24hours care for about 14 people, have employees and manage this business together. (Group of independent, care farmer, adopted, Renate Q.) Claudia C. inherits the farming business from her parents but her husband predominantly undertakes the farming tasks and Claudia decides to become a professional social worker after her maternity leave. After finishing this education program she obtains the offer from her employer to start up an outpost at the farm, like a sheltered workshop at the farm for psychological ill adolescents. She accepts this offer because of the possibility to care for her children and to work as a social worker. (Group of independent, care farmer, terminated, Claudia C.)

Additonally, there are care farmers who are originally trained in care tasks and practice care farming because they wish to become a farmer in order to offer this special form of care. They assume that care offered at a farm is very fruitful for their clients but offering a traditional form of care only does not satisfy them. In their point of view the working environment at the farm 136

offers particularly meaningful work or, for instance, animal assisted therapy with farm animals seems to them to be the best form of therapy for their clients and this fact motivates them to start a care farm. They identify themselves also as a farmer and often invest a lot of energy and money in order to buy a farm and to become a farmer. Subsequently they also want to reach additional or primary income through care farming. Care farmers either predominantly come from the farming business but have personal experience with diseases and forms of care or they are professional caregivers and in a certain stage of their life where there is a possibility to connect care tasks with farming tasks. All interviewees try to reach additional or primary income through care offered at the farm. Before someone can practice care farming, the information about this form of care needs to be obtained or the idea needs to be developed, whereby findings have shown that weak and strong ties undertake a different role at the beginning of the new practice.

6.1.2 Obtained and needed forms of support and of social capital

Once someone becomes aware of this new practice and reaches information about certain care farming initiatives, this interest needs to be discussed and further information about how this practice may look in reality need to be obtained. Therefore, later care farmers mention certain actors to be important, some of them are only aquaintainces, others are close family members, but all of them play an important role within this period of innovation as it is displayed in the network diagram below. The following network diagram demonstrates findings from all investigated groups about obtained forms of support that is provided by certain actors during the initiation period and perceived by a care farmer to be of varying importance. Ego in the pentagon represents in this case 32 care farmers, is located in the centre of the diagram and is connected with certain actors through lines, the latter are colored and have different line symbols in order to identify to which group the supporters belong. The line end is labelled, so that first of all the actor is perceived to be more or less important, for instance, the care farmer union or the family is emphasised by that. Besides the name of the supporter, the form of support that is provided by this actor is also illustrated after the colon. For instance care farmer union: inf at the end of a green line that ends in the second circle means that the care farmer union provides farmers who are a member of the

137

Group of Perg with information related support and is perceived by those care farmers to be important in the initiation period. The three concentric circles represent perceived importance of actors to care farmers, respectively the form of support, similar to the network diagram that was used for data collection. Those actors that are located in the first circle, meaning those who have the shortest distance between ego and the supporters, are perceived to be very important in that period of time. Perceived to be important are supporters that are located in the second circle and relevant if they are located in the third circle. The different groups are presented distinctly in order to emphasise the similarities within the findings that occurred in terms of forms of support and providers across the investigated groups.

138

Figure 5: The perceived importance of supporters and of forms of support by care farmers during the initiation period. [N=32]

139

In all groups the family members esteem support is of most importance, while actors such as the organisation of Landzijde, the general union for farmers or weak ties are important because they providing care farmers with relevant information about this new practice. In general, weak ties are people a care farmer meets only occasionally and who until that time transfer the first information about care farming or care farming relevant initiatives. In the case of the group of VUZB, care institutions also tend to motivate farmers through certain initiatives that lead farmers to consider starting up a care farm and are perceived to be relevant because of that. However, this initial motivator for later Landzijde members is typically the commercial group of Landzijde. If certain well-known organisations, such as the union for general farmers in Perg, support this idea of care farming, they are also perceived as important informants by farmers in the initial stage of the innovation. Already practising care farmers are perceived to be relevant because they later provide the care farmer with practical knowledge. Orientation about this new practice is also increased through visiting already existing care farms. In summary, esteem support by family members and the information about the existence of care farming and about how this practice can look in reality are perceived as at least relevant by care farmers. Depicting results from the qualitative analysis in detail will complement this rather quantitative interpretation of the network diagram above. In all cases the initiation relevant information about the existence of care farming organisations, education programs, certain care farming projects within a region or the first information about the existence of this form of care per se is not provided by people a care farmer meets or someone they are emotionally strongly connected with, but by people whom the care farmer meets only occasionally or by communication media such as the internet, newspaper or TV, for instance.
IP: I met that person who told me that he attends an orientation course Landbau and care and I thought I have to do that, too. I: Who told you about it? IP: Yes, someone whom I know by accident. Just so, I am not sure, maybe we have talked about it in the supermarket (Group of VUZB, care farmer, adopted, Isa C.) Who was important at the beginning? Well that was the media, the press and by hearsay [we found out that care farming exists]. (Group of Landzijde, care farmer, terminated, Finn and Jakoba B.)

Highly important for care farmers further deliberations in terms of care farming is in most cases an initiative from a certain organisation, in the case of Perg for instance a member of the union for general farmers had the idea about assisted living at the farm for elderly as an additional 140

income possibility for farmers and initiated information meetings and excursions to care farms from other regions. It was quite important that the union for general farmers supported and initiated this idea because it increased farmers acceptance and serious consideration in terms of care farming, as no member of the group of Perg did know or think about offering care professionally at their farm before. In the case of VUZB, this role was undertaken by the municipality because it financed two care farming experts from another region for about two years in order to support the development of care farming in Utrecht, from which the union of VUZB developed. The fact that a pilot project in terms of animal assisted therapy and pedagogic was already organised through the KL, an approved organisation that is, amongst other things, responsible for enhancing innovations in order to maintain rural regions, was likewise important for the members of AAT and AAP to become aware of this form of profession and to consider starting with this new practice. A central contact point and contact partner existed in this respect, with the exception of Austrias independent care farmers, in all cases, which was highly important for the distribution of information about care farming as a profession. Moreover, even if the first information about care farming is generally transferred by weak ties, farmers awareness about it and the chance that they actually start with this practice is increased if respected and well-known organisations or institutions support it and in this respect value it as positive. In the case of the group of Landzijde, the situation is similar because the commercial organisation of Landzijde distributes the information about care farming, but beyond that they purposefully increase the number of their members by recruiting farmers. In contrast to members from Perg, in the cases of VUZB or AAT/AAP, the farmer is not required to do the first step in order to gain information, rather the Landzijde. Landzijde members are often less under pressure to reorganise their professional situation but it suits them to offer care at their farm instantly when Landzijde contacts them and tries to recruit them.
[The regional coordinator from Landzijde] is the pacemaker. She asked us many times, like we have those clients, is that someone for you? And she doesnt make that with us only but asks also other farmers. And once you dont say no and than you try it. (Group of Landzijde, care farmer, adopted, Henk K.)

In contrast to that, Austrias independents feel more under pressure and need to become more active in order to reorganise there professional situation, hence private and professional circumstances lead them to start up a care farm at certain points in time. They do not have one contact point or well-known and accepted institutions or organisations that supports care farming, infact they are often not aware that others also practice a similar form of care at the farm. This shows that the development of care farming is also possible without central contact points or well-known and accepted distributers of the idea. Still it is less likely that a high number 141

of people become aware of this possibility simply due to independent need to be creative in order to find a new form of care for new income possibilities. Findings have shown that forms of support and of social capital that are important in the initiation period are information-related support and intra-group communication, because the information about the existence of care farming as a profession and about relevant initiatives needs to be transferred to potential care farmers. Predominantly weak ties bring this new practice in the field of vision and allow those who are interested to deliberate if they want to adapt it or not. Moreover, if potential care farmers are introduced to this topic through accepted and wellknown institutions or organisations, it is more likely that potential care farmers consider this practice as valuable. Nevertheless, relevant information that increases orientation about this new practice is predominantly provided by the contact to other care farmers. Excursions to or movies about other care farms are important resources in this period because they allow reaching a broader understanding about the practice and allow the development of more realistic perceptions and estimations in terms of care farming.
We saw different care farms with different clients and it was possible to find out how I want to realize my care farm and for what clients I want to offer care. (Group of Perg, care farmer, adopted, Veronika K.) And when the colleagues from the education course saw the movie they said, ultimately we see how it looks like to work with clients at the farm in reality. Not only in theory but in reality, that was so important for them. (Group AAT/AAP, care farmer, adopted, Irma F.)

Meetings with others who are interested in care farming allow the development of a feeling of belonging to a group of individuals who believe that this is a valuable and important practice, which enhances further consideration in terms of care farming. Besides this rather loose social companionship, the exchange of information between potential care farmers, (intra-group communication) through for instance common excursions or introduction meetings with the possibility for discussion, increases orientation of ones own initial situation compared to that of the others and takes into account advantages or disadvantages in terms of care farming perceived by colleagues. Orientation increases because potential care farmers can align themselves by being aware that others decide to adopt or to not adopt this new practice.
And through Landzijde we came in contact with other care farmers and then you get an idea about if those people are able to practie care farming I can do that, too. (Group of Landzijde, care farmer, adopted, Henk and Alida K.) And then it was crystallised out who will really participate, meaning who will start up a care farm and that was the most important thing. (Group of Perg, care farmer, adopted, Olivia J.)

142

Beside other 40 farmers from our region I participated at this excursion to a care farm that was initiated by the LWK and I instantly liked this concept and in the second excursion only 20 potential care farmers were left, so it was visible that the number of interested people decreased. (Group of Perg, care farmer, adopted, Elfi J.)

A care farming project can also be developed quite successfully without this initial contact with other care farmers, although the contact is still identified as important for a broader understanding and helps to develop more realistic consideration about this practice. However, all this information is sparsely useful when the commitment of a potential care farmers close family and friends is missing. Strong ties, especially a care farmers spouse and other family members that also live at the farm play the most important role when it needs to be discussed if care farming should be developed at the farm or not. The probability that someone decides to start a care farm increases with the agreement and acceptance of close family members, whereby a potential care farmer generally discusses the idea before and or after participating in excursions to a care farm or in information evenings etc. This value related solidarity by close family members can be approximately seen as a precondition for the further consideration about developing a care farming project. Without this acceptance and shared positive valuation of care farming within the family, especially of a care farmers spouse, it is unlikely that a farmer will develop the project. Similar to the theoretical approach by van de Ven, a relevant prehistory, motives and initial triggers were identified to be important in the initiation period that lasts as long as potential care farmers have not decided to practice care farming. Weak and strong ties are important in this period because only weak ties transfer information that is generally not known by people that are part of someones close circle of family members and friends. Central and accepted organisations or institutions such as the municipality, the union for general farmers or Landzijde play an important role in order to distribute information about care farming and to initiate first considerations whether to start with this new practice or not. This new information about care farming and the idea to practice it can generally only be developed if close family members and friends of a potential care farmer estimate it as worthwhile. Thus strong ties highly influence the further process of innovation. Between the first information about the new practice and the decision with family members to apply it, lies a further information related support that can be provided by those who already practice care farming and those who are also interested in practicing it. Imaginative power about this practice increases through excursions to and movies about care farms (information-related support). The communication between potential care farmers is a relevant resource or form of social capital in order to increase not only the knowledge that care farming is valued as positive by others, but also the orientation about ones own initial circumstances, perceptions and estimations, compared to that of the others in terms of primarily 143

received information. When considering the network diagram it can be said that all farmers mention weak ties as relevant in order to receive first information about this new practice. Wellknown organisations that support the practice are also important for them in this period. Additionally, family members are always understood as to be most important in this period in order to decide whether to develop care farming or not. In contrast to this quite unproblematic beginning of an innovation, the developmental period is theoretically described as highly insecure and an intense time in which people that decide to develop a care farming project have to make a lot of new contacts in order to obtain relevant forms of support to cope with problems and challenges. The next chapter focuses on whether findings prove this theoretical assumption and which forms of support are necessary in order to cope with problems and challenges.

144

6.2 Characteristics of the developmental period

The very intense and insecure time during the developmental period is characterised in theory by the need to contact a high number of people in order to reach the form of support that is needed to develop the new practice and to cope with problems and challenges. However, this is not the case in the whole sample of this research when denoting the beginning of this period with a care farmers decision to start up this project, and denoting the transition to the third period by the fact that farmers start to offer care to clients at their farm. The following chapter provides findings in terms of problems and challenges perceived within this period and with differences across the cases and findings about supporters and obtained forms of support.

6.2.1 Perceived problems and challenges when developing a care farming project
Findings show that two different clusters of problems and challenges occur in the developmental period when farmers are developing and trying to stabilise a care farming project. Of first priority is the demand to professionalise that is strongly connected to national differences. Another priority is business questions that concern all five groups within the sample of this research. Nevertheless, how farmers go through this second period and the extent of problems and challenges they perceive is influenced by the national demand to professionalise and by the form of care farming, meaning if the project addresses just a few or many clients, day or 24hours care and if the project is started by traditional farmers or original care givers. In contrast to professional farmers that become a care giver, an original care giver often has the advantage of already being in a network of care givers that can be useful for acquiring clients but also for the understanding about how the farm needs to be adapted in order to care for clients etc. Consequently the probability that problems and challenges occur in this respect therefore decreases. Moreover, it is obvious that care farmers that offer day-care to only a few clients tend to make fewer adaptions at the farm because the necessary amount of internal investments decreases. For instance a separate canteen or toilet for clients is needed when the number of clients is higher, hence the likelihood that new problems and challenges about how to adapt a 145

farm decreases. Nevertheless, farmers predominantly need to adapt the farm partly in a way that it is disability friendly. If farmers offer 24hours care, a lot more preconditions need to be followed and a place to live or to stay overnight needs to be provided by the care farmer. So the fact of how care farming is practiced influences the occurrence of problems and challenges, while also being influenced by the national demand to professionalise. It can be said, that Austrian care farmers indeed experience a highly intense developmental period in which they have to make a lot of initial investments in order become professionalizsed, but this is not necessarily the case with Dutch care farmers. This is on the one hand influenced by the fact that the demand to professionalise in terms of education is not compulsory in the Netherlands, whereas it is a requirement in Austria. Thus Austrians have to follow conventional guidelines to become a care farmer because of missing special care farming guidelines, whereas the Dutch development in terms of care farming has now advanced to the point that already a general care farmer education program exists. Dutch care farmers who attend the general education course for Landbouw and zorg are provided with knowledge they need in order to successfully offer care at the farm. Austrian care farmers on the other hand, except those who attend the course in animal assisted therapy and pedagogic, need to look for and evaluate a variety of different courses or contact partners in order to reach the information they need. As already stated above, education programs about animal assisted therapy and pedagogic and horticultural therapy exist in Austria, but in contrast to the Netherlands those who want to offer this form of therapy or pedagogic have to attend the courses in order to be allowed to offer it. Moreover, those who want to offer neither horticultural therapy nor animal assisted therapy but another form of care at the farm, need to attend conventional care education programs in order to become a care giver. Still it is noted that as soon as 24hours care is offered, the demand to professionalise increases in both countries. Dutch care farmers offer predominantly day-care, more accurately, they offer a working therapy for a variety of clients during week days but also sometimes on weekends, whereas Austrian care farmers offer day and 24hours care and the latter increases the demand of professionalisation. It can be stated that the above mentioned national differences imply a higher initial investment in education and farm adaption during the developmental period in Austria, consequently the investment in terms of time, energy and money is higher. Additional problems and challenges can appear such as who undertakes all the tasks a care farmer is responsible for when the care farmer needs to attend courses, who pays for the courses, who helps to adapt the farm in order to make it client friendly etc.

146

Because of the large diversity in terms of clients in this sample, many different financial structures of the investigated care farms could be observed in Austria, but only if the preconditions in terms of guidelines that care institution have to follow is given. This is not the case with farmers from the group of Perg and that of AAT/AAP in Austria. Although they invested a lot in terms of education and farm adaption, it is not as much as a care institution would have to invest. Therefore they do not receive additional grants at the present time and clients have to pay for care by themselves. The consequence is that it decreases the chance that clients visit a care farm but also that farmers reach enough income when comparing the necessary investment and possible income. Austrias independent care farmers are either embedded in an organisation, which ensures their income, like Claudia C. who is a social worker at a care institution for psychologically ill adolescents. Claudias employer allows her to start an outpost of the care institution at the farm and gets paid for that. A different case is Renate Q. who offers 24h care for elderly at her farm and had to follow all guidelines a care institution has to follow in order to reach subsidised care places, meaning the client does not pay for everything, rather the state subsidises at least what the client is not able to pay. This ensures that clients do not perceive financial disadvantages when living at a care farm and demands that the care farmer offers a care institution than a traditional farm. Those independent care farmers, who do not face a situation similar to the depicted cases above, also need to find clients that pay for care by themselves. In contrast to that, the Netherlands decided to develop a very client oriented care structure that is visualised by the personal care budget. Those clients who where assessed to conform to the preconditions in order to reach a personal care budget, have the possibility to freely choose their care place, whereby a care farm is one option. If such a client finds a certain care farm suitable for care or working therapy, he or she is allowed to contract with a care farmer directly and to pay for that offer by using the personal care budget. Care farmers from Utrecht who are members of VUZB predominantly have clients that obtain a personal care budget; hence they have a direct cooperation with clients in order to offer care. Members of Landzijde only partly have this direct contract with clients as they are predominantly provided with clients through Landzijde, who on the one hand have an AWBZ accreditation, meaning the formal status of a health institution, but on the other hand does not require their members care farmers to be educated in terms of care (farming). Nevertheless, the call for more professionalisation in terms of education is getting louder in the Netherlands and care farmers and indirectly the organisation of Landzijde is forced to follow this call in the future. That is also why Landzijde increasingly forces their members to attend at least 147

their regional studies four times a year and also appreciate if farmers participate in a two year course zorg en landbouw for care farmers. Beside national differences in terms of this demand to professionalise and the diverse amount of initial investments, all farmers from both countries need to deal with business questions when developing a care farming project, whereby outcomes have shown that (care farming) business related questions could be challenging for farmers from all investigated groups. Business related questions can be questions about how to write a good business plan and how to obtain loans (bank) or subsidies, but also how to advertise for the care farm and to acquire clients, especially clients who visit the farm permanently to be able to plan with the income through care tasks. Moreover, farmers need to ask for the professional fee and aver legal entitlements (fee claims, law of tenancy, claim adherence to contracts by clients etc.). Farmers need to know or need instruction/guidance about how to start up a care farm, including how to adapt the farm. In Austria in particular there is a lack of concrete contact partners in terms of information about this stage. Additonally, therapists or care institutions that cooperate with the care farmer or care professionals who could be employed at the farm need to be found. In summary, the so-called business questions are: Instruction: How to start up a care farm? How to obtain loans (bank, subsidies)? How to advertise and acquire clients? How to define and ask for the professional fee? How to find therapists or care institutions that cooperate with the care farmer?

In order to cope with these challenges and problems in terms of the demand to professionalise and of business questions during the developmental period, farmers might profit from being affiliated with a group of care farmers that offers a certain amount of social capital. How they cope with these problems and which forms of social capital are important in order to successfully go through this period is discussed below. The following two chapters contain findings in order to focus on working hypothesis 3 (see 3.4) in which it is assumed that the amount of group social capital influences the ability to cope with problems and challenges, which in the developmental period means to cope with business questions and the demand to professionalise.

148

6.2.2 The role of social capital in order to cope with the demand to professionalize
Findings have shown that the willingness to professionalise is influenced by the amount of group social capital and by increasing participative management in terms of how professionalisation should look. The importance of group social capital in terms of group identity and solidarity increases, the higher the demand to professionalise and the less the possibility to influence the requirements on how to professionalise. Moreover, intra-group communication increases the possibility to exchange practical knowledge that helps to stabilise ones own care farming project. In order to explain these findings, the following cases are depicted. Far and away the highest investment for professionalisation was made by members of the group of Perg (high amount of group social capital), which was affected first of all by the form of care, namely 24hours care that demands much more investment than day care, but also by national conditions, because professional elderly care at the farm was new at this time and no special care farming rules existed. Thus, this was a completely new situation pioneers and public authorities had to deal with and negotiations between them were necessary in order to define to which extent professionalisation was needed. Still, Pergs care farmers are not satisfied with the result of these negotiations, because although they established this new form of care, they faced many difficult requirements such as the demand to become employed by the Red Cross for insurance reasons, which practically means they had to offer care at the farm and off the farm, the lack of subsidised care places, and also the intense education course. Farmers needed to attend about 1000 hours conventional education training for elderly care and build one or two disability friendly apartments each, whereas some renovated a building but others built a new one. One important negotiation partner was the head for social affairs (Soziallandesrat) of the Provincial Government of Upper Austria. All interviewed pioneers from Perg mentioned that they would have had more creative leeway in order to interpret the care laws, but that they personally did not support the idea of care farming because they were not involved from the beginning. Farmers initial expectations about requirements that need to be followed in order to offer care at the farm and actual requirements were widely different. They expected to attend a course for a few weeks instead of a one-year education training, to be allowed to work at the farm only instead of being a professional care giver for the Red Cross and at least to get the right for subsidised care places that would value this care place equal to a conventional care place.

149

Members of the group of Perg faced not only a similar initial situation because all of them were traditional farmers who were searching for a new income possibility in order to maintain their farm and are from the same region, but also went through the innovation process at the same time and offer the same form of care. This group of pioneers faced many hurdles, on the one hand to establish elderly care at a farm in Austria per se, and on the other hand because of the requirements they met in order to be allowed to offer this form of care. Findings have shown that this homogeneity in terms of their circumstances, especially that they went through the process of innovation at the same time, increased not only their group social capital but also their benefit of being affiliated with the care farmer union, as this fact influenced the course of innovation incredibly. First of all, pioneers were more powerful in forcing through their interests than solitary negotiating with public authorities in order to establish elderly care at the farm. During the developmental period the group decided to found a union to reach an official status and get more influence in terms of all necessary negotiations with other organisations, meaning to create strength for ones own interests. Still, the demanded requirements are unsatisfactorily high and no imitators are known ten years after those pioneers from Perg have started the project. Still most of these pioneers currently practice care farming and were at least able to establish the project in their region.
But it was not possible to dissuade us [the pioneers] from our idea [elderly care at the farm] because I still think that it is a great project and a good form to live [] even if we would have wished that the requirements would be lower. (Group of Perg, care farmer, adopted, Elfi J.)

Members of the group of Perg discussed if they should attend this course or rather terminate the project and were only disposed to go through this training because of being backed up within this group. They organised car pools to the school, learned together and swapped ideas about the content of this training, but beside this practical and information related support they motivated each other because of having fun and enjoying being a group of pioneers. Therefore group identity increased because of facing the same situation at the same time with the consequence of a higher motivation to cope with the double burden of the care training and the demand to fulfil farming tasks at home. Orientation increased by visiting each others construction zones, it was possible to see how others adapted the farm and built the disability friendly apartments. All members of Perg perceive the membership to the care farmer union as quite important and the willingness to professionalise increased because of the high group social capital with the result of increasing the motivation to manage all these challenges. 150

Because we (members of the care farmer union) encouraged each other actually, we had fun together during the education course, we met each other, we talked about everything with each other and went through the necessary negotiations with organisations and public authorities together. The group-solidarity was good and important. A kind of pioneer atmosphere existed actually (laughs) and that was actually very important. (Group of Perg, care farmer, adopted, Elfi J.) Interviewer: How do you profit from being a member of the care farmer union? Care farmer: Yes it is an exchange of information, how do the others perform? And that aspect was simply that was simply very important, lets say that we developed everything together and that we went through all the problems together, we would have probably given up if we had had to cope with those challenges by our self. (Group of Perg, care farmer, adopted, Olivia J.)

The group of AAT/AAP from Austria that has a low group social capital was not able to influence the content of the education course or the professionalisation rules because they were top down defined by the KL. But in contrast to members of Perg, who did not expect a professional education training at the beginning, the attendees of the course for animal assisted therapy and pedagogic expected to meet a clearly defined and professionalised training and to get to know an already established structure that would allow them to successfully offer care at their farm, when the contrary was infact true. The course was a pilot project and needed to be adapted, also this form of therapy was in its early stages of development. The heterogeneity in terms of participants initial situation decreased the probability to identify with each other because some of them were double qualified as care givers (therapists etc.) and farmers and others were farmers only and all of them came from a different region. The different background and expectations in terms of the course led to conflicts rather than being able to better cope with the demand to professionalise. Nevertheless, members of this group got to know each other as soon as they attended the course and profited from the possibility to exchange practical knowledge, although they did not motivate each other to attend the course or to adapt the farm. Hence they attended the education training but not all of them adapted the farm or currently offer care at their farm successfully. Their group identity was rather low, but still the fact of knowing other people who also practice this form of care and who value it as positive, increased their motivation to continue with the new practice. Austrias group of independents especially mentioned feeling a bit like a loner with the consequence of demotivation. This was inspite of most members of the group of independent care farmers from Austria being original care givers who later became farmers, or care farmers. Their willingness to professionalise in terms of care tasks was not influenced by the wish to become a care farmer, so a comparison in terms of the importance of social capital within the group is obsolete. In contrast to the strict top down defined professionalisation guidelines in Austria, Dutch care farmers consider quality guidelines or appreciate the increasing demand to professionalise and to attend education trainings, but are not constrained by this. Nevertheless, members of VUZB that 151

obtain a high group social capital discuss future aims in terms of professionalisation within the group, define their norms and values in terms of the quality of care farming and develop the main tasks that should be provided by the union together, for instance if insurance or care experts etc. should be invited in order to hold a presentation about these issues. Moreover, they adapt the national quality guidelines together in order to make it applicable for their certain conditions and agree in terms of the need to attend at least a two day instruction course for care farming, so it is very important to have good quality standards and so there are courses for everybody to start [a care farm] (Group of VUZB, care farmer, adopted, Hendrika de P.). Members of this group are willing to professionalise and to offer high quality but want to define for themselves how to professionalise. In contrast to that, the definition of how to become professionalised within the Landzijde farmers, which has a rather low group social capital, deals with top down defined professionalisation guidelines, meaning Landzijde demands from their members to attend the regional studies four evenings a year where they provide them with presentations about care tasks and diagnosis but also with information about safety requirements that are needed at the farm. Similar to members from VUZB, some Landzijde farmers attended the two-year course in care farming, while some did not attend or only attended the required regional studies. There are no possibilities for Landzijde farmers in order to influence the course on how to develop professionalisation guidelines, to influence future aims of this organisation and to mention suggestions for improvement. In times of an increasing demand to professionalise, Landzijde farmers either tend to terminate care farming because their initial investment in order to start up a care farm was very low, and even if they are not willing to professionalise they partly understand Landzijdes requirements and the need for qualified care farmers. Landzijde farmers who are willing to professionalise would prefer to influence this discussion process about quality guidelines and the need for certain forms of education and therefore tend to quit their membership to Landzijde in order to increase their autonomy. Most of them do not want to become a conventional care giver but would rather prefer to learn the tools they need, for instance, if they work only with clients who have a burn-out, they do not want to attend courses about schizophrenia etc. Nevertheless, findings have shown that members of this group did not motivate each other in order to professionalise, rather the reverse. The low group social capital in terms of group identity and solidarity lead farmers to terminate the project or to quit their membership to Landzijde in order to increase their self-determination, instead of following Landzijdes professionalisation guidelines. 152

All cases within the sample who attended long or short education training in care farming, mentioned to profit personally, that it increased their self-confidence and their ability to deal with clients. Thus they perceive the training to be necessary in order to become a care farmer even if they experienced a double burden when attending the course.
The education training was very important, that was a precondition in order to start with elderly care at the farm, to get a read of that whole, the elderly care, to envisage with what you will have to deal with in the future. (Group of Perg, care farmer, adopted, Veronika K.)

Intra group communication on the one hand can help to find common norms and values in order to define high quality of care farming, and in that respect increase the willingness to professionalise. Moreover, the exchange of practical knowledge between care farmers helps to improve their projects, whereas solitary negotiations with public authorities on professionalisation guidelines increase the likelihood that guidelines are practical and that care farmers feel obliged to follow them. As soon as national quality guidelines are adapted in a solitary process, the discussion about this topic as well as the stabilisation of common norms and values about high quality increases, which is why the probability that those farmers professionalise increases. Beside the importance of group solidarity, group identity also seems to have quite a powerful effect in this respect because it allows producing a feeling of belonging, with the consequence of a high motivational effect. Even if care farmers perceive the requirements of the demanded education courses to be over-regulated, the group feeling can lead them to professionalise. Findings have shown that the willingness to professionalise increases if farmers are able to influence the demand to professionalise, if they see the necessity of this professionalisation and if their norms and values meet the requirements of professionalisation. The less they can influence the requirements about how to become professionalised the more that group social capital is important, as it increases the likelihood of mutual motivation to continue the project even if they perceive the demanded requirements as an over-regulation.

6.2.3 The role of social capital in order to cope with business questions
Members of the group of Perg and of VUZB who have a high group social capital supported each other in terms of business questions; for that reason they developed a common homepage to present their offer to outsiders and to potential clients. Folders were designed and displayed at different locations. They also propagated their care farms at regional events. In terms of advertisement the group of Perg applied together for an innovation prize and won a TV 153

presentation, hence their work was broadcasted on a national TV station with a great response with the consequence that the awareness about care farming within the society was increased and that members of the group got new clients. Being in the group was important in this case because care farmers mentioned they would not have applied for the prize individually. Both, the group of VUZB and that of Perg offer one contact partner for potential clients and cooperation partners (health institutions), but interested parties can also choose a special care farm and contact each member of the group directly. Nevertheless, the contact partner is responsible for distributing new information and requests from clients and cooperation partners to every member of the group. They advertise together, but in principle every farmer is responsible to acquire clients him/herself and that is why farmers often also advertise their own farm, too. However, they learned how to advertise within the group and profited from that.
Yes we developed a folder and do public relations together and that is especially for beginners relevant. We have a counter were we match clients and farmers when new clients contact us and then we mail it to every member of our group but it does not work excellently that you make a lot of interventions. (Group of VUZB, care farmer, adopted, Hendrika de P.) Interviewer: And did you receive clients because of being a member of the union? Care farmer: Yes this worked because if clients asked the contact person of the union this information was distributed to every member of the group. (Group of Perg, care farmer, adopted, Olivia J.)

The group of Perg organised the rental agreement and the pricing together, thus findings show that they were able to explain in detail and with persuasion how much and why they ask for a certain professional fee because they had already dealt with that subject within the group and have found a common agreement about how much to ask for their service. Compared to regular health institutions they were able to offer care very cheap but care farmers are aware of that and believe that their professional fee is fair for clients and farmers. Members of VUZB predominantly have a direct cooperation with clients who receive the personal care budget and in this respect the professional fee is already predefined, which is an advantage for them.
[] we made common folders at the beginning where also the prize was mentioned, we made that uniform. (Group of Perg, care farmer, adapted, Olivia J.) Interviewer: And which possibilities did you have in order to influence the amount of the professional fee? Care farmer: This was a group work, we followed prizes customary in a place and we said we do not want to be overprized. (Group of Perg, care farmer, adapted, Elfi J.)

The group of Perg applied for EU subsidies together with support of the regional lobby for general farmers in order to enable internal investments such as building apartments etc. The group of VUZB applied for and received subsidies by the municipality in order to support their 154

group work financially. And this is work from volunteers [members of VUZB] and yes it was also the case that we had too much to do but it was important that someone did these tasks so we looked [successfully] for a sponsor. (Group of VUZB, care farmer, adopted, Hendrika de P.) Cooperation partners and negotiations with public authorities or health institutions are part of the tasks that are fulfilled within the group and seemed to be easier because as a group they felt much more powerful in order to advocate for their aims. It got easier to find care institutions that were interested to cooperate with them because of being able to perform as a union instead of a single care farmer.
And we were able to advocate for our aims we were stronger as a group. (Group of Perg, care farmer, Olivia J., adopted) Interviewer: What are the advantages ob being a member of the union? Care farmer: Simply that we are a coherent entity that we belong together because we can present ourself this way better in public. (Group of Perg, care farmer, Olga Z., adopted)

The group fulfils business tasks with the consequence of quite successful client acquisition and a coherent professional fee that was defined within the group (group of Perg) or predefined through national standards (group of VUZB). The group requested subsidies; hence it was possible to slip in knowledge from all members about how to request for subsidies but also to decrease the necessary amount of resources that needed to be invested by each member of the group. And finally, negotiations and networking with care institutions seemed to be easier for group members because they felt stronger and more powerful as a group. In contrast to the situation of the groups with the highest amount of social capital, the group of Landzijde with a low group social capital performed differently in terms of business questions, because the commercially organised association of Landzijde undertakes all business tasks for their members as long as they pay about 20% of their income per hour for each conciliated client, as well as a membership fee. For instance, if a client has 100 Euro, then the organisation Landzijde receives 1/5 and the care farmer receives 80% (Regional coordinator of Landzijde). Some of the Landzijde members do not only reach their clients through this organisation but also have a direct cooperation with clients who receive a personal budget. This is why especially those members who receive clients directly and clients from Landzijde are more conscious about the Landizdes agency fee, and subsequently new problems, such as dissatisfaction and distrust can occur.
Well we asked Lanzijde if we can become a member, h, for the sake of simplicity because they already have a network in order to reach clients. My sister has her own personal budged and she visits our care farm through a direct cooperation with us not via Landzijde and this is financially

155

more attractive because Landzijde`s agency fee is quite high. (Group of Landzijde, care farmer, adopted, Orlando and Noa U.)

Landzijde is an organisation with a strong brand and is highly interconnected with all relevant organisations in terms of care farming, beginning from public authorities to health institutions and special national and regional care farming and farming organisations. It offers folders, a movie about care farming and a homepage including a presentation of all their members who pay a membership fee. Generally, Landzijde recruits clients and is responsible for matching clients to care farms, but there are rather subjective guidelines for that and the distribution of clients is non-transparent for Lanzijde members, which is also criticised by some of them. In summary, Landzijde has a key position between care organisations or clients and care farmers and also recruits farmers and provides them with necessary information about how to start up a care farm, acts as a contact partner if problems in terms of clients occur and undertakes all administrative tasks (payments, contracts etc.).
Care farmer: And she [regional coordinator of Landzijde] did it very well, she informed us very well on how you can start up a care farm and what to do. Interviewee: How did she do that? Care farmer: Through a folder and a book and via internet. And she was here to talk with us personally about it. (Group of Landzijde, care farmer, terminated, Finn & Jacoba B.) Because they [Landzijde] take over all the financial posturing (Getue) that is something they organised completely. (Group of Landzijde, care farmer, terminated, Piet Z.) And once a month you send your working hours via e-mail to Landzijde and then you receive your payment. And even if your care farm is presented on their website it is still advertisement for your own farm. (Group of Landzijde, care farmer, terminated, Finn and Jacoba B.)

For Landzijde members business related challenges decrease and group solidarity in these terms is low because their organisation provides them with all relevant information and undertakes all administrative tasks for a fee. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, this causes new conflicts and problems, for instance, the feeling that Landzijde asks for an overpriced fee compared to their effort, that cronyism influences who receives more clients and who receives less, and also that it is not possible to influence the development of Landzijde in terms of future aims. This distrust originated in a low transparency and in the fact that Landzijde is rather hierarchically organised. So although farmers are relieved in terms of coping with business questions, only some members are satisfied with their situation.
Yes look, for instance, the head of Landzijde. His wife has a care farm and his son too, and this favouritism that is something I do not like. A care farmer that is also employed at Landzijde also receives clients. And we are much more critical and then you do not get clients and that is something I think is very bad. Therefore, I will look for my own way and that is something I hear from a lot of people. Those who suck up to Landzijde receive clients and others not. They

156

[Landzijde] monopolise the market quite good and if I look at my farm, we meet all requirements but others receive the clients. (Group of Landzijde, care farmer, adopted, Orlando and Noa U.)

Similar to the members of Landzijde, also the members of AAT/AAP do not have a high group social capital from which they could profit in terms of coping with business questions. Members of AAT/AAP acquire clients and advertise more or less successfully for their care farms not in the group but themselves. It is appreciated by members of the group that KL, the organisation that developed and organised the education course for animal assisted therapy and pedagogic, could and should undertake these tasks in the future. Five members of the group of AAT/AAP were interviewed, of whom two developed a homepage about their own project themselves and also have enough clients and cooperation partners who provide them with clients. Three interviewees do not present their work at a homepage and struggle with the question about how to advertise their project as well as with the aspect that they do not have enough clients. They feel they do not have enough resources in terms of knowledge and time about how to advertise their project and would very much appreciate if the KL would advertise their care farms, respectively for animal assisted therapy and in general. All interviewees attended the pilot education course and because of problems in terms of client acquisition, the course committee decided to set up new rules for further courses. In the meantime it is a prerequisite to have a cooperation partner before being allowed to attend the education training in order to make sure that those who are educated also have clients to care for. Farmers from the group of AAT/AAP do negotiate and network with relevant social or health institutions, municipalities etc. individually, which is similar to the group of independents who also do not have anyone who advertises or recruits clients for them. All members of the group received information about how to start up a care farm and how to practice animal assisted therapy, although a realisation of this practice is still hindered by a low level of awareness in terms of this form of therapy within society. As already stated the members of AAT/AAP are not from the same region and do not meet each other regularly in order to transfer relevant information, for instance, about how to advertise etc. Still it is obvious that some of them possess more competencies and fulfilling those kind of business tasks together could lead to higher success for all of them. Moreover, it can be distinguished between those who already have a homepage and ask for their professional fee as it was predefined by KL, and those who feel insecure in terms of asking for that fee because in their point of view it is too high and cannot be afforded by clients. Thus, they proceed rather to lose clients, which hinders them from increasing their financial benefit by asking for the predefined fee.

157

Yes and through animal assisted therapy I got no income last year. There is again advertisement necessary and the KL does not want to advertise because they are so afraid that they cannot get the situation under control because there are so many interested people expected to be. And everything is too expensive, when people visit my farm they have to pay that from their private purse and so only people who have enough money and who want to use it for this form of therapy can come and the KL defined the professional fee and that would be 90 Euros per hour. But I do not ask for the 90 Euros because it needs always a farm and a professional pedagogue but I am double qualified and so I ask only for 55 Euros. [] and now I have all the education courses but it fails because of a lack of clients because there is no money and society is not aware of the necessity of this form of therapy. (Group of AAT/AAP, care farmer, adopted, Irma F.)

The group of AAT/AAP has on the one hand the advantage of knowing other care farmers and having a central contact point, namely the organisation of KL that offers the education course, and on the other hand is not solitary in terms of business questions; the latter is similar to Austrias independents. The group of independents that is actually not a group but clustered as one entity in this study does not have one central contact point and in general they are also not in contact with each other. Therefore their group social capital is non-existent, and in contrast to the group of AAT/AAP they also do not expect any other organisation to fulfil their business tasks. They are aware that they are responsible for themselves when it comes to those tasks and are similar to the members of groups with a low social capital (the group of Landzijde and the group of AAT/AAP) and more or less successful with that. Most of them are double qualified, meaning professional care givers and farmers, so they often already have contacts to care institutions and try to use them in order to receive clients. Nevertheless, they need to present their new practice and to convince their cooperation partners themselves, because they are not a member of a care farmer union and cannot refer to an already established organisation. They partly deal quite successfully with business questions, meaning some of them advertise successfully and reach enough clients. They also ask for a professional fee but need to define it themselves and they often need to contact a high number of different organisations in order to reach the necessary information about how to start up a care farm, because no special care farming expert centre exists. Although they need to invest a lot more energy in order to deal with business questions, being affiliated with a care farmer union is not the one and only indicator for the successful stabilisation of the new practice. In summary it can be said that regardless of whether someone profits from a group social capital or not, it is possible to start up and to stabilise a care farm. Nevertheless, it is meaningful to look closely at this aspect in order to understand if care farmers membership to a group with high social capital indeed helps to stabilise the project or if this is useless invested time for tasks that 158

could also be fulfilled by him/herself personally or could be provided by an external organisation like Landzijde. Findings have shown that the advantages of being affiliated with a care farmer union that has a high group social capital are still manifold in order to deal with business questions. Intra-group communication allows those who have less knowledge about how to advertise, to obtain loans and subsidies, to start up a care farm, to define the professional fee and to find cooperation partners, to discuss it with colleagues and to enhance their business acumen. All these tasks could be provided also by experts who possess much more professional knowledge in terms of that, but as findings have shown this intra-group communication and group solidarity that is provided when care farmers deal with business questions within a care farmer union have advantageous side effects. On the one hand care farmers can provide each other with practical knowledge (Erfahrungswissen) that only those who practice care farming can have. On the other hand group identity increases with an increasing history of interactions and with offering a common homepage, which would be one aspect of advertising together. Moreover, when defining the professional fee together, farmers become aware of the value of their offer and through this discussion they indirectly share solidarity in terms of norms and values. This group identity produces a feeling of belonging and of being backed up; they are not loners but a member of a group of pioneers with the consequence of being motivated in terms of continuing with their own project. They become aware that others also have to cope with similar problems and challenges and they get to know how colleagues deal with that. Moreover, colleagues provide esteem support because the group members practical knowledge is important and useful for all of them and sharing knowledge has a motivational effect that in the long term stabilises the project. Being affiliated with a care farmer union with high group social capital also decreases transaction costs because Austrias care farmers in particular need to contact a range of different organisations in order to collect the necessary knowledge for starting up a care farm and often there is a lack of energy in order to stabilise and implement the project because they have already invested a lot for its development. Moreover, care farmers do not only feel a sense of power, but indeed become more powerful when they need to negotiate with potential cooperation partners in order to acquire clients and to find care professionals who cooperate with them when presenting themselves as a member of an official care farmer union, especially of a regional union. Not only their acceptance and prestige increases by being affiliated within an official care farmer union, but together they are able to 159

offer a range of different farms and forms of care through an official homepage and this increases the likelihood that they successfully find partners. Group solidarity in terms of business questions increases the stabilisation of the new practice in the long term because even if some members terminate their project, the union still exists and can develop a strong brand and build a strong network with relevant institutions that can already be provided for freshmen. As soon as those unions are organised at a regional level, the profit for farmers increases because it is more likely that they attend the meetings or deal with business tasks together, while also the unions network with care institutions etc. is more useful for them in order to acquire clients etc. Such a well-established and well-known organisation with a strong brand is Landzijde that fulfils all business tasks in order to decrease farmers effort in terms of that, but the lack of intra-group communication and group solidarity between its members (the care farmers) brings up new challenges and problems. In contrast to all other investigated groups within this sample, Landzijde farmers do not have to invest time and energy in order to cope with business questions, although not all of them are satisfied with this situation because they are much more aware of Landzijdes agency fee that is very much understood as negative support. Members of the group of VUZB and that of Perg with a high group social capital need to invest much more time in order to fulfil business related questions in comparison to Landzijde members, and they could also perceive this aspect as negative support, but although they predominantly do not. The advantages that are mentioned above such as esteem and motivational support or the exchange of practical knowledge overbalance the disadvantage of the high amount of invested time. The lack of intra-group communication and of transparency about how clients get distributed to different farms, and also the lack of the right of co-determination in terms of future aims, for instance how to professionalise, increases distrust and decreases their willingness to follow Landzijdes requirements such as attending the regional studies. Findings have shown that those farmers who are less satisfied with Landzijde are willing to invest more time and energy in order to cope with business questions themselves, advertise themselves and prefer a direct cooperation with clients in order to attain more income. They contemplate about how care farming should develop in the future and which aspects could be improved such as how much a farmer needs and should know about clients diagnosis. Those farmers are willing to influence the future aims of Landzijde and are willing to attend education courses as long as they address the need in terms of their client group. They tend to refuse Landzijdes course of professionalising care farming that demands farmers to learn general information about a range of

160

diseases and how to cope with these clients, but prefer to be individually educated in what they actually need to know, as they only offer care for a few client groups only.
Well I think the organisation is not very professional in terms of how they treat clients because there was a meeting with an employee of Landzijde, a potential client and me at my farm in order to find out if the client wants and can stay at this farm. And the employee of Landzijde handed out all documents about the clients diagnosis while the client sits beside me and that is something I think is unprofessional. As a care farmer you are not used to that and most of us are not at home in that subject of diagnosis. (Group of Landzijde, care farmer, adopted, Orlando and Noa U.)

Other less critical members of Landzijde prefer not to be responsible for all those business tasks but also do not want to invest a lot of energy in terms of their care farming tasks. They perceive the increasing enforcement to visit courses and to become educated and also to adapt the farm, as over-regulation and rather prefer to terminate care farming than to follow this upcoming need to professionalise. They were initially recruited by Landzijde, offered care for a few clients only, did not invest in terms of education or adapting the farm and do not see the balance between their income and the demand to professionalise.
And what I personally think about Landzijde? I actually do not know. I was never at the meetings [regional studies] and those things, they are too far away from here [] and I did not want to have anything to do with this financial posturing, I did not want that I have to be behind my money. And that whole paperwork that is something people have to do who are good in those things. (Group of Landzijde, care farmer, terminated, Piet Z.)

6.2.4 Supporters and obtained and needed forms of support when developing the care farming project
In order to cope with these challenges and problems and the working tasks that occur especially during the developmental period, care farmers are not only in contact with their care farming union, supposing that a union membership exists, but also mention further actors to be important. Both, the union and further supporters are considered next. The following chapter provides findings about care farmers perceived importance of supporters and the obtained forms of support and its consequences during the developmental period, whereby the working hypothesis one and two (see 3.4) are addressed partly in this form of presentation, as the focus is on the developmental period only. The following network diagram presents the obtained forms of support and emphasises care farmers supporters, while the end of the line is labelled and represents the supporters that are mentioned by ego (32 care farmers) to be of varying importance in the developmental period. The distance between ego, who is located in the centre of the diagram and represented by the 161

pentagon, and the supporters exemplifies the importance of those actors perceived by care farmers, which means the smaller the distance between ego and the certain actor, the higher the perceived importance. As long as supporters are located in the first concentric circle near ego, they are perceived to be very important, important are those in the second concentric circle and relevant if they are located in the third concentric circle. The color of the line and the line symbols differentiate between the investigated groups and indicates which group has a certain amount of group social capital, to which the supporters belong, while after the supporters name the form of support is visualised.

162

Figure 6: The perceived importance of supporters and forms of support by care farmers during the developmental period. [N=32]

163

In the diagram above we can see that new actors and many more actors are of varying importance during the developmental period compared to the initiation period, but that the role of family members is resilient. Family members are perceived to be most important in every group, but not only through their commitment about the new practice as this is necessary in the initiation period, but also because of their practical support in the developmental period. Further actors that are perceived to be of varying importance are apprenticeships and unions for general farms, and also care institutions and care farmer unions. They provide different forms of practical support and information related support in order to enable a care farmer to go through the developmental period, while some also perceive social companionship to be important. The role supporters play and why they are perceived to be of varying importance for certain groups of care farmers during the developmental period is discussed below by considering the visual and verbal data, as only the combination of both helps to understand their relevance. In order to address the before mentioned importance of group social capital, I will start to interpret the network diagram above from the viewpoint of the membership to a care farmer union with a certain amount of group social capital. The highest group social capital is obtained by members from Perg and by the group of VUZB, while members of AAT/AAP and of Landzijde obtain low group social capital. The care farmer union is perceived to be of varying importance in all of these groups but if we compare the groups that obtain high group social capital with those that have a low group social capital, we can first of all see that the importance and content multiplexity increases with increasing group social capital. The care farmer union supports members of groups with high group social capital (group of VUZB, group of Perg) practically; they obtain relevant information but also social companionship. In addition to that, members of the group of Perg also feel highly motivated to continue with the project through their union membership. Unlike these multiplex relationships, members of unions with a low group social capital (group of AAT/AAP, group of Landzijde) profit from information related support only, and some of the group of AAT/AAP also mentioned being practically supported by their colleagues. This limited number of obtained forms of support by the care farmer union is in the case of the group of Landzijde compensated and caused by the commercial organisation of Landzijde. In this case, the need for a self help group decreases, because they provide their members with all necessary information and practical help (fulfil all the business tasks etc.). Thus why this actor is mentioned by the group of Landzijde to be more important than the contact to the care farmer union. However, Austrian and Dutch care farmers that obtain low group social capital perceive their membership to the union at least to be 164

relevant because group membership allows the exchange of practical knowledge between colleagues, which would hardly be possible without the contact to this group. So, we can say that those without or with a low group social capital from Austria need to compensate for this lack of support themselves, meaning the burden for care farmers and their families increases. This does not become visible within the diagram because farmers perceive the commitment and practical support of their family members to be most important. Nevertheless, the extent of how much family members have to support differs and becomes visible by analysing the verbal data. For instance in the case of Landzijde members, although their group social capital is low, their families are often less involved and burdened by developing and practicing this form of care at the farm, although they still mention their family members to be most important. This aspect is strongly connected with low initial investments in terms of professionalisation and the support they obtain through Landzijde. Recalling the depicted findings in the chapter above, the low demand of initial investments activates people to start up a care farm who are not willing to invest temporal, emotional, financial, etc. resources in order to professionalise. This fact combined with a low group social capital has the consequence that farmers are not going to encourage each other to continue with the project when hurdles occur. Nevertheless, initial investments are generally in every group higher than by Landzijde members and this fact restrains someone to even start up a care farm and to try to develop such a project. Thus it appears that Landzijde is able to relieve family members but it does not stabilise care farming while high group social capital of a care farmer union and autonomy in terms of the care farming business seems to do that in the long term. Even if the perceived importance of family members does not vary across the groups, their amount of support differs. Still their commitment plays the most important role during the process of innovation, independent from the group social capital of a care farmer group, which innovators are affiliated with. Findings have shown that the agreement or disagreement of family members do not only influence farmers in the first period of the innovation, but that conflicts with family members because of care farming or conflicting needs of family members and that of care farming also influence the continuation of the project and that it is generally subordinated to family needs.
We had some clients that the children liked and they also had a good connection to them but we also had a client with whom my children did not want to be in contact. She [the client] complained about everything, which was horrible. I would have accepted this but my children did not and it made the whole thing more difficult [] and then my children criticised that [care farming] is not possible this way. (Group of Perg, care farmer, terminated, Gerlinde F.)

165

Not only the appreciation of a care farmers family but also their practical support is in most of the cases important in order to develop and implement a care farming project. This does not necessarily have to be care tasks per se that are fulfilled by family members but tasks that need to be compensated by them because the care farmer fulfilled these tasks before starting up a care farm, for instance a family member needs to do the household chores to enable the care farmer to visit courses during the developmental period, but also when the farmer already offers care at the farm the family is indispensable in order to accomplish farming and family tasks while the care giver is responsible for clients. Moreover, new tasks emerge by care farming such as adapting the farm for instance, building a canteen, apartments, but also transporting clients or managing care farming business related questions such as advertising etc. All those things can often only be realised or financed when family members are willing to practically support the care farmer. Findings have shown that in all cases the commitment and or support by family members make or break the chance for a successful implementation of the care farming project and that care farmers assume these actors to be very important for the progress of the new practice in all periods of the innovation. The more family members practically support and accept that care farming is practiced at the farm, and also value it and stand behind the project, the more likely a stabilisation of the project is achieved.
Well at home we built the apartments and I went to school [in order to be educated in elderly care] and my mother in law cared for my child and cooked for the family and my husband was responsible for the farming business, hmhm that is how it worked. (Group of Perg, care farmer, adopted, Olga Z.)

The family has to undertake many more tasks if care farmers do not profit from their membership to a certain care farmer union and do not have special support organisations in terms of care farming, which is the case with Austrias independents. As you can see in the diagram they do mention a higher number of actors to be important in order to successfully go through this period, rather the reverse. And even if this is not visible within the network diagram, it is one outcome when analysing the verbal data. Findings from qualitative analysis have shown that Austrias independents need to contact a variety of different actors as well, while only some of them are important and helpful supporters because converse to the other groups from Austria, no central initiator and expert, such as the KL for animal assisted therapy or the union for general farming in Perg, provide them with a variety of relevant information. In general, independents need to contact many organisations, for instance, the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber, the union for general farming and further public authorities are contacted in order to procure all licences etc. Most of these organisations 166

are responsible for general concerns and are not very supportive in order to develop care farming. All organisations that were contacted by us appreciated the idea of care farming but it was the first time they heard about it and all of them told us that they do not know what they should do with us at the moment. (Group of independent, care farmer, adopted, Renate Q.) The opposite is true for the Netherlands, where farmers have the possibility to choose from a number of different care farming support organisations, such as Landzijde, the Steunpunt (former National Support Centre for care farming) and even the organisation for general farming (LTO). These are perceived to be informative in terms of care farming, which is why more important actors are presented in the network diagram above in the Dutch care farming groups. Members of Perg were original farmers in contrast to Austrias independents and needed in this respect to negotiate with a variety of different representatives of care institutions. These actors were perceived to be important because without their commitment care farming would not have been realisable. The term apprenticeship within this diagram contains long (1 year) and short (2 days) education programs that are specialised on a form of care farming or focus on health care in general. So we already know that members from Perg and Austrias independents were educated as conventional caregivers and only members of the group of AAT/AAP attended the special course in animal assisted therapy and pedagogic that lasts about one year. Dutch care farmers partly attended the two-year education program in care farming or are qualified care professionals, while others only attended a two-day introduction course in care farming and visit the regional studies. Thus, the variety of forms of places and education training for care farmers are large but for all of them this training was perceived to be relevant and supportive in order to stabilise the care farming project, with the exception of the group of Perg, which assumes the education training and contact to trainers to be important. Their intense training but also the fact that they are responsible 24hours for their clients influenced that the apprenticeship is more important for them than for the other groups. Care institutions are already important contact partners for those who develop a care farming project because either those institutions already offer a form of care farming themselves and are in this respect important informants about how to develop such a project, or are also important for the later care farmer in order to get practical experience and to learn to be a care giver. Beyond that, if farmers mention care institutions to be important, they are important negotiation partners and valuable contacts in order to acquire clients from them.
I had a direct contact to the psychiatric department of Streetcorner [care institutions] because they are near by my farm. I went there once in order to tell them, well I am a farmer and perhaps it is

167

nice as day activity for some of your clients [] that is how Willem, my first client came here. (Group of Landzijde, care farmer, adopted, Ruben Z.)

In general, the developmental period lasts at least about one year in the case of Austrias care farmers because of the demand to professionalise before offering care at the farm. Opposed to this, members of Landzijde can theoretically start immediately to offer care at the farm. Even if VUZB members need to meet the same professionalisation requirements as Landzijde members, the first at least need to acquire clients themselves and to actively collect information about how to start up a care farm. That is also why they mention the contacts to care institutions to be most important but also tend to have more direct contacts to them than Landzijde members have.

168

6.3 Characteristics of the implementation period

Innovation always means combining old and new practices and in the case of care farming, this means that the daily necessities of the agricultural business need to be in accordance with clients needs. That is why the following chapter focuses on the special challenges and problems that occur during that time and which care farmers obtain and need certain forms of support, and how they respectively profit from being affiliated within a group of care farmers through which they obtain a certain amount of social capital. The working hypothesis 3 (see 3.4) is addressed partly by this form of presentation because the focus is on the implementation period only.

6.3.1 Occurring problems and challenges when implementing care farming

The following problems and challenges, summarised as emotional stress, tend to occur when the farmer already offers care at the farm, which means there are special characteristics that occur when combining old and new practices. Emotional stress is used as an umbrella term for findings that relate to problems and challenges that lead to emotional burden. Not all aspects of emotional stress are relevant in each investigated case because it is either connected to certain national conditions and thus not relevant for cases from both countries, or the aspects are frequently mentioned by some farmers of each group. The following problems leading to emotional stress are observed in the sample. First of all there is a question of lack of legal security, that is in general more relevant in the Netherlands than in Austria because Austrian care farmers predominantly have to follow conventional (care) laws and are able to cover insurance aspects in terms of care farming through their insurance companies. In contrast to that, Dutch care farmers are in a critical situation because on the one hand they are allowed to offer care at their farm without a professional education etc., on the other hand concrete regulations in terms of insurance do not exist, as a representative of the Dutch Ministry for Agriculture assumes []there is a kind of grey zone for care farmers, that is right, but there is also we are also a bit afraid about if sometime something happens like a boy comes under a cow if accidents happen it might have quite a lot of impact. If 169

accidents happen at the farm, it is still not clear yet who assumes the full responsibility. As a result farmers feel responsible but also burdened because of not being insured.
(Talks resentful) Well, the insurances and the responsibility. Someone [a care farmer] is responsible! [] I would wish a discussion within society about what is allowed and what not, and if all agree that clients are allowed, for instance, to drive the tractor than it is excellent, but it is a problem if not all of us are aware and I think that society is not aware at this time. (Group of VUZB, care farmer, adopted, Isa C.)

A second aspect that leads to emotional stress is insecurity in terms of how to deal with certain client groups, respectively the fear to behave improperly and to jeopardise clients health. If care farmers are non-professional caregivers, more questions arise in terms of how to cope with clients and their diseases and how to treat them correctly in respect to their needs. This insecurity in terms of how to cope with clients behaviour or their symptoms increases the emotional burden for farmers. Emotional stress increases, the less care farmers are embedded in a professional team of caregivers, because the possibility to discuss certain occurrences or insecurities in terms of the client decreases. Moreover, a care farmer is often the clients one and only counterpart, which is a problem that can increase in the case of 24h care as soon as a single care farmer is responsible for the clients, rather than a professional team.
The social contact they miss, and I was often the only contact person they [clients] had and if then good and bad times are offloaded on me because no one else is there. That is often a lot, that is better in public elderly care homes, because caregivers change and here is always only one reference person. (Group of Perg, care farmer, terminated, Gerlinde F.)

In addition to that and strongly connected to the aspect of not being professionalised in care tasks, a lack of mental hygiene was observed. Often a very close relationship between clients and their care farmers exists, with the consequence that farmers feel highly responsible for their clients, you are also emotionally connected to the client and then you think, well, we have to help our clients (Group of Landzijde, care farmer, adopted, Finn and Jacoba B.). I felt bad while I was responsible for the clients, it was psychological stress I have to confess that. (Group of Perg, care farmer, terminated, Gerlinde F.). Farmers often still offer care because of their strongly perceived responsibility for their clients even if they do not have enough resources (emotional, time) or even if they do not receive enough income through care farming. In summary, there is no professional supervision offered and no or only very little training in terms of mental hygiene. In addition to that, emotional burden increases because care farming often means a mix of roles, which cause new conflicts. Family farms are still very often multigenerational houses and in the case of care farming, the caregiver is often at the same time mother/father, farmer, wife/husband, daughter/son (in law), employer for the staff or boss for volunteers etc. Therefore especially multigenerational households offer enough reasons for 170

conflicts. If clients get involved in the farming business, possible conflicts increase, in particular when no clear rules in terms of who cares for the clients and who defines farming tasks are established.
And because of this [role] conflict I realised to feel jitters in the morning and then I thought that it is too much. I know that this was also a reason for terminating the project because [] I felt that this mix is greatly difficult for me and I was not able to divide between those roles, for instance, if my son is disobedient I tent to turn a blind eye but for my clients I needed to be an authority. [...]And I felt this role mix was a burden and I felt a lot of pressure because of that. (Group of independent, care farmer, terminated, Claudia C.)

Extra burdens arise if there is a lack of private sphere and if no clear distinction in terms of temporal or spatial aspects is made at the farm. As soon as clients are at the farm, conflicting needs of family members and of clients occur. Family members want to, for instance, enjoy their spare time at the farm and might feel disturbed by clients, or the family feels disturbed when sharing toilets, bathrooms and the kitchen with clients. A lack of clear arranged schedules about the time periods in which farmers are responsible for their clients and at which places at the farm clients are allowed to be, increase emotional stress for care farmers.
[] for instance, I did not have a duty telephone and all clients did have my private number and if someone can imagine how psychiatric ill people can be, they can get a crisis in the middle of the night and actually I am not a crisis intervention institution. (Group of independent, care farmer, terminated, Claudia C.)

Time-burden is another aspect that leads to emotional stress. It was observed that clients need much more time than expected by care farmers, for instance, in terms of 24h care the client needs sociality, the client becomes more infirm and needs more care etc. In the case of day care, a care farmer needs preparation time (like making plans what to do with the client, organising work that can be managed by clients etc.), rework time and last but not least the farmer needs to invest time in education and in adapting the farm as a suitable care place (depending on the client group). Time pressure increases as soon as the agricultural business is equally or more important than the care business in order to reach income, because a care farmer has to reserve time in order to care for the client on the farm. During this time it is usually not possible to move on with your normal agricultural tasks, hence farmers have to adjust the tasks highly to suit clients needs and features. This sometimes conflicts with agricultural needs and has to be compensated by the farmer, which is why care farming can lead to emotional stress.
[] the expectations of the clients are partly relatively high, they expect you to have a lot of time [] and then they [the client] blamed me that I have not enough time for them, when I was not talking with them each day for an hour or moreand that is something I havent expected that you need that much time [] (Group of Perg, care farmer, terminated, Gerlinde F.)

171

A lack of legal security, which is predominantly perceived by Dutch care farmers, a lack of knowledge about how to deal with clients, a lack of mental hygiene and of private sphere for care farmers families, a mix of roles and time burden lead to emotional stress for care farmers in the time of implementing the new practice. Findings about how care farmers deal with this burden and who from they receive support, and how much they respectively profit from their group social capital of the care farmer group they are affiliated with, are explained next.

6.3.2 The role of social capital in order to deal with emotional stress and further relevant supporters
Findings have shown, that a lack of legal security that is predominantly perceived by Dutch care farmers, decreases with a membership to Landzijde because farmers are partly able to transfer the responsibility to the organisation and feel relieved by that. Non-members of Landzijde rather perceive a burden because of this grey zone, and tend to discuss it within the care farmer union but also tend to inform key care givers regularly of their clients. The lack of legal security is on the one hand a topic care farmers discuss with colleagues from the union, but on the other hand this higher awareness does not decrease emotional burden. Training provided by care professionals increases farmers capability to deal with clients and their background in terms of clients diagnosis and behaviour and reduces emotional stress that could occur through care insecurity. If farmers attend certain care education training (school education or regional studies), their knowledge about certain symptoms and the ability to correctly interpret clients behavior increases. With increasing self-confidence in terms of how to deal with clients, the personal perceived stress subsides. The access to education programs is independent from the amount of group social capital; as for instance Austrias independents are often highly professionalised in terms of care tasks but are not a member of a care farmer union. Still, care farmer unions have the capability to invite speakers in order to provide them with knowledge that is aimed more at their special needs and the higher the group social capital, the more the farmers themselves can influence the agenda of these presentations.
If I attend presentations about for instance drug addiction that is very interesting for me, as a form of consulting. (Group of VUZB, high group social capital, care farmer, adopted, Cornelis & Grietje K.) First you think you are not able to practice this job, that was the feeling we had because of not having attended an education course regarding to care but in the meantime I am educated in this respect (Group of Landzijde, low group social capital, care farmer, adopted, Anouk & Levi S.)

172

Nevertheless, beside training, additional regular contact to care professionals are quite important for care farmers. They back up and distribute the feeling of responsibility and also increase the security about the clients needs being met and that they do not behave improperly and jeopardise clients health. Farmers for instance tend to keep in contact with the family doctor and even if there is no special occasion that would ask for a doctors visit, they ask the doctor to make a round in order to cover ones back. Moreover, if farmers are embedded in a professional team of caregivers, they tend to discuss their insecurity in terms of how to deal with clients in order to meet their needs rather than a team within the care farmer union. Care farmers profit from the regular exchange of knowledge within these teams and from professional supervisions and further training in terms of mental hygiene. For example, in order to insure Pergs care farmers, the Red Cross offered to employ them, but with the requirement to work as a caregiver on the farm and part time off the farm. The farmers who followed this option where much more affiliated with a team of care professionals and profited from supervisions. Those who where not able to meet these requirements needed to agree to a care contract in order to be insured, meaning a trained nurse from the Red Cross visited the client at the farm at least once a week and cared for them or controlled how the client is doing. Those farmers who followed the second option perceived the contact to the trained nurse as very important because they had a constant confidential contact partner whom they could ask questions but also from whom they received confirmation about the correctness of their work. Findings have shown that farmers prefer to be linked up with clients key care givers such as parents, teachers, social workers etc. in order to receive on the one hand regularly feedback about how the client is doing but also to feel backed up, meaning that they carry responsibility for clients visits at the farm, too. An exception are those members of Landzijde who receive clients from Landzijde only, because they generally not have direct contact to their clients key care givers or to care professionals, as Landzijde holds that position. Consequently, farmers tend to give up their responsibility and only if a mismatch within the farmer-client relationship is perceived, the care farmer contacts Landzijde directly with the expectation that they find solutions, whereas the solution is most of the time that the client is put to another care farm. Nevertheless, the affiliation with a care farmer group with high group social capital in terms of intra-group communication increases the exchange of practical knowledge and helps farmers to deal with clients. Frequent communication within the care farmer union and mutual visits at the farm increases a care farmers orientation about how others deal with clients, cope with problems in terms of clients diagnosis or symptoms and increases their confidence to operate within the 173

legal framework. They predominantly exchange information about how they organise working days with clients and which tasks are suitable for clients, but also how they adapt the farm in order to make it client friendly and to save ones own private sphere. Based on practical knowledge, the union of VUZB established the rule that farmers and new clients have to have a probationary period before they decide to contract with each other. This course of action decreases the likelihood that a farmer struggles with clients because of a mismatch. Farmers who perceive fewer problems in terms of a role mix and of a lack of private sphere, often established clear schedules in which only the caregiver is at the farm, whereby farmers children are at school and farmers wives work off the farm during that time, or spatial distinctions are made, such as extra canteens, toilets and rooms etc. The exchange of this practical knowledge between care farmers can help beginners to avoid a role mix and to save private sphere, but also increases their knowledge about certain client groups and their needs. Nevertheless, there is no correlation found between those who are able to save the private sphere and to avoid the problem of a role mix and the amount of social capital of the group of care farmers they are affiliated with. Frequent meetings with care farmer colleagues allow farmers to exchange their practical knowledge and these groups function like a self-help group. It decreases the necessity to talk with family members about the care farming business and subsequently saves privates sphere in this respect. High intra-group communication within care farmer groups offers the advantage that colleagues were able to understand a certain problem of a member that was discussed, but might have a different view on it, perceived it less dramatic or offered alternatives to react to that problem because they are less emotionally involved than family members. Even if care farmers perceive no special burden it is helpful for them to communicate with colleagues about their work because they are aware that others are interested in their work and their practical knowledge, hence motivation to continue with this job increases.
I have no one to reflect my experiences with. Sometimes I tell my family members about that, they actually do not ask but sometimes I tell it simply because I need to tell it to someone you have to get rid of that, the job is indeed a little bit lonely. It is that you stand alone with the whole and if you have setbacks no one is here who backs you up but that would be so important (Group of AAT/AAP, low group social capital, care farmer, adopted, Irma F.) I participate in this meetings because of the exchange of practical knowledge, that is supportive [] and the topics we talk about are diverse, once we are talking about the legal basis and at another time about dementia, learn and working projects and than we always talk about our personal experiences with clients and about target groups [] and you can say hey guys that is the problem, how would you deal with that. And somebody might have a completely different view on that with the consequence that the problem is less bad. (Group of VUZB, high group social capital, care farmer, adopted, Emma G.)

174

Nevertheless, farmers seldom discuss with colleagues but rather with family members or care professionals about emotional stress that occurs because of a lack of mental hygiene. Care farmers are often not aware of the problem of a lack of mental hygiene and so they tend to cope with that problem by themselves as long as possible and either stop care farming at a certain point or learn from care professionals to counteract. Similar to that, the increasing time pressure is a problem the care farmers tend to deal with him-/herself until the burden reaches a certain point and forces them to find new arrangements, such as looking for volunteers or employees, decreasing the number of clients, changing the client group or terminating the project.
Mentally I think, look, the body functions but h, if I talk about myself, I was always a very strong person and now I have migraine and I think does it come from that? I do not know, may be because of the intensity? But well, I have to care for about that it works without me, too. If I would die tomorrow, it needs to continue without me, but this is not the case at the present time, I need to be more replaceable in this respect. (Group of VUZB, care farmer, adopted, Cornelis & Grietje K.)

In order to deal with emotional burden that can occur when offering care at the farm, farmers predominantly profit from regular contacts with care professionals and education, but also through keeping contact with other key care givers of their client. This distributes responsibility and provides them with knowledge about how to deal with clients symptoms etc. Besides this indispensable contact to care professionals, the communication within a group of care farmers increases the likelihood of exchanging necessary practical knowledge and also allows farmers to talk to like-minded people, whereby this mutual interest in each others project and experiences increases not only their ability but also their motivation to continue with the project. The more they identify as a group that interprets care farming in similar terms, the more likely it is that farmers attend the meetings and profit from the communication with their colleagues. In contrast to the importance of this intra-group communication and the amount of group-identity, the group-solidarity seems to be less important in order to deal with emotional burden. Family members are relieved as soon as farmers have the chance to communicate with their colleagues about the care farming business and this aspect helps to stabilise the project. Training about mental hygiene is currently only seldom provided for care farmers, hence they tend to become aware of such a problem at a very late point in time and prefer to talk about that rather with family members or care professionals than with members of their care farming union. In general it cannot be said that the higher the group social capital, the lower the emotional burden they perceive. Still, helpful practical knowledge can be exchanged and the contact to colleagues rather functions as preventive help in less serious health questions. As soon as farmers feel insecure in terms of clients health, they tend to contact care professionals and feel backed up when being in regular contact with the family doctor, clients key care givers and other care 175

professionals who know the care farmers clients. Beside emotional stress, the farmer also has to deal with other occurring tasks, like caring for the client, doing the monthly settlements, adapting the farm, advertising the project or for care farming in general etc. and perceives in this respect certain actors and forms of support to be important, that is why this aspect is depicted in the next chapter.

6.3.3 Supporters and obtained and needed forms of support when implementing care farming
In addition to the fact that farmers perceive emotional stress, they also need to fulfil many other tasks in order to implement care farming. If day care is provided, they need to perpetually find clients who visit the farm, but all care farmers need to do the monthly settlements, further adapt the farm and often Dutch care farmers in this period feel increasing enforcement to professionalise. Therefore they need to make investments or in the long term terminate the project. The aim of the following chapter is to focus on working hypotheses 1 and 2 (see 3.4) partly because presenting findings in terms of only the implementation period circumscribes it. Care institutions and clients key care givers, and also the care farmer union and care farmers family members undertake important roles in order to go through this period of innovation. The perceived importance of certain actors and the form of support that is provided by them is visualised by the network diagram below. Keeping in mind the qualitative interpretation about how farmers deal with emotional stress and being aware of those continuing tasks that need to be fulfilled in order to offer care at the farm, but also the fact that farmers obtain a different amount of social capital through their union membership and that they have different supporters, it becomes obvious that the importance of certain actors must differ. In the following diagram the care farmer (ego) is visualised through the pentagon in the centre of this diagram and important supporters are presented by the label at the lines end. The label firstly shows the supporter, secondly, after a colon, the form of support that is provided by that certain actor. The distance between the supporters and ego visualises the importance of the actors from the viewpoint of the care farmers, meaning those supporters being located in the first concentric circle near ego are perceived to be very important, those in the second to be important and those in the third to be relevant. The color of the line and the line symbol explains to which investigated group the supporters belong, which has a different amount of group social capital. 176

Figure 7: The perceived importance of supporters and forms of support by care farmers during the implementation period. [N = 32]

177

Initially, a clear trend cannot be seen when considering the amount of group social capital of a care farmer group someone is affiliated with and the importance of family members because family members are perceived to be more important by those who obtain high group social capital in contrast to those obtaining low. Still, family members are also perceived to be quite important for the independents that obtain no group social capital at all. Nevertheless, high group social capital relieves a care farmers family, which generally provides esteem and practical support and while the relief may not be visible in the diagram above, it is an outcome of qualitative analysis. As already explained in the previous chapter, high intra-group communication within a care farmer union relieves a care farmers family because not only practical tasks need to be fulfilled by care farmers, and their family members respectively, but also emotional burden for the care farmer increases when offering care at the farm. Those who are affiliated with a group of care farmers, profit from the exchange of practical knowledge and their mutual interest, therefore all groups, regardless if they have a high or low group social capital, perceive the contact to their colleagues to be at least relevant. The lower importance of family members and the care farmer union is caused by the intense support of the commercial union for members of Landzijde, but can also be explained by the low social capital and low number of forms of support obtained by the contact to colleagues when offering care at the farm. The fact that Landzijde continually undertakes a lot of business tasks such as matching clients with farms, doing the monthly settlements and relieving farmers from emotional pressure, due to sharing responsibility about the clients well-being with the care farmer, explains the decreasing importance of other supporters. Also the contact to care institutions is perceived to be less important for them because Landzijde holds the position of a broker between care farmers and care institutions. Similar to that also members of AAT/AAP do not obtain a lot of support through their membership to a care farmer union, rather in contrast to Landzijde members they do not have the support of a commercial organisation that compensates this aspect, which leads to the expectation that family members importance should increase for members of AAT/AAP, although this is not the case. This can only be explained by the fact that those who are currently practicing animal assisted therapy often only have a few clients and reach minimal additional income by that, so the low intensity of care at the farm might decrease the need for their familys support. In contrast to that, those groups with a high group social capital also have a higher content of multiplexity, in regard to the relations between the care farmer and their colleagues. Information, 178

practical and motivational support is perceived through the membership and regular contact to this group, but also these groups provide social companionship only. As we already know these aspects are quite important in order to stabilise the project in the long term. Supplementary context information increases the understanding about why group social capital helps to relieve a farmers family, but still this aspect is not visible within the network diagram. The contact to care institutions is perceived to be varyingly important for all groups, although different forms of support are obtained by the contact to them. Generally, Landzijde members do not need to be in contact with care institutions directly in order to reach clients and also not in order to receive feedback about how the client is doing, as Landzijde takes on these responsibilities for the care farmers. As we can see, those Landzijde members who mentioned care institutions to be important get some information about how to deal with clients from them because Landzijde compensates the rest. Members of AAT/AAP acquire their clients through care organisations but do not obtain information related support or emotional support by these contacts. In contrast to that, care institutions or care experts are often quite important in other cases in order to get not only practical (client placement) but also emotional support. Information about how to deal with the client is obtained also through that contact and therefore care institutions or care experts are perceived to be an important supporter. Combining results from verbal and visual data, it is clear that public relations are very important in this period, especially in Austria because of a lack of awareness and knowledge about this new practice. This is why independent care farmers from Austria perceive the media as an important distributer of the idea. Public relations is also realised by the commercial organisation of Landzijde, while the care farmer union VUZB also tries to advertise and to increase the awareness about this topic within society. The regional union for general farming (farmer union) especially promotes elderly care at the farm in Perg. Members from AAT/AAP in the present time lack a supporter that enhances discussions and broadcasts the new form of therapy and this increases difficulties in terms of client acquisition. In order to deal with emotional stress and fulfil the tasks that occur when already practicing care at the farm, care institutions, family members and the care farmer union still play an important role. In other words, strong commitment and practical support from family members in order to meet the requirements from the farming and care business is indispensable. A care farmer cares oftern not only for clients, but also his or her spouse undertakes these tasks and is responsible, for instance, for transporting clients when day care is offered, for dealing with monthly settlements, while sometimes the couple also shares daily working tasks with clients. Family 179

members often need to have regard for clients at the farm and often undertake the tasks of socialising with clients and in this respect their esteem support is necessary. A good connection to a clients key care givers and to care experts who know the clients and their present situation, who get informed about daily occurrences regarding to clients well-being and who not only support in terms of client acquisition but also decrease emotional stress through supervising care farmers and providing them with expert knowledge, is in the long term incredibly important for stabilising the project. The close contact to colleagues allows exchanging practical knowledge and decreases farmers emotional burden because of the possibility to talk with like-minded people and the feeling of belonging to a group. Support organisations can relieve family members and care farmers daily job by organising monthly settlements, acquiring clients and taking responsibility for the latter. In this respect farmers do not need close contact to care institutions and clients key care givers. The next chapter addresses if this approach stabilises the project in the long term and also the circumstances that lead to the termination of the project.

180

6.4 Adoption or termination of the project and relevant circumstances

In order to understand what leads care farmers to terminate their project and which forms of support they perceive to be important, but also if they lack support or if they even profit from the preservation of group social capital are discussed. Findings about terminator types are also presented in this chapter. Alternatively, types of adopters are characterised, thus the question about differences and similarities between adopters and terminators circumstances are discussed below. Therefore, working hypothesis 4 (see 3.4) is considered, which integrates network theory and social capital theory, and which assumes the importance of both. It also addresses high group social capital of a care farmer union and the fact that the more forms of support are obtained by the care farmer, the more likely the stabilisation of the project.

6.4.1 Terminators circumstances and obtained forms of support and of group social capital
Above all, the focus is on 8 terminators coming from all investigated groups who perceived certain forms of support and supporters to be important in order to develop and implement the project for a certain time, thus the following network diagram demonstrates these findings. Again the pentagon in the middle of the diagram represents terminators (ego), whereas the label at the end of the line mark actors that are perceived to be varyingly important in certain periods of the innovation, as they provide the form of support that is visualised after the colon. The latter are distinguished according to van de Ven in the initiation, developmental and implementation period and the lines that belong to a certain period of innovation are appropriately colored. The concentric circles mark the importance of the supporters, so those within the first concentric circle close to ego are perceived to be very important, those in the second concentric circle to be important and those in the third concentric circle to be relevant.

181

Figure 8: The perceived importance of supporters and of support by terminators during the process of innovation. [N=8]

182

Similar to those who adopted the project and successfully stabilised it, terminators predominantly receive information about care farming from people they only meet occasionally (weak ties) and get partly motivated to start up a care farm by certain initiatives, such as the initiative for elderly care in Perg or by the conventional procedure of the commercial organisation of Landzijde that contacts potential care farmers in order to motivate them to start up a care farm. Only one person of those who terminated visited another care farm before starting up their own project. In this respect all other cases miss this important additional information that would increase rational expectations in terms of the new project. Family members are in all periods of the innovation of most importance and are not only standing behind the project but also practically supporting it. All other actors predominantly provide the care farmer with information or support him or her practically. Social companionship with for instance emotional support etc., by those who could profit from a care farmer union, is missing because terminators tend to seldom participate at meetings or regional studies and do not want to invest time and energy for communication with colleagues. The care farmer union is perceived to be important in the developmental period, while it is relevant only when already offering care at the farm. In general, multiplex relations were observed between care farmers to the care farmer union, to care institutions and to family members. With the exception of the latter this is not the case with terminators. Those who are connected to care institutions only obtain clients from them but no further emotional or informational support about how to deal with clients in the implementation period, which is why these actors are perceived to be relevant only. In order to complement this rather quantitative depiction about how important supporters are perceived during the innovation process, verbal data was analysed in more detail. This is based on nine qualitative interviews with care farmers who terminated their project and are part of the sample of this research, except for care farmers from the group of AAT/AAP because people who were asked for an interview and who already terminated working in the field of animal assisted therapy refused an interview. Nevertheless, nine interviews with people who obtained high and low group social capital, who had different national conditions and who were differently supported in order to implement care farming were analysed in detail in order to understand why this new practice was stopped and if similarities across the cases can be found.

183

Group of Perg

Group of VUZB

Group of Landzijde

Group of independent

Sum of terminated projects N=9

Table 11: Terminated projects within the sample of this research.

Two ideal types of care farmers who decided to terminate their project and who experienced similar circumstances are depicted below, whereas findings have shown that Dutch care farmers belong to the first and Austrian care farmers to the second type. One type of terminator are those [N=5] whose initial investments in terms of farm adaption or education were very low and none of them wanted to professionalise in this field. They predominantly focused on agricultural tasks but felt increasingly forced by, for instance, Landzijde to attend education courses or regional studies etc. All of them have in common a low interest in investing time and energy in care farming tasks or to learn how to deal with clients. Additionally how they experienced care farming did not meet to their expectations. They for instance expected clients to be more self-dependent, able to work like volunteers or at least people who do not need to be cared for all the time during their stay at the farm, thus the matching between farmers and clients was negative. In addition to that, farmers tend to outsource business tasks such as dealing with monthly settlements, were seldom in contact with clients key care givers or other care institutions and even if a care farmer union membership existed, they did not really profit from it as they did not participate in the meetings, or very seldom. Time burden increases due to the necessity to deal with agricultural tasks and also the care for clients and to invest more time than expected. A lack of knowledge about how to deal with clients and how to interpret their behavior leads farmers rather to stop the care farm than to burden themselves with that because care farming is not their first priority. They perceive the increasing demand to professionalise as overregulation or rather become conscious that this hardly meets their personal interests. A clear shift of priorities is often the reason farmers use to explain the termination, so they decide to focus on agricultural tasks only, or stop care farming in addition to the reasons above because of their retirement and missing business successors who are willing to offer care at the farm in the future, too.
Helena de E. is 63 years old and has not attended certain education programs in terms of care farming or care. One disabled male adolescent from the neighbourhood visited her farm for years and somehow grew to be a family member with time. Helena heard about the care farming initiative in Utrecht and became a member of VUZB through which she acquired three clients with psychological problems. But her expectations that the relationship with these clients will be as good as to the teenager from her neighbourhood were not met. She does not understand clients behavior and complains about their unreliability, for instance, and if he has to clear away the dung he uses to

184

wear gloves or if it rains he does not visit the farm and if it is too warm he does not show up. She terminates the project, does not want to find working tasks that are suitable for her clients and perceives clients as a burden. She did not have much financial income through their care tasks at the farm and she never had further contact to the care farmer union VUZB or other colleagues and mentions not being interested in it. No investments were taken at the farm, VUZB only played a role when developing the project and acquiring clients and for some time she had a good relationship to clients key care giver who organised all administrative tasks and with her she was able to talk about the clients. But since this key care giver changed her job she did not have contact to clients new key care giver and decided to stop care farming because she feels too old to deal with the clients, and in addition to that Helenas children will not continue the farming business in the future. (Group of VUZB, care farmer, terminated, Helena de E.)

The second type of terminators are care farmers [N=3] who are willing to invest in terms of professionalisation and also needed to make a lot of initial investments in order to be allowed to offer care at the farm. The majority attended education programs in order to become professional caregivers, although insecurity in terms of how to deal with clients and high emotional burden because of responsibility overload was perceived. Most of the cases show a combination of a mismatch between farmers and their clients or of heavy burden through difficult clients or both. The problem is being embedded in a professional team and feeling overchallenged in terms of how to deal with clients. The increasing emotional stress that occurs from time burden, the role conflict at the farm, a lack of private sphere and of mental hygiene are part of their problems. They didnt feel embedded enough in a professional team or were not able to distribute responsibility about the client to further key care givers. Some of them were involved in a team of care farmers and obtained high group social capital, the membership to the union was perceived to be very important. They only attended, for instance, courses because they were affiliated with this group and profited by organising business tasks together, although it wasnt able to outbalance all further difficult circumstances. Others did not have the chance to become affiliated with a care farmer union and missed the exchange of practical knowledge and the feeling of belonging to a group who deals with similar tasks, and also had to organise all business tasks by themselves. This type in general decides to stop care farming at a very late stage in which emotional burden reaches the absolute limit, thus farmers were not able to continue with the project and had to terminate it due to their personal state of health.
And I think we both [couple of care farmer] already had a burn out [] and I thought I can not do it in the long term and when we decided to terminate the project I went into the kitchen, opened a bottle of Chianti and you need to know I used to drink wine very seldom, but I sat down and took a deep breath [] and I felt how much pressure and responsibility and everything fell off me and this was actually a great feeling. (Group of independent, care farmer, terminated, Claudia C.)

This second type of care farmer generally does not start again with this form of care, while deciding either not to fulfil farming tasks anymore and alternatively work as a conventional care 185

giver by being embedded in a professional team, or refuses care and focuses on agricultural tasks in the future only. In order to visualise differences between terminators and adopters circumstances and to understand which constellation destabilises or stabilises a project, the situation and types of the latter are depicted below.

6.4.2 Adopters circumstances and obtained forms of support

Under which condition current adopters would rather stop their project and which circumstances lead them to continue and to stabilise it, is the content of this chapter. Therefore 29 projects were analysed in detail in order to cluster them and to present similarities and differences across the cases and types of adopters.

Group of VUZB

Group of Perg

Group of Landzijde

Group of independent

Group of AAT / AAP

Sum of adopted projects

N=29

Table 12: Adopted projects within the sample of this research.

The first type of adopter [N=12] can be characterised as someone who has a quite good match with clients, perceives not or only little emotional stress because of dealing with clients at the farm and who tends to work very client oriented, meaning working at the clients pace, looking for suitable tasks. They adopt the farm in order to make it client friendly or respectively disability friendly and invest in client canteens, toilets, living or day rooms. This type of care farmer does not only invest in farm adaption but also gets educated in terms of care farming, is either doublequalified as a care professional and farmer or the care farmer couple consults each other in terms of that, or attends a two-year education course in care farming as it is offered in the Netherlands by the Greenhorst Colleague. Sometimes this type additionally has a university degree. This type perceives social recognition in terms of the project, offers predominantly day care and is in close contact with clients key care givers or with the care institution clients are coming from. The principal income is obtained through care at the farm, so the main focus is on care farming tasks instead of on farming tasks. All who belong to this type have their own philosophy about how this job should look and identify very much with being a care farmer.

186

Within this type there are three subtypes, a.) the care farmer an entrepreneur type who obtains no or very low group social capital. Farmers who belong to this type need to acquire clients and to fulfil other business tasks themselves. The second subtype b.) only obtains low group social capital and are members of Landzijde who attend regional studies and also appreciate the contact to other care farmers, while profiting from the exchange of practical knowledge. They partly have direct contract with clients but also receive their clients from Landzijde and they also fulfil all administrative and business tasks (monthly settlements, contracts with the clients or care institutions, advertisement etc.). Nevertheless, people who belong to this group are critical members of Landzijde, do not want to lose their autonomy, want to influence the direction this new practice is going in and tend to leave Landzijde in the long term in order to continue more independently with their care farming business. The third subtype c.) obtains high group social capital and are members of VUZB in Utrecht, profit from meetings with colleagues and especially appreciate the possibility to exchange practical knowledge with colleagues. They fulfil their administration work partly within the care farmer group but also tend to acquire clients themselves successfully. The second type of adopter [N=10] does not have or perceives less emotional stress through this care practice and has a good match with clients who visit the farm for day care, also adapt the farm to be client friendly and invest in education courses, are double qualified or attended a special care farming course, such as animal assisted theraphy, although they reach additional income only through this practice. They work very client oriented and are well connected to clients key care giver and care institutions but can be further distinguished in three subtypes. Subtype a.) obtains no or only low group social capital through the affiliation with a care farmer group but is able to deal with business tasks including acquisition of clients and perceives social recognition in terms of the project. Subtype b.) also obtains low group social capital only but is unsuccessful in client acquisition and rather perceives non-recognition from society in terms of care farming, feels very much as a loner and demotivated and does not have enough resources in order to deal with all business tasks. A lack of awareness about their practice, that is predominantly animal assisted therapy, and the fact that this form of therapy is not yet subsidised, meaning that clients have to pay for it from their private money, increases the necessity to advertise. Ironically, this type need supporters for that reason and would appreciate more contact to a care farmer union. The third type c.) is affiliated with a group of care farmers and obtains high group social capital that was helpful for client acquisition but also for starting up the farm and for continuing with the project. Low recognition from society is perceived. Members of this group would not have developed and professionalised in terms of care farming without their 187

membership to a care farmer union. They also prove to be very client oriented and tend to fulfil care tasks with high quality. The third type of adopter [N=2] is also a member of Landzijde, who perceives no or little emotional stress through this job and has a good match with his/her clients, but did not attend special education programs, except for the regional studies four evenings a year. They also do not adapt the farm but rather say Sorry we are not disability friendly, these types of clients are not suitable for us (Group of Landzijde, care farmer, adopted, Henk & Alida K.). They are partly in contact with clients key care givers, although Landzijde predominantly organises this aspect like all administrative tasks. The match between the farmer and the client makes the only difference between this type of adopter and type 1 of the terminators because care farming is only a small part of their income and as soon as they perceive challenges and problems with clients or, for instance, if education courses become a precondition for care farming, they tend to stop the project instead of investing in these aspects. The different types who adopted or terminated the project were characterised through categories that proved to be relevant when analysing the process of innovation, hence dealing with business questions, the demand and willingness to professionalise. Also emotional stress, which was observed to be a special problem or challenge, was an applied category in order to distinguish between adopters and terminators. In addition to that, obtained group social capital and obtained forms of support were considered in order to subsequently oppose the findings. In order to investigate if the access of more important forms of support, and of a higher group social capital indeed stabilises the new practice, it is useful to compare the situation of adopters and of terminators. Differences between most terminators and adopters are related to the match between clients and care farmers, the perceived emotional stress of care farmers and the willingness for professionalisation in terms of education and/or farm adaption. These aspects are often strongly connected with each other, because the less farmers know about clients needs and how to deal with them, the more they expect clients to work autonomously, responsibly and as fast as volunteers and interpret clients behaviour as unreliable, subsequently farmers feel annoyed by them. The terminator type 1 corresponds to the depiction above and does not reach primary income through care tasks, with the consequence of increasing dissatisfaction and time burden due to inconsistencies between expectations and reality. Only the demand of low initial investments leads these farmers to start up a care farm, consequently it can not be said that all forms of support are as useful for care farming in the long term. Under Austrian conditions, 188

where it is much more difficult to acquire clients and to become a care farmer without investing in professionalisation, the terminator type 1 would rather not have started with this practice. There is neither a lack of options to become an active member of a care farmer union and to profit from group social capital nor a lack of special education programs. Care farmers who belong to this type are not willing to invest and as soon as education courses are compulsory, these farmers will hesitate to start or to continue with care farming.
Son: And all the rules from Landzijde, that annoys me a little bit, they increasingly force us to make courses [] Mother: People increasingly start to complain about it that can be a hurdle for farmers and lead them to not start up a care farm, too many rules exclude certain people. (Group of Landzijde, care farmer, adopted, Theodora & Andre U.)

Nevertheless, this type of care farmer would have especially profited from excursions to other care farms in order to enhance realistic perceptions about the practice before deciding to start with it. However, in summary it emphasises that the option to obtain social capital or forms of support does not necessarily mean that someone uses this resource, as in the case of the depicted terminators, different personal interests are conflicting. It also means that higher initial investments could stabilise care farming because those who are not willing to professionalise are hindered to offer care at their farm, and as it is already emphasised, farm adaption in order to save private sphere and education programs to enable farmers to better deal with clients decrease the liklyhood of emotional stress, and in this respect stabilise projects in the long term. The second type of terminator compared to adopters who were able to stabilise the project, show the difference of incredibly high emotional stress. Although terminators are educated in care tasks they are overchallenged in dealing with clients, and also burdened by a lack of private sphere, of mental hygiene, an increasing role conflict and time pressure. In contrast to adopters, they do not adapt the farm to save private sphere, have no clear time schedules and no clear rules about the functional responsibility of all actors at the farm. This increases the likelihood for role conflicts and of a lack of private sphere and although this type of care farmer is educated in care tasks, the pressure of high responsibility is perceived in terms of the client. The latter relates to the fact that in contrast to adopters, no or only too little continuing interaction between the care farmer and clients key care giver or care institutions is practiced. Thus farmers are not able to distribute the feeling of responsibility to the client, to receive feedback from care professionals on how clients are doing and how to interpret or react to certain behavior patterns of the client. They search for employees too late or they do not quit the contract to clients because of apparent mismatches. In general people do not talk about emotional burden. In this respect high group social capital in terms of intra-group communication is very important to enable a care farmer union to function 189

like a self-help group, to reflect on experiences and to make those who struggle conscious about which circumstances differ to those who are able to stabilise the project. Practical knowledge in particular could be provided about how to save the private sphere. Also, some forms of adopters profit from higher group social capital because of a lack of knowledge about how to advertise, and also because of difficulties to find clients. In Austria it is especially difficult to find clients that are able and willing to finance this form of therapy or care themselves. Although it cannot be said that high group social capital generally stabilises the project. While some farmers are quite successful as loners, others would need and profit from the contact to colleagues and could indeed enhance the stabilisation of the project by being affiliated within a group of care farmers. The communication within a care farmer group and also the feeling of belonging to such a group enhances the probability that farmers are willing to professionalise because of perceived motivation and shared norms and values in terms of care farming. It also increases the chance to influence the education program, to set the agenda of regional studies and to adapt education programs appropriate to ones own needs. Nevertheless, further important forms of support in different periods of the innovation are not necessarily similarly for all types of care farmers in order to stabilise the project. If commercial organisations realise relevant business tasks, acquire clients and do the monthly settlements etc., this may be helpful for some types of care farmers in the short term, but it can also increase further problems if care farmers lose autonomy about their business, and subsequently destabilise care at the farm in the long term. Some farmers already have enough support in terms of business tasks by being in contact with colleagues or advertising together within a care farmer union. Others do not even need this form of support but are equipped with the necessary entrepreneurial features to do it successfully themselves. Especially for farmers from Austria it is much more important to be affiliated with a group, because the high demand to professionalise and the lack of adapted financial structures complicate the realisation of care farming. Some farmers need the motivational support of colleagues to attend education courses in terms of care, while others are willing and interested to do so without group motivation. A close contact to care experts and clients key care givers is indispensable in all cases. In the long term this practice can only be stabilised by an excellent cooperation between these actors and by shared responsibility for clients. The combination of becoming educated in care tasks and the contact to clients key care givers and care experts are essential. Futhermore, care farmer unions can in this respect act as a self-help group and decrease emotional stress. Finally, the esteem and practical support of family members is a precondition for a care farming project that is based on a family business. 190

7 RESUME AND FINAL CONCLUSIONS

191

192

It is not the first time that network analysis is applied in order to understand the development of innovations, but this research validates the importance of applying qualitative methods in order to enhance the understanding about how certain forms of support affect the course of innovation. At first glance some adopters and terminators might have a similar support network, but only qualitative analysis allows the necessary insight in order to understand if other aspects influence adoption or termination or if the support network does not influence the course of an innovation at all. It was not known which challenges and problems care farmers experience when it comes to this new practice and much less was known about the support network that is used in order to cope with that. Innovation processes are messy and the stabilisation of a new practice is never dependent on a few aspects only. Understanding the influences and reasons for the adoption or termination of a project demands an understanding of the cases before common patterns of those being able to stabilise or of the terminators can be found and proved through theoretical saturation. In this respect it was inevitable to combine the narrative and guideline based interview and to consequently apply thematic coding in order to fruitfully use the data that was collected through qualitative methods. Additionally, care farmers were not only asked to give an interview but also to fill in the networkdiagram (visual data). Only the combination of both allowed to understand and to interpret farmers personal perceived importance of their support network and to allocate in which period of the innovation certain forms of support and supporters are necessary for the stabilisation of the project. Hence data triangulation was applied and enabled to focus on the dynamic of a care farmers support network. In this research, innovation, network and social capital theory were combined and proved to be useful to reach new insights in the development of care farming. Similar to VAN DE VENS (1999, 23) findings, the data of this research validate that innovations do not follow a simple linear course or clear sequence of periods. The complex progression of events within a process of innovation made it difficult to divide the course into periods, but applying the ideal typical periods by van de Ven allowed to structure the process and to focus on commonalities across the cases and special characteristics that occur within the course. This allowed emphasising necessary forms of support and supporters and its varying importance in different stages of the process. The combination of network theory and of social capital allowed on the one hand to focus on the whole support network of a care farmer including their membership to a care farmer union, and 193

on the other hand it enabled to investigate the importance of being in contact with colleagues and obtaining group social capital in this respect. By applying this methodological and theoretical approach it was possible to verify findings of former innovation researches, for instance GRANOVETTER (1973) who knew this new form of care or initiatives within a region is transferred by people someone meets only occasionally (weak ties). Furthermore according to
VAN DE

VEN et al. (1999) a certain prehistory already influences

the later development of the new practice. Already being familiar with care tasks and certain client groups is in most of the cases part of care farmers prehistory, meaning it was later shown that care farmers were either already professional care givers or that they were experienced as a caregiver for relatives or at least were directly confronted with certain forms of diseases or people with special needs before they felt confident enough in order to anticipate starting up a care farm. In addition to that, findings confirm that esteem support from family members is indispensable in the initiation period and that intra-group communication with colleagues increases orientation and realistic expectations, while the first is a precondition for the further development of the practice and the latter is additional profit only. Similar to the theoretical characteristics as depicted by van de Ven et al. (1999), the developmental period becomes much more confusing compared to the initiation period and certain challenges and problems occur, wherefore care farmers need to contact a variety of different actors in order to cope with that. A certain demand to professionalise or business tasks that need to be fulfilled can be challenging, although perceived problems differ depending on someones obtained group social capital and forms of support, on national differences and also on personal skills. All care farmers can decrease transaction costs if they are affiliated with a care farmer union, while common negotiations with potential cooperation partners increase the probability to acquire clients, to get a hearing for ones own interest and also to counteract low awareness and recognition about care farming. Additionally, they can learn from each others experiences, become enabled to develop common norms and values about care farming, while mutual motivation increases the willingness for professionalisation. In addition to other relevant supporters, with increasing group social capital in terms of intra-group communication and group identity the union can act as a self help group not only in terms of business tasks but also if emotional stress occurs.

194

Nevertheless, for the stabilisation of the project, high group social capital is of varying importance depending on care farmers skills, priorities and further supporters. Some types of care farmers are better able to stabilise their project if the group fulfils business tasks, but others do not need this form of support. Nevertheless, the stabilisation of care farming in the long term is improved if the group appears as a central contact point for negotiations with stakeholders in order to acquire clients, rather than just a single care farmer. A cooperation can be continued independent from single care farmers stopping the cooperation. Some care farmers are excellent caregivers but not adequately equipped with entrepreneurial skills and really need support in order to acquire clients. However, they are also only motivated to professionalise through their feeling of belonging to a group. These farmers in particular would profit and could rather stabilise their project by being affiliation with a care farmer union and by obtaining practical and information related support and also social companionship from the group. Although one could profit from group social capital, it is not ensured that this support is recognised and used in order to stabilise the project because of conflicting personal interests. Some care farmers do not want to invest time for common meetings etc., hence the existence of supporters does not necessarily stabilise projects. Commercial support organisations at a regional level can relieve care farmers and their families in terms of business tasks and the perceived responsibility for clients, but as long as only low group social capital exists, this does not stabilise projects in the long term. In contrast to Austrias care farming experts, who rather appreciate a national support centre instead of a regional one, the Dutch appreciate not only the development of regional support organisations but also explicitly the commercial style of Landzijde. Findings of this research have shown that Landzijde has two categories of members. Those who started because of a low demand of initial investments, who as soon as they perceive problems and challenges, demand to professionalise etc. tend to terminate the project. The commercial organisation of Landzijde proved to enable and motivate people to easily start up a care farm. Because of the low group social capital, members do not really have the feeling of belonging and they are not motivated to professionalise by the group membership. The second category of members of Landzijde is willing to professionalise but does not accept the loss of autonomy and the lack of co-determination. Consequently they rather prefer to organise all business tasks themselves as soon as they stabilise their project in order to increase their independence. In summary, communication with colleagues is in all periods of the innovation useful, while it is necessary at the beginning in order to increase orientation and realistic perceptions about the 195

practice, it is important when developing such a project in order to exchange practical knowledge with those who are care farmers themselves. The history of interaction also increases group identity, while in times of developing and practicing care farming, this feeling of belonging to a group is very important for the stabilisation of the project in the long term, as it motivates to continue, it allows to develop common norms and values, relevant to care farming, to reflect personal experiences and to feel obligated to provide a high quality of care. As long as care farmer unions are organised at a regional level, it is more likely that its members regularly participate at meetings and profit from the exchange of practical knowledge or from fulfilling business tasks. Continuing contact to colleagues when already practicing care at the farm allows producing a trustful atmosphere that enables the group to function as a self-help group when problems such as emotional stress occur. The general political culture becomes obvious by the comparison of the diverse development of care farming in Austria and the Netherlands. While the rather expert controlled and bureaucratically oriented Austria hinders the adaption of conventional care guidelines through a trial and error practice, a learning oriented dealing with care farming was realised within the Netherlands. Consequently a lower demand to professionalise was observed. National differences in terms of the demand to professionalise exist and influence the perceived problems and challenges by care farmers. Austrian care farmers have to invest in professionalisation at an early stage and predominantly need to meet conventional care laws, while Dutch care farmers actually feel increasingly forced to invest in education after they have already been practicing care at the farm for years. Both, advantages and disadvantages are apparent in this case, because through the experimental way of dealing with this new practice in the Netherlands it was possible to raise the number of care farms, the awareness about the new practice within this country and to apply less strict care guidelines as existing for conventional care institutions. Thus the latter enhances the probability that care tasks can be fruitfully combined with agricultural tasks at family farms. That also implicates disadvantages because in the long term care farmers tend to drop out for two reasons. Minimal initial investments in terms of education training and farm adaption might lead more people to start up a care farm, but it decreases the likelihood of stabilisation of the project because as soon as care at the farm is practiced, either emotional stress increases because of a lack of knowledge of how to deal with clients or a lack of private sphere etc., or the increasing demand to professionalise at a later stage leads these people to terminate the project, as they are not willing to invest resources for care farming.

196

Beside professionalisation in terms of education and farm adaption, it is indispensable to be in continual contact with clients key care givers and with care experts, because only this strategy distributes responsibility and enhances farmers ability to accurately deal with their clients, thus lowering emotional stress for care farmers. Care farming demands care institutions to comply with care farmers and for instance to organise transports, to abandon care professionals who accompany the client at the farm and they also have to pay for a farmers effort. In times of a tight financial situation in which budget cuts in the health sector are usual, it is less likely that cooperation can be realised. Subsequently competition between this alternative form of care and of conventional care will increase. Dutch experts assume it to be important for farmers to professionalise in order to become competitive. But as findings of this research have shown, this is not enough for the stabilisation of the projects. Only continuing communication with care experts and clients key caregivers relieve farmers, and helps them accurately deal with clients. This in combination with the shared responsibility for the client enables people in the long term to successfully practice care farming. Failing to acquire clients is not always connected to farmers lack of entrepreneurial skills or a lack of communication with care institutions, but is also caused by hurdles, which are apparent through the comparison of Austrian and Dutch care farms. As long as clients have to pay for care at the farm from their private purse, it will be difficult to acquire them. Neither in Austria nor in the Netherlands is the conventional care sector involved enough in order to find common visions and possibilities to reach a win-win situation for both. The current trend is quite the opposite in the Netherlands, a new rule determines that farmers do not reach payment when clients failed to meet the appointment even if they have not informed the farmer. This increases insecurity for farmers and it becomes less likely that farmers are able to plan with their income that is reached through care tasks. This research has shown that the need to contact a number of different actors increases in the developmental period, but that implementing and stabilising the project in the long term is most challenging. Only the cooperation between certain actors and following further actions will allow the new practice to diffuse and to stabilise. First of all it is necessary to adapt conventional care guidelines in order to allow farmers to offer care without following strict guidelines, as is the case for conventional care places. Meetings between representatives of the health care and agricultural sector at the national and regional level could help to find common visions and to define how to reach a win-win situation for both. Only through a strong continuing cooperation between care experts and care farmers can the stabilisation of the projects be enabled. Neither the Austrian 197

course of professionalisation nor that of the Netherlands seems to be fruitful in the long term. Farmers need to learn to become a care farmer but are never able to substitute care experts, and in this respect it seems to be necessary to develop special education trainings for care farmers as is already the case in the Netherlands, although it seems to be important to demand an affirmative participation. Both, Dutch and Austrian experts underestimate the role of regional care farmer unions with high group social capital that have an impact on the stabilisation of projects for some types of care farmers, but are added profit for all of them. Besides, we need to be aware that family members support is indispensable in the whole process of innovation. Still, the fact that these care farming projects are based on family businesses destabilises the projects in the long term. As soon as there are changes within the family, for instance, divorces, retirements, offspring and infirmity of elderly family members with the consequence of the increasing need to care for them, the continuation of the project is subordinated. In the case of retirement, it is obvious that these projects are closely connected to a persons skills and preferences, because if there are no qualified successors or if they are not willing to continue care farming and decide on other income possibilities, the benefit of the whole investment is marginal.

198

8 APPENDIX

199

200

8.1 Care farmer interview guideline

Introduction Questions marked with a * or as soon as people/organizations are mentioned in this section, it is necessary to figure out the characteristic of the relationship with the following questions Did these people/organisations influence the care farmer personally or were they in contact via media like TV, magazines, radio etc. (Direct/indirect contact) How would you describe the relationship to these people/organisations: Is their opinion important to you? (Emotional closeness) How often did the contact occur? How often did you meet this person during this time? How often do you see/read/hear this media? (Frequency) In which way did these people influence the later development of the project? 1. Narration request Entrance question Its best if you just start to tell: How come you established social agriculture and who was important therefore? Contents that should emerge from the main narration 1.1 Initiation period: Anchor question Please think about the time before the development of your care farming project. 1.1.1 Preconditions = Contemplating retrospectively, were there preconditions that facilitated the development of care farming on your farm at this later point in time? = Was the influence of certain people/organisations of relevance when it came to the later development of your care farming project? If yes, whose influence?

201

1.1.2 Backgrounds motifs for the care farming project = How come you became interested in the special topic of social agriculture? 1.1.3 Information as a network achievement in the initiation period Who from did you hear about the topic of care farming first before you even started to think about developing a project yourself? * = Which information did you get through these people/organizations on the topic of care farming? 1.1.4 Shocks = Was there something like an acute trigger that lead to the decision to then implement the care farming project? If yes, which trigger? 1.2 Developmental period: Anchor question Please think about the time when you had already decided to practice care farming. 1.2.1 Network achievement in the developmental period Who supports you in which way? Which kind of support is required in this phase? = Please tell me how you preceded. Which steps were necessary to implement care farming on your establishment? = Which people/organisations were important in the process? = Which support (service) did you receive through these people/organisations during the development of your care farming project? Did you try to get specific information about care farming after you decided to implement this project? If yes, where? Which bureaucratic steps were necessary to implement care farming? Who supported you in this? Which operational changes (rebuilding of stable etc.) were necessary to develop care farming? Who supported you in this? 202

Which personal changes (further education and training) were necessary to develop care farming? Who supported you in this?

1.2.2 Barrage of ideas = Did the ideas about how to develop a care farm change from the beginning until now? How did the ideas change? Who influenced this development of ideas? How did these people influence the development of ideas?

1.2.3 Challenges = Did unexpected challenges occur in the developmental phase of this project? If yes, which challenges? How and by whom were you supported in managing these challenges? *

1.3 Implementation period: Anchor question Please think about the time after the developmental phase of the project, when the service of care farming was already practiced on your farm. = Which people/organisations are involved in the practical implementation of the care farming project? = Which tasks do these people/organisations adopt? Family Cooperation partners Employees Others?

203

1.3.1 Associations = Which associations do you belong to or which (care farming) organisations are you a member of? Landwirtschaftskammer (Farmers Union) Representatives of the social sector National Association for Green Care Famers Membership in a local/regional green care association Member of a special training group Others?

= Please tell me, what is the advantage of being a member in the particular association or organisation? How often are you in contact with the particular association? Does this contact occur personally or via communication media?

= What do you expect of the particular association/organisation? 1.3.2 Care Farmer = Do you know other care farmers? How many? Are these care farmers from your region or other regions?

= Please tell me, what do you communicate with these care farmers? How often do you communicate? How do you communicate (by phone, internet, personally etc.)

204

1.3.4 Cooperation partners = How do you canvass for customers? Were these projects mediated by someone? If yes, by whom? *

= Who are your cooperation partners? # Is it a matter of a formal or informal agreement? # For which period of time was the arrangement agreed upon? = Please tell me, how much trust do the actual and potential cooperation partners have in the quality of your project? What do you think, why does the trust/mistrust exist?

= How much do you rely in your present cooperation partners/clients that they will keep on using the service of your care farm? # What do you think, why does the trust/mistrust exist? = Are your cooperation partners willing to pay an appropriate compensation for your care farming services? 1.3.5 Autonomy and social influence = Do you have any kind of influence on the actual amount of financial compensation for your care farming service? In which way can you influence the pricing?

= Do you feel restricted in any way in the constitution of your care farming project? If yes, by what?

1.3.6 Collective Identity = How would you term your profession? The following questions are only to be asked if a termination of the project took place. 205

1.3.7 Termination: Anchor question Please think about the time when your project was terminated. = Why was the care farming project terminated? = Please tell me, which people/organisations influenced you in the phase of the termination of your project? 1.4 Success 1.4.1 Social Recongnition = How did your social environment react to your care farming project in the course of the project time? Family/friends Neighbours generally Farmers: a) conventional b) care farmers Cooperation partners YOUR association

a) General association: Landwirtschaftskammer, Bioverband, representatives of the social sector b) Special association: Association for Green Care Farmers - Municipality = Do you feel acknowledged in your work as a care farmer? - In which way do you experience acknowledgement/non-acknowledgement in your work?

206

1.4.2 Economic success = Did you have to incur expenditures to be able to practice care farming? = Could you already cover your expenditures? = Can you already estimate if the income could be increased by care farming compared to the previous year? # the overall agricultural income could be increased because of the social service offer? # the existence of the establishment is ensured because of care farming?

1.4.3 Therapeutic success = Do you see obvious results in your clients by using the farm for therapeutic/pedagogic/etc. purposes? Which results or progresses could you identify? # How long do clients already come to your place?

1.4.4 Personal success Achievement of personal goals = Which goals did you intend to reach personally by practicing care farming (the social project on your farm)? Which of these goals have been achieved so far?

= Are you personally satisfied with the development of your care farming project? If yes, why/ If no, why not?

207

1.5 Network diagram The brown area denotes the pre-phase before you started to develop your care farming project. Anchor question: Think about the time before you started your care farming project. Who was important in that time for the further development of the care farming project? Please name people or organisations that were very important, important, less important but relevant. If this phase is completed, we merge into the next green phase. The green area denotes the developmental phase, after you have decided to develop the project. Anchor question: Think about the time when you had already decided to practice care farming and the actual developmental phase had started. Who was important during that time so the project could be developed? Please name people or organisations that were very important, important, less important but relevant. The blue area denotes the implementation phase that can be divided into the phase of adaption and termination. It is the phase in which you could already apply or terminate the project. Anchor question: Think about the time after the development of your project when you could already offer care farming on your establishment. Who was important for the practicing of the project during that time? Please name people or organisations that were very important, important, less important but relevant. In the case of a termination of the project, please name people or organisations that were very important, important, less important but relevant during the time of termination.

208

Format change; network diagram: adapted from Kahn / Antonucci 1980.

209

8.2 Short questionnaire care farmer

Age: Gender: male female

Which kind of graduation do you have? - Compulsory school - Vocational school - Apprenticeship - Higher School Certificate - College - Other:

Did you get special training/education for care farming that you did not mention above? If yes, which: Please tell your professional biography at a glance! Tell me the size of your agriculture in hectare? Which kinds of agriculture do you own? (arable farming, with/without keeping of animals, etc.) Your farm is cultivated - organically - conventionally Please describe the location of your farm: - close to the city - good public accessibility - recreational area Care farming is your - principal occupation - secondary occupation How many clients frequent your establishment? 210 - far away from the city - bad public accessibility - no recreational area

Daily

weekly

monthly

yearly

When was your care farming project launched? Which kind of care farming is offered at your farm? - Caring - Employment - Education - Therapy - Others: Which target group frequents your farm? - Mentally or physically disabled - Long-term unemployed - Immigrants - Former drug addicts - Former delinquents - Adolescents with problems to integrate in social life - Elderly - Others: Which field of duties do you undertake in your care farming project? - Agricultural instruction - Pedagogic duties - Therapeutic duties - Care duties - Others: Please make an estimation: How many care farming projects exist in your country? Do you know of care farming projects that were terminated? Contact details: Do you agree that I or a project partner can contact you if required in case of ambiguities? 211

8.3 Expert interview guideline

Opening question = You are a representative of the [organisation]. Please give me an overview about the duties of your organisation in terms of care farming. - Please give me an overview about your personal duties in terms of care farming. - Is there another organisation beside yours that is responsible for similar tasks? - How can a care farmer become a member of [your organisation] (If membership is possible) - number of members - preconditions for membership = What are the future aims of [your organisation] and why are these your aims? Development of care farming in the country = Please describe how care farming developed in your country. = What kind of circumstances enabled the development and increase of care farming in your country? = What are the main problems within the care farming sector at the present? = Are there judicial arrangements hampering the development of care farming? = Please explain your point of view about what kind of political arrangements would be important to increase the number of competent care farmers in your country? Awareness of care farming = How is the Dutch society aware of care farming? - In which parts of the society is the term (Sorgboerderijen, soziale Landwirtschaft) well known? - Where is care farming discussed? (only in the scientific area, in the political area, in the public area through the media etc.) 212

- Are there still organisations/ social groups / people in special positions who are not enough involved in the discussion in your point of view? Acceptance of care farming = How is care farming accepted in your country? - Is it accepted as an important alternative to other therapies and work stations or is it understood as a playground for some phantasts? - Are there social groups, organisations and people in special positions who accept care farming more or less? - Do you see resistance against care farming from the social/ care sector? Honoring care farmers activity = Do you think that care farmers reach social recognition because of their work? = From whom do they reach social recognition in your point of view? (Examples: Other farmers, neighbors, the health care sector, the clients, the relatives of clients honor the activity of a care farmer positively.) Social rules = What kind of duties are farmers allowed to undertake in the present in your point of view? - Is it seen as normal that farmers offer care in your country? = Since when have social duties been recognised as a part of agriculture? = Since when has the social sector seen agriculture as an important place for people with special needs? Financial income and support = Do you think it is important that care farmers invest a lot if they start up a care farm? (education, internal investments) = What kind of possibilities do care farmers have to get financial support for their investments on a care farm? 213

= Would you say care farming can be a good alternative income possibility for farmers? - Is care farming interesting for small farms only? = How is the stream of financial resources organised between clients or social organisations and farmers? Please explain the possibilities. - Clients can choose their work station and the government pays? - Farmers can reach an accreditation, similar to a care institution? - Other possibilities? Therapeutic success = Is there a proof of the health effects of care farming? - What kind of health effects does care farming have? = Is care farming important for special target groups? Preconditions to become a care farmer = What has to be provided by a good care farming project? (Educated farmers, business plan, special abilities, safe environment etc.) = Do you think farmers need a support network for developing a care farm? Why do you think so? = What should be the duties of a care farmer in your point of view? Phases (practical experience) = If a farmer wants to start up a care farm: How does the process of this innovation usually develop? - Are there special phases within the innovation process where farmers need your support most? - When do farmers need what kind of support most? - What are the main difficulties if someone starts up a care farm? What are the main questions of farmers? 214 -

= Who offers what form of support in your country? Which organisations offer support?

- What form of support is provided? (education training, information about how to start a care farming project, advertisement etc.) Future = Do you see a problem or a development which could influence the care farming sector negatively or positively in the future? = Do you think a special sort of clients could profit from the care farming sector in the future; to say it in other words, is there a potential seen in a special client group to develop the care farming sector? = Do you think care farming will be more important in the future for some reason? = What are your future aims regarding to care farming? = What do you think are important actions regarding to care farming that should be taken in the future? = How do you think the care farming sector will look like in 20 years? = Is there an aspect which I havent mentioned yet but which would be important to mention?

215

8.4 Interview appendix Protocol

The model for the appendix to the interview was taken and adapted from (KVARDA 2000,S:191; FROSCHAUER 1992,S:42; LAMNEK 1993,S:98f). SUBSEQUENT TO THE INTERVIEW: IP1:Name:....................................................................................................................... Profession:......................................................................................................................... Function in the process:.................................................................................................. IP2:Name:....................................................................................................................... Profession:......................................................................................................................... Function in the process:.................................................................................................. Date:........................................................................................................................ Time:....................................................................................................................... Duration of the interview:................................................................................................. Place:..................................................................................................... How were you welcomed? ..................................................................................... Which visual impression does the farm leave? Did you have to wait for the conversation? ........................................................................ PRESENCE OF THIRD PARTY.................................................................................. BEHAVIOR OF THE INTERVIEWEE: open relaxed nervous long periods of thinking spontaneous answers difficulties of comprehension (continuous requesting) wary 216

other:.................................................................................................................... There were special difficulties with the following question: ................................................................................................................................... THE RESPONDENT FOLLOWED THE INTERVIEW: With large interest (asked questions, enjoyed the interview) With interest (kept to the point) Rather indifferent (was easily distracted, was unconcentrated) Impatient (wanted to stop) Off records Was there a further talk about relevant topics after the recorder was turned off? Informal conversation before or after the interview: ................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................... List of assumptions to the interview (theses): ................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................... Own behavior (self-evaluation): ................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................

217

8.5 Operationalisation of forms of social capital

Score Form of social capital Care farming group The Netherlands Austria
LZ VUZB Perg AAT/AAP Independent

Intra-group communication 0 direction of no information flow 1 information-flow rather observe than exchange information 2 exchange information 0 who sets the head of organization 1 agenda? the group of farmers themselves 0 place of meetings no meetings 1 direct meetings not at care farms 2 direct meetings at care farms 0 frequency of no meetings 1 meetings meetings but no continuing meetings 2 continuing meetings 4 times a year 3 continuing meetings 5 times a year 4 continuing meetings 6 times a year 1 content of how someone starts up the care farm 1 communication problems and challenges perceived 1 how someone copes with problems and challenges 1 how someone adapts the farm 1 future aims of the group 1 disease patterns and how to deal with clients Total amount of social capital in terms of intra-group communication 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 2 0 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 1 0 1 2 0 1

1 1 1 1 8

1 1 1 1 7

Table 13: Operationalisation of intra-group communication at a group level.

Form of social capital Intra-group communication direction of no information flow information-flow rather observe than exchange information exchange information who sets the head of organization agenda? the group of farmers themselves place of meetings no meetings direct meetings not at care farms direct meetings at care farms frequency of no meetings meetings meetings but no continuing meetings continuing meetings 4 times a year continuing meetings 5 times a year continuing meetings 6 times a year content of how someone starts up the care farm communication problems and challenges perceived how someone copes with problems and challenges how someone adapts the farm future aims of the group disease patterns and how to deal with clients Criteria for the evidence of a certain characteristic based on statements of some members of the group Criteria: if direct meetings are organized and if the core theme of the meeting is a lecture or the discussion within the group based on statements of some group members of the group. Criteria: it is mentioned that the agenda is set by the head or equally by all group members based on statements of some group members about the existence of direct meetings and about the place of meetings Criteria: existence of meetings and place of meetings based on statements of some group members about the number of meetings during a year Criteria: existence of meetings and number of meetings

based on general statements of some group members about the content of communication e.g. "We use to talk about how we cope with problems such as how to acquire clients" Criteria: mentioned contents of communication

Table 14: Operationalisation of intra-group communication and criteria for the evidence of a certain characteristic.

Score

Form of social capital

Care farming group The Netherlands Austria

LZ VUZB Perg AAT/AAP Independent

Group identity 0 homogeneity members of the group do not have the same client group 1 members of the group have partly the same client group 2 members of the group have the same client group 0 members of the group do not offer the same care tasks to clients 1 members of the group offer the same care tasks to clients 0 there are differences within the group in terms of 24hours care or day care 1 there is homogeneity within the group in terms of 24 hours care or day care 0 history of 0 years 1 interactions 5 years 2 7 years 3 10 years 0 group members attended the same education course not in the same time 1 goup members atttended the same education course in the same time 0 common aims the group of farmers has common future aims 1 the group of farmers do not have common future aims 0 common no 1 homepage yes Total amount of social capital in terms of group identity 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 0 0 1 1 6 1 6 1 0 1 10 6 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 0 1

Table 15: Operationalisation of group-identity at a group level.

Form of social capital Group identity homogeneity members of the group do not have the same client group members of the group have partly the same client group members of the group have the same client group members of the group do not offer the same care tasks to clients members of the group offer the same care tasks to clients there are differences within the group in terms of 24hours care or day care there is homogeneity within the group in terms of 24 hours care or day care history of 0 years interactions 5 years 7 years 10 years group members attended the same education course not in the same time goup members atttended the same education course in the same time common aims the group of farmers has common future aims the group of farmers do not have common future aims common no homepage yes

Criteria for the evidence of a certain characteristic based on the interview with each member of the sample Criteria: similarities and differences in terms of the client group, care tasks and the time of care

Criteria: the maximum possible duration of interactions by using the duration between the date when the union was founded until 2009 when the interview was given by members of the group based on the interview with each member of the sample. Criteria: similarities and differences in terms of the education course and time of participation based on statements of some members of the group. Criteria named or not named common aims e.g. "We plan to become an umbrella organization" Criteria: existence of a homepage

Table 16: Operationalisation of group identity and criteria for the evidence of a certain characteristic.

Score

Form of social capital

Care farming group The Netherlands Austria

LZ VUZB Perg AAT/AAP Independent

Group solidarity 0 role- multiplexity no member of a care farming union or organization 1 member of the same care farming union or organization 0 no member of the same region 1 member of the same region 0 no member of the union for general farmers 1 some of the group are a member of the union for general farmers 2 all members of the group are a member of the union for general farmers 0 group members did not attend the same care farming education course 1 some of the group attended the same education course 2 all members of the group attended the same education course 0 network- density not a member of a group 1 members of the group know each other partly 2 all members of the group know each other 1 group-support information-supply in terms of how to start up a care farm 1 public relations 1 networking with relevant organizations (care industry, public authority ...) 1 negotiating with relevant organizations (care industry, public authority...) 1 adapting quality standards Total amount of social capital in terms of group solidarity 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 10 2 1 1 1 1 1 13 2 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0

Table 17: Operationalisation of group-solidarity at a group level.

219

Form of social capital Group solidarity role- multiplexity no member of a care farming union or organization member of the same care farming union or organization no member of the same region member of the same region no member of the union for general farmers some of the group are a member of the union for general farmers all members of the group are a member of the union for general farmers group members did not attend the same care farming education course some of the group attended the same education course all members of the group attended the same education course network- density not a member of a group members of the group know each other partly all members of the group know each other group-support information-supply in terms of how to start up a care farm public relations networking with relevant organizations (care industry, public authority ...) negotiating with relevant organizations (care industry, public authority...) adapting quality standards

Criteria for the evidence of a certain characteristic based on the interivews with each member of the sample Criteria: shared roles

Criteria: the number of members, place of meetings and statements of some members of the group if they assume that all members know each other or not based on general statements of some members of the group that the group supports each other in terms of e.g. "We in general support each other in terms of public relations" Criteria: mentioned group support

Table 18: Operationalisation of group solidarity and criteria for the evidence of a certain characteristic.

220

8.6 List of abbreviations

AAT/AAP: Animal assisted therapy and animal assisted pedagogic Landelijk Steunpunt Landbouw en Zorg: Former national support center for care farming in the Netherlands that was closed in January 2009 Landzijde: Commercial care farming support organization that is located in North Holland LFI: Lndliches Fortbildungsinstitut, Austrian education institute for rural affairs that offers courses for farmers LTO Nederland (Land- en Tuinbouw Organisatie): The Dutch Federation of Agriculture and Horticulture, an entrepreneurial and employers organisation LWK: Landwirtschaftskammer, Austrias general union for farming KL: sterreichisches Kuratorium fr Landtechnik und Landentwicklung, Austrian Council for Agricultural Engineering and Rural Development TAT (Tiere als Therapie): animals for therapy, Austrian union that is responsible for the investigation and promotion of the therapeutic impact of the human/animal relationship VUZB (Vereniging Utrechtse Zorgboeren) is a non-commercial Dutch care farmer union that is located in Utrecht Citations of interviewed care farmers are anonymized, fictional names are used and additional knowledge about to which group they belong and if they already terminated or adopted the project is mentioned at the end of each quotation. Citations of interviewed experts are not completely anonymised, meaning not the name of experts but which organisation they represent is mentioned.

221

8.7 List of tables

TABLE 1: NUMBER OF CARE FARMS COMPARED TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF FARMS IN PERCENT. IN: SOFAR-RESEARCH GROUP, 2007, 47. .......................... 22 TABLE 2: CONCEPTS OF NETWORK STRUCTURE WITHIN EACH SIX MODES OF NETWORK ANALYSIS" (BURT 1980, 80)......................................................................... 49 TABLE 3: CONTENT RELATED EFFORTS OF SOCIAL RELATIONS. AN OVERVIEW OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF SOCIAL SUPPORT (CF. HOLLSTEIN, 2001, 32-34).................................................................................................................................. 54 TABLE 4: INDICATORS AND CHARACTERISTICS IN TERMS OF INTRA-GROUP COMMUNICATION................................................................................................................ 66 TABLE 5: INDICATORS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF GROUP IDENTITY. ............. 67 TABLE 6: INDICATORS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF GROUP SOLIDARITY. ........ 69 TABLE 7: SELECTED CASES OF CARE FARMING PROJECTS IN AUSTRIA AND THE NETHERLANDS............................................................................................................ 81 TABLE 8: METHODS AND TECHNIQUES CHOSEN FOR DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS. ...................................................................................................................... 82 TABLE 9: SIZE OF CARE FARMS WITHIN THE SAMPLE IN HECTARE. ................. 121 TABLE 10: AGE OF CARE FARMERS WITHIN THIS SAMPLE IN PERCENT. ......... 122 TABLE 11: TERMINATED PROJECTS WITHIN THE SAMPLE OF THIS RESEARCH. ...................................................................................................................................................... 184 TABLE 12: ADOPTED PROJECTS WITHIN THE SAMPLE OF THIS RESEARCH... 186 TABLE 13: OPERATIONALISATION OF INTRA-GROUP COMMUNICATION AT A GROUP LEVEL....................................................................................................................... 218 TABLE 14: OPERATIONALISATION OF INTRA-GROUP COMMUNICATION AND CRITERIA FOR THE EVIDENCE OF A CERTAIN CHARACTERISTIC. ........... 218 222

TABLE 15: OPERATIONALISATION OF GROUP-IDENTITY AT A GROUP LEVEL. ......................................................................................................................................................219 TABLE 16: OPERATIONALISATION OF GROUP IDENTITY AND CRITERIA FOR THE EVIDENCE OF A CERTAIN CHARACTERISTIC.............................................219 TABLE 17: OPERATIONALISATION OF GROUP-SOLIDARITY AT A GROUP LEVEL........................................................................................................................................219 TABLE 18: OPERATIONALISATION OF GROUP SOLIDARITY AND CRITERIA FOR THE EVIDENCE OF A CERTAIN CHARACTERISTIC...................................220

223

8.8 List of figures

FIGURE 1: THE EMOTIONAL NETWORK BY KAHN AND ANTONUCCI, 1980 (SOURCE: SIMULATED ILLUSTRATION)...................................................................... 87 FIGURE 2: NETWORK DIAGRAM (SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM KAHN AND ANTONUCCI, 1980)................................................................................................................. 88 FIGURE 3: GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION OF AUSTRIA AND THE NETHERLANDS WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION.................................................................................. 95 FIGURE 4: FORMS OF CARE WITHIN THIS SAMPLE IN PERCENT. [N=32]........... 122 FIGURE 5: THE PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF SUPPORTERS AND OF FORMS OF SUPPORT BY CARE FARMERS DURING THE INITIATION PERIOD. [N=32] ........................................................................................................................................ 139 FIGURE 6: THE PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF SUPPORTERS AND FORMS OF SUPPORT BY CARE FARMERS DURING THE DEVELOPMENTAL PERIOD. [N=32] ........................................................................................................................................ 163 FIGURE 7: THE PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF SUPPORTERS AND FORMS OF SUPPORT BY CARE FARMERS DURING THE IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD. [N = 32] ...................................................................................................................................... 177 FIGURE 8: THE PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF SUPPORTERS AND OF SUPPORT BY TERMINATORS DURING THE PROCESS OF INNOVATION. [N=8] ......... 182

224

8.9 Literature
BADURA, B. (1981). "Zur sozialepidemiologischen Bedeutung sozialer Bindung und Untersttzung". B. BADURA. Soziale Untersttzung und chronische Krankheit: Zum Stand sozialepidemiologischer Forschung. Frankfrut/M, Suhrkamp: 13-40. BARKER, E. (1998). "Der Kfig der Freiheit und die Freiheit des Kfigs". U. BECK. Kinder der Freiheit. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp. 4: 131-148. BARNES, J. A. (1969). "Graph Theory and Social Networks: A Technical Comment on Connectedness and Connectivity ". Sociology 3: 215-232. BAUER, M. (2005). "Gemischte Bilanz: Die deutsche Psychiatrie im europischen Vergleich". B. S. F. A. MAIN. Treffpunkte: Frankfurter Zeitschrift fr Gemeindepsychiatrie: Psychiatrie in Europa. 2. BECHMANN, G. and A. GRUNWALD (1998). Was ist das Neue am Neuen, oder: wie innovativ ist Innovation? Institut fr Technikfolgenabschtzung und Systemanalyse TADatenbank-Nachrichten 7. 1. From http://www.itas.fzk.de/deu/TADN/TADN198/rub.htm 01.07.2009. BEGGS, J. J., V. A. HAINES, et al. (1996). "Revisiting the Rural-Urban Contrast: Personal Networks in Nonmetropolitan and Metropolitan Settings". Rural Sociology 612: 306-25. BLTTEL-MINK, B. (2006). Kompendium der Innovationsforschung. Wiesbaden, VS Verlag fr Sozialwissenschaften. BLOM-ZANDSTRA, M. and J. HASSINK (2008). Een Nederlandse en Europese onderzoeksagenda voor zorglandbouw, Plant Research International, Wageningen. BGENHOLD, D. and J. MARSCHALL (2008). "Metapher, Methode, Theorie. Netzwerkforschung in der Wirtschaftssoziologie". C. STEGBAUER. Netzwerkanalyse und Netzwerktheorie. Ein neues Paradigma in den Sozialwissenschaften. Wiesbaden, VS Verlag fr Sozialwissenschaften: 387-400. BOGNER, A. and W. MENZ (2002). "Das theoriegenerierende Experteninterview Erkenntnisinteresse, Wissensform, Interaktion". A. BOGNER, B. LITTIG and W. MENZ. Das Experteninterview - Theorie, Methode, Anwendung. Opladen, Leske & Budrich 33 - 70. BOOTH T. and B. W. (2003). "In the frame: Photovoice and mothers with learning difficulties". Disability & Society 184: 431-442. BOURDIEU, P. (1999 ). Die feinen Unterschiede: Kritik der gesellschaftlichen Urteilskraft. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp. BOURDIEU, P. (2005). Die verborgenen Mechanismen der Macht. Hamburg, VSA Verlag. BRAASTAD, B. O., C. GALLIS, et al. (2007). A Multi-Disciplinary Scientific Network Cost Action 866 Green Care in Agriculture, Vienna, University Studio Press. BRAUN-THRMANN, H. (2005). Innovation. Bielefeld, trinscript. BUNDESMINISTERIUM FR LAND- UND FORSTWIRTSCHAFT, U. U. W., Ed. (2007). Grner Bericht, Wien. BUNDESMINISTERIUM FR LAND- UND FORSTWIRTSCHAFT, U. U. W., Ed. (2008). Grner Bericht, Bericht ber die Situation der sterrerichischen Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Wien. BUNDESMINISTERIUM FR LAND- UND FORSTWIRTSCHAFT, U. U. W., Ed. (2008). Lebensmittelbericht sterreich 2008: Wertschpfungskette, Agrarerzeugnisse - Lebensmittel und Getrnke, Wien. BUNDESMINISTERIUM FR LAND- UND FORSTWIRTSCHAFT, U. U. W., Ed. (2009). Grner Bericht: Bericht ber die Situation der sterreichischen Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Wien. BURT, R. (1982). Towards a structural theory of action. New York, Academic Press. 225

BURT, R. (1992). Structural Holes. The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. BURT, R. S. (1980). "Models of network structure". Annual Review of Sociology 6: 79-141. BURT, R. S. (1995). Structural holes: The Social Structure of Competition Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press. BURT, R. S. (1997). "A note on social capital and network content". Social Networks 19: 355373. CALLON, M. and G. BOWKER (1994). "Is Science a Public Good? Fifth Mullins Lecture, Virginia Polytechnic Institute ". Science, Technology & Human Values 194: 395-424. CARTWRIGHT, D. and F. HARARY (1956). "Structural balance. A generalization of Heider`s theory". Psychological Review 63: 277-293. CASTELLS, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Cambridge, Blackwell Publishers. CASTELLS, M. (2000). "Material for an exploratory theory of the network society". British Journal of Sociology 511: 5-24. COLEMAN, J. S. (1987). "Norms as Social Capital". E. OSTROM and T.-K. AHN. Foundations of Social Capital. Cheltenham, Glos, Elgar. COLEMAN, J. S. (1988). "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital". American Journal of Sociology 94: 95 -120. COLEMAN, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, Mass. COLEMAN, J. S. (1991). Grundlagen der Sozialtheorie: Band 1: Handlungen und Handlungssysteme Mnchen, Oldenbourg. COLEMAN, J. S., E. KATZ, et al. (1966). Medical innovation: A diffusion study. Indianapolis, BobbsMerrill. CRAMTON, C. D. (2001). "The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration". Organization Science 123: 246-372. DE NOOY, W., A. MRVAR, et al. (2005). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. Cambridge, Cambridge UP. DEIMER, K. and D. JAUFMANN (1984). "Selbsthilfe - eine alte Erscheinungsform in neuer Diskussion". Gruppendynamik 2: 123-140. DEMATTIO, L. and S. SCHOLL (2007). "On-Farm Animal-Assisted Therapy, Pedagogy, and Activities ". C. GALLIS. Green care in Agriculture: Health effects, Economics and Policies: Proceedings. Thessaloniki, University Studio Press 137-152. DESSEIN, J. (2008). "Introduction". J. DESSEIN. Farming for Health: Proceedings of the Community of Practice Farming for Health. Merelbeke, ILVO, Community of Practice Farming for Health: 11-23. DETH, J. W. V. (2003). "Measuring Social Capital: Orthodoxies and Continuing Controversies". International Journal of Social Research Methodology 61: 79-92. DI IACOVO, F. (2007). "Pathways of Change in Social Farming: How to Build New Policies". C. GALLIS. Green Care in Agriculture: Health Effects, Economics and Policies: Proceedings. Thessaloniki, University Studio Press: 55-66. DI IACOVO, F., S. V. SENNI, et al. (2006). "Farming for Health in Italy". J. HASSINK and M. VAN DIJK. Farming for Health: Green-Care Farming Across Europe and the United States of America. Dortrecht, Springer. DIECKMANN, A. (2001). Empirische Sozialforschung. Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen. Hamburg, Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH. DIECKMANN, A. (2007). Empirische Sozialforschung, Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen. Reinbek bei Hamburg, Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag. DIPPER, C. (2008). "Europische Agrargeschichte der Moderne: Eine Skizze". H. HOEBINK. Europische Geschichtsschreibung und europische Regionen: Historiographische Konzepte diesseits und jenseits der niederlndisch-deutschen/nordrhein-westflischen Grenze: Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur Nordwesteuropas. Germany, Waxmann: 99-124. 226

DRIEST, P. (2008). "Small group homes for elderly with dementia". J. DESSEIN. Farming for Health: Proceedings of the Community of Practice Farming for Health. Merelbeke, ILVO, Community of Practice Farming for Health: 107-112. DRIEST, P., F. (2006). "Long-term care in Europe: an introduction". J. HASSINK and M. VAN DIJK. Farming for Health: Green-Care Farming Across Europe and the United States of America. Dordrecht, Springer 101-108. DUTCH MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, N. A. F. Q. (2008). Facts and Figures 2008 of the Dutch Agri-sector. From http://www.minlnv.nl/portal/page?_pageid=116,1640360&_dad=portal&_schema= PORTAL&p_file_id=26009 03.08.2009. ELINGS, M. and J. HASSINK (2006). "Farming for Health in the Netherlands ". J. HASSINK and V. D. MAJKEN. Farming for Health, Green-Care Farming Across Europe and the United States of America. Dordrecht, Springer: 163-179. ELZEN, B., B. ENSERINK, et al. (1996). "Socio-Technical Networks: How a Technology Studies Approach May Help to Solve Problems Related to Technical Change". Social Studies of Science 261: 95-141. ENDERS-SLEGERS, M.-J. (2008). "Therapeutic farming or therapy on a farm?" J. DESSEIN. Farming for Health: Proceedings of the Community of Practice Farming for Health. Merelbeke, ILVO, Community of Practice Farming for Health: 37-44. FJELDAVLI, E. (2006). "The Lay Beliefs about Farming for Health". J. HASSINK and M. VAN DIJK. Farming for Health: Green - Care Farming Across Europe and the United States of America. Dordrecht, Springer: 73-90. FLICK, U. (2005). "Triangulation in der qualitativen Forschung". U. FLICK, E. VON KARDORFF and I. STEINKE. Qualitative Forschung, Ein Handbuch. Reinbek bei Hamburg, Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag. 4: 309-318. FLICK, U. (2007). Qualitative Sozialforschung: Eine Einfhrung. Reinbeck bei Hamburg, Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag. FLICK, U. (2009). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Los Angeles, SAGE. FOUCAULT, M. (1969). Wahnsinn und Gesellschaft: Eine Geschichte des Wahnsinns im Zeitalter der Vernunft. Frankfurt/Main, Suhrkamp Verlag. FROSCHAUER, U. (1992). Das qualitative Interview zur Analyse sozialer Aspekte. Wien, WUV Studienbcher. FUCHS-HEINRITZ, W. and A. KNIG (2005). Pierre Bourdieu: Eine Einfhrung. Konstanz, UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH. FUCHS-HEINRITZ, W. L., RDIGER, O. RAMMSTEDT, et al. (1995). Lexikon zur Soziologie. Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag GmbH. GERLICH, P., E. GRANDE, et al., Eds. (1983). Sozialpartnerschaft in der Krise - Leistungen und Grenzen des Neokorporatismus in sterreich Wien/Kln/Graz. GIDDENS, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge, Stanford University Press. GILLWALD, K. (2000). Konzepte sozialer Innovation. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin fr Sozialforschung. From http://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2000/p00-519.pdf. GRANOVETTER, M. S. (1973). "The Strength of Weak Ties". The American Journal of Sociology 78 6: 1360-1380. GRANOVETTER, M. S. (1985). "Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness". American Journal of Sociology 91: 481-510. GROYS, B. (1997). "Technik im Archiv: Die dmonische Logik technischer Innovation". G. BECHMANN and W. RAMMERT. Jahrbuch Technik und Gesellschaft: Innovation: Prozesse, Produkte, Politik. Frankfurt/Main, New York. 9: 15-32. HAIGH, R. (2007). "The View from the Other Side: how Green Care could help in mental health". C. GALLIS. Green care in Agriculture: Health effects, Economics and Policies: Proceedings. Thessaloniki, University Studio Press: 167-171. 227

HASSINK, J. and M. VAN DIJK (2006). "Farming for Health across Europe". J. HASSINK and M. VAN DIJK. Farming for Health: Green-Care Farming Across Europe and the United States of America Dordrecht, Springer: 347-357. HASSINK, J. and M. VAN DIJK (2006). Farming for Health: Green-care Farming Across Europe and the United States of America Dordrecht, Springer. HASSINK, J. and M. VAN DIJK, Eds. (2006). Farming for Health: Green-Care Farming Across Europe and the United States of America Dordrecht, Springer. HAUG, S. (1997). Soziales Kapital: Ein kritischer berblick ber den aktuellen Forschungsstand. Mannheimer Zentrum fr europische Sozialforschung. Arbeitsbereich II. Working papers. From http://www.mzes.uni-mannheim.de/publications/wp/wp2-15.pdf, 08.07.2009. HUSSLING, R. (2006). "Ein netzwerkanalytisches Vierebenenkonzept zur struktur- und akteursbezogenen Deutung sozialer Interaktionen ". B. HOLLSTEIN and F. STRAUS. Qualitative Netzwerkanalyse. Konzepte, Methoden, Anwendungen. Wiesbaden, VS fr Sozialwissenschaften: 100-125. HEGARTY, J. R. (2007). "How to be a Care-Farmer for 73: A Shareholder Survey of the Fordhall Community Land Initiative (UK)". C. GALLIS. Green care in Agriculture: Health effects, Economics and Policies: Proceedings. Thessaloniki, University Studio Press: 97-114. HERMANOWSKI, R. (2006). "Soziale Leistungen der Landwirtschaft ". kologie & Landbau 3: 14-16. HOFMANN, W. (2004). "Das Krankenhaus als therapeutische Institution". W. WERNER and O. BERNARDI. Lehrbuch der Krankenhauspsychiatrie: Psychiatrie im sozialen Kontext. Stuttgart, Schattauer. HOLLSTEIN, B. (2001). Grenzen sozialer Integration: Zur Konzeption informeller Beziehungen und Netzwerke. Opladen, Leske + Budrich. HOLLSTEIN, B. (2003). "Netzwerkvernderungen verstehen. Zur Integration von struktur- und akteurstheoretischen Perspektiven". Berliner Journal fr Soziologie 132: 153-175. HOLLSTEIN, B. (2006). "Qualitative Methoden und Netzwerkanalyse - ein Widerspruch?" BETINA HOLLSTEIN and F. STRAUS. Qualitative Netzwerkanalyse. Konzepte, Methoden, Anwendungen. Wiesbaden, VS Verlag fr Sozialwissenschaften: 11-36. HOPF, C. (1993). "Soziologie und qualitative Sozialforschung". C. HOPF and E. WEINGARTEN. Qualitative Sozialforschung. Stuttgart, Klett-Cotta. 3. JANSEN, D. (2000). "Netzwerke und soziales Kapital: Methoden zur Analyse struktureller Einbettung". J. WEYER. Soziale Netzwerke: Konzepte und Methoden der sozialwissenschaftlichen Netzwerkforschung. Mnchen, Oldenbourg Verlag: 35-62. JANSEN, D. (2002). "Netzwerkanstze in der Organisationsforschung". Klner Zeitschrift fr Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie special edition, 42: 88-118. JANSEN, D. (2006). Einfhrung in die Netzwerkanalyse: Grundlagen, Methoden, Forschungsbeispiele. Wiesbaden, VS Verlag fr Sozialwissenschaften/ GWV Fachverlage GmbH. JUNGBAUER-GANS, M. (2006). "Einleitende Betrachtungen zum Begriff Sozialkapital". E. GEHMACHER, S. KROISMAYR, J. NEUMLLER and M. SCHUSTER. Sozialkapital: Neue Zugnge zu gesellschaftlichen Krften. Budapest, Mandelbaum Verlag. 1: 17-43. KAHN, R. L. and T. C. ANTONUCCI (1980). "Convoys Over the Life Course: Attachment, Roles, and Social Support ". P. B. BALTES and O. G. J. BRIM. Life-Span Development and Behavior. New York Academic Press. 3, 253-286. KAPFERER, B. (1969). "Norms and the Manipulation of Relationships in a Work Context". C. MITCHELL. Social Networks in Urban Situations. Manchaster, Manchester University Press. KEMAN, H. (1993). "Politik der Mitte in den Niederlanden: Konsens und Kooperation ohne Politikproduktion". R. KLEINFELD and W. LUTHARDT. Westliche Demokratien und Interessensvermittlung: zur aktuellen Entwicklung nationaler Parteien- und Verbndesysteme. Marburg, Schren: 144-159. 228

KEMP, R., D. LOORBACH, et al. (2006). "Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development". M. M. ANDERSEN and A. TUKKER. Perspectives on Radical Changes to Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP). Denmark, Proceedings: Changes to Sustainable Consumption, 20-21 April 2006, Copenhagen, Denmark. Workshop of the Sustainable Consumption Research Exchange (SCORE!) Network (www.score-network.org). KLEINFELD, R. (1993). "Interessensvermittlung in der niederlndischen Verhandlungsdemokratie. Organisationen und Institutionen der sozio-konomischen Interessensvermittlung". R. KLEINFELD and W. LUTHARDT. Westliche Demokratien und Interessensvermittlung: zur aktuellen Entwicklung nationaler Parteien- und Verbndesysteme. Marburg, Schren. KNICKEL, K. and H. RENTING (2000). "Methodological and Conceptual Issues in the Study of Multifunctionality and Rural Development". Sociologia Ruralis 40, 4. KHLER, W. (1963). Inteligenzprfungen an Menschenaffen. Berlin, Springer. KHLER, W. (1963). Intelligenzprfungen an Menschenaffen. Berlin, Springer. KOWOL, U. (1998). Innovationsnetzwerke: Technikentwicklung zwischen Nutzungsvisionen und Verwendungspraxis. Wiesbaden, Deutscher Universitts-Verlag GmbH. KOWOL, U. and W. KROHN (2000). "Innovation und Vernetzung: Die Konzeption der Innovationsnetzwerke". J. WEYER. Soziale Netzwerke. Konzepte und Methoden der sozialwissenschaftlichen Netzwerkforschung. Mnchen, Oldenbourg Verlag: 135-160. KRACKHARDT, D. (1992). "The Strength of strong Ties: The Importance of Philos in Organizations". N. NITIN and R. G. ECCLES. Networks and Organizations: structure, form, and action. Boston, Harvard Buisness School Press: 216-239. KROEBER, A. L. (1923). Anthropology. London, Harrap. KROEBER, A. L. (1931). The Nature of Culture Chicago, University of Chicago Press. KROEBER, A. L. (1944). Configurations of Culture Growth. Berkeley, University of California Press. KVARDA, E. (2000). Urbane WaldbesitzerInnen: Einstellungen und Verhaltensdispositionen traditioneller und neuer WaldbesitzerInnen unter besonderer Bercksichtigung der Sanierung degradierter Waldkosysteme. Wien, Institut fr Soziokonomik der Forst- und Holzwirtschaft. LAMNEK, S. (1993). Qualitative Sozialforschung. Band 1: Methodologie. Weinheim, Beltz; Psychologie Verlags Union. LESSER, E. L. (2000). "Leveraging Social Capital in Organizations". E. L. LESSER. Knowledge and Social Capital. Boston, Butterworth Heinemann: 3-16. LEWICKI, R. J. and B. B. BUNKER (1996). "Developing and Maintaining Trust in Work Relationships ". R. M. KRAMER and T. R. TYLER. Trust in Organizations London, New Delhi, Thousand Oaks, SAGE Publications. LEWIN, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York, Mc Graw Hill. LEWIN, K. (1951). Field theory in the social sciences. New York, Harper. LIEBOLD, R. and R. TRINCZEK (2002). "Experteninterview". S. KHL and P. STRODTHOLZ. Methoden der Organisationsforschung - Ein Handbuch. Reinbek, Rowohlt 33-71. LINTON, R. (1936). The Study of Man: An Introduction. New York, Appleton. LINTON, R. (1940). Acculturation in Seven Indian Tribes. New York, Appleton. LOURY, G. C. (1977). "A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences". P. A. WALLACE and A. M. LAMOND. Woman, Minorities, and Employment Discrimination. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. MAIDIQUE, M. A. and B. J. ZIRGER (1985). "The new product learning cycle". Research Policy 14, 6: 299-313. MCGRATH, J. E. (1985). "Groups and the Innovation Process ". R. L. MERRITT and A. J. MERRITT. Innovation in the Public Sector. Beverly Hills, Sage: 63-84. MERTON, R. K. (1957). "The Role-Set: Problems in Sociological Theory". The British Journal of Sociology 82: 106-120. 229

MEUSER, M. and U. NAGEL (2002). ExpertInneninterviews - vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht. Ein Beitrag zur qualitativen Methodendiskussion. In: A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz (Hrsg.). Das Experteninterview. Opladen, Leske & Budrich. MITCHELL, J. C. (1969). "The Concept and Use of Social Networks". J. C. MITCHELL. Social Networks in Urban Situations. Manchaster, University of Manchester Press: 1-50. MORENO, J. L. (1934). Who shall survive? New York, Beacon Press. MORENO, J. L. (1954). Die Grundlagen der Soziometrie. Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag. NAHAPIET, J. and S. GHOSHAL (1998). "Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage". Academy of Management Review 23: 242-266. NEUBERGER, K. (2007). "The Correlation Effect of Horticultural Activities - The Influence of Working with Plants on Human Experiences". C. GALLIS. Green care in Agriculture: Health effects, Economics and Policies: Proceedings. Thessaloniki, University Studio Press: 153-166. OCONNOR, D. (2008). "Policies for Farming for Health - Partners or Enemies?" J. DESSEIN. Farming for Health: Proceedings of the Community of Practice Farming for Health. Merelbeke, ILVO, Community of Practice Farming for Health: 45-53. OGBURN, W. F. (1923). Social Change. With Respect to Culture and Original Nature. London, Allen & Unwin. OGBURN, W. F. (1957). "Cultural Lag as Theory". Sociology and Social Research 413: 167-174. OGBURN, W. F. (1957). On Culture and Social Change: Selected Papers. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. OLTMER, K. and V. GABE (2008). "Business development in care-farming in the Netherlands: On the right track and heading for further professionalisation". J. DESSEIN. Farming for Health: Proceedings of the Community of Practice Farming for Health. Merelbeke, ILVO, Community of Practice Farming for Health: 165-178. PARSONS, T. T. (1976). Zur Theorie sozialer Systeme. Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag. PELINKA, A. (1993). "sterreich: Vor einer Neukonstituierung des Parteienystems?" R. KLEINFELD and W. LUTHARDT. Westliche Demokratien und Interessensvermittlung: zur aktuellen Entwicklung nationaler Parteien- und Verbndesysteme. Marburg, Schren: 102-113. PELINKA, A. and F. PLASSER, Eds. (1988). Das sterreichische Parteiensystem. Wien. PUTNAM, R. D. (1995). "Bowling alone: America`s Declining Social Capital". Journal of Democracy 61: 65-78. PUTNAM, R. D. (1995). "Tuning In, Tuning Out: the Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America". Political Science and Politics XXVIII4: 664-683. QUINN PATTON, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif., SAGE. RADCLIFFE-BROWN, A. R. (1940). "On social structure." Journal of the Royal Anthropological Society of Great Britain and Ireland 70: 1-12. RAMMERT, W. and G. BECHMANN, Eds. (1997). Technik und Gesellschaft Jahrbuch 9: Prozesse, Produkte, Politik. Frankfurt/Main, Campus. RANDALL, A. (2002). "Valuing the outputs of multifunctional agriculture". European Review of Agriculture Economics 29: 289-307. RAPOPORT, A. and W. J. HORVATH (1961). "A study of a large sociogram". Behavioral Science 5: 279-291. RECKWITZ, A. (2003). "Grundelemente einer Theorie sozialer Praktiken: eine sozialtheoretische Perspektive". Zeitschrift fr Soziologie 324: 282-301. RELF, P.-D. (2006). "Theoretical Models for Research and Program Development in Agriculture and Health Care". J. HASSINK and M. VAN DIJK. Farming for Health: GreenCare Farming Across Europe and the United States of America. Dordrecht, Springer: 1-20. RENTING, H., H. OOSTINDIE, et al. (2008). "Multifunctionality of agricultural activities, changing rural identities and new institutional arrangements". International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 74/5: 361-385. 230

RIEMER, K. (2005). Sozialkapital und Kooperation: Zur Rolle von Sozialkapital im Management zwischenbetrieblicher Kooperationsbeziehungen. Tbingen, Mohr Siebeck. ROGERS, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York, London, Free Press, Collier Macmillan. SCHATZKI, T. (1996). Social Practices. A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. SCHEIBELHOFER, E. (2006). "Migration, Mobilitt und Beziehung im Raum: Egozentrierte Netzwerkzeichnungen als Erhebungsmethode". B. HOLLSTEIN and F. STRAUS. Qualitative Netzwerkanalyse. Konzepte, Methoden, Anwendungen Wiesbaden, VS Verlag fr Sozialwissenschaften: 311-332. SCHENK, M. (1984). Soziale Netzwerke und Kommunikation. Tbingen, Mohr. SCHMITTER, P. C. (1974). "The New Corporatism: Social and Political ". The Review of Politics 361. SCHROEDER, R. G., A. H. VAN DE VEN, et al. (1989). "The development of innovation ideas". A. H. VAN DE VEN, H. L. ANGLE and M. S. POOLE. Research on the management of innovation: The Minnesota studies New York, Ballinger/Harper & Row. : 107-134. SCHULER, Y. (2008). "The farm as a special environment for children with learning disabilities". J. DESSEIN. Farming for Health: Proceedings of the Community of Practice Farming for Health. Merelbeke, ILVO, Community of Practice Farming for Health. SCHUMPETER, J. (1939). Konjunkturzyklen. Eine theoretische, historische und statistische Analyse des kapitalistischen Prozesses. Gttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. SCHUMPETER, J. (1947). "The Creative Response in Economic History". The Journal of Economic History 72: 149-159. SCHUMPETER, J. (1993). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung: Eine Untersuchung ber Unternehmergewinn, Kapital, Kredit, Zins und den Konjunkturzyklus. Berlin, Duncker & Humblot. SCHUMPETER, J. A. (1928). Der Unternehmer. In: Handwrterbuch der Staatswissenschaften 8. SCHUMPETER, J. A. (1991). "Comments on a plan for the study of entrepreneurship". R. SWEDBERG. The Economics and Sociology of Capitalism. New York, Princeton University Press: 406-428. SCHTZE, F. (1983). "Biographieforschung und narratives Interview". Neue Praxis. Kritische Zeitschrift fr Sozialarbeit und Sozialpdagogik 13: 283-293. SCHTZE, F., W. MEINEFELD, et al. (1973). "Grundlagentheoretische Voraussetzungen methodisch kontrollierten Fremdverstehens ". A.-B. SOZIOLOGEN. Alltagswissen, Interaktion und gesellschaftliche Wirklichkeit: Symbolischer Interaktionismus und Ethnomethodologie. Reinbek bei Hamburg, Rowohlt. 2: 433-495. SCOTT, J. (2000). Network Analysis. A Handbook. London, SAGE. SCOTT, J. (2005). Social Network Analysis. A Handbook. London, SAGE. SEMPIK, J. (2007). "Selecting approaches and methods for researching green care for people with mental ill health: some results and observations from a pilot study". C. GALLIS. Green Care in Agriculture: Health Effects, Economics and Policies: Proceedings. Thessaloniki, University Studio Press: 83-96. SIMMEL, G. (1890). ber die Kreuzung sozialer Kreise. Leipzig, Duncker & Humblot. SIMMEL, G. (1950). The Sociology of Georg Simmel. New York, Free Press. SIMMEL, G. (1992). Soziologie. Untersuchungen ber die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp. SOFAR-RESEARCH-GROUP (2007). SoFar project, Report of the 1st Meeting of the European Platform on Social/Care Farming Report. From http://sofar.unipi.it/index_file/final%20report%201st%20EU%20platform.pdf, 23.07.2009. SPHRING, W. (1995). Qualitative Sozialforschung. Stuttgart, Teubner. 231

STATISTIK-AUSTRIA (2007). Arbeitsunflle und arbeitsbezogene Gesundheitsprobleme. From http://www.statistik.at/web_de/suchergebnisse/index.html, 27.09.2009. STATISTIK-AUSTRIA (2008). Bevlkerungsvorausschtzung. Schnellbericht. From http://www.statistik.at/web_de/dynamic/statistiken/bevoelkerung/demographische_ prognosen/publikationen?id=2&wwebcat=32&nodeld=206&frag=3&listid=32, 27.07.2009. STATISTIK-AUSTRIA (2009). Arbeitsmarktstatistik, Mikrozenzus-Arbeitskrfteerhebung. Schnellbericht. From http://www.statistik.at/web_de/statistiken/arbeitsmarkt/erwerbsstatus/index.html, 3. 08. 2010. STEGBAUER, C. (2008). "Netzwerkanalyse und Netzwerktheorie. Einige Anmerkungen zu einem neuen Paradigma". C. STEGBAUER. Netzwerkanalyse und Netzwerktheorie: Ein neues Paradigma in den Sozialwissenschaften. Wiesbaden, VS Verlag fr Sozialwissenschaften. 1: 11-19. STRAUSS, A. L. (1998). Grundlagen qualitativer Sozialforschung. Datenanalyse und Theoriebildung in der empirischen soziologischen Forschung. Mnchen, Wilhelm Fink Verlag GmbH & Co. KG. THOMAS, W. I. (1970 ). The child in America: Behavior problems and programs. New York, Johnson. THORNTON, P. H. (1999). "The Sociology of Entrepreneurship". Annual Review Sociology 25: 1946. VADNAL, K. and K. KOSMELJ (2006). "Social Services as Supplementary On-Farm Activity for Mentally Disabled People". J. HASSINK and M. VAN DIJK. Farming for Health: Green Care Farming Across Europe and the United States of America. Dordrecht, Springer: 57-72. VAN DE VEN, A. H. (1988). "Approaches to Innovation and Organizing". M. L. TUSHMAN and W. L. MOORE. Readings in the Management of Innovations. Cambridge, Ballenger. VAN DE VEN, A. H., D. E. POLLEY, et al. (1999). The Innovation Journey. New York, Oxford University Press. VAN DER PLOEG, J. D., Ed. (2002). Kleurrijk platteland: zicht op een nieuwe land- en tuinbouw Assen, Koninklijke Van Gorcum. VAN DIJK, F. (1997). Social Ties and Economic Performance. Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers. VAN ELSEN, T. (2008). "Social Farming in Europa: Soziale Landwirtschaft zwischen Marktsegment und gesellschaftlichem Wandel ". Lebendige Erde 2. VAN ELSEN, T., A. GNTHER, et al. (2006). "The contribution of care farms to landscapes of the future: a challenge of multifunctional agriculture". J. HASSINK and M. VAN DIJK. Farming for Health: Green-Care Farming Across Europe and the United States of America. Dordrecht, Springer: 91-100. VAN HUYLENBROECK, G., G. DURAND, et al. (2003). Multifunctional Agriculture: A New Paradigm for European Agriculture and Rural Development, Perspectives on rural policy and planning. Aldershot, Ashgate. VAN ZONNEVELD, R. F., S. OOSTING, et al. (2008). "Green Care farms for children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders". J. DESSEIN. Farming for Health: Proceedings of the Community of Practice Farming for Health. Merelbeke, ILVO, Community of Practice Farming for Health. WANG, C. (1998). "Photovoice involving homeless men and women of Washtenaw County, Michigan". Health Education and Behaviour 251: 9-10. WANG, C., J. CASH, et al. (2000). "Who knows the streets as well as the homeless?: Promoting personal and community action through photovoice". Health Promotion Practice 11: 8189. WANG, C., W. YI, et al. (1998). "Photovoice as a participatory health promotion strategy". Health Promotion International 131: 75-86. WASSERMAN, S. and K. FAUST (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 232

WELLMAN, B. (1988). "Structural analysis: from method and metaphor to theory and substance". B. WELLMAN and B. S. DAVID. Social structures: A Network Approach Cambridge, Mass Cambridge UP: 19-61. WELLMAN, B. (1992). How to Use SAS to Study Egocentric Networks. CAM. Newsletter. From http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications/sas/sas.pdf, 08.07.2009. WEYER, J. (2000). Soziale Netzwerke. Mnchen, Oldenbourg. WEYER, J. (2000). "Zum Stand der Netzwerkforschung in den Sozialwissenschaften ". J. WEYER. Soziale Netzwerke: Konzepte und Methoden der sozialwissenschaftlichen Netzwerkforschung. Mnchen, Oldenbourg Verlag: 1-34. WHITE, H. C., S. BOORMAN, A.,, et al. (1976). "Social structures from multiple networks ". American Journal of Sociology 814: 730-780. WIESINGER, G. (1991). Behinderte in der Landwirtschaft, Zwischen Resignation und Behauptung. Wien Bundesanstalt fr Bergbauernfragen. WIESINGER, G. (2000). "Der Wandel in der buerlichen Welt, Ergebnisse vergleichender Untersuchungen in sterreich". A. E.V. Der kritische Agrarbericht. Der kritische Agrarbericht. Daten, Berichte, Hintergrnde, Positionen zur Agrardebatte. Kassel: 218-224. WIESINGER, G., F. NEUHAUSER, et al. (2006). "Farming for Health in Austria". J. HASSINK and M. VAN DIJK. Farming for Health: Green-Care Farming Across Europe and the United States of America. WILSON, T. P. (1973). "Theorien der Interaktion und Modelle soziologischer Erklrung". A.-B. SOZIOLOGEN. Alltagswissen, Interaktion und gesellschaftliche Wirklichkeit. . Reinbeck bei Hamburg, Rowohlt. 1: 54-79. WIRTSCHAFTSKAMMER-STERREICH (2009). Flche und Bevlkerung. From http://www.wko.at/statistik/eu/europa-bevoelkerung.pdf, 03.08. 2009. WITZEL, A. (1982). Verfahren der qualitativen Sozialforschung: berblick und Alternativen. Frankfurt/Main, New York, Campus Verlag.

233