Implementation of Care Farming Programs for Disabled People

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 member’s 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 Bingen’s 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 dissertation’s 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.
8

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

5.2 Characteristics and differences in terms of the political culture of Austria and the
Netherlands.................................................................................................................................................97
5.3 Characteristics and differences in terms of agriculture.....................................................101
5.4 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 The Dutch development of care farming..................................................................111
5.5.2 The Austrian development of care farming..............................................................115
5.6 Case profiles............................................................................................................................120
5.6.1 Socio demographic and business related characteristics of the case profiles.......120
5.6.2 Categorisation and characteristics of groups of care farmers in terms of social
capital .........................................................................................................................................123
6 The Innovation Process, Characteristics and Needs from Care Farmers’ Perspective ........133
6.1 Characteristics of the initiation period................................................................................135
6.1.1 Prehistories and motifs for starting up a care farm .................................................135
6.1.2 Obtained and needed forms of support and of social capital ................................137
6.2 Characteristics of the developmental period......................................................................145
6.2.1 Perceived problems and challenges when developing a care farming project .....145
6.2.2 The role of social capital in order to cope with the demand to professionalize..149
6.2.3 The role of social capital in order to cope with business questions......................153
6.2.4 Supporters and obtained and needed forms of support when developing the care
farming project .........................................................................................................................................161
6.3 Characteristics of the implementation period....................................................................169
6.3.1 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 Supporters and obtained and needed forms of support when implementing care
farming .........................................................................................................................................176
6.4 Adoption or termination of the project and relevant circumstances .............................181
6.4.1 Terminators’ circumstances and obtained forms of support and of group social
capital .........................................................................................................................................181
6.4.2 Adopters’ circumstances and obtained forms of support.......................................186
7 Resume and Final Conclusions .....................................................................................................191
8 Appendix ..........................................................................................................................................199
8.1 Care farmer interview guideline ...........................................................................................201
8.2 Short questionnaire care farmer...........................................................................................210
8.3 Expert interview guideline ....................................................................................................212
8.4 Interview appendix – Protocol.............................................................................................216
10

8.5 Operationalisation of forms of social capital.....................................................................218
8.6 List of abbreviations..............................................................................................................221
8.7 List of tables ...........................................................................................................................222
8.8 List of figures..........................................................................................................................224
8.9 Literature.................................................................................................................................225
11

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 FÜR LAND- UND
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 FÜR 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 FÜR 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

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 client-oriented
16
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

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

21
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 people’s rehabilitation or care and/or
contributing towards the integration of people with ‘low contractual capacity’. (SOFAR-RESEARCH-GROUP
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).

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 HASSINK’S AND VAN DIJK’S 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 animal-related
22
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 Number % of total
The Netherlands 700 0.7
Italy 350 0.01
Germany 170 0.03
Flanders 260 0.4
Ireland 90 0.08
Slovenia 20 <0.01
France >1200 >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. SOFAR-

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 farmer’s 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

25
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 19th 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).

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 Güterlsoher 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 self-discovery.
26
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. VAN
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.

27
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 well-arranged
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).

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
Adelwöhrerhof 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 farmer’s family system. This new
approach focuses on a fruitful connection of modern therapeutic knowledge and that of long-term
28
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.

29
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, GÜNTHER 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).
1 http://www.sofar-d.de/
2 http://www.umb.no/greencare/
3 http://www.farmingforhealth.org/

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 (O´CONNOR 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
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. IBID. 2000, 8).
Nevertheless, examples of social innovations are the environmental movement, marital life
partnership, assembly-line work, fast food chains or the social insurance (cf. IBID. 2000, 3-4).
Furthermore, social innovation can be illustrated by listing contrasting characteristics of technical
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. BLÄTTEL-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

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 self-identity
34
(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).

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:
36
“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.

39
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 VEN’S (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 entrepreneur’s
features, whereas the demand–side perspective considers influencing factors from the
surrounding of a founder of new ventures. She recommends combining both by applying for

instance, “[…] sociological frameworks, an embeddedness perspective […]” etc. (cf. IBID. 1999,
41). The terms innovation and entrepreneurship as well as the perspective on a collective or individual
leads to Schumpeter, whose research was fundamental for the sociology of innovation.
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-THÜRMANN 2005, 38). Economic and
sociological views are combined by Schumpeter’s theory; innovation processes are characterised
by “cycles” and “phases” (cf. BRAUN-THÜRMANN 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. BRAUN-THÜRMANN
40
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-THÜRMANN 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-THÜRMANN 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

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 DE VEN, POLLEY et al. 1999, 23). However, VAN DE
VEN, POLLEY ET AL. (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-THÜRMANN 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 individual’s 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 KÖHLER (1963), was a countermovement to the behaviouristic stimulus
response models prevalent in those days for learning and behavior research. KÖHLER (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 70’s, 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:
46
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 Burt’s 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

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 BÖGENHOLD 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.
BÖGENHOLD 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 network’s 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

49
Actor aggregation in a unit of analysis
Analytical Approaches
Multiple actors/
Actor Multiple actors as subgroups as a
a network subgroup structured system
Relational personal network primary group as a system structure as
as extensive, dense network clique: a set dense and/or
and/or multiplex of actors connected transitive
by cohesive relations
Positional occupant of a status/role-set as a system structure as a
network position as network position: a set stratification of
central and/or of structurally equiva- status/role-sets
prestigious lent actors
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
actor’s position in a system of actors. The relational approach fosters models in which an actor’s
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

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
50
[…][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)

Implementation of Care Farming Programs for Disabled People

Implementation of Care Farming Programs for Disabled People

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a Implementation of Care Farming Programs for Disabled People

Semelhante a Implementation of Care Farming Programs for Disabled People (20)

Mais de School Vegetable Gardening - Victory Gardens

Mais de School Vegetable Gardening - Victory Gardens (20)

Último

Último (20)

Implementation of Care Farming Programs for Disabled People