# Identifying agroecological transition pathways based on the global approach to agricultural systems: the case of family livestock farmers in northern Uruguay

Inés Ferreira Rivaben, Virginia Rossi, Mercedes Figari, Eduardo Chia

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Inés Ferreira Rivaben, Virginia Rossi, Mercedes Figari, Eduardo Chia. Identifying agroecological transition pathways based on the global approach to agricultural systems: the case of family livestock farmers in northern Uruguay. Agrociencia Uruguay, 2023, 27, pp.e1069. 10.31285/agro.27.1069. hal-04120499

HAL Id: hal-04120499

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04120499

Submitted on 7 Jun 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# Identifying agroecological transition pathways based on the Global Approach to Agricultural Systems: the case of family livestock farmers in northern Uruguay

## Identificación de los caminos de la transición agroecológica a partir del Enfoque Global de Explotación Agropecuaria: el caso de los ganaderos familiares del norte del Uruguay

## Identificação de vias de transição agroecológica com base na Abordagem Global da Exploração Agrícola: o caso dos criadores de gado familiares no norte do Uruguai

Ferreira Rivaben, I.<fnref n="1" />; Rossi, V.<fnref n="2" />; Figari, M.<fnref n="3" />; Chia, E.<fnref n="4" />

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

## Editor

José María Paruelo

Instituto Nacional de Investigación

Agropecuaria (INIA), Área agroecología,

Colonia, Uruguay

Received 10 Jul 2022

Accepted 19 Apr 2023

Published 06 Jun 2023

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

## Correspondence

Inés Ferreira Rivaben
inesfriv@fagro.edu.uy

## Abstract

Agroecology represents one of the main alternatives to production models generated by the green revolution, both in Uruguay and other countries. It appears as a response to climate change, biodiversity management, nature resource restoration, and, more recently, as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. In Uruguay, agroecology is marginal despite the existence of a law for a National Plan to Encourage Production with Agroecological Bases since 2018. Moreover, research on agroecological transition processes is very incipient. This study aims to identify agroecological practices and possible transition paths towards agroecology of family livestock farmers in northern Uruguay. The methodology used focuses the study on technical, social and organizational practices, allowing access to the operation scheme and understanding the decision-making processes in family-type production systems. The socio-productive practices revealed in the research allowed the elaboration of a typology that represents possible ways for these livestock farmers to move towards agroecological production and management of their farms. The results of this study can be used to strengthen processes of conception or co-conception by selecting and disseminating innovation with actions and public policies closer to farmers.

**Keywords:** agroecological transition, biodiversity management, family farming, global methods, socio-productive practice

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="1">¹Universidad de la República, Facultad de Agronomía, Estación Experimental Facultad de Agronomía Salto (EEFAS), Salto, Uruguay</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Universidad de la República, Facultad de Agronomía, Estación Experimental "Mario A. Cassinoni" (EEMAC), Paysandú, Uruguay</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Universidad de la República, Centro Universitario Noreste, Instituto de Desarrollo Innovación e Inclusión Social, Tacuarembó, Uruguay</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Institut National de la Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement (INRAE), UMR Innovation, Montpellier, France</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

## Resumen

La agroecología representa una de las principales alternativas a modos de producción generados por la revolución verde, tanto en Uruguay como en otros países. Aparece como una respuesta al cambio climático, a la gestión de la biodiversidad y a la restauración de los recursos naturales; y más recientemente como respuesta a la crisis de la pandemia COVID-19. En Uruguay la agroecología, a pesar de que existe una Ley de Plan Nacional para el Fomento de la Producción con Bases Agroecológicas desde 2018, es marginal y la investigación sobre procesos de transición agroecológica es muy incipiente. El objetivo de este trabajo es identificar prácticas agroecológicas y posibles caminos de transición hacia la agroecología de los ganaderos familiares del norte uruguayo utilizando una metodología que se centra en el estudio de las prácticas técnicas, sociales y organizativas, lo cual permite acceder al esquema de funcionamiento y comprender los procesos de toma de decisiones en los sistemas de producción de tipo familiar. Las prácticas socio-productivas evidenciadas en la investigación permitieron elaborar una tipología que representa posibles caminos por los cuales estos ganaderos transitan hacia una producción y gestión agroecológica de las explotaciones. Los resultados de este estudio pueden ser utilizados para fortalecer procesos de concepción o de co-concepción, a través de la selección y difusión de innovaciones con acciones y políticas públicas más cercanas a los productores.

**Palabras clave:** agricultura familiar, gestión de la biodiversidad, métodos globales, prácticas socio-productivas, transición agroecológica

## Resumo

A agroecologia representa uma das principais alternativas aos modos de produção gerados pela revolução verde, tanto no Uruguai como em outros países. Aparece como uma resposta às alterações climáticas, à gestão da biodiversidade e à restauração dos recursos naturais; e mais recentemente como uma resposta à crise pandêmica da COVID-19. No Uruguai, a agroecologia é marginal, apesar da existência de uma Lei do Plano Nacional para a Promoção da Produção de Base Agroecológica desde 2018, e a investigação sobre processos de transição agroecológica é muito incipiente. O objetivo deste trabalho é identificar práticas agroecológicas e possíveis vias de transição para a agroecologia dos criadores de gado familiares no norte do Uruguai, utilizando uma metodologia centrada no estudo das práticas técnicas, sociais e organizacionais, que permite o acesso ao esquema de funcionamento e a compreensão dos processos de tomada de decisão em sistemas de produção de tipo familiar. As práticas socio-produtivas reveladas pela investigação permitiram elaborar uma tipologia que representa as possíveis formas de evolução destes criadores de gado para a produção e gestão agro-ecológica das suas explorações. Os resultados deste estudo podem ser utilizados para reforçar os processos de concepção ou co-concepção, através da seleção e divulgação de inovações com ações e políticas públicas mais próximas dos produtores.

**Palabras-chave:** agricultura familiar, gestão da biodiversidade, métodos globais, prácticas socio-produtivas, transición agroecológica

# 1. Introduction

The development of agroecology as a scientific field has allowed identifying the fundamental ecological principles to design and manage agroecosystems that maintain productivity attributes, while preserving natural resources, that are socially and economically viable, and also culturally sensitive(1). In Uruguay and many countries it arises as an alternative to the forms of production based on the green revolution(2) as a response to climate change(3); as a contribution to the management of biodiversity and the restoration of natural resources(4), and more recently as a response to the pandemic crisis caused by SARS-CoV-2(5). From the development and expansion of agroecology, new fields of knowledge have emerged that delve into the agronomic, social, economic and physical impacts, as well as on animal and human health. These changes are related

both to altering the regulation of nature's biological cycles and to ways of organizing, forming alliances, and innovating(6-7).

Faced with this situation, politicians, journalists and scientists started talking about agroecological transition (AT). Some authors consider AT as a concept or notion; Venegas and others(8), for example, suggest defining it "as a process that aims to restore agroecological principles within the operation of an agroecosystem, under a dynamic conservation perspective, where practices and techniques typical of traditional systems can be combined with modernizing elements that help the operation of efficient production systems, capable of generating reliable and safe products, that protect the health of farmers and the environment, and that may have insertion in markets that increasingly value the effects of food on health".
For other authors, such as Tittonell(9), Chia and An-
geon(10), AT is an object of study, and this is the line
that the study follows and pretends to contribute to.
Therefore, this research refers to AT as a study
case. As a set of processes, practices, and simulta-
neous paths at different scales, levels and dimen-
sions, combining actions at the level of both trophic
structures of soil communities and families in the ru-
ral environment with their roles and responsibili-
ties(10-11) with those transformations at the socio-
technical, political and cultural level in the territo-
ries(11-13). It must be considered, on the other hand,
that AT is a phenomenon “situated” (in time and
space), which means that the implementation of a
new way of production depends on local natural and
immaterial resources, and on the current situation
and objectives of the families that frame their deci-
sions to determine projects and paths towards
transformation(10), without forgetting the organiza-
tional and governance forms(12).

In this regard, to study the ongoing transitions it is
essential to understand the rationality and function-
ing of farms to co-conceive new production sys-
tems, new organizations, new advice and support
systems, new public policies. This implies a meth-
odological challenge; it means developing systemic
approaches, valuing the articulation of knowledge
and synergizing local and scientific knowledge so as
to relearn to learn, through individual and collective
dynamics that arise as a source of adaptation to lo-
cal innovation situations(14-15). Also, it means pro-
moting participatory approaches, research-action or
research-intervention, where producers participate
from the diagnostic phase to the evaluation phase,
through the implementation of new practices to-
gether with researchers to create actionable
knowledge(16).

The term *agroecology* today means either a scien-
tific discipline, an approach to agricultural practice
or a political and social movement. These three di-
mensions are usually closely linked(17). The imple-
mentation of the agroecological approach presents,
as one of its conceptual bases, the issue of
knowledge hybridization developing interdiscipli-
nary studies and with local actors. Regarding the im-
portance of hybridizing scientific knowledge with lo-
cal knowledge<fnref n="1" />, authors such as Gaglio(18), Akirch(19)
and Callon(20) highlight the importance of scientific
and empirical knowledge in innovation processes.
Alter(21), meanwhile, points out that local knowledge
also allows for innovation.

Agroecology is part of a set of new approaches to
agricultural development that vindicate the im-
portance of stakeholders participating and being di-
rectly involved in innovation processes, since this is
how local knowledge and the most advanced scien-
tific knowledge are mobilized together(11). How to do
this mobilization, how to innovate? Meynard(7) be-
lieves that agroecology has as its implicit objective
that each producer designs his production system
taking into account his family situation and his natu-
ral resources; promoting that actors of each territory
organize to adjust the management of local re-
sources. This allows food system actors to adapt
their methods of production, processing and con-
sumption, depending on the diversity of their pur-
poses as a family.

This objective invites us to learn how producers de-
cide and therefore how to study the decisions made
by families. Several French researchers, such as
Brossier and others(22), and Chia and others(23), pro-
pose that through the study of practices it is possible
to identify the family producers' rationalities in use
and not the theoretical models (justification). This
makes it possible to understand decisions and build
a decisional, operational and strategic modeling of
farms, building more comprehensive models of ac-
tion(22-23).

There are methodologies, such as the Global Ap-
proach to Agricultural Systems (GAAS), which have
originated as a response to the need to "dialogue"
with producers and to facilitate relationships be-
tween researchers and producers(16). As detailed
below, this methodology has been known and ap-
plied in Uruguay for more than 20 years(24). Due to
its comprehensive framework based on the study of
producers' practices, this research suggested stud-
ying innovation processes and AT in the country.
Since one of our hypotheses related to AT is that
there are several paths and that these depend on
the situation and the producers' projects, the study
was oriented to test the relevance of the GAAS as
an instrument that allows demonstrating the ration-
ality and operation of the farms, in this case in the
decision-making processes associated with AT. In
this way, identifying the different paths of the AT set
in Uruguay and for which producers need to be sup-
ported based on their practices.

There are 21,657 family farms in the country<fnref n="1" />, rep-
resenting almost half of the total farms, considering
that the number of total farms at the national level
was 44,781 in 2011(25). Cattle (meat or milk) or

<footnote n="1">¹Various authors refer to hybridizations of scientific knowledge with other types of knowledge, ordinary or profane.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹According to the MGAP, family producers are those who meet the following requirements: residence on the property or no</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

sheep (meat and wool) is the main production for 65.4% of family farmers, most of them on a natural field forage basis(25) (Figure 1). On the other hand, the law on the National Agroecology Plan (called "Plan Nacional para el fomento de la producción con bases agroecológicas") was adopted in 2018, promoted by the Agroecology Network, the Creole

and Native Seeds Network, and the Latin American Society of Agroecology(26). The purpose of this law is to strengthen food sovereignty and security and the agroecological production system, focusing on the family agricultural producer, and urban and sub-urban agricultural production systems.

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Livestock landscapes from northern Uruguay
Picture 1: Dept. Tacuarembó, sandstones, year 2019. Picture 2: Dept. Tacuarembó, shallow basalt, year 2019</figcaption></figure>

In particular, the lifestyle of livestock families and their relationship with nature and the landscape are characteristics of a culture and tradition that prevail in decision-making(27), and that can act as driving forces of change(13). For this reason, it is especially important to understand the decision-making processes within families and to be able to support the AT of this type of producer.

Various researches on family farming in Uruguay analyze the question of its social, economic and ecological sustainability(28-31). However, few studies have been interested in the role played by the technical and organizational practices of Uruguayan family producers in the dynamics of AT, not only at the level of agricultural production but also livestock. Particularly in family farming, the strategic importance of researches that allow a better understanding of the producers' management and conservation of the natural field, and how to generate changes through collaborative work between technicians and family producers was pointed out already in 2014(3)(31).

Responding to this challenge, this article presents, as the main objective of the research, the results obtained from the use of the GAAS methodology as a tool to identify agroecological practices and transition paths that family livestock producers in

northern Uruguay are experiencing. First, the methodology is presented, which focuses on the study of technical, social and organizational practices, to access the operating scheme and understand the decision-making processes in family-type production systems. Secondly, the results of the case studies are presented, which are discussed emphasizing the paths that can lead family producers toward an agroecological transition, testing a typology proposal. The conclusions take stock of the relevance of the methodology to identify socio-productive practices in the different types of family producers and for the implementation of processes of conception, selection and dissemination of innovations. The study ends with a reflection on the National Agroecology Plan and the contributions of the study to the elaboration of public policies that accompany producers who enter the virtuous circle of agroecology.

## 2. Material and methods

### 2.1 General approach of the research: agroecology from a practical point of view

Research on agroecology poses two major challenges: a methodological one, that is, how to study and analyze it through the socio-productive

<footnote>more than 50 km from it; not having more than 500 ha CONEAT 100 index (soil productivity index); mainly family</footnote>

<footnote>labor (no more than two employees); most of the net family income must come from the agricultural farm.</footnote>
practices of producers; and a theoretical challenge, that is, generating actionable knowledge about the mechanisms of action of producer families allowing them to advance in a transition(32).

The Theory of Adaptive Behavior of producers seems to be a relevant conceptual and theoretical framework to study the decision-making processes linked to the phenomenon of AT, since it allows a global and dynamic approach to the decision models of producers(23). The theory uses the concept of the Family-Exploitation System (FES) and considers the farm and the family as a complex system (an organized whole) that does not respond to simple and uniform optimization criteria(33). Acting as a particular species of collective subject and not as a simple aggregate of individuals, the family component is relevant to articulate the different logics present in the family-exploitation system, where work and family are deeply intertwined(34). In particular, it focuses on the decisions of family producers (How are decisions made? What are the determinants of such decisions?), and makes it possible to understand the operation of family farms(23). It is based on a pos- tulate of coherence that can be summarized in the idea that producers have “reasons” to do what they do, and in the notions of purpose, project, situation

and perception(22). For these researchers, although the family determines the available workforce and the level of consumption needs, the decisions taken are, at the same time, the expression of a project and a situation. The project is defined as a complex set of objectives more or less hierarchical, not de- void of contradictions, but susceptible to evolu- tion(22).

From the methodological point of view, the interest- ing thing about this approach is that only from the producers' practices ("what they do": their actions) can their vision be inferred ("what they seek": their projects, purposes), and the perception they have about their objectives and their situation, under- standing their decisions, needs and, from there, building a decisional, operational and strategic mod- eling.

As shown in Figure 2, there are two levels of action in the FES: that of the conceptual elaboration of de- cisions (decision system), and that of tangible oper- ations (operating system), which function is to guar- antee physical operations (actions)(35). The opera- tion of a farm is considered as chaining, at a given time, of decision-making in a set of actions (in their management practices) in view of fulfilling one or many objectives.

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2. Conceptual outline used to construct the strategic operating model of a case study of a family livestock producer</figcaption></figure>

Source: 2021 S. Cairus; unreferenced.
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

From a systemic approach, through the GAAS it is intended to understand the operation of the FES by answering the question "how does the farm work?" Three intermediate questions are posed: what does the system do?, to try to describe (practical) actions and results; how does it do it?, understanding its organization and its capacity for regulation, and finally, why does it do it?, looking for the family purposes and the perception of the environment(16).

Particularly, this study tries to describe socio-productive practices, understanding them as those concrete actions by which the producer and his family operate the farm, adapting the FES to internal and external changes (environment), in order to achieve the objectives set. It evidences what they do (their actions), what they respect in all their actions (their rules), and what they try to achieve in their life and work (their goals or purposes)(36). Therefore, the interesting thing about the strategy is to see how the path is organized and how the management measures are modified while moving forward on that path and adapting according to the means available. That is, how producers produce, reproduce, and transform the ways of conceiving and evaluating things and actions that assure them, more or less, the management of their activities(36)

In Uruguay, this methodology has been used, since the 2000s, by a teaching team of the Experimental Station Dr. Mario A. Cassinoni of the Agronomy College, Universidad de la República, in the university program of territorial intervention, to study the socio-productive practices of family dairy and livestock producers, where the GAAS was not only part of the diagnosis, but also part of an academic cooperation project where the research was carried out by French students(16)(37). Since 2004, the methodology has also been successfully applied by

technicians of the Instituto Plan Agropecuario(38), the main extension institute for livestock producers in the country.

## 2.2 Field Device

The application of the GAAS methodology to the theoretical sample of 9 cases of family farmers presented in this article constitutes the first part of the methodological device of an important research carried out from the qualitative paradigm, which combined different techniques in a second stage, such as focus groups and interviews with technicians and farmers.

The case studies are located in the region of influence of the Experimental Station of the Agronomy College in the department of Salto (ESACS), whose forage base is the natural field. Initially, exploratory interviews were conducted with qualified informants to select case studies, considering livestock families in different phases of the life cycle and that the initiatives to change their management practices were compatible with agroecological transition processes (for example, the use of bio-inputs and various practices of conservation of the natural field). The selected livestock families had as their main item the production of beef or sheep meat (individually or collectively) and different secondary items (dairy, wool, pigs, chickens) (Table 1). The proposal of Chia(39) was used to characterize their life cycle, which considers that the decisions families make in their FES can vary according to their life stage, either a starting or installation phase or transition, consolidation, and decline of the FES (with or without takeover). Regarding the territorial location, Cases 1 to 4 are located in the department of Tacuarembó on sandy soils, and Cases 5 to 9 are in the department of Salto on superficial basalt soils (Figure 3).

<table><caption>Table 1. Selected cases in the north of the country</caption><thead><tr><th>Department</th><th>Case</th><th>Item</th><th>Phase of the family-exploitation life cycle</th><th>Agricultural area of the family (ha)</th><th>Agricultural area of associative management (ha)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">Tacuarembó</td><td>1</td><td>Cattle breeding and rearing, dairy farming</td><td>Consolidation</td><td>10</td><td>536</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Cattle breeding and rearing</td><td>Declination without takeover</td><td>4</td><td>536</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Cattle breeding, sheep (meat and wool)</td><td>Transition</td><td>374</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Cattle breeding and rearing, dairy farming</td><td>Declination with takeover</td><td>343</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Salto</td><td>5</td><td>Cattle breeding and rearing, sheep (meat and wool)</td><td>Consolidation</td><td>462</td><td>760</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Cattle breeding, sheep (meat and wool)</td><td>Consolidation</td><td>131</td><td>760</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Cattle breeding, sheep (meat and wool)</td><td>Transition</td><td>123</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Cattle breeding and rearing, sheep (meat and fine wool)</td><td>Consolidation</td><td>491</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Cattle breeding, sheep (meat and wool)</td><td>Beginning of takeover</td><td>295</td><td>n/a</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3. Territorial location of case studies in northern Uruguay*</figcaption></figure>

*The map indicates the two rural organizations in which the livestock families participate (selected cases).

Source: 2021 S. Cairus; unreferenced.

Fieldwork was carried out by the main investigator and between May and October 2019. In much of this stage, two people participated in each visit, since a foreign researcher in the process of postdoctoral training joined as an observer. Before starting the application of the methodology, each family was visited as an introduction and to deliver documentation and an invitation to collaborate in the research. The application of the GAAS implied at least three visits

to each exploitation and the preparation of monographs for each case. These monographs included the schemes of strategic functioning that were validated by each family on the last visit. The methodological itinerary presented in Figure 4 was broadly followed. An expanded description of the steps to follow for the application of the GAAS can be found in Chia and others(16).

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4. Methodological itinerary of the three visits of the GAAS, sequence stages 1 to 7</figcaption></figure>

Source: Adapted from Marshall and others(35)
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

As a result of the collaborative work with families, these schemes allowed identifying the practices, rules and purposes of each FES. In Figure 5, as an example of how a scheme of operation of the FES is built, a flowchart can be observed that starts from the decisions on the operating system, where the arrows indicate the correspondence of the (practical) actions, which respond to rules and these to family purposes.

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5. Operation scheme of the Family-Farm System</figcaption></figure>

Source: Marshall and others(35)

## 3. Results and discussion

Firstly, the results of the comparative analysis of the strategic operating models are presented, and secondly, the typology constructed based on the identification of common practices among farmers is discussed.

Based on the strategic functioning models developed for the 9 case studies, it was possible to systematize and understand the purposes, rules and actions of each family, and also identify which practices could be associated with the AT process. Table 2 highlights (in italics) those rules that are linked to practices compatible with AT processes, one of the selection criteria for livestock families; they will be considered to build an analysis typology presented in this section.

<table><caption>Table 2. Systematization of strategic operating models for each study case</caption><thead><tr><th>Cases</th><th>Purposes</th><th>Rules</th><th>Actions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>Tacuarembó</strong></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">1</td><td>Prioritize children education</td><td>Provide formal education to children</td><td>Self-consumption</td></tr><tr><td>Maintain a family lifestyle</td><td>Maintain different sources of income</td><td>Benefit from endogenous resources</td></tr><tr><td>Have autonomy as family livestock producers</td><td>Training<br>Diversify production<br>Optimize available resources (labor, natural resources, knowledge)<br>Collectively produce, manage and commercialize</td><td>Feed livestock based on grasslands, greenery and natural field (NF)<br>Carry out rotary grazing<br>NF feed for rearing and livestock<br>Using biopesticide for ticks</td></tr><tr><td>Building a legacy</td><td>Generating opportunities and seizing them</td><td>NF feed for rearing and livestock</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">2</td><td>Being a family farmer</td><td>Being a model<br>Supporting the family "without being employee"<br>Organize with other producers</td><td>Using biopesticide for ticks</td></tr><tr><td>Having autonomy as family producers</td><td>Producing feed for animals in a sustainable way</td><td>Performing Voisin Rational Grazing</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">3</td><td>Developing a unique sustainable way of production</td><td>Ensuring the health of bovine and ovine rodeos</td><td>Feed animals based on NF</td></tr><tr><td>Maintaining a simple and free lifestyle</td><td>Training<br>Flexible commercialization<br>Minimizing time and work expenses<br>Ecological rationality<br>Make the most of local resources<br>The landscape defines part of the production strategies</td><td>Using alternatives for healthcare: homeopathy, biocontrol</td></tr><tr><td>Provide conditions for the children to build their own paths</td><td>Stimulate and collaborate with the independence of the children</td><td>Use preventive reproductive and health treatments<br>Rotation of tick sanitary products: vaccines, synthetic acaricides, biopesticide for ticks</td></tr><tr><td>Being a family livestock producer</td><td>Year-round income. Flexible commercialization</td><td>Rotating paddocks to rest and seed<br>Complement the management of NF: two plots, one with winter pastures, and another with summer ones.</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td></td><td>Training<br>The production, family sustenance<br>Believing in collaborative work to expand productive resources</td><td>Controlling weeds by grazing, avoiding the use of chemicals</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>Cases</th><th>Purposes</th><th>Rules</th><th>Actions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td><strong>Salto</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Being family farmers<br>Ensure and prioritize children's education<br>Having a "better" life for the family: a consequence of a trajectory of struggle and resilience</td><td>Year-round income<br>Stimulate, and support the children's training<br>Believing in associative processes<br>Optimize available resources, low-cost management improvements<br>Openness to change and innovation</td><td>Adjusting animal load according to grass availability (NF)<br>Rotating paddocks with animals as a way to control parasitosis<br>Crossbreeding sheep to improve fineness and body<br>Selling organic meat</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td></td><td>Year-round income<br>Not taking risks<br>Preserving and improving the family exploitation<br>Optimize own resources, infrastructure improvements and low-cost management<br>Support training and peer exchange</td><td>Rotation of mixed rodeo paddocks by animal category, to improve grass availability<br>Feeding animals based on NF and improved NF</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Being family farmers<br>Improve the quality of life in the countryside by supporting traditions and social relationships</td><td>Diversification of production<br>Not taking risks: work on what is known and has always been done<br>Ensure income for most of the year<br>The countryside: a lifestyle for the family<br>Supporting social and family relationships as part of life in the countryside</td><td>Feed cattle and sheep breeding based on NF<br>Feeding Ram in Lotus Prairie<br>Paddock rotation to control NF growth<br>Self-consumption of secondary exploitation products: milk and jellies</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Have autonomy as family livestock producers<br>Rational and conscious use of natural and social resources<br>Continuously seek improvement in the productive and personal aspects</td><td>Education as a priority for the family<br>Living in and off the countryside<br>Their production also for self-consumption<br>Ensure the well-being of the family by optimizing possessions<br>Production of differentiated quality: continuous animal selection<br>Supporting associative processes and projects</td><td>Feed cattle and sheep based on NF<br>Inseminate sheep<br>Select rams from the herd and purchase parents for insemination<br>Select sheep for breeding<br>Perform early weaning of calves<br>Perform ultrasound on cows</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Being family farmers</td><td>Year-round income: generating and seizing opportunities<br>The production as family sustenance<br>Supporting associative processes and projects<br>The countryside: a lifestyle</td><td>Feeding cattle and sheep breeding based on NF<br>Prioritize grazing of rams and pregnant cows in 7 ha grassland subdivided into paddocks<br>The grassland is allowed to seed every year</td></tr></tbody></table>

Family histories evidence, in the first place, the perception families have of their situation, of the family trajectory, the sense of belonging and their behavior when making decisions: "This farm belonged to my family, my paternal grandparents, and after, to my parents (...) you have to value and take care of your home" (C6); "When my wife inherited this land, it was only there that I felt that I was living in the countryside" (C8); "My husband inherited this fraction of the exploitation (...) and we came to settle here (...) the house was a shack (...) there was no water, no electricity" (C7); "My grandfather bought this farm, to leave it to his four children, I inherited part of this property, and another part I lease it to my sister (...)

you learn by valuing what you have" (C9); "I had these 24 hectares of my family and we agreed to a MEVIR plan and built the house and the milking shed" (C4); "Our parents told us: finish high school and you decide, you can continue studying, here or abroad or stay in the countryside and produce, we chose the last option" (C3).

On the other hand, the experiences lived, some directly related to the health of some family members, lead them to make decisions that change the relationship of the family with nature: "When my father got sick I had to take over the exploitation, I had a very bad time, we stopped leasing and everything moved to this farm" (C5); "A few years ago I had a
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

construction. So, it is a theoretical proposition, con-
structed qualitatively. It is not statistically repre-
sentative but tries to synthesize ideas that allow un-
derstanding and interpreting the diversity of agroe-
cological practices found.

In this regard, the cross-sectional analysis of the 9
monographs allowed identifying and understanding
the actions of families (and not only productive prac-
tices), and thus finding ways of action that were
common and varied. For example, some of the com-
mon actions were: belonging to an organization,
having an interest in training in certain practices, op-
timizing the use of its resources, minimizing the en-
try of external inputs, and providing education to
their children, which is compatible with the results of
previous research carried out with this methodology
in the region(3)(34).

3.1 FES typology of operation and paths for the agroecological transition

A first analysis was carried out to understand the socio-productive practices of family farmers in northern Uruguay, and identify those that represent one or more paths of transition to agroecology. The result of this first analysis shows that, for the same purpose, the rules and actions can be several, and could even be differentiated between more “innovative” and more “traditional” practices.

As explained in previous sections, the typology al-
lows grouping the FESs according to the similarity
of operation, comparing these empirical data(43)
and, thus, understanding if there is a single path or
more than one by which the FESs move towards an
agroecological model. To build this typology, the
data were analyzed taking into account two dimen-
sions within their management practices: (i) repro-
duction and animal health (sheep and cattle); (ii)
natural field management (production and use of
forage supply).

On the other hand, the common strategic rules as-
sociated with the socio-productive practices identi-
fied in the first analysis were grouped by similarity
of criteria (as proposed by Dieguez(3)), and three
strategic macro-rules were obtained that are related
to: (a) **Social and productive integration**, since
part of socio-productive development, technological
change has to do with rural organization according
to the result of the analysis of its FES ("supporting
associative processes and projects so as to im-
prove", "supporting collaborative work to expand
productive resources"); (b) **Supporting productive
changes**, those socio-productive practices related
to the search of technologies to improve the quality

of their product without losing sustainability of the
system, minimizing risks ("openness to change and
innovation", "supporting continuous selection for a
differentiated quality production, producing more
food for animals in a sustainable way"); (c) **Improv-
ing quality and lifestyle**, explains that decisions on
practices at the productive level are related to the
lifestyle that families want to have and preserve, an-
chored in the family tradition ("the countryside: a
way of life for the family", "production as the family
sustenance", "preserving the family property and
improving it").

Finally, the macro-rules and socio-productive man-
agement practices give clues to the different paths
that may exist in the transition to agroecological pro-
duction. The typology comprises three types of
pathways to AT: (i) diversification; (ii) biodiversity
management, and (iii) traditional practices. Below,
the three types built are presented, and the distribu-
tion of the 9 cases in them (Table 3).

3.2 The paths of the agroecological transition: From diversification to maintaining traditional practices passing through innovation

3.2.1. Agroecological transition from diversification

Management practices and strategies can be
thought of as valuing natural resources, but with
models that emerged from collective action, such as
the use of bio-pesticide for ticks. Environmental
care practices have several objectives: to increase
the quality of the product to be commercialized, to
take advantage of the potential of the fields without
having to invest with external inputs (efficiency of
land use), and to start moving forward on paths that
make their products better for the life quality of peo-
ple. And from this, those innovations arise, for ex-
ample, the use of biological insecticide for ticks, not
using glyphosate anymore and performing rotary
grazing with differentiated paddocks. The decisions
of the families who carry out these practices serve
the desire to continue living in the countryside and
to be able to give their children the possibility to do
what they want, but always trying to leave them a
legacy.

3.2.2. Agroecological transition from biodiversity management

Management practices and strategies are expressed in the complexity of systems and suggest managing biodiversity with a greater emphasis on technology. Changes in their management practices seek purposes that relate to strong family experiences. These are changes that follow a defined and very clear path; for example, Voisin rational
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

grazing, continuous grazing with load management according to grass availability, coprological analysis, tattooing of sheep, very little use of external inputs, category management of animals, use of biological pesticide for ticks (in other parts there is a very low incidence of tick, therefore, there is no use of chemically synthesized products for tick treatments).

These practices are associated with the experiences of certain families, ranging from the need to generate income to health problems that change these producers' lives and the need to generate new things. Some phrases of their statements reveal the interest of these families to support changes (innovations) in the search for ways to produce sustainable products.

### 3.2.3. Agroecological transition from the maintenance of traditional practices

They go through the relationship of the family with their own land, with the area in which they lived all their lives, the practices' logic can be considered more traditional, as peasants. Practices are carried out the way they have always been, but they can change from year to year, and even though "it was always done that way", decisions are not always the same. These are families that are there because they were always there, because their parents shared their knowledge and love for the countryside.

The identified backgrounds from socio-productive management practices show that there is not one pathway to agroecological production. Here we identified three paths, one that supports the

transition from the exchange and diversification of production; another that supports innovation, in environment-conservative technologies, optimizing the use of its resources; and a third that supports the transition from family traditions, so as not to destroy an exploitation that has sustained a particular lifestyle (Figure 6).

Now, these paths are not static, or unique, they are identified from the particular realities of these families. This does not mean that they cannot take other alternatives in the future, during this AT process, precisely due to the implementation of public policies, or the future implementation of the National Agroecology Plan. In addition, at the territorial level, there are exchanges between different social actors, whether technical professionals or peers, that can also act as drivers of change.

The typology built can be used as a starting point for diagnostics and for the application of research-action-participatory or co-innovation methodologies, confronting family producers with these types, exchanging and learning the appreciation they have about their own practices. It should be noted that all three types were validated with producers and technicians in group work (article in progress).

The GAAS methodology is highlighted as appropriate for the approximation to the FES of family producers of any production item(23). In the country, it has been mostly tested in dairy and livestock producers, but recently it is being used for research in horticultural-livestock systems in the south of the country.

<table><caption>Table 3. Grouping of technical-productive management practices according to two productive dimensions</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="4">Practices of agroecological transition processes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">PRODUCTION OBJECTIVES</td><td>Reproduction and health</td><td>Concentrated calvings, calves are sold at weaning<br>Biological pesticide for ticks was used</td><td>Concentrated delivery, temporary weaning, coprological analysis (mostly)<br>Animal management by category. Selection of animals (Fine Merino, Texel tattoos)</td><td>Long service period, deliveries since August<br>Shearing in November, sometimes shearing before delivery "Calendar" health (samples every 2 months)</td></tr><tr><td>Production and use of forage supply</td><td>Improvement of natural field, some winter grazing and lotus grassland<br>Animal load relative to the amount of pasture<br>Grassland rotation by category<br>Rearing outside the family property</td><td>Continuous grazing with pasture height measurement (animal load relative to pasture quantity)<br>Voisin Rational Grazing<br>Grazing by animal category</td><td>Conservation of natural fields (few animals in large areas), some improvement<br>Low animal load, low pad-docking, low animal turnover</td></tr><tr><th colspan="4">Shared Macro Rules</th></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td>Integrate socially and productively</td><td>Supporting innovations and productive changes</td><td>Improve quality and maintain-improve a lifestyle</td></tr><tr><th colspan="5">Transitional typology</th></tr><tr><td>AGROECOLOGICAL TRANSITION PATHWAYS</td><td colspan="2">Exchange and diversification<br>"Putting eggs in different baskets"</td><td>Management of biodiversity<br>"Innovating to intensify the agroecosystem"</td><td>Traditional practices<br>"If it works, don't change it"</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6. Livestock farmers carrying out different production management practices
Picture 1: Tacuarembó, sandstones, 2019. Picture 2: Tacuarembó, sandstones, 2019.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

**4. Conclusions**

As illustrated by the results presented, the GAAS allows accessing the farmers' strategies, their socio-productive practices and, therefore, the decision model. The results are encouraging to understand and identify the paths of the AT. Although it requires significant collaboration between the researcher and the family farmers to outline their management practices and approach the action models, this collaborative work time manages to identify agroecological bases and regularities between the cases. The methodology allows learning and academically enhancing the knowledge of the livestock producer about environmental care.

The typology built from the similarities and differences between the socio-productive practices of the cases analyzed allowed finding more than one possible path by which farmers are moving towards agroecology. Case studies (monographs) are the first necessary step to understand the decisions of livestock families, the meaning of their practices, and why they do what they do. The rules and purposes of each family defined a "set" of practices and action strategies that relate to agroecology and that allow visualizing different "paths" of AT.

Regarding these paths, the results of each family history evidence the interest in an environmentally friendly production in response to the purposes of each case. In "diversified agroecological" practices, the path is represented by the interest that families

have in production as an improvement in life quality, linked to the journey of the organizations to which they belong, since changes are the result of collaborative work. In "agroecological practices based on biodiversity management", the path to agroecology is determined by the background of the families who individually introduce new practices driven by environmentally productive projects, and are convinced that this is the path of change (technological change). And finally, in "traditional agroecological" practices the path is more diffuse and it is reflected in the conservation of the natural field; the changes are latent, but the way forward and the speed will depend on proposals and innovations that do not require changing their lifestyle or transforming their purposes.

Regarding the elaboration of public policies and the support of family farmers who enter the virtuous circle of agroecology, the consideration of the typology developed, which represents different ways to practice agroecology, would allow better orientation of actions and, thus, greater efficiency in AT processes. The implementation of the National Agroecology Plan opens doors in Uruguay to transformations in family production towards agroecologically-based production systems, since these family producers are the main subjects of the law. It is necessary, then, to know not only who and how many these subjects are, but their strategies and productive purposes, as well as their decision-making, their territory and the exchange with other social actors.
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

It is also necessary to deepen, in the future, the research on socio-productive management practices that can be part of an AT. In this way, it will be possible to specify the technical, organizational and social conditions that structure these possible AT pathways. Likewise, from a more territorial and comprehensive perspective, we can question the time it takes to analyze the cases, and the possibility of carrying out a questionnaire that allows collecting information more quickly on a larger number of producers.

## Acknowledgements

We thank the nine livestock producer families who received us and provided information on the backgrounds and operations of their farms. Without your selfless cooperation and warmth our research would not have been possible.

## Transparency of data

Data not available: The data set that supports the results of this study is not publicly available for confidentiality reasons.

## Author contribution statement

IF carried out the fieldwork, and prepared the monographs and the typology. ECH and VR oversaw the study. ECH, MF and VR participated in the discussion and interpretation of results. IF, ECH, MF and VR participated equally in the preparation and publication of the article.

## References

1. Altieri MA. Agroecología: principios y estrategias para diseñar sistemas agrarios sustentables. In: Sarandón SJ, editor. Agroecología: el camino hacia una agricultura sustentable. La Plata: Ediciones Científicas Americanas; 2002. p. 49-56.

2. Posada Rodríguez V, Posada N, Rodríguez A. Fabricar la agroecología: lecciones de los proyectos de desarrollo social. Agrociencia Uruguay. 2020;24(1):e363. Doi: 10.31285/AGRO.24.363.

3. Diéguez F. Estudio de las finalidades de funcionamiento de un grupo de explotaciones familiares ganaderas extensivas. Agrociencia Uruguay. 2014;18(2):148-58.

4. Gazzano I, Achkar M. Conflictos de las transformaciones territoriales: ganaderos frente a la intensificación agraria en Esteros de Farrapos Uruguay. Revibec. 2016;26:109-21.

5. Bianco M, Chauvet M. COVID-19, alimentos y naturaleza: oportunidad para una imprescindible reconexión. Debates sobre Innovación. 2020;5(1):1-5.

6. Altieri MA, Nicholls CI. Agroecología: única esperanza para la soberanía alimentaria y la resiliencia socioecológica. Agroecología [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2023 May 9];7(2):65-83. Available from: https://revistas.um.es/agroecologia/article/view/182861

7. Meynard JM. L'agroécologie, un nouveau rapport aux savoirs et à l'innovation. OCL. 2017;24(3):D303. Doi: 10.1051/ocl/2017021.

8. Venegas C, Gómez B, Infante A. Manual de transición agroecológica para la Agricultura Familiar Campesina [Internet]. Santiago de Chile: INDAP; 2018 [cited 2023 May 9]. 201p. Available from: https://bibliotecadigital.ciren.cl/handle/20.500.13082/32260

9. Tittonell P. Las transiciones agroecológicas: múltiples escalas, niveles y desafíos. Rev Fac Cienc Agrar Univ Nac Cuyo. 2019;51(1):231-46.

10. Chia E, Angeon V. L'agroécologie en action: frein ou levier du développement rural en Guadeloupe? Paper presented at: 54ème colloque joint de l'ASRDLF; 2017 jui 5-7 ; Athènes, Grèce

11. Claveirole C. La transition agroécologique: défis et enjeux [Internet]. Paris: Conseil économique, social et environnemental; 2016 [cited 2023 May 9] 105p. Available from: https://www.lecese.fr/sites/de/fault/files/pdf/Avis/2016/2016_13_agroecologie.pdf.

12. Stirling A. Emancipating transformations: from controlling 'the transition' to culturing plural radical progress. Brighton: STEPS Centre; 2014. 41p.

13. Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho M, Giraldo OF, Aldasoro M, Morales H, Ferguson BG, Rosset P, Khadse A, Campos C. Bringing agroecology to scale: Key drivers and emblematic cases. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst. 2018;42(6):637-65. Doi: 10.1080/21683565.2018.1443313.

14. Vitry C, Chia E. Contextualisation d'un instrument et apprentissages pour l'action collective. Rev manage aveni. 2016;(83):121-41.
<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

15. Cremin É. Adaptations agroécologiques et mobilités face aux aléas hydromorphologiques et aux contraintes foncières dans la plaine alluviale du Brahmapoutre (Assam - Inde). Cah Outre-Mer. 2020;281:219-48. Doi: 10.4000/com.11263.

16. Chia E, Téstut M, Figari M, Rossi V. Comprender, dialogar, coproducir: reflexiones sobre el asesoramiento en el sector agropecuario. Agrociencia Uruguay. 2003;7(1):77-91.

17. Wezel A, Bellon S, Doré T, Francis C, Vallod D, David C. Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice: a review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2009;29(4):503-15.

18. Gaglio G. Sociologie de l'innovation. Paris: Presses Universitaire de France; 2012. 126p.

19. Akrich M. Les utilisateurs, acteurs de l'innovation. Education permanente. 1998;(134):79-89.

20. Callon M. Éléments pour une sociologie de la traduction: la domestication des coquilles Saint-Jacques et des marins-pêcheurs dans la baie de Saint-Brieuc. L'Année Sociologique (1940/1948-) [Internet]. 1986 [cited 2023 May 9];36:169-208. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27889913

21. Alter N. L'innovation ordinaire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France Quadrige; 2010. 312p.

22. Brossier J, Chia E, Marshall E, Petit M. Gestion de l'exploitation agricole familiale: éléments théoriques et méthodologiques. France: ENESAD-CNERTA; 1997. 215p.

23. Chia E, Petit M, Brossier J. Théorie du comportement adaptatif et agriculture familiale. In: Gasselin P, Choisis JP, Petit S, Purseigle F, Zasser-Bedoya S, editors. L'agriculture en famille: travailler, réinventer, transmettre. France: INRA-SAD; 2014. p. 100-81. Doi: 10.1051/978-2-7598-1192-2.c006.

24. Rossi V, de Hegedus P, Franco R, Areosa P, Dacoli P, Ferreira I, Fúster F. Impactos del relacionamiento de Eduardo Chia con la Facultad de Agronomía. Cangué [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2023 May 9];(NE 40):36-42. Available from: http://www.eemac.edu.uy/cangue/images/revistas/r evista_40/Cangue40.pdf

25. Ministerio de Ganadería, Agricultura y Pesca, DIEA (UY). Anuario estadístico agropecuario 2018 [Internet]. Montevideo: MGAP; 2018 [cited 2023 May 9]. 210p. Available from: https://descargas.mgap.g ub.uy/DIEA/Anuarios/Anuario2018/Anuario_2018.pdf

26. Declaracion de interes general y creación de una comision honoraria nacional y plan nacional para el fomento de la produccion con bases agroecologicas. Ley N° 19.717 [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2023 May 9]. Available from: https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/leyes/19717-2018

27. Ribeiro CM. Estudo do modo de vida dos pecuaristas familiares da regiao da Campanha do Rio Grande do Sul [doctoral's thesis]. Porto Alegre (BR): Universidad Federal do Río Grande do Sul; 2009. 303p.

28. Gómez A, Chiappe M. Desarrollo local con enfoque agroecológico: la experiencia del Plan de Soberanía Alimentaria Territorial en el departamento de Treinta y Tres. Agrociencia Uruguay. 2013;17(1):153-63.

29. Gazzano I, Gómez A. Agroecology in Uruguay. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst. 2017;41(3-4):380-400. Doi: 10.1080/21683565.2017.1286533.

30. Modernel P, Dogliotti S, Alvarez S, Corbeels M, Picasso V, Tittonell P, Rossing W. Identification of beef production farms in the Pampas and Campos area that stand out in economic and environmental performance. Ecol Indic. 2018;89:755-70.

31. Albicette MM, Bortagaray I, Scarlato S, Aguerre V. Co-innovación para promover sistemas ganaderos familiares más sostenibles en Uruguay: análisis de tres años de cambios en la dimensión social de la sostenibilidad. Rev latinoam estud rural [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2023 May 9];1(2):105-36. Available from: http://www.ceil-conicet.gov.ar/ojs/index.php/revistaalasru/article/view/181

32. Avenier MJ, Schimitt C. Élaborer des savoirs actionnables et les communiquer à des manageurs. Rev Francaise de Gest. 2007;174:25-42.

33. Osty PL. L'exploitation agricole vue comme un système: diffusion de l'innovation et contribution au développement. BulletinTechnique d'Informations. 1978;326:43-9.

34. Rossi V. Prácticas de resistencia de los productores familiares en el agro uruguayo [Internet]. Córdoba: Centro de Estudios Avanzados; 2019. 268p.

35. Marshall E, Bonneviale JR, Francfort I. Fonctionnement et diagnostic global de l'exploitation agricole: une méthode interdisciplinaire pour la formation et le développement. Dijon: ENESAD-SED; 1994; 173p.
<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

36. Darré JP. Pairs et experts dans l'agriculture: dialogues et production de connaissance pour l'action. France: Erès; 1994. 227p.

37. Carbo A, Ferreira G, Franco L, Martirena G, Melognio A. Estudio de las potencialidades y limitantes de la Metodología Enfoque Global de la explotación Agropecuaria (EGEA) para su aplicación en las condiciones de Uruguay [grade's thesis]. Montevideo (UY): Universidad de la República, Facultad de Agronomía; 2003. 334p.

38. Morales H, Dieguez F. Familias y campo: rescatando estrategias de adaptación. Montevideo: Instituto Plan Agropecuario; 2009. 246p.

39. Chía E. Les pratiques de Trésorerie des agriculteurs: la gestion en quête d'une théorie [doctoral's thesis]. Dijon (FR): L'université de Bourgogne, Faculté de Sciences Économiques et de Gestion; 1987. 250p.

40. Altieri MA. Escalonando la propuesta agroecológica para la soberanía alimentaria en América Latina. Agroecología [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2023 May 9];4:39-48. Available from: https://revistas.um.es/agroecologia/article/view/117171

41. Nicholls CI, Henao A, Altieri MA. Agroecología y el diseño de sistemas agrícolas resilientes al cambio climático. Agroecología. 2017;10(1):31-7.

42. Quiñones M, Supervielle M. La construcción de tipologías. In: Quiñones M, Supervielle M, Acosta M, editors. Introducción a la sociología cualitativa: fundamentos epistemológicos y elementos de diseño y análisis. Montevideo: Ediciones Universitarias; 2017. p. 141-50.

43. Cohen N, Gómez Rojas G. Las tipologías y sus aportes a las teorías y la producción de datos. Rev latinoam metodol investig soc. 2011;1(1):36-46.