Knowledge Sharing Strategies between Coffee Farmers  
and Coffee Research Institute: A Case Study of Gitwe  
Farmers’ Co-Operative Society 
Elizabeth Kabita 
Coffee Research Institute 
kabitaelizabeth@gmail.com 
Tom Kwanya 
The Technical University of Kenya 
tkwanya@tukenya.ac.ke 
Tabitha Mbenge-Ndiku 
Coffee Research Institute 
tabbmbenge68@gmail.com  
 
Purpose: This paper assesses the knowledge sharing strategies used by members of 
Gitwe Farmers’ Cooperative Society and Coffee Research Institute in Kenya. The 
specific objectives of the study were to: establish the types of knowledge shared; 
examine the knowledge sharing methods; investigate the extent to which the 
knowledge shared is applied; analyse the factors that influence knowledge sharing 
between the farmers and the research institute; and to suggest measures to enhance 
knowledge sharing between them. 
Study design/methodology/approach: Knowledge sharing involves the exchange 
of knowledge in the form of expertise or skills among groups, friends, families, 
communities or organisations. The population of the study was 2181 consisting of 
coffee farmers, officials of Gitwe Farmers’ Co-operative Society and officers from 
the Coffee Research Institute. The study employed a mixed methods research 
approach. Qualitative data was collected through interviews while quantitative data 
was collected using questionnaires. Qualitative data was analysed thematically while 
quantitative data was analysed by descriptive statistics using Statistical Package for 
Social Studies (SPSS). 
Findings: The findings have demonstrated that the farmers and the institute currently 
share knowledge through a mixed array of methods. However, several challenges 
hinder the effective use of these knowledge sharing strategies. It was also observed 
that currently, the symmetry of knowledge flow is lopsided since the Coffee Research 
Institute shares much more than it receives from the farmers. These challenges should 
be addressed if the farmers are to benefit optimally from the knowledge generated by 
the Coffee Research Institute. 
Originality/value: The findings of this study if adopted are likely to improve the 
coffee farming methods by the farmers, improve coffee marketing strategies by the 
farmers and also manage coffee berry diseases, among others. 
Keywords: Knowledge sharing, knowledge management, coffee research, coffee 
farmers, Gitwe, Kenya 
Introduction 
Knowledge is basically information possessed in the mind of individuals; the skills and 
expertise acquired by a person through education or experience. According to Alavi and 
Leidner (2001), knowledge is considered as information that is personalised and which relates 
to procedures, concepts, observations, facts, judgements and interpretations. Knowledge 
comprises developed skills, attitude and cumulative experiences which enables systematic, 
effective and reliable performance of functions by individuals. Knowledge can be categorised 
into two major categories. The first category is explicit knowledge which encompasses the 
rational, objective and technical materials like procedures, documents and software. Such 
knowledge can easily be documented, transferred, learned and taught. The second category is 
tacit knowledge which in its domain is learning that is usually experiential, subjective and 
International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning | ISSN 2232-5697
                    Volume 10 (2021) 157–175 | https://www.doi.org/10.53615/2232-5697.10.157-175
cognitive. This knowledge is strongly personal and thus is hard to transfer, formalise, learn, 
teach and document. Additionally, it involves a lot of human interpretation and resides in the 
mind of people (Kwanya et al., 2015a).  
According to Mwang’ombe et al. (2008), knowledge is considered as particularly key within 
the sector of agriculture. Facilitating access to relevant knowledge for the farming community 
aids in enhancing productivity in addition to increased returns. Janus (2016) states that 
agricultural practice needs to be supported by information and knowledge from modern 
agriculture, failure to which households, which are agriculturally-reliant, are likely to be 
limited resulting to low productivity. In the Kenyan environment, generation of new 
information and knowledge on agriculture and availing it to be utilised by smallholder farmers 
is significant in the promotion of suitable incomes and reduction of poverty. 
Agricultural knowledge is created from indigenous and modern sources. Universities and 
institutions of research create modern knowledge while tacit or indigenous knowledge is 
generated from the farming communities. The agricultural knowledge produced from such 
sources is deposited in different forms before being disseminated to users like rural farmers 
during exhibitions, trainings, field visits, publications and information communication 
technology (ICT) platforms (Janus, 2016). The value of this knowledge is fully realised when 
it is shared with the stakeholders (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; El Sawy et al., 2000). 
Davenport and Prusak (1998) explain that productivity in agriculture depends on the generation 
and application of scientific knowledge and technologies and effectively applying them in the 
production system. The solution to increasing agricultural productivity relies upon the ability 
to generate, disseminate and share key information to communities involved in farming. For 
effective development and implementation of new techniques of production and new ways of 
working and thinking in agriculture, the sharing and application of agricultural knowledge from 
research in farming is essential. Knowledge recipients need to apply the newly acquired 
knowledge in their farming practice. It is on this basis that a need arises to establish the linkage 
between the users of agricultural knowledge, or the farmers, and the research institutions, such 
as the Coffee Research Institute (CRI), which are the sources of scientific agricultural 
knowledge. In fact, the CRI was established in Kenya in 1944 to support coffee farmers to deal 
with coffee farming challenges which require scientific knowledge and technology to resolve. 
Some of the challenges include diseases such as coffee berry diseases and coffee leaf rust; best 
methods of farming; and marketing of coffee produce (Clifford, 2012).  
Most of the challenges facing coffee farmers in Kiambu County, particularly Gitwe Farmers’ 
Cooperative Society members, may be attributed to not knowing the types of knowledge 
generated by CRI which can assist them to improve their agricultural practices. The other 
challenge is farmers not knowing the varieties to grow so as to reduce costs and improve their 
production. For instance, the majority of the farmers grow SL28 and SL34 which are not 
resistant to both coffee berry disease and coffee leaf rust. Methods used by coffee farmers to 
share knowledge effectively as well as the evaluation mechanisms of the knowledge might 
pose challenges too. Coffee farmers will be encouraged to make use of the knowledge 
disseminated by CRI and Gitwe if there was an interactive engagement mechanism for 
knowledge sharing and diffusion. To sum it all, the major challenge has been the inability to 
access and share the right knowledge by the coffee farmers and the CRI in a timely manner. 
This paper assesses the knowledge sharing strategies used by members of Gitwe Farmers’ 
Cooperative Society and the CRI in Kenya. Therefore, it is structured around the key themes 
of the topic. These themes include the contextual background of the cooperative, rationale of 
the study, review of relevant literature, research methodology, findings, discussion and 
interpretation of the findings, conclusions and recommendations.  
Kabita | Knowledge Sharing Strategies between Coffee Farmers and Coffee Research Institute 158
Contextual background 
Gitwe Farmers’ Cooperative Society is located in Gatundu South, Kiambu County on the 
slopes of the Aberdares with an altitude ranging between 1700m and 1900m, making the area 
suitable for Arabica coffee. It was registered in 1995 under the Cooperative Societies after 
splitting from the giant Gatundu Farmers’ Cooperative Society. Initially, the society had two 
coffee factories, Karatu and Karinga. The society was originally registered with a membership 
of 560 but has grown to 2,674 members (Gitwe, 2020). Currently, it has three factories, namely, 
Karatu, Karinga and Kibiru. The head office of the society is situated at Karatu Coffee Factory. 
Ninety-nine percent (99%) of the coffee grown by the members is of SL 28 and SL 34 varieties. 
Nonetheless, lately, they have also started planting the disease-resistant Ruiru11 and Batian 
(Gitwe, 2020). In 2016, Karatu factory scooped the Global Foods Award of America for having 
the best quality coffee followed by Karinga factory (Lesak, 2016). It is noteworthy that both 
factories are owned by Gitwe Farmers’ Cooperative Society. In the year 2017/2018, Gitwe had 
a cherry production of 722,946 kg and paid the farmers 80.40 Kenya shillings per kilo. They 
scooped an award for outstanding cooperative society from the Coffee Directorate. Gitwe was 
certified in 2013 by Common Code for Coffee Community (4Cs) in Kenya. This therefore 
gives it an opportunity to market its coffee directly (Gitwe, 2020). 
The CRI is responsible for coffee research under the mandate of the Kenya Agricultural and 
Livestock Research Organisation (KALRO). The institute gives recommendations in relation 
to good agricultural practices and processes. The institute conducts research that ensures 
sustainability of production through value addition and climate mitigation. For instance, the 
institute developed two improved coffee varieties, namely, Ruiru 11 and Batian, through the 
research. These varieties are resistant to coffee berry and leaf rust diseases. These innovations, 
among others, need to get to the farmers in a timely and most appropriate way to help them to 
improve the quantity and quality of their produce thereby improving their livelihood. 
Rationale of the study 
The need for information on agriculture, particularly on coffee farming, is of necessity to 
farmers as it is pivotal in raising their level of knowledge and aids them in decision making on 
matters relevant to coffee farming, marketing and other related aspects. The knowledge from 
CRI, if strategically shared, will assist coffee farmers, such as the members of Gitwe Farmers’ 
Cooperative Society, to adopt best practices in coffee production. This information will assist 
the coffee farmers in making informed decisions, devise better agricultural practices and make 
the right choices on the coffee varieties, among other issues. The knowledge shared will also 
come in handy on matters related to marketing strategies for their coffee, sources of finances, 
understanding government policies and how to control and manage coffee diseases. If the 
farmers receive the right information, adopt and implement it, they will remain in this 
agricultural activity and improve their livelihoods. Constraints on timely access to current and 
accurate information is a major hindrance to the coffee farmers and affects their operations.  
It is the above challenges that motivated this study with a view to coming up with strategies of 
enhancing knowledge sharing between Gitwe coffee farmers and the CRI. The specific 
objectives of the study were to establish the types of knowledge shared; examine the knowledge 
sharing methods used; investigate the extent to which the knowledge shared is applied; analyse 
the factors that influence knowledge sharing between the farmers and the research institute; 
and to suggest measures to enhance knowledge sharing between the farmers and the CRI.  
 
 
Kabita | Knowledge Sharing Strategies between Coffee Farmers and Coffee Research Institute 159
Literature review 
According to Miller and Shamsie (1996), most organisations recognise knowledge as a 
valuable, yet intangible, asset for sustained competitive advantage. Kwanya and Wasinda 
(2019) assert that successful organisations thrive on their ability to identify, organise, share and 
perpetuate their unique knowledge. Thus, the value of knowledge held by an organisation lies 
in the extent to which it is shared and applied. According to Serban and Luan (2002), 
knowledge sharing is the transfer of skills or expertise amongst people in an organisation. 
Moturi et al. (2020) explain that knowledge sharing activities are generally supported by 
systems of knowledge management. It is through these knowledge management systems that 
knowledge can be transferred and disseminated from those who have it to those who need it.  
Many factors influence knowledge sharing. Cabrera and Cabrera (2002) explain that 
infrastructure as well as intangible factors, such as trust and organisational culture, play a 
pivotal role in facilitating effective knowledge sharing. Kwanya et al. (2015b) explain that 
effective sharing of knowledge also requires an environment which is safe and encourages 
adventure, experimentation and learning. Fullwood et al. (2019) assert that knowledge sharing 
is a social exchange process which requires mutual trust between the parties involved so as to 
succeed. Other factors which influence knowledge sharing include teamwork culture (Al-
Qadhi et al., 2015); presence or absence of incentives and rewards which motivate knowledge 
exposure (Razmerita et al., 2016); feeling of reciprocity in knowledge exchange (Ipe, 2003); 
and effective leadership (Kwanya & Wasinda, 2019). According to Obwaka et al. (2019), 
resistance by employees to share knowledge, fear of job losses, technophobia and inadequate 
sensitisation are some of the impediments to effective knowledge sharing. 
Indigenous knowledge, practical experience as well as research conducted by institutes are the 
main sources of agricultural knowledge in Africa (Chepchirchir et al., 2019; Mwesigwa et al., 
2016). This knowledge is the bedrock of innovation and sustainability amongst smallholder 
farmers in Africa. Indeed, Kamarudin et al. (2015) argue that indigenous knowledge as well as 
personal experiences of farmers are essential sources of original and contextual knowledge and 
should be shared widely for effective productivity. Chepchirchir et al. (2019) explain that 
indigenous knowledge plays a pivotal role in crop farming, pastoralism, fishing and 
environmental conservation. This knowledge contributes significantly to the wellbeing of 
farming communities, particularly, in rural settings. Although Kwanya (2020) argues that 
indigenous knowledge is stigmatised, it still remains the anchor for decision making on 
socioeconomic activities in rural communities.  
The knowledge possessed by farmers is largely tacit. This makes it difficult to share. Indeed, 
research has proved that tacit knowledge is the most difficult knowledge to share since it is not 
documented (Murumba et al., 2020). Therefore, organisations need to employ diverse 
techniques to harvest tacit knowledge. Obwaka et al. (2019) suggest that apprenticeship 
programmes can be useful in managing tacit knowledge. They also add that in the digital world, 
websites and the applications related to them can enable the sharing of talents and information 
between people and/or teams. Mwesigwa et al. (2016) also suggest that mobile telephony offers 
great opportunities for knowledge sharing among farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa. The 
technology aids the sharing of knowledge by enabling connectivity and providing a platform 
where people meet and learn. Using these platforms, people with knowledge can be able to 
easily reach those who wish to learn and share their talent. This places technology in a critical 
place as an enabler of knowledge sharing. Indeed, several ICT-based projects have been 
launched in numerous countries in Africa to increase access to valuable knowledge by farmers. 
Some of these include e-soko which provides farmers in Kenya and Rwanda with crucial 
information on market prices of their produce (Bizimana et al., 2013); use of personal digital 
Kabita | Knowledge Sharing Strategies between Coffee Farmers and Coffee Research Institute 160
assistants (PDAs) to access diverse agricultural information in Tanzania (Munyua et al., 2009); 
use of PDAs to share fishing information among fishermen in Senegal (Mwesigwa et al., 2016); 
and sharing of information on when to plant, harvest or sell farm produce by farmers in Uganda. 
Aker (2010) reports that the use of mobile phones by farmers has reduced grain price dispersion 
in Niger. In spite of the apparent readiness to adopt ICTs in agricultural knowledge sharing, 
these efforts are constricted by low ICT skills among farmers. Ramirez and Reyes (2013) 
suggest that farmers who are keen on ICTs should be trained and used as peer trainers to 
enhance the uptake of ICT-based solutions in sharing farming knowledge. 
Kamarudin et al. (2015) aver that effective knowledge sharing is a significant contributor to 
increased agricultural productivity. Therefore, farmers require both tacit and explicit 
knowledge. To share tacit knowledge, the use of informal networks is highly recommended 
(Murumba et al., 2020). Indeed, Mashavave et al. (2013) identify interactive social networks 
as one of the key methods through which knowledge can be shared among farmers. Mashavave 
et al. (2011) describe these networks as learning alliances which connect farmers to each other 
and to the other service providers in a way that facilitates the creation and sustainability of a 
seamless knowledge sharing system. Hagmann et al. (1999) explain that these networks can 
lead to group learning through interactive sessions such as field days, workshops, and exchange 
visits. Kommey (2020) explains that rice farmers in Ghana largely share knowledge through 
face-to-face interactions. In Cambodia, Heng et al. (2015) opine that knowledge, attitude, 
practice, communication and networking skills are essential for effective sharing of knowledge 
among farmers in rural communities.  
Chen et al. (2015) emphasise that peer-to-peer interactions are the main method for sharing 
knowledge among rural farmers. Malabayabas (2015) explains that family units and meetings 
are also effective platforms for farming knowledge sharing, diffusion and perpetuation. The 
other strategies which farmers can use to share knowledge include farmers’ field schools 
through which farmers are equipped with specific skills while in their farms (Mariyono, 2018; 
Muhammad et al., 2014); farmers field days and field visits (Belyaev et al., 2020; Kamau et 
al., 2018); demonstration farms (Hailu et al., 2018; Ingram et al., 2018); extension workshops 
(Groves et al., 2018; Hashemi et al., 2009); agricultural shows and exhibitions (Demiryurek et 
al., 2008; Opara, 2008); publications such as pamphlets, bulletins or brochures (Demiryurek et 
al., 2008); and field advisory visits (Raj, 2013; Svensson et al., 2019). Ndegwa et al. (2015) 
emphasise that farming knowledge can also be shared through routines and processes. Serban 
and Luan (2002) suggested that knowledge sharing among farmers should involve a deliberate 
integration of knowledge systems, processes and routines. 
According to Mashavave et al. (2013), smallholder farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa have limited 
access to timely knowledge resources. Thus, farmers’ information needs in meeting production 
and sustainability challenges, are not met all the time due to varying factors that lead to poor 
information transfer to farmers. Considering the fact that the world is in the information age, 
opportunities should be plenty for farmers to harness and utilise knowledge in order to enhance 
production (Lwoga et al., 2010a). On a negative note, lack of resources among the poor farmers 
has greatly affected their ability to effectively access or share relevant knowledge. Farmers in 
the rural areas are also marginalised thereby limiting their ability to access information on 
agriculture. According to Lwoga et al. (2010b), most information services in Africa are focused 
within urban regions, leaving behind the rural localities where the majority of smallholder 
farmers live. Kommey (2020) reports that rice farmers in Ghana experience a problematic flow 
of knowledge among them. He explains further that this constitutes one of the greatest 
challenges to rice farming in the country. On the supply side, Ramirez and Reyes (2013) 
explain that research scientists encounter several challenges in packaging their research output 
into knowledge which can be understood and adopted by farmers. They suggest that practical 
Kabita | Knowledge Sharing Strategies between Coffee Farmers and Coffee Research Institute 161
approaches such as demonstration farms, which provide opportunities for effective sharing of 
scientific knowledge with farmers, should be embraced. 
From the foregoing, it is evident that many scholars underscore the role of knowledge in human 
endeavour, including socioeconomic activities. Many scholars also emphasise that the value of 
knowledge is only unleashed through sharing. It is also clear from the literature reviewed above 
that knowledge sharing is one of the most challenging knowledge processes. Most of the 
literature on knowledge sharing have focused on the corporate sector. Agriculture, which is the 
bedrock of the economies of developing countries such as Kenya, is largely ignored. Even 
within these countries, the plight of rural farmers, in terms of knowledge, is covered less. 
Coffee farming being one of the important foreign exchange earners in Kenya needs to be 
cushioned against myriad challenges. One way of doing this is through effective access to and 
use of scientific knowledge. Using the case of Gitwe Farmers’ Cooperative Society, this study 
focuses attention on the mobilisation and uptake of scientific knowledge from CRI by coffee 
farmers in Kiambu County, Kenya.  
Methodology 
The study adopted a pragmatic paradigm and mixed methods research approach to collect both 
qualitative and quantitative data. The study also applied a case study research design. A case 
study design was considered suitable because it enabled the authors to get in-depth information 
about the relationship between the Gitwe Coffee Farmers’ Cooperative Society and the CRI as 
far as knowledge sharing is concerned. Quantitative data was collected through questionnaires 
while qualitative data was collected using interviews. 
The study was undertaken at the CRI and Gitwe Farmers’ Cooperative Society in Kiambu 
County, Kenya. The area covers approximately 1252.4 acres consisting of Karatu which has 
an area coverage of 663.3 acres, Karinga (478.2 acres) and Kibiru (90.9 acres). It is important 
to note that majority of the coffee farmers in Kenya are situated in Kiambu County. Gitwe and 
CRI are also situated in the same county. The population of this study was 2,181 respondents 
who comprised of farmers from Gitwe and CRI staff. Gitwe comprises of three village 
factories. For each village 10% of the population of farmers was selected and simple random 
technique used to select the actual respondents to whom questionnaires were administered. 
Table 1 summarises how the respondents were sampled from the factories. Ten (10) CRI staff 
also participated in the study as key informants. Qualitative data was analysed thematically 
while quantitative data was analysed by descriptive statistics using Statistical Package for 
Social Studies (SPSS). 
Table 1: Samples of farmers by factory and village  
Karatu Factory 
Village Population Sample size 
Kwamucheru 320 32 
Gitwe 405 41 
Karatu 210 21 
Karinga Factory 
Village Population Sample size 
Kiogera 250 25 
Wachuha 200 20 
Gikure 210 21 
Gati iguru 172 17 
Kimaruri 180 18 
Kibiru Factory 
Village Population Sample size 
Wagondu 72 7 
Roi 52 5 
Kabita | Knowledge Sharing Strategies between Coffee Farmers and Coffee Research Institute 162
Gacakai 30 3 
Macanga 80 8 
Total 2181 218 
Findings of the study 
A total of 218 questionnaires were administered. From these, 188 were dully filled and returned 
while 30 were not returned. This yielded a response rate of 86.2% which was considered 
excellent according to Kothari and Garg (2014). The findings indicated that the majority of the 
coffee farmers forming Gitwe Farmers’ Cooperative Society 100 (53. 2%) were male while 88 
(46.8%) were female. This might be because farm lands are basically owned by men. In terms 
of age, the findings, as presented in Figure 1, showed that 27(14.4%) of the respondents were 
between 18 and 30 years; 23(12.2%) between 31 to 40 years; 18(9.6%) representing those 
between 41 to 50 years; 90(47.9%) between 51 to 60 years; and 30 (16.0%) were above 60 
years. These findings indicate that most Gitwe coffee farmers were 50 years and above.  
 
Figure 1: Age distribution of the farmers 
The respondents were also asked to indicate their level of education. On this, the findings 
showed that 18 (9.6%) of the respondents did not have any formal education; 39 (20.7%) had 
attained primary level education; 119 (63.3%) had attained secondary education; and 12 (6.4%) 
had tertiary level of education. 
Types of knowledge shared 
Most 107 (56.9%) of the farmers reported that they had some knowledge on coffee farming 
while 81(43.1%) of them either had little or no knowledge on coffee farming. It is evident, 
therefore, that the majority of the farmers need more knowledge on coffee farming. The farmers 
indicated that one of the techniques that the CRI popularly uses to share knowledge with them 
is training. Therefore, the respondents were asked to indicate whether they had attended any 
training on coffee farming. The findings showed that most 114 (60.6%) of the respondents had 
participated in training events while 74 (39.4%) of them had not. The respondents who had 
been trained were requested to indicate the type of training they had attended. It was found out 
that 10 (8.8%) of them had attended seminars while 52 (45.6%) had participated in workshops. 
This was followed by 36 (31.6%) of the respondents who attended conferences and another 16 
(14.0%) who had gone through formal training. Figure 2 summarises these findings. When 
asked to respond to issues concerning the personnel conducting the trainings, 143 (76.1%) of 
27
23
18
90
30
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
18-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 Above 60
Fr
eq
ue
nc
y
Age
Kabita | Knowledge Sharing Strategies between Coffee Farmers and Coffee Research Institute 163
them indicated that most of the training was offered by CRI officers. Another 36 (19.1%) of 
the respondents noted that these trainings were conducted by the farmers themselves while 9 
(4.8%) did not respond to this question. 
 
Figure 2: Participation in knowledge sharing events 
Ten (10) managers of the Gitwe Farmers’ Cooperative Society, acting as key informants, were 
asked to state whether they regularly organised trainings for the farmers. They all confirmed 
and indicated that they had conducted three trainings within the last one year. Indeed, one 
respondent stated: 
“We share knowledge with the farmers on a regular basis.”  GR1 
On the knowledge areas covered by the trainings, 18(33.3%) indicated coffee nutrition as their 
topic of discussion; 15 (27.8%) indicated control of coffee diseases and insect pests; and 7 
(13.0%) stated canopy management. Three (5.6%) of the respondents noted that they discussed 
varieties of coffee and their establishment whereas 4(7.4%) discussed certification programmes 
and standards. All these topics were to ensure that the farmers obtained the knowledge they 
required to productively far, coffee. 
When requested to indicate whether they shared coffee farming knowledge, the majority 113 
(60.1%) of the farmers agreed while 75 (39.9%) said they did not. Sharing of coffee knowledge 
by the farmers is important as it ensures assimilation of practical knowledge emerging from 
the experiences of the farmers. For those who shared their knowledge, 90 (79.6%) shared 
knowledge with other coffee farmers whereas 23 (20.4%) of the respondents shared knowledge 
with the CRI. This is unfortunate because it indicates that there exists a unidirectional flow of 
knowledge from the CRI to the farmers with little coming from the farmers. Nonetheless, it is 
encouraging that the farmers do share knowledge among themselves as a means of improving 
their own skills. 
On the type of knowledge shared by the respondents, 70 (61.9%) indicated that they shared 
tacit knowledge; 20 (17.7%) shared explicit knowledge; and 23 (20.4%) shared indigenous 
knowledge. On the same issue, of the ten CRI officers who participated in the study, 7 (70%) 
indicated tacit knowledge; while 3 (30%) used a combination of tacit, explicit and indigenous 
knowledge. The large percentage of the CRI respondents and farmers who indicated that they 
shared tacit knowledge affirms the significance of this type of knowledge to the coffee farmers.  
10
52
36
16
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Seminars Workshops Conferences Formal training
Fr
eq
ue
cn
y
Type of knowledge sharing event attended
Kabita | Knowledge Sharing Strategies between Coffee Farmers and Coffee Research Institute 164
Gitwe managers were asked to report on the content of the knowledge they shared with the 
farmers. Twelve (27.9%) stated that they shared knowledge on the proper chemical use and the 
associated precautions. The other areas of focus identified by the managers were control of 
weeds 10 (23.3%); crop nutrition and canopy management 9 (20.9%); establishment and 
varieties of coffee 1(2.3%); and grafting of old coffee varieties to Batian and Ruiru 11 varieties 
2(4.7%). Figure 3 presents these findings. When these key informants were requested to 
respond to a question on the feedback emanating from the farmers with regard to the knowledge 
shared, 16.7% noted that the feedback was very good while a majority (88.3%) were of the 
opinion that the feedback was generally good. 
 
Figure 3: Content of knowledge shared by Gitwe managers 
Knowledge sharing methods 
An inquiry was made on the methods used to disseminate and share knowledge by the farmers. 
The respondents had various options of multiple choices. The majority 159 (41.8%) of them 
indicated the use of field days. Other methods identified were workshops 116 (30.5%); Farmers 
Field School (FFS) 31 (8.2%); and conferences 74(19.5%). It can therefore be concluded that 
the most common form of sharing coffee farming knowledge is the use of field days. When the 
key informants from Gitwe were asked about the methods they used to share knowledge with 
farmers, 17(58.6%) indicated the use of demonstration plots, 11(37.9%) chose field visits, and 
1(3.4%) selected the use of pictures. The verbatim statement hereunder summarises the opinion 
of the respondents on the knowledge sharing techniques applied: 
“We do have a number of methods at our disposal and we can apply any of them at any 
one given time depending on the circumstances and the needs of the farmers” GR2 
All the key informants were of the opinion that farmers applied the knowledge they got from 
them. On the issue of effectiveness of the methods, 140 (74.5%) of the respondents asserted 
that the methods were effective while 48 (25.5%) stated that the methods were not effective. 
On methods of sharing knowledge, the key informants from the CRI responded as follows: 6 
(24.0%) stated the use of field days and farmer field schools (FFS); 5 (20%) used workshops; 
2 (8%) used seminars; and 6 (24.0%) used other methods which included publications, 
Agricultural Society of Kenya (ASK) shows, advisory visits, farm visits, pamphlets, phone 
interactions, books and residential training. Figure 4 presents these findings. One respondent 
stated: 
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Control of weeds
Crop nutrition and canopy management
Grafting of old to new varieties
Establishment and varieties of coffee
Frequency
Co
nt
en
t s
ha
re
d
Kabita | Knowledge Sharing Strategies between Coffee Farmers and Coffee Research Institute 165
“For knowledge sharing to be effective, we employ quite a number of methods so that 
we can achieve our objective” CR3 
 
Figure 4: Knowledge sharing methods used by the CRI 
On the issue of the mode of delivery the trainers used, 100 (53.2%) of the respondents stated 
that the trainers used demonstrations. This was followed by pictorial presentation 40 (21.3%), 
PowerPoint slides 39 (20.7%), and visual identification 9 (4.8%). Thus, demonstration was the 
most common delivery method used to share knowledge with the farmers. All the respondents 
concurred that coffee productivity could be improved if the farmers were to put to use the 
knowledge shared. Enhanced production would subsequently improve the economy and living 
standards of the farmers. Nonetheless, all of them acknowledged challenges in the knowledge 
sharing process. Some of these challenges include language barriers, difficult terrain, weak 
linkage between Ministry of Agriculture and the farmers, and failure on the part of farmers to 
utilise the recommendations. Additionally, inadequate resources to execute knowledge sharing 
initiatives, financial constraints which limits monitoring and evaluation, and the issue of 
laggard farmers who take long to adopt new technologies of farming, were also highlighted. 
“We are doing everything in our capacity to address these issues. For example, on the 
technical language challenges, we have employed agronomists to translate and simplify 
the scientific knowledge from the CRI to what can easily be understood by the farmers.” 
CR5  
“We have engaged the government to provide more funding to support research 
dissemination. Increased funding has enabled us to maximise the use of field days, open 
days, demonstrations, FFS, advisory visits and training on the economics of coffee 
production. These strategies have helped to address most of their concerns and ensured 
that their trainings yielded the intended results” CR3 
On whether the knowledge sharing initiatives were monitored and evaluated to assess whether 
the farmers had adopted the knowledge shared, 7 (71.4%) of the key informants were assertive 
whereas 3(28.6%) indicated that they did not have such mechanisms. Those who had 
monitoring and evaluation mechanisms indicated that they used follow-ups on groups to assess 
impact, evaluations after every training, as well as field visits and questionnaires in order to 
assess progress and adoption. Additionally, they noted the use of a baseline survey on coffee 
production in selected areas. On the effectiveness of the mechanisms, 7(71.4%) of the 
respondents were assertive whereas 3(28.6%) of them noted that they were not. Those who 
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Field days and FFS Workshops Seminars Others
Fr
eq
ue
nc
y
Knowledge sharing method
Kabita | Knowledge Sharing Strategies between Coffee Farmers and Coffee Research Institute 166
indicated in the affirmative acknowledged the effectiveness of the mechanisms pointed to the 
fact that field visits helped in beefing up the farmers’ hands-on skills. 
“We only get feedback on the effectiveness of trainings; not on adoption. It is deemed 
that our duty is to train/disseminate; adoption is for the farmer to decide. Wide 
coverage is hampered by little resources; resources can't allow that level of 
evaluation” CR5 
Essence of shared knowledge 
The respondents were asked whether the shared knowledge was useful to them. Asked to 
respond to this question, 145(77.1%) of the farmers were positive and indicated that the 
knowledge had critically helped them in their coffee farming activities. The rest, 43 (22.9%), 
noted that the knowledge had not in any way assisted them on matters pertaining to coffee 
farming. When asked the same question, 13 (46.4%) of the key informants from Gitwe were 
of the opinion that the knowledge assisted farmers. They pointed out that the farmers were able 
to change their pruning methods and were also able to feed their trees as per the cropping. 
Additionally, 2 (7.1%) of the key informants noted that the knowledge helped the farmers to 
improve their methods of fertilizer or chemical application. According to them, everything they 
shared with the farmers was pertinent to coffee production if properly implemented by the 
farmers. 
On how they used the knowledge shared, 70 (48.3%) of the farmers asserted that they applied 
the knowledge in the production of coffee; 43 (29.7%) of them noted that the shared knowledge 
assisted them in the prevention of coffee berry disease and leaf rust; 18 (12.4%) of the 
respondents indicated they used the knowledge in canopy management; while 14 (9.7%) of 
them noted that the sharing of knowledge aided them to know the best coffee varieties and their 
establishment. Figure 5 presents these findings. However, there were those respondents who 
stated that the knowledge shared was not essential to them. Of these, 11(25.6%) stated that they 
had not observed any improvement in their coffee farms; 20 (46.5%) indicated that there was 
no economic improvement for farmers; 7 (16.3%) noted that the knowledge that was shared 
was not in any way helpful; while 5 (11.6%) of them did not have any idea of the change the 
shared knowledge brought. Nonetheless, it can be deduced from these responses that the 
sharing of coffee farming knowledge was of great essence to most farmers. 
 
Figure 5: How farmers applied the knowledge shared with them 
70
43
18
14
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Production of coffee Management of
coffee diseases
Canopy
management
Selection of coffee
varieties
Fr
eq
ue
nc
y
Use of knowledge shared
Kabita | Knowledge Sharing Strategies between Coffee Farmers and Coffee Research Institute 167
Challenges in coffee farming knowledge sharing 
The respondents were asked to indicate whether they had experienced any challenges in 
knowledge sharing between them and the CRI. The majority 170 (90.4%) of the farmers were 
assertive that there were challenges whereas 18 (9.6%) did not cite any challenges. This 
response was an indication that there were challenges hindering the sharing of knowledge 
between farmers and the CRI. When asked to state the type of challenges they had experienced, 
39 (20.7%) stated that the low level of farmers’ education hindered their understanding of 
technical issues on coffee farming; 61 (32.4%) of them noted that there was a challenge of 
bringing together the scattered farmers for knowledge sharing events; 69 (36.7%) of the 
respondents indicated that they were busy hence could not find time to attend the knowledge 
sharing sessions; while 19(10.1%) of them were of the opinion that there was no culture of 
knowledge sharing among the coffee famers. Figure 6 presents the findings. One verbatim 
response is also provided hereunder. 
“There are many occasions when farmers do not turn up well for scheduled knowledge 
sharing events. They give many excuses. Some of these are genuine while others are 
flimsy. Low turnout compromises the effectiveness of the events.” CR2 
 
Figure 6: Challenges affecting knowledge sharing between coffee farmers and the CRI 
The managers from Gitwe were also asked about the challenges they faced as a society when 
it came to sharing of knowledge with farmers and the CRI. The majority 9 (93.8%) of the 
respondents indicated that the farmers were reluctant to attend knowledge sharing sessions 
while 1(6.3%) of them indicated that farmers were ignorant of knowledge sharing events. On 
how to deal with the challenges, 30 (20.7%) were of the view that there was need to increase 
the frequency of monitoring and evaluation exercises in order to assess the effectiveness of 
coffee knowledge sharing initiatives; 20 (13.8%) indicated that there was need for 
standardisation and subsidy of the cost of coffee farm inputs; 45 (31.0%) of the respondents 
noted that there was need for more knowledge sharing events at the local level; 40 (27.6%) 
indicated that there was need to increase the number of extension officers; and 10 (6.9%) 
suggested that there ought to be an increase in the number of technical offices which can be 
accessed easily by coffee farmers at their convenience.  
“Many challenges hamper the effectiveness of our knowledge sharing initiatives but we 
cannot relent. We continue to pursue knowledge sharing strategies which are popular 
with the farmers or which experience least challenges.” GR4 
39
61
69
19
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Low level of
education
Bringing together
scattered farmers
Farmers are too
busy to attend
events
Poor knowledge
sharing culture
Fr
eq
ue
nc
y
Challenges hampering knowledge sharing
Kabita | Knowledge Sharing Strategies between Coffee Farmers and Coffee Research Institute 168
When Gitwe managers were asked the same question, the majority 6(59.3%) proposed issuance 
of an annual calendar of coffee farming activities to all coffee farmers. The calendar could 
indicate the appropriate time for pruning, weeding, spraying against coffee diseases, and coffee 
nutrition. Four (40.7%) respondents stated that there was need for increased regular field events 
and knowledge sharing forums to empower coffee farmers. If these measures are adopted, 
45(31.0%) of the respondents indicated that this would improve crop yield/production; 20 
(13.8%) indicated that the living standards of farmers would improve; 35 (24.1%) stated that 
the measures would improve farming skills that would lead to quality production; while 25 
(17.2%) of them noted that the measures would enhance quick and efficient response to the 
concerns of the farmers which would subsequently help them to avoid losses. 
Discussion of the findings 
The findings indicated that the majority of the farmers are male. This can be attributed to land 
ownership being mostly male. Also, most of these farmers fall in the 50 years and above age 
bracket. It is rare to find young coffee farmers because most of the youth migrate to urban areas 
searching for jobs. Similarly, young people do not own land and most parents are unwilling to 
surrender any to them. This is not to mention young people’s negative attitude towards farming. 
In terms of education, a majority (69.6%) of the farmers had attained either secondary or 
tertiary level of education. This level of education is fairly high and put them in a good position 
to understand and apply the scientific knowledge shared by the CRI (Nyagaka et al., 2010). It 
is noteworthy, however, that a sizable proportion (30.4%) of the farmers either had low 
(primary level) or no formal education. This implies that nearly one-third of the farmers lacked 
the capacity to engage meaningfully with scientific knowledge generated from the CRI. These 
findings concur with Ngeywo et al. (2015) who studied the influence of gender, marital status, 
age and farm size on coffee production in Kisii County in Kenya. They found that the average 
age of coffee farmers in the county was 57 and that 74.3% of them were married. They 
recommended that agricultural extension officers and the community at large should encourage 
females and the youth to be more active in coffee farming. This can be done, for instance, by 
creating social and legal environments which enable the youth to take up coffee farming 
gainfully. This can be achieved by instituting affirmative action such as redefining gender roles, 
reviewing land ownership regimes, increasing access to financial services, and revising the 
traditional inheritance structure. Other studies in Kenya yielded similar results. In Kirinyaga 
County, Kenya, Minai et al. (2014) found that the average age of smallholder farmers is 52 
years. In Mukurweini, Nyeri County in Kenya, Theuri (2012) found that most coffee farmers 
are males aged over 51 years. Similar findings were obtained in Ethiopia by Hassen et al. (2016) 
who also confirmed the influence of age, gender and access to financial services on cash crop 
farming, including coffee, in developing countries. In Burundi, Gerard et al. (2020) found that 
coffee farming is dominated by males who have large farms. Therefore, efforts to enhance 
coffee production need to address these demographic issues. On the level of education, the 
findings of this study concur with Nyagaka et al. (2010) who argued that good education 
enhances the farmers’ technical ability to understand and apply advanced farming techniques. 
They explained that educated farmers are able to perceive, interpret and respond to new 
information, technologies and innovations positively thereby enhancing their productivity. 
Similarly, educated farmers are able to make better decisions about farm inputs and 
management than those with low level of education. This paper, therefore, concludes that 
coffee farming in Kenya is dominated by mature and fairly educated males. Coffee is a 
knowledge-intensive cash crop whose farmers are able, or should be enabled, to access and 
apply knowledge generated through scientific research by institutes such as the CRI.  
Kabita | Knowledge Sharing Strategies between Coffee Farmers and Coffee Research Institute 169
The findings revealed that tacit, explicit and indigenous knowledge was being shared among 
the farmers. The indigenous knowledge encompassed traditional farming techniques passed 
from generation to generation by coffee farming families and communities. The tacit 
knowledge shared included skills in pruning and grafting of coffee varieties, among others. The 
explicit knowledge included coffee diseases, coffee nutrition, coffee pests and diseases, control 
of weeds, certification and standards, and canopy management, among others. Thus, we 
conclude that coffee farming requires specialised knowledge which can be in the form of tacit, 
explicit or indigenous knowledge. Coffee farmers need to acquire this knowledge from other 
farmers as well as scientific research institutions such as the CRI. Kumela et al. (2019) echo 
the findings of this study and assert that coffee farming needs knowledge on effective 
management of coffee diseases and pests. This knowledge needs to come from credible sources 
such as research institutions. Dumont et al. (2019) also suggest that coffee farmers need 
knowledge on how to maximise their produce by selecting the best varieties for their locale. 
Similar views were proposed by Cerdán et al. (2012) who emphasised that productive coffee 
farming is anchored on the availability and sharing of credible scientific knowledge. The 
findings revealed an asymmetrical flow of knowledge. Thus, a low flow of knowledge from 
the farmers to the CRI was observed. This is unfortunate because the farmers also generate 
valuable knowledge based on their practice and experience. These findings echo other studies 
(Cahyono et al., 2020; Concu et al., 2020; Ingram, 2008; Percy, 2005) who argue that farmers’ 
knowledge is not adequately or directly harnessed by research institutions, technocrats and 
other agencies. Thus, the voice of farmers is hardly heard in policy making, innovation and 
general development agenda. Similarly, there was no structure for farmers to effectively codify 
and diffuse their knowledge with the research institute. This limited the diversity and relevance 
of the knowledge available to coffee farmers in Kenya.  
Knowledge is mainly shared through field days and visits, farmer field schools, workshops, 
demonstration plots, ASK shows and other exhibitions, and residential training. Of these, the 
farmers appreciated the interactive and practical approaches as opposed to the rigid and 
theoretical techniques. Kuguru (2016) echoed this view and emphasised that coffee farmers 
gained greatly from practical knowledge sharing initiatives delivered in real life environments. 
Maina (2014) also emphasised that the mode used to share knowledge with coffee farmers 
greatly influenced the uptake and application of the skills. He also suggested that knowledge 
sharing mechanisms should integrate farmer participation and engagement. Luusa et al. (2018) 
recommended that coffee farmers should be encouraged to belong to farmer field schools to 
enhance the outcome of training initiatives in the sector.  
Most of the farmers in the current study acknowledged that they applied the knowledge CRI 
shared with them. They also reported that this knowledge has helped them to increase their 
produce and improve their lives. It is, however, noteworthy that some (22.9%) farmers 
expressed the opinion that the knowledge shared did not benefit them. They did not find the 
knowledge appropriate in terms of content, format and timeliness. This is because the CRI uses 
a “one size fits all” approach which “broadcasts” the same knowledge products to all the 
farmers. Feder et al. (2004) argue that there is often a disconnect between the knowledge 
farmers’ need and what is supplied through scientific research. They explain that farmers need 
contextualised knowledge which can be applied in the local setting. Similarly, they argue that 
scientific knowledge is generated in controlled and experimental conditions which are different 
from the reality of the farmers. It is also important to emphasise that although the farmers are 
all engaged in coffee production, their needs are not exactly the same. There is need to 
customise the knowledge sharing approaches and content to the specific needs of farmers. The 
need to customise scientific knowledge to the needs of the farmers has been discussed by many 
scholars (Castellanos et al., 2013; Eshuis & Stuiver, 2005; Hoffmann et al., 2007; Stuiver et 
Kabita | Knowledge Sharing Strategies between Coffee Farmers and Coffee Research Institute 170
al., 2004). Hoffmann et al. (2007) recommend a close collaboration between researchers and 
farmers not only during knowledge sharing but right from the conception of the research 
projects. Advocating for what is described as “on-farm research”, Thompson et al. (2019) 
explain that this research approach facilitates effective generation, application, validation and 
diffusion of relevant knowledge. 
There are challenges which hinder the effective sharing and application of crucial knowledge. 
Some of these include language barriers, time constraints among the farmers, inappropriate 
packaging of knowledge products, and an inadequate number of extension officers. There are 
also a number of farmers who think that they have all the knowledge they need and are resistant 
to new knowledge. It is important that these challenges be addressed as a means of enhancing 
sharing and application of scientific coffee farming knowledge. 
Recommendations 
The following recommendations can help CRI and farmers to exchange knowledge effectively 
and thereby increase the production of quality coffee: 
1. Develop a performance management framework which is complete with a monitoring 
and evaluation plan to keep an eye on the knowledge sharing initiatives as a means of 
strengthening their implementation and outcomes. 
2. Document and share a coffee farming calendar which details the time and procedure of 
performing the core activities in the annual farming cycle to ensure better preparedness 
and boost the outcomes. 
3. Utilise interactive, participatory and customised knowledge sharing approaches which 
are practical and executed in the real-life environment. This will increase the relevance 
and impact of the knowledge shared. 
4. Involve farmers who are fast-adopters as knowledge ambassadors and peer educators. 
These ambassadors can step down or customise the available knowledge for their peers. 
This will not only reduce the cost of sharing knowledge but also increase its uptake. 
5. Increase the frequency and regularity of knowledge sharing events such as workshops, 
seminars, demonstrations and exhibitions. These should also be held closest to the 
farmers so as to minimise travel costs and other inconveniences. 
6. Stimulate the creation of communities of practice on various elements of coffee 
farming. These communities could bring together farmers and scientific researchers to 
share and validate relevant knowledge. 
Conclusion 
Coffee farming requires specialised knowledge. The success of the venture in terms of quantity 
and quality of yields depends on the availability and access of relevant knowledge. Some of 
this knowledge can only be obtained from scientific research institutions. This study 
investigated how coffee farmers in Kiambu County, Kenya share knowledge with the Coffee 
Research Institute. The findings have demonstrated that the farmers and the institute currently 
share knowledge through a mixed array of methods. However, several challenges hinder the 
effective use of these knowledge sharing strategies. It was also observed that currently, the 
symmetry of knowledge flow is lopsided since the Coffee Research Institute shares much more 
than it receives from the farmers. These challenges should be addressed if the farmers are to 
benefit optimally from the knowledge generated by the Coffee Research Institute.  
Proposals for future research 
This study did not investigate the correlations between the demographical profile of the farmers 
and their participation in knowledge sharing with the CRI. Therefore, there is need for a 
Kabita | Knowledge Sharing Strategies between Coffee Farmers and Coffee Research Institute 171
quantitative study to statistically test the relationship between diverse variables and their 
influence on effective sharing and application of coffee farming knowledge in Kenya. 
References 
Aker, J. C. (2010). Information from markets near and far: Mobile phones and agricultural markets in 
Niger. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2(3), 46-59. 
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual 
foundations and research issues. MIS quarterly, 107-136. 
Al-Qadhi, Y. H., Md Nor, K., Ologbo, A. C., & Knight, M. B. (2015). Knowledge sharing in a multi-nationality 
workforce: examining the factors that influence knowledge sharing among employees of diverse 
nationalities. Human Systems Management, 34(3), 149-165. 
Belyaev, V. I., Silantyeva, M. M., Meinel, T., Grunwald, L. C., Belyaev, D. V., Kozhanov, N. A., & Sokolova, L. 
V. (2020). Field Days for Technology Transfer and Knowledge Exchange of Dealers and Farmers. 
In KULUNDA: Climate Smart Agriculture (pp. 493-500). Springer, Cham. 
Bizimana, J. C., Bessler, D. A., & Angerer, J. P. (2013). Impact of Market Information System (E-Soko) on Beans 
Markets Integration: Case of Rwanda (No. 1373-2016-109276). 
Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organization studies, 23(5), 687-710. 
Cahyono, E. D., Fairuzzana, S., Willianto, D., Pradesti, E., McNamara, N. P., Rowe, R. L., & Noordwijk, M. V. 
(2020). Agroforestry innovation through planned farmer behavior: trimming in pine–coffee 
systems. Land, 9(10), 363. 
Castellanos, E. J., Tucker, C., Eakin, H., Morales, H., Barrera, J. F., & Díaz, R. (2013). Assessing the adaptation 
strategies of farmers facing multiple stressors: Lessons from the Coffee and Global Changes project in 
Mesoamerica. Environmental Science & Policy, 26, 19-28. 
Cerdán, C. R., Rebolledo, M. C., Soto, G., Rapidel, B., & Sinclair, F. L. (2012). Local knowledge of impacts of 
tree cover on ecosystem services in smallholder coffee production systems. Agricultural Systems, 110, 
119-130. 
Chen, Y. J., Shanthikumar, J. G., & Shen, Z. J. M. (2015). Incentive for peer‐to‐peer knowledge sharing among 
farmers in developing economies. Production and Operations Management, 24(9), 1430-1440. 
Chepchirchir, S., Kwanya, T., & Kamau, A. (2019). Maximising the socioeconomic value of indigenous 
knowledge through policies and legislation in Kenya. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication. 
68 (1/2), 60-75. 
Clifford, M. N. (Ed.). (2012). Coffee: botany, biochemistry and production of beans and beverage. Springer 
Science & Business Media. 
Concu, G. B., Atzeni, G., Meleddu, M., & Vannini, M. (2020). Policy design for climate change mitigation and 
adaptation in sheep farming: Insights from a study of the knowledge transfer chain. Environmental Science 
& Policy, 107, 99-113. 
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Harvard 
Business Press. 
Demiryurek, K., Erdem, H., Ceyhan, V., Atasever, S., & Uysal, O. (2008). Agricultural information systems and 
communication networks: the case of dairy farmers in Samsun province of Turkey. Information 
research, 13(2), 13-2. 
Dumont, E. S., Gassner, A., Agaba, G., Nansamba, R., & Sinclair, F. (2019). The utility of farmer ranking of tree 
attributes for selecting companion trees in coffee production systems. Agroforestry Systems, 93(4), 1469-
1483. 
El Sawy, O. A., Eriksson, I., Carlsson, S., & Raven, A. (2000). Understanding the nature of shared knowledge 
creation spaces around business processes: an international investigation. Rådet för arbetslivsforskning. 
Eshuis, J., & Stuiver, M. (2005). Learning in context through conflict and alignment: Farmers and scientists in 
search of sustainable agriculture. Agriculture and human values, 22(2), 137-148. 
Feder, G., Murgai, R., & Quizon, J. B. (2004). The acquisition and diffusion of knowledge: The case of pest 
management training in farmer field schools, Indonesia. Journal of agricultural economics, 55(2), 221-
243. 
Fullwood, R., Rowley, J., & McLean, J. (2019). Exploring the factors that influence knowledge sharing between 
academics. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(8), 1051-1063. 
Gerard, A., Lopez, M. C., Clay, D. C., & Ortega, D. L. (2020). Farmer cooperatives, gender and side-selling 
behavior in Burundi's coffee sector. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies. 
Gitwe. (2020). Who we are. Available from: https://www.gitwefcs.coop/about-us/. Accessed 28 April 2021. 
Groves, C., Sankar, M., & Thomas, P. J. (2018). Second-generation biofuels: Exploring imaginaries via 
deliberative workshops with farmers. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 5(2), 149-169. 
Hagmann, J., Chuma, E., Murwira, K., & Connolly, M. (1999). Putting process into practice: operationalising 
participatory extension. London, UK: Overseas Development Institute.  
Kabita | Knowledge Sharing Strategies between Coffee Farmers and Coffee Research Institute 172
Hailu, G., Khan, Z. R., Pittchar, J. O., & Ochatum, N. (2018). Impact of Field Days On Farmers’ knowledge and 
Intent to Adopt Push Pull Technology in Uganda. International Journal of Agricultural Extension, 5(3), 
131-143. 
Hashemi, S. M., Hosseini, S. M., & Damalas, C. A. (2009). Farmers' competence and training needs on pest 
management practices: Participation in extension workshops. Crop protection, 28(11), 934-939. 
Hassen, K., Zinab, B., & Belachew, T. (2016). Gender and education as predictors of food insecurity among coffee 
farming households of the Jimma zone, Southwest of Ethiopia. BMC Nutrition, 2(1), 1-7. 
Heng, N., Naroeun, T. H. Y., Sophanna, M. E. L., & Loeuk, S. (2015). The Learning and Sharing of Rice Growing 
Knowledge Among Model Farmers. Forum of International Development Studies. 46-1 (May. 2015). 
https://nagoya.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=20820&item_no=
1&attribute_id=17&file_no=1 
Hoffmann, V., Probst, K., & Christinck, A. (2007). Farmers and researchers: How can collaborative advantages 
be created in participatory research and technology development?. Agriculture and human values, 24(3), 
355-368. 
Ingram, J. (2008). Agronomist–farmer knowledge encounters: an analysis of knowledge exchange in the context 
of best management practices in England. Agriculture and Human Values, 25(3), 405-418. 
Ingram, J., Chiswell, H. M., Mills, J., Debruyne, L., Cooreman, H., Koutsouris, A., Pappa, E., & Marchand, F. 
(2018). Enabling learning in demonstration farms: A literature review. International Journal of 
Agricultural Extension, 2018, 29-42. 
Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human resource development 
review, 2(4), 337-359. 
Janus, S. S. (2016). Becoming a knowledge-sharing organization: A handbook for scaling up solutions through 
knowledge capturing and sharing. The World Bank. 
Kamarudin, H. D., Abd Aziz, N. E., Zaini, M. K., & Ariff, N. Z. Z. M. (2015). Exploring knowledge sharing 
practices among paddy farmers towards building a foundation for knowledge creation. International 
Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 5(1), 112. 
Kamau, M. W., Bagamba, F., Riungu, C., Mukundi, J., & Toel, R. (2018). Early changes in farmers’ adoption and 
use of an improved maize seed: An assessment of the impact of demos and field days. African Evaluation 
Journal, 6(1), 1-10.  
Kommey, R. E. (2020). Knowledge sharing practices among rice farmers in the Eastern Region of 
Ghana (Doctoral dissertation). UNISA. 
http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/26710/thesis_kommey_re.pdf 
Kothari, C., & Garg, G. (2014). Research Methodology: Methods and Strategy. New age international. 
Kuguru, P. N. (2016). Effect of coffee farmers’ capacity on performance of coffee industry in Kenya. European 
Journal of Business and Strategic Management, 1(1), 39-50. 
Kumela, T., Simiyu, J., Sisay, B., Likhayo, P., Mendesil, E., Gohole, L., & Tefera, T. (2019). Farmers' knowledge, 
perceptions, and management practices of the new invasive pest, fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) 
in Ethiopia and Kenya. International Journal of Pest Management, 65(1), 1-9. 
Kwanya, T. (2020). Stigmatisation of indigenous knowledge: The case of night-running in western 
Kenya. Journal of Religion in Africa, 48(4), 376-392. 
Kwanya, T., Ogutu, J., Muthuri, E., Turandi, T., Maina, E., & Omach, C. (2015a). Knowledge management jobs 
in Kenya: a functional analysis. Regional Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, 1(1), 20-
38. 
Kwanya, T., Stilwell, C., & Underwood, P. (2015b). Apomediated marketplace: effective ba for knowledge 
sharing and learning among local civil society organizations in developing countries. Information 
Development, 31(5), 461-472. 
Kwanya, T., & Wasinda, J. A. (2019). Knowledge Sharing and Diffusion strategies in Savings and Credit 
Cooperatives in Kenya. African Journal of Co-operative Development and Technology, 4(I), 1-9. 
Lesak, D. (2016). Coffee From Gatundu, Kenya Voted Best in America. Available from: 
https://medium.com/@denislesak/coffee-from-gatundu-kenya-voted-best-in-america-8fad47298f3c. 
Accessed 28 April 2021. 
Luusa, J., Obara, J., & Wambugu, S. (2018). Effectiveness of Farmer Field School Training in Promoting 
Adoption of Best Agricultural Practices by Smallholder Coffee Farmers in Kenya. International Journal 
of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research 41(1), 116-132. 
Lwoga, E. T., Ngulube, P., & Stilwell, C. (2010a). Managing indigenous knowledge for sustainable agricultural 
development in developing countries: Knowledge management approaches in the social context. The 
International Information & Library Review, 42(3), 174-185. 
Lwoga, E. T., Ngulube, P., & Stilwell, C. (2010b). Information needs and information seeking behaviour of small-
scale farmers in Tanzania. Innovation: Journal of appropriate librarianship and information work in 
Southern Africa, 2010(40), 82-103. 
Kabita | Knowledge Sharing Strategies between Coffee Farmers and Coffee Research Institute 173
Maina, A. M. (2014). The influence of training extension workers on farm productivity: a case study of agra-
Nairobi county, Kenya (Doctoral dissertation). 
Malabayabas, F. L. (2015). Knowledge sharing of climate change adaptation strategies among upland farmers in 
Paoay, Atok, Benguet, Philippines. https://agris.fao.org/agris-
search/search.do?recordIsD=PH2018000492 
Mariyono, J. (2018). Empowering rural livelihoods through farmers' field school on vegetable production in Aceh 
Province-Indonesia. Journal of Rural Development (Hyderabad), 37(1), 129-145. 
Mashavave, T., Mapfumo, P., Mtambanengwe, F., Chikowo, R., Gwandu, T., Nezomba, H., & Siziba, S. (2011). 
Factors influencing participation of smallholder farmers in knowledge sharing alliances around SOFECSA 
field-based learning centres. In 10th African Crop Science Conference Proceedings, Maputo, Mozambique, 
10-13 October 2011 (pp. 335-338). African Crop Science Society. 
Mashavave, T., Mapfumo, P., Mtambanengwe, F., Gwandu, T., & Siziba, S. (2013). Interaction patterns 
determining improved information and knowledge sharing among smallholder farmers. African Journal of 
Agricultural and Resource Economics, 8(311-2016-5612), 1-12. 
Miller, D., & Shamsie, J. (1996). The resource-based view of the firm in two environments: The Hollywood film 
studios from 1936 to 1965. Academy of management journal, 39(3), 519-543. 
Minai, J. M., Nyairo, N., & Mbataru, P. (2014). Analysis of socio-economic factors affecting the coffee yields of 
smallholder farmers in Kirinyaga County, Kenya. Journal of Agricultural and Crop Research, 2(12), 228-
235. 
Moturi, H., Kwanya, T., & Chebon, P. (2020). Towards a Knowledge Recipe for State Corporations in the 
Financial Sector in Kenya. International Journal of Knowledge Content Development & 
Technology, 10(3), 33-50. 
Muhammad, A., Xia, L., Li, J., Sidra, G., Yasir, M., Ishaq, M. N., & Shah, S. (2014). Effectiveness comparison 
between the farmers field school and the training & visit approaches of agricultural extension in two 
districts of Pakistan. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences, 14(1), 33-39. 
Munyua, H., Adera, E., & Jensen, M. (2009). Emerging ICTs and Their Potential in Revitalizing Small-Scale 
Agriculture in Africa. Agricultural information worldwide, 2(1). 
Murumba, J. W., Kwanya, T., Maina, J. C., & Wangamati, A. S. (2020). Tacit knowledge management at 
universities in Kenya. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management (OJAKM), 8(1), 117-146. 
Mwang'ombe, A., Chemining'wa, G., & Olubayo, F. (2008). ICT in agricultural education, research, and outreach 
in Uganda. Available from: http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/handle/11295/85432. Accessed 25 April 2021. 
Mwesigwa, E., Tulinayo, F. P., & Mirembe, D. P. (2016). Enhancing agricultural knowledge sharing among 
smallholder farmers in Uganda: An evaluation of mobile and web technologies. Regional Universities 
Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture. 
Ndegwa, J. W., Machuki, V. N., Maalu, J. K., Awino, Z. B., & Iraki, X. N. (2015). Knowledge sharing, 
organizational learning and performance of top 100 medium enterprises in Kenya. DBA Africa 
Management Review, 5(2). 
Ngeywo, J., Basweti, E., & Shitandi, A. (2015). Influence of gender, age, marital status and farm size on coffee 
production: a case of Kisii County, Kenya. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & 
Sociology, 117-125. 
Nyagaka, D. O., Obare, G. A., Omiti, J. M., & Nguyo, W. (2010). Technical efficiency in resource use: Evidence 
from smallholder Irish potato farmers in Nyandarua North District, Kenya. African Journal of Agricultural 
Research, 5(11), 1179-1186. 
Obwaka, E. M., Kwanya, T., & Mwai, N. (2019, September). Knowledge transfer and retention challenges and 
service delivery in Nairobi City County Government (NCCG), Kenya. In Proceedings of 20th Annual IS 
Conference (Vol. 18, p. 25). 
Opara, U. N. (2008). Agricultural information sources used by farmers in Imo State, Nigeria. Information 
Development, 24(4), 289-295. 
Percy, R. (2005). The contribution of transformative learning theory to the practice of participatory research and 
extension: Theoretical reflections. Agriculture and human values, 22(2), 127-136. 
Raj, S. (2013). e-Agriculture prototype for knowledge facilitation among tribal farmers of North-East India: 
innovations, impact and lessons. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 19(2), 113-131. 
Ramirez, L. V., & Reyes, J. C. (2013). Research Management Implications of the Knowledge Sharing and 
Decision Making among Rice-Farmers in LGU-and NGO-Managed Cyber-Villages. Journal of Society 
and Technology, 3(1), 45-53. 
Razmerita, L., Kirchner, K., & Nielsen, P. (2016). What factors influence knowledge sharing in organizations? A 
social dilemma perspective of social media communication. Journal of knowledge Management. 
Serban, A. M., & Luan, J. (2002). Overview of knowledge management. New directions for institutional 
research, 2002(113), 5-16. 
Kabita | Knowledge Sharing Strategies between Coffee Farmers and Coffee Research Institute 174
Stuiver, M., Leeuwis, C., & van der Ploeg, J. D. (2004). The power of experience: farmers’ knowledge and 
sustainable innovations in agriculture. Seeds of Transition. Essays on novelty production, niches and 
regimes in agriculture, 93-118. 
Svensson, C., Lind, N., Reyher, K. K., Bard, A. M., & Emanuelson, U. (2019). Trust, feasibility, and priorities 
influence Swedish dairy farmers' adherence and nonadherence to veterinary advice. Journal of dairy 
science, 102(11), 10360-10368. 
Theuri, B. N. (2012). Factors affecting cofee revitilization programmes in Mukurweini district Nyeri County, 
Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi, Kenya). 
Thompson, L. J., Glewen, K. L., Elmore, R. W., Rees, J., Pokal, S., & Hitt, B. D. (2019). Farmers as Researchers: 
In‐depth Interviews to Discern Participant Motivation and Impact. Agronomy Journal, 111(6), 2670-2680. 
Kabita | Knowledge Sharing Strategies between Coffee Farmers and Coffee Research Institute 175