INTERPAKS, Offers an analysis of the conventional literature on adoption practices and adoptive categories. Examines the theoretical basis, and the empirical validity of adoption categories, as well as the extension worker's reliance on adoption categories for the dissemination of information in development activities and in research. Observation has led to the conclusion that adopter categories which can be empirically identified have been erroneously used in practice while the theory on which they are based is questionable. Draws attention to some of the dysfunctional effects of this largest grouping and the trickle down strategy used in extension for rural development. The analysis calls for a different approach to the categorization of the farming community. The main aim is to start with the people and then categorize the social system according to some important variables which will result in a homogeneous target group being isolated for specific extension activities.
Pal, R.N. (author), Sinha, M.N. (author), Sinha, P.R.R. (author), and SRS of National Dairy Research Institute, Bangalore, India; Director, Agricultural Extension and Communication, National Institute of Community Development, Hyderabad, India; Professor and Head, Department of Livestock Production and Management, Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar, India
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
1977-05
Published:
India
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 42 Document Number: B04932
James F. Evans Collection, All 143 farmer respondents of Amritsar Intensive Cattle Development Project were aware of breeding input but not of feeding input. Distinct patterns of communication source utilization were noticed in adoption of animal production inputs. Both formal and informal communication sources were almost equally utilized in awareness stage. Informal communication sources were given greater patronage in evaluation stage. Formal communication sources were utilized more in interest and adoption stages. However in trial stage, relatively compatible innovations like feeding input clustered around informal communication sources in contrast to breeding input in which more formal communication sources were contacted. For promotion of animal production inputs, therefore, animal husbandry extension programmes should give due consideration to implications of formal/informal communication sources as associated with stages in adoption. (author)
