6 pages, via online journal, In order to design and implement public policies in the context of rural development, information tends to be gathered about family farming in different Latin American countries. In contrast, scarce attention has been given to the description of rural extensionists, who are the ones supporting family farming in the fi eld. A cross-sectional investigation was conducted between 2010 and 2012 including surveys to rural extensions working in 10 different Latin American countries, this allowing for a preliminary description of the socio-demographic profile of the respondents. The samples were incidental ranging from 19 (Bolivia) to 220 (Argentina) subjects, this implying that they were not representative. Significant statistical differences were found with regards to the sex, age, experience, level of education and university degree of the samples pertaining to the different countries. In average, most extensionists are men (70.1%), age 40.3 and have little more than 11 years of experience as extensionists. Brazilian practitioners surveyed are the oldest, most educated and experienced among the different samples. In general, most extensionists have a technical background and are agricultural engineers. The Uruguayan sample showed the highest percentage of extensionists coming from the area of social sciences.
16 pages, via online journal article, Purpose: In this paper, the knowledge dynamics of the farmer–rural extensionist’ interface were explored from extensionists’ perspective with the aim of understanding the matchmaking processes between supply and demand of extension services at the micro-level. Design/methodology/approach: Forty semi-structured interviews were conducted with extensionists whom work in the North-Eastern, Argentine provinces. Findings: Two different, general types of knowledge dynamics were identified: one moderately diffusionist, based on a hierarchical relationship and the prioritisation of experts’ knowledge, and the other constructivist, based on horizontal processes of co-construction. Interestingly, some extensionists support beliefs pertaining to both approaches. They also highlight the importance of unceremonious trainings, interpersonal trust and making recommendations that take into account farmers’ rationale. Practical implications: Results show the persistence of diffusionist rural extension and that extensionists have different, even contradictory, extension approaches, which renders inappropriate any attempt to generalise their perspectives. Theoretical implications: This study suggests that farmers’ demand is the result of a constructive, interactive process, and thus is not prior to the interaction between the demand side (farmers) and the supply side (extensionists). Consequently, the knowledge and power dynamics that take place within the farmer–extensionist interface should be considered the nucleus of demand construction and the matchmaking process. Originality/value: This paper addresses the dynamic matchmaking process between supply and demand of extension services at the micro-level, suggesting it is a constructive process and showing the core role played by power dynamics.
