Landini, Fernando (author), Beramendi, Maite (author), and University of La Cuenca del Plata
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET)
School of Psychology, University of Buenos Aires
Format:
Online journal article
Publication Date:
2019-07-24
Published:
Argentina: Taylor and Francis
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 101 Document Number: D10880
18 pages, online journal article, Purpose
This article aims at designing and validating a psychometric scale to assess extensionists’ and advisors’ beliefs about extension and innovation.
Design/Methodology/approach
The scale was developed by drawing upon results from a previous empirical research as well as insights from a literature review on extension and innovation approaches. The theoretical framework used to write the items was validated by 12 international experts from 11 countries. 608 Argentine extension workers completed the questionnaire. Replies were analysed using Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
Findings
The scale has a good fit and satisfactory level of internal consistency. Five factors were identified: Dialogue and horizontal coordination; Transfer of technology; Blame on farmers; Participatory, farmer-led extension; and Self-critical attitude.
Practical implications
The scale has multiple and different uses, including research, theory development, institutional practice, diagnosis, and teaching.
Theoretical implications
Results show that a horizontal, facilitative extension approach shares a common epistemology, as well as underlying values and assumptions, with territorial development and with an innovation systems perspective, and that both contrast with a traditional transfer of technology approach. Nonetheless, practitioners would not tend to see these two contrasting perspectives as contradictory but as complementary.
Originality/Value
The scale is the first validated psychometric instrument, based on an ample theoretical framework, that allows for a quantitative assessment of beliefs about extension and innovation.
21 pages, via online journal, Purpose: This article outlines the emergence of programme teams in the Australian dairy farm sector as a response to counter weaknesses in the institutional environment for agricultural innovation which favours technology adoption/diffusion approaches.
Design/methodology/approach: The strengths, weaknesses and risks of different approaches to innovation in the Australian dairy sector RD&E system are analysed and key features of an emerging programme team approach defined. The programme team approach is compared and contrasted with the features of innovation capacity from international literature. An analysis of the relative investment in this innovation capacity in different topics or domains of dairy innovation is provided.
Findings: The programme team approach to innovation involves groups of researchers, extension people, public and private organisations, farmers, community groups, and policy and service groups brought together to progress innovation and change in a topic area or domain. Leadership of the process is provided by an area expert or champion. The team takes responsibility for: (a) understanding the businesses of key players who have an influence in the innovation or domain; (b) deciding the nature of the desired change that all stakeholders can align to; (c) identifying features of the enabling environment to establish what capacity is needed; (d) designing a ‘route to change’ strategy (in contrast to traditional route-to-market thinking); and (e) piloting and refining the approach within the target populations. The group manages emerging risks and keeps on top of issues, as well as identifies any knowledge gaps for research that are preventing innovation and change.
Conclusions/practical implications: The programme team approach provides a semi-formal governance mechanism for innovation to develop, despite an institutional environment that favours technology adoption. Further, the activities of programme teams consist of practices which integrate research-led and demand-pull approaches. Currently, investment in such innovation capacity is relatively low and highly variable across different topic domains.
Added value: The article provides tangible activities that managers of agricultural RD&E programmes can invest in to progress systemic approaches to innovation and is a guide for agricultural education and extension practitioners to proceed in their innovation work.
