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.
Purpose: The impact of agricultural knowledge transfer (KT) is related to the access to and the quality of services available. Within this context, the allocation of resources in terms of KT offices and the number of advisers are important considerations for understanding KT impact. This quantitative study evaluates the impact of KT resources on farm profitability for clients in Ireland during the recessionary period 2008–2014.
Design/Methodology: Teagasc, the public KT service provider in Ireland, experienced significant office closures (43%) and a reduction in advisers (38%) during the economic crisis, yet client numbers declined only slightly (4.5%). Administrative data are merged with a panel data set on farm-level performance to evaluate the impact through Random Effects estimation.
Findings: The results show that clients gained a 12.3% benefit to their margin per hectare over the period. However, there was a negative effect of 0.2% for each additional client assigned to the adviser which averaged at 9.6%.
Practical Implications: The quantitative findings provide a measure of impact that represents the value for money for the KT service. The key implication is that the client ratio for advisers should be considered when allocating resources and lower ratios would positively impact client margins.
Theoretical Implications: This article outlines the value of quantitative studies to estimate impact in a clear translatable manner which can aid the policy discussion around resource deployment.
Originality/Value: This study evaluates the impact of KT during a recessionary period when resources were constrained, and uses client ratios to examine the spatial effects.
Ragasa, Catherina (author), Ulimwengo, John (author), Randriamamonjy, Josee (author), Badibanga, Thaddee (author), and International Food Policy Research Institution
Washington, DC office
Western and Central Africa Regional Office
Format:
Online journal article
Publication Date:
2016-04
Published:
Netherlands: Taylor and Francis
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 108 Document Number: D10953
32 pages, via online journal article, Purpose: As part of the institutional reforms and agricultural restructuring in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), this paper provides an assessment of the performance of the agricultural extension system as well as factors explaining it.
Method: This paper involves key informants’ interviews and surveys of 107 extension organizations and 162 extension agents in randomly selected 156 villages, analyzed using qualitative and logistic regression methods.
Findings and Practical Implications: Results show that despite having one of the highest extension agent-to-farmer ratio and a pluralistic extension system, DRC fails to deliver knowledge and technologies to rural areas due to lack of coordination, no unified and clear policy and mandate, lack of funding, aging and low competencies of agents, and lack of mobility and interactions of agents with key actors. This paper complements findings by other studies that number of agents is not a sufficient indication of performance, but an effective system needs to focus on the enabling environment for agents to be motivated to work as mandated. In this paper, enabling conditions that are found to be statistically significant are external funding, enforcement of performance targets, systems of rewards and sanctions, mobility to foster linkages, and skills development.
Originality: This paper contributes by: (1) analyzing a cross-section of various organizations and agents to identify factors that explain variations in performance in a statistical and systematic approach; (2) providing insights on how to prioritize investments and options for a fragile state like DRC, with weak infrastructure and institutional capacity and with a long history of neglect for their national extension system; and (3) illustrating how a rich and well-cited conceptual framework can be implemented empirically to provide policy options for a country like DRC.
2 pages., Via UI online subscription., Purpose: This paper examines extension practises of agricultural workers within the Egyptian government and the perceived barriers they face in implementing participatory approaches, identifying improvements required in research and extension processes to meet the real needs of Egyptian farming communities.
Design/Methodology/Approach: Key barriers for engaging in participatory extension were identified using content analysis of semi-structured interviews, surveys and focus group discussion of 37 government agricultural workers along with participant observation and review of existing literature.
Findings: The majority of workers surveyed understood basic participatory extension principles and desired to use these approaches. Changing from traditional ‘top down’ extension to systems that engage with farmers' needs at the community level is made difficult due to the aging and poorly functioning Village Extension Worker (VEW) network. Thus, it is far easier for the research driven extension programmes to use technology transfer models.
Practical Implications: Participatory extension relies on strong relationship building and open communication between farmers, extension workers, researchers, interest groups and policy-makers. The Egyptian government must properly establish and resource the pivotal role of VEWs within the extension system to meet its strategic aims of modernising agriculture, developing food security and improving the livelihoods of rural inhabitants.
Originality/Value: This paper captures the unique perspectives of government research, extension and education workers involved in agricultural development at a time directly after the 2010 revolution, when they were able to more openly reflect on the past and present situations.
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.
Suggests that market oriented arrangements (i.e., privatized extension and research, output-financing) are probably less suitable than other institutional arrangements when the aim is to support experiential learning and interactive design towards sustainable agriculture.
