Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture PDF

    Uploaded by

    jorgeortizramos1936
    19 views11 pages

    Original Title

    Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    19 views11 pages

    Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture PDF

    Uploaded by

    jorgeortizramos1936

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 11
    Volume 40, Number 4, 2000, 493-642 ISSN 0816-1089 , , Australian ournal of Experimental Agriculture A journal for the publication of applied research into the soil, plantpand animal sciences Special Issue: Improving Agricultural Practices and Decisions ‘Australian Jownal of Experimental Agriculture, 2000, 40, 493-302 Extension theory and practice: a review A.W. Black Centre for Social Research, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA 6027, Australia; e-mail: a black@ecuedu.au Abstract. This paper examines strengths and limitations of four major strategies or models in agricultural extension: linear ‘top-down’ transfer of technology; participatory ‘bottom-up’ approaches; one-to-one advice or information exchange; and formal or structured education and training, The main conclusions that no single model or strategy is likely to be sufficient by itself. Despite criticisms of linear technology transfer models, there is still a need for access to reliable scientific information, just as there is a need to provide for active participation by farmers in research and development processes. One-to-one exchange of information and advice, whether from farmer to farmer or from professional adviser to farmer (and vice versa), will continue to be important. So too will be the lifting of levels of formal education and training among farmers. New information technologies will facilitate some forms of education, training and information exchange, but will need to be supplemented by other extension strategies, Additional keywords: adoption, adult learning, diffusion, Internet, Introduction ‘There is no universally agreed definition of extension. According to van de Ban and Hawkins (1996: p. 9), a common meaning for the term is that: “... extension involves the conscious use of communication of information to help people form sound opinions and make good decisions.” The Australasia Pacific Extension Network (1999) states that extension involves “the use of communication and adult education processes to help people and communities identify potential improvements to their practices, and then provides them with the skills and resources to effect these improvements”. Marsh and Pannell (1998a: p. 2) define agricultural extension broadly to include: “... public and private sector activities relating to technology transfer, education, attitude change, human resource development, and dissemination and collection of information”. As this paper presents a review of extension theory and practice, it includes a consideration of activities that meet any of these definitions. The paper examines extension strategies under 4 main headings: (i) linear top-down’ transfer of technology; (ii) participatory ‘bottom-up’ approaches (also termed ‘group empowerment’); (iii) one-to-one advice or information ‘exchange; and (iv) formal or structured education and ‘© CSIRO 2000 training. Attention is then given to the present and potential use of new information technology, particularly the Internet, as a medium for agricultural extension. It is concluded that each of these approaches has strengths and limitations that should be borne in mind in planning and evaluating agricultural extension systems. Linear ‘top-down’ transfer of technology For many years, the dominant model of agricultural extension was based on the assumption that new agricultural technologies and knowledge are typically developed and validated by research scientists, and that the task of extension agencies is to promote the adoption of these technologies by farmers, thereby increasing agricultural productivity. Although various means of communication have been used, the conventional model of extension has focused particularly on the farmers thought to be ‘early adopters’ — the so called ‘progressive farmer strategy’ — in the expectation that ‘once they embrace the new technology, their example will be followed by others. Hence this is sometimes termed the linear adoption or diffusion model (Rogers 1983). In recent years, this model has been subject to various critiques. For example, writers such as Stockdale (1977), Fliegel and van Es (1983), Buttel er al. (1990), 10.1071/EA99083 494 Kloppenberg (1991) and Vanelay and Lawrence (1995) have argued that proponents of extension strategies based on this model have been insufficiently critical of the technologies they have been designed to promote, as inadequate attention has been given to the long-term economic, environmental and social impacts of those technologies. Some critics have also questioned the underlying assumption that after the most progressive farmers adopt technological innovations, these practices will inevitably diffuse down to the majority of producers. Russell ef al. (1989: p. ify state that this assumption has been found to be “... consistently problematical ...", a view echoed more recently by Dunn (1997: p, 162). Nevertheless, historically, there have been many well-documented cases where new technologies, such as the use of tractors, hybrid seed and synthetic fertilisers, have

    You might also like