See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270244500

Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems and Social Communication

Networks

Chapter · October 2014

CITATIONS READS

6 8,643

1 author:

Kursat Demiryurek
Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi
169 PUBLICATIONS   877 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Farmers' decision making process on production pattern: The case of vegetable growers in Bafra district of Samsun province, Turkey View project

Akademik girişimcilik eğitimi View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kursat Demiryurek on 31 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 AGRICULTURAL KNOWLEDGE AND INNOVATION
SYSTEMS AND SOCIAL COMMUNICATION
NETWORKS

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Kürşat DEMİRYÜREK

Ondokuz Mayıs University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of
Agricultural Economy 55139 SAMSUN / TURKEY
E-mail Address: kursatd@omu.edu.tr

AIM
The aim of this chapter is to present the recent concepts, theories and
methods in extension science such as agricultural knowledge and
information systems, agricultual innovation systems, agricultural
communication networks.

TARGET
This chapter targets the readers to understand the concepts, theories
and methods related to agricultural knowledge systems, agricultural
innovation systems amd agricultural communication networks.

ACQUISITION
At the end of this section the following outcomes are expected to be
achieved:
1) Understand the concepts of system, model and social system and the
relevance them to agricultural extension
2) Define the concepts of data, information, knowledge and decision
making and relations among these concepts
3) Learn agriculral information, knowledge, technology and innovation
trasfer models
4) Learn the usefulness of communication and social networks in agriculral
extension research

[299]
1. INTRODUCTION
Recently, knowledge has become leading factors among other
production factors in the information age. It increases the management skills of
the entrepreneur. The productivity of other production factors can be
developed through suitable, practical and confidential information and
knowledge. Therefore; information transfers in the agriculture sector, which are
provided by extension, research, education and other institutions; tried to be
coordinated by the ministries of agriculture and aimed to convey this
information truly, on time and as fast as possible especially to the farmers.
Thus; individual producers in the system make sound decision, evaluate the
market opportunities better and direct the production systems according to the
changing situations. In addition, all the stakeholders in the agriculture sector
will be able to use the information sources effectively and acquire more
outcomes through constructing a network, which they can share together the
information they have had and learnt and providing its cooperation
(Demiryürek, 2000; Demiryürek et al., 2008).
This chapter is prepared with the aim of helping the understanding of
significant concepts, models, approaches and methods related to the
agricultural communication network with agricultural information and innovation
systems. The conceptual frameworks of the study consist of four basic theories
and approaches. First; System Theory is employed for constructing the general
framework. Similarly, Social System Theory is provided as a beneficial way to
understand the social relationships. The focus of this theory is the relationships
between information, knowledge and decision making and information transfer
process through social interactions between individuals and institutions. The
second is the Agricultural Information and/or Knowledge Systems Theory
developed from the System Theory. This agricultural information and/or
knowledge exchange is similar to an approach which provides communication.
The third is Agricultural Innovation Systems developed from the Network
Theory. As for this system, it gives prominence to the existence in the system
and roles of several actors which involve in agriculture sector. However, this
cannot be realized before along with agricultural information sharing
(communication) between research, extension and farmers. With this
approach, analysis and development of social networks developed from the
relations and interactions between all actors involve in the system during
development and diffusion of agricultural innovation process is provided.
Therefore, finally Social or Communication Network Theory and approaches
are considered as one of the recent methods employed in the analysis of
Agricultural Information and/or Knowledge Systems.
2. SYSTEM, SOCIAL SYSTEM AND SYSTEM APPROACH
First of all the definitions of the important concepts used in this study will
be provided and suitability for the agricultural extension works will be
discussed in this part.
A system is a group of interacting components, operating together for a
common purpose (Spedding, 1988) and separated from its environment by a
boundary (Haverkort and Engel, 1986). The observable purpose is
[300]
characterized in terms of how the system transforms inputs from the
environment into outputs to the environment (Fenton and Hill, 1993) (Figure 1).
A successful institutional system is more than the sum of the parts which
construct systems (Röling, 1989); in other words, it works synergistically. A few
institutions construct system through bringing individual parts, which construct
itself, together. However, different institutions can share personal, physical and
financial sources for reaching the common aims through coming together with
communication and cooperation (Rivera et al., 2005).

Input output

Sub-
input system

Sub- output
Input system
Sub-
system

control

Figure 1. A model of simple system (Demiryürek, 2001)

Parsons (1951) indicates that system theory can be employed in the

analysis of social interaction between people. Social system can be defined as:
“… a community of people who are aware of their own memberships and
accept this (Checkland, 1981) and a community of people who try to continue
this group to get support in reaching common aims” (Ortiz, 1997).
Communication is one of the most important interaction ways in social systems
(Loomis, 1962). “Communication” is defined as: “conveying information,
decisions and instructions which affect the construction of knowledge, ideas
and behaviors of human beings. Simply, communication is exchanging
information among people (Demiryürek, 2001).
System approach is a method which shows perspectives to analyze and
develop a particular system and tries to solve the problems related to this. This
approach can be applied to every object (issue) (Spedding, 1988). Röling
(1989) states that the purposes of a system approach are to analyse, manage
and improve a current system and to design a better one. This perspective is
useful, because it stimulates a holistic view, stresses model construction, suits
the analysis of complex phenomena and provides tools for policy, management
[301]
and operation (Hurtubise, 1984). Röling (1988) expresses a similar view and
points out the usefulness of a systematic approach to analyze agricultural
information. Therefore the system approach is an appropriate method for
analysis of extension methods, Agricultural Information, Knowledge or/ and
Innovation Systems (Haverkort and Engel, 1986).
3. CONCEPTS OF DATA, INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE
Before defining Agricultural Information Systems, it is necessary to
distinguish the concepts of data, information and knowledge which are related
but different concepts. The terms information and knowledge are often used in
similar meanings in daily life, but they are generally misused. Without doubt,
these concepts are related to each other. However, it is necessary to define
the information and knowledge concepts differently. In addition, there are some
definitions which are generally accepted for data, information and knowledge.
Now, definitions, related to these concepts are examined.
Data are raw (unprocessed) facts and materials which can be observed,
interpreted and recorded by humans or electronic equipments. Those are the
starting points of mental processes of humans. Processed data can be
transformed into information. However, this is neither valid for all the cases nor
can be transformed into the same information by different instruments. Since,
transformation is a personal process, it can sometimes be changed by the
social relations (or data can be transformed into information differently)
(Demiryürek, 2000).
The common point in definitions of information is the general usage of
the term of data. Information refers to the selected and processed data.
Checkland and Holwell (1998) point out the important functions of the care and
content in the process of making sense and speech (the process of data
transformation into information). In other words, processed data have
contextual meaning. The researchers indicate that this process is entirely
peculiar to the humans. The users of information (processors) have their own
memory, knowledge and values and people perceive the real world through
intellectualizing (Land, 1985). Thus, a person chooses messages or
information; accepts, denies or inflicts. Therefore, a simple information can be
interpreted by different people in different ways (Checkland ve Holwell, 1998).
As a conclusion; information is arising from structured data within a context
that gives it meaning. Information can be processed, generated, transformed
and shared, through complex processes of coding and decoding, generally
known as communication. The communication of information is a major
concern for Extension Services (Demiryürek, 2000).
As for knowledge, it is the product of processing information, and is at a
high level of structure and longer lasting. Knowledge is in a person’s mind and
results from the functioning of the brain. Concepts, meanings and intellectual
skills constitute a person’s knowledge which can be developed through formal
and informal learning experiences (Demiryürek, 2000).
Even though the concepts of knowledge and information are related to
each other, they are basically different at the levels that processed by the

[302]
human mind. Therefore; knowledge can be defined as: ““meaningful information
which is shaped by mind to understand and predict the world and stored on the
minds of humans”” (Sekuler and Blake, 1985; Röling, 1988 and 1990; Malim,
1994). The basic difference between knowledge and information is that while
knowledge is on the mind of a person and cannot be transferred; information
can be reached out, therefore
refore it can be transferred (Röling, 1988). Individuals
can convey the knowledge in his mind only through transforming it into
information (Demiryürek, 2001) (Figure 2).

Knowledge
Knowledge

Informa
formation

Figure 2. The relationship between information and knowledge (Communication)

These relations indicate that knowledge cannot be transferred and

exchanged directly. Despite; data and information can be transferred. New
information causes the transformation of acquired existing knowledge of
humans (Haverkort and Engel, 1986; Röling, 1988). What is meant by this is
clearly communication (Demiryürek, 2000) (Figure 2).
4. THE RELATIONSHIPS OF INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AND
DECISION MAKING
The data are raw and unprocessed information. When the raw data are
collected, processed and organized, they are transformed into infor
information. In
other word, information is an organized set of data. As for knowledge, it
consists of meaningful and understandable information. Information transforms
into knowledge when it is processed and analyzed in the human mind. As for
knowledge, it provides
ides decision making of people through synthesizing in the
mind. Data and information are in the forms which can be transferred, received
and stored out of mind. As for knowledge, it is only on the minds of people.
Information can be reached and processed in the brain; in other word, new
information is transferred into new knowledge through using the existing
information in the brain and takes its place in the people’s memories. New
knowledge is used for decision making at present or in the future (Demiryür
(Demiryürek,
2001; Akgün and Keskin, 2003). The relationship of information, knowledge
and decision making is shown below (Figure 3).

[[303]
 Decision making
Synthesized
Knowledge
Analyzed
Summarized
Organized Information
Collected

Data

Figure 3. The transformation process between data, information and knowledge.

(Çağıltay and Tokdemir, 2010)

The transformation of information into knowledge gives people the

opportunity to make better decision and act in a particular way when they face
with various alternatives (Figure 3) (Röling, 1988). Rogers (1983) points out
that people need information not only about an innovation, but also about the
possible outcomes of this situation to be able to make a decision. Therefore,
farmers need to gather and process the information with the aim of decision
making.
5. AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE, TECHNOLOGY AND
INNOVATION TRANSFER MODELS
5.1. Classical Technology Transfer Model
As one of the public research and extension information transfer models,
Transfer of Technology, (TT) had been widely used for the agriculture in
several countries until 1980s. In TT model the roles of elements are defined as
developing for research, transferring for extension and adoption for the
farmers. Even though this model is widely used around the world; experiences
show that application of the model is partially adequate. This model is mostly
suitable for the progressive farmers, who have rich resources, conditions and
needs (Chambers, 1983; Chambers and Ghildyad, 1985) and progressive
farmers (Röling, 1988). Since, the conditions of research institutes resemble
mostly to the conditions of farmers who have rich resources (Chambers and
Ghildyad, 1985).
The followings can be considered as among the critics against the TT
model. It is one way model, considers linear technology transfer, technological
developments start in local research institutes or international research centers
and the farmers are expected to adopt that technology sooner or later.
Therefore; understanding the concepts of knowledge and information systems

[304]
is reflected poorly in the TT model (Röling 1988). TT model can be shown as
below (Figure 4).

Research Extension Farmer

Role: Developing Transfer Adoption

Figure 4. Technology Transfer Model (TT) (Demiryürek, 2001)

TT model has been tried to be modified. However, its context has stayed
sane and negative sides of the model could not be overcome. Chambers (1983
and 1988) developed a model called Farmer First (FF) which points out the
significance of priorities and the participation of farmers in the process and
levels of producing and making use of technology. This model was developed
for the aim of explaining the reasons why farmers reject the technology.
According to Chambers (1988), these problems are related to unsuitable
technology and the production process of this (especially actors’ roles and
places in the system) rather than neglecting the farmers and their conditions. In
addition, Leeuwis (1993) indicates that the error in the TT is not only related
with the technology itself, but also related to the complex relations and active
agreement process between multiple actors in the system (farmers, extension
providers, researchers, the workers of voluntary agencies.
5.2. Technology and Information Transfer Model
Rolls (1990) and Rolls et al. (1994) modified the TT model later and
developed an integrated model called "Technology and Information Transfer
Model (TITM)" (Figure 5). These researchers point out the other roles of the
farmers except from adopting a technology into consideration and emphasized
the differences between both vertical and horizontal technology and also
information transfers. Rolls et al. (1994) explained that information and
technology transfers occur at different levels and these transfer processes
happen through a network. On the other hand; information is not only
transferred from the researcher to the farmer, but also working knowledge and
own technology of the farmers can be transferred to the research institutes.
Rolls et al. (1994) indicate that the transfer of technology and the transfer
of information about the technology should be differentiated. These
researchers mention that farmers can react differently to information and
technology. For instance; farmers can refuse the technology, employ it for a
while and then cease the usage, get more information about technology.
However, they do not use it or store this information for further usage. These
researchers argued that some cases could be occurred through the interaction
of components on the information system. Therefore; modeling the possible
interaction ways between components will help the understanding of the

[305]
complexity of the components which have such kind of interaction and different
perceptions.

Figure 5. Technology and Information

formation Transfer Model (TITM)
Source: Rolls (1990) and Rolls et al. (1994)

5.3. Agricultural Information and Knowledge Systems

Röling et al. (1988) also criticized the technology transfer model and
developed Agricultural Information Systems (AIS). This model can be applied
to the all farm systems to analyze the information systems, measure the
achievement and understand how these systems work. In the concept of AIS,
information processes such as production, transformation and utilization can
be made by allll the elements or actors in the system. For instance; research is
not the only source of information and technology. Farmers, also, produce their
own information, knowledge (especially at local level), and technology.
Likewise; research can be the user of information and techniques of the
farmers for developing and transforming the technology (Röling, 1990; Rolls,
1994). A simple model of AIS is given in Figure 6.
Röling (1988) points out that it is necessary to know how farmers and the
other people use information sources and how this information is processed
and employed to put the agricultural production into practice.

[[306]
 Figure 6. Agricultural Information Systems (AIS) Model (Röling, 1988)

This researcher defines the concept of Agricultural Information System,

AIS as below: “a a system in which agricultural informat
information is generated,
transformed, consolidated, received and fed back in such a manner that these
processes
sses function synergetically to underpin knowledge utilisation by
agricultural producers (Röling, 1988)”.
This definition emphasizes what the information processes are and how
these components can work synergistically. AIS approach can be used as a
way withh analytic aims for designing information system in a complex society.
The basic aim of AIS is to increase the usage of information and knowledge by
the farmers and performance of the system.
This approach is also useful to determine the possible problems between
system components and develop coordination. This explains the concept of
information management (Engel, 1989; Röling, 1990). The participation of all
the components is fundamental for the system to function synergistically. In
addition, the exchange of information between components through the
network has a critical importance for a successful production and transfer of
technology (Engel, 1989; Rolls, 1990; Röling, 1990; Röling and Eng
Engel, 1991/a
and b; Rolls et al., 1994).
Röling (1988), in the beginning, separates the concepts of information
and knowledge and defines the concept of Agricultural Knowledge System,
(AKS) as: “a
a system of beliefs, cognition, models, theories, concepts anand other
products of the mind in which the (vicarious) experience of a person or group
accumulated” (Röling, 1988).
with respect to agricultural production is accumulated
As different from the concept of AIS, AKS is rather a personal system
and emphasizes the ability of personal perception. In a social system AKS
consists of its components. These components can be different institutions and
individuals. To form the relationship between components of the system
interaction, activities and a network between the component
components will be available.
In principle,, the system should function synergically; however, a specific level
of entropy can occur. Most of the disorders appear during the interaction

[[307]
between the components of the system. This results in blocking of
transformation of knowledge and information and thus the system cannot
function synergically. Therefore; system management is required (Engel, 1989;
Röling, 1990).
Röling and Engel (1991/b) later integrated AIS and AKS and developed
the concept of Agricultural Knowledge and Information System (AKIS). The
definition of AKIS is given below:
“The
The persons, networks and institutions, and the interfaces and the
linkages between them, which engage in or manage the generation,
transformation, transmission, storage, retrieval, integration, diffusion and
utilization of knowledge and information, and w which potentially work
synergitically to improve the goodness
goodness-of fit between knowledge and the
environment, and the technology used in agriculture (Röling and Engel,
1991/b)”.
Later; the concept of AKIS became widely used by FAO and the World
Bank. Different
nt from the linear TT model, the farmers take place in the center
of AKIS model; education subsystem is also added to the research and
extension subsystems (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems

Systems- AKIS (Rivera et al., 2005)

Later; supporting systems (all the institutions providing income and credit
to the farmers, farmer organizations, etc.
etc.) were also added to the components
of farmer, research, education and extension which take part in the model and
Agricultural Knowledge and nd Information Systems for Rural Development
Development-
AKIS/RD model was developed. In the last form of this model; the four basic
actors, politics, other executives, system inputs and outputs to the links
between them were added. Therefore Agricultural Knowledge a and Innovation
Systems-AKIS
AKIS were developed (Figure 8). The starting point of this model was

[[308]
to understand and solve the limits of top to bottom technology transfer
approach. Public administrators and politicians emphasize that the innovations
in rural areas can be developed by different regions; the needs for developing
local innovations are easier along with the responsibility of providing local
education and knowledge. In two two-sided, interactive and participatory
Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System Systems model, participation of
producers and other actors have a critical importance, unlike the Agricultural
Knowledge and Information Systems for Rural Development
Development- AKIS/RD model.
If necessary communication and common decision making functions are not
performed,
ed, effective communication between information sources and users
will not be provided (EU SCAR, 2012; Rivera et al., 2005).

Figure 8. Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems ((Rivera et al., 2005).

5.4. Agricultural Innovation Systems

Nowadays, fast
ast environmental, economical and social changes at global,
national and local levels have required to adopt these challenges to research,
extension and development approaches. Agricultural production, which is
getting more complicated and varied and research requirements for rural areas
requires more flexible and non-central
central constructs. In another respect; doing
such kinds of researches and direct participation of farmers and other actors in
the extension process
ocess have gained much importance. In other words; this
transformation intended the participation of more varied actors (of farmers and
other institutions) rather than official research and extension organizations

[[309]
oriented approach in the development and extension of agricultural innovations
has become inevitable.
Agricultural Innovation Systems
Systems-AIS approach brings different people
and institutions in agricultural and rural areas together and emphasizes the
importance of the relations between them (Figure 9). In addition, this approach
involves all the other actors, relations and the links between them in the
process from the production of the goods to market from the producer to the
consumer. This approach centralizes the innovation instead of technology o or
research itself. AIS is a concept which extends perpetually and it requires
flexibility to the applications of the innovation in different situations (Pound and
Essegney, 2008).

Figure 9. Actors and Linkages in the Agricultural Innovation Systems

(Anandajayasekeram
andajayasekeram et al., 2008)

An innovation system is a network consisting of various institutions,

operations and people. Innovation systems focus on providing more economic
and effective usage through bringing new products, new processes and new
institution that forms together. If related institutions and supportive policies
brought together, it will accelerate the adoption and diffusion of innovations
(World Bank, 2006). In a simple definition, an innovation system can be
defined as revealing more e dynamic and multi
multi-stakeholders collaborations
through developing and employing technology and related processes to
improve the welfare of the people.
An innovation can be defined as adopting a new or existing technology,
institutional or local knowledge to a new situation with an economically and
socially appropriate process.. Therefore; agricultural innovation consists not

[[310]
only adoption of agricultural technology but also re
re-organization of marketing
strategies by a group of farmers, employing a new educ education and training
methods by extension person or employing a new product processing
technique by an agricultural institution.
The innovation systems approach also involves in researching processes
related to the developing, sharing and employing of inform
information and knowledge
in a focused society. In other words; Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS)
involve Agricultural Knowledge and Information System
System- AKIS (Figure 10). In
addition, it involves promoting the adoption of innovations as well as political
supports
ports and market regulations for providing the extension services to larger
groups. AIS approach consists of radical change from the technology transfer
approach which is conventional, linear and top to bottom towards an innovation
systems approach (Spielman et al.,, 2011).
Innovation is a social process and it can come into existence through
providing relations, interactions and cooperation between all actors involve in a
social system. Generally, at the farmer level the concept of innovation means
adoption of the technologies coming from different places by the farmers.
However, in the innovation systems approach, it is emphasized that the source
of innovation is not only research institutes, but also new technologies and
innovations can be developed either by farmers or farmer organizations. Most
of the local innovations are socio-economic
economic and organizational innovations
such as finding a new way to access the sources or developing a new method
for the organization of marketing issues rather than technical in innovations
(Waters-Bayer et al., 2006).

Figure 10. Agricultural Innovation Systems

(World Bank, 2012: modified from Rivera et al. 2006).

[[311]
 The features of Agricultural Innovation Systems can be defined as below
(World Bank, 2006):

• Aim: Strengthening the capacities for developing

new and different ideas through agricultural
production and marketing systems.
• Actors: All the potential actors in public and private
sectors taking part in developing, employing,
adopting, and extension processes of each of
the knowledge appropriate for agricultural
production and marketing.
• Outputs: Bringing technical and organizational
innovation together by means of researches
related to the production, marketing, policy
searching, and operations.
• Organization: Employing recent knowledge for social and
economic change.
• Mechanism: Interactive learning.
• To develop capacity: Institutional settlements and changes for
strengthening the interaction between actors,
supporting interactions and developing
learning and innovations.
As a conclusion, Agricultural Innovation Systems approach is employed
with the aim of analyzing the framework of technological, economical and
institutional changes in agriculture which has been rising lately. As seen in the
Figure 10, with this approach; innovation is accepted as a conclusion of the
processes of interactive learning between different heterogeneous groups such
as farmers, input suppliers, agroprocessors, tradesmen, researchers,
extensionists, civil servants and non- governmental organizations and
constructing a network. In addition; this approach emphasizes that agricultural
innovations are not only about recent technologies, but they also consist of
developing alternative methods such as market, workforce, way of land
ownership; distribution of agricultural supports (Leeuwis, 2004). This approach
aims to determine how effective are the roles, responsibilities, actions and
interaction of a wide range of actors in the process of developing innovation.
Along with this, it tries to analyze how the market and politic factors affect this
process (Spielman et al., 2011).
Presenting a social network consisting of relation and integration of
individual and organizational actors involve part in the process of development
and diffusion of innovation, determining the problems and indicating alternative
solution methods are the most important features of innovation systems. One
of the best ways of researching AIS is to use network theory and social
network analysis (Demiryürek, 2008; Demiryürek, 2010; Demiryürek and
Aydoğan, 2010).

[312]
6. AGRICULTURAL COMMUNICATION NETWORKS AND SOCIAL
NETWORKS
AIS, AKS, or AKIS approaches reveal how agricultural information and
knowledge exchanged or in other words, communication is occured and
shared among the subsystems of the system through system approach
(Demiryürek, 2001). These approaches have a critical importance from the
aspect of developing technology and transferring information about this
technology (Rogers, 1995; Ramirez, 1997; Garforth, 2001; Leeuwis, 2004). In
spite of this, adoption and diffusion of innovations theory (Rogers, 1995)
employ communication network (Rogers and Kincaid, 1981) and social network
analysis (de Nooy et al., 2005). In other words, communication networks are a
kind of social networks and they are innovation networks in basic. However,
communication network approach reveals the information and innovation
sharing between individuals and organization which are related with each other
(Rogers and Kincaid, 1981; Demiryürek, 2010/a, b) (Figure 11). In addition, this
is analyzed through Social Network Analysis-SNA (Demiryürek, 2008;
Demiryürek and Aydoğan, 2010). SNA reveals the form of communication in a
society (in a social system) (Rogers and Kincaid, 1981; Valente, 2006). Rogers
(1995) emphasizes the importance of the information exchange network
(communication) for agriculture and assesses that the diffusion of the
innovation can be done through the network in the social system. Individuals,
non- governmental organizations and groups are the members of a social
system (of a society) and called actors of the system. The roles of these actors
within the system affect the exchange process of information and innovation.
One of the ways to increase the effectiveness of agricultural extension
works is to present and develop the existing social, or in other words;
communication networks of the farmers. Actually; the social networks
constitute the form of communication channels which farmers share their
information on recent technologies and management of natural sources. These
networks are different from the approach, determining the leader farmers
coming into existence spontaneously through providing information exchange
within a society and exist as an only actor in the center of communication
network with social-metric method (Rogers and Kincaid, 1981; Tatlıdil, 1984)
(Demiryürek, 2008; Demiryürek and Aydoğan, 2010).
The concepts of network, social network and Social Network Analysis-
SNA which have an important role in terms of this study will be primarily
defined here. Later areas of social network analysis usage in agriculture will be
mentioned.
In general meaning; network can be defined as a group, system or
structure which is related to each other in particular intervals and order
(Demiryürek, 2008; Demiryürek and Aydoğan, 2010). Electronic networks are
the connection of a group of computers, which provide the data transfer
between machines via cables, telephone lines or satellite. Nowadays; the
internet is the most explicit example of this case. In contrast; personal
networks reflect the whole of the direct and indirect social relations in the target
groups’ environment. These relation networks are a tool of materializing the

[313]
objectives of certain groups. At the same time; it reflects communication of the
desire, need, demand and expectation of the people in the center of the
network along with the other members of the network (van den Ban and
Hawkings, 1996). Social networks are social structures consisting of individuals
or organizations which are called as actors (Figure 12).

Figure 11. Example of Agricultural Communication Netwo

Networks (Demiryürek et al., 2008)

Figure 12. A model of simple network (on the left) and social network (on the right
right)

These actors can be related to each other with different types of relations
such as friendship, communication, diffusion of innovations, financial
partnership, belief, knowledge, cooperation, trust and prestige. Each individual,

[[314]
organization, social group or society which constructs the network is called as
either actor or a node. These networks are the keystones of the social
networks. Networks initiate with at least two related actors and may contain
several actors. Links that can be named as information transfer channels which
relate the actors to each other can be defined as a relation or tie (Demiryürek,
2008; Aydoğan, 2012; Aydoğan and Demiryürek, 2013).
Social Network Analysis-SNA assumes that the relations between groups
are important. SNA examines, analyzes and presents graphically through
considering the way of interactions between units that makes the information
transfer between units easier or hinders. In the network who are in relation with
whom; who shares what knowledge with whom through using which means of
communication.
SNA, in terms of adoption of innovations; presents subsidiary ways to
figure out how the actors interact, how knowledge and sources act between
actors and other units and how the roles of actors and relations are
constructed (Demiryürek, 2008; Demiryürek and Aydoğan, 2010; Spielman et
al., 2011).
7. EMPLOYING SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS IN AGRICULTURAL
EXTENSION RESEARCH
SNA is an applicable method which becomes more important. Recently,
SNA is widely used at a significant level in health, work organizations and
electronic communication along with sociological studies. In recent years,
studies such as analyzing who the lead actors are especially in the networks
and strengthening the relations within the group can be mostly seen. If it is
necessary to give an example in this case, in recent years, non-governmental
organizations and political parties, especially in the electoral periods, have
started to widely use the social networking sites.
As in the other research fields, agricultural researchers have their own
methods. How knowledge will be reached to the producers in an easiest way is
an important point especially in agricultural extension works. SNA has an
important role in determining the opportunities and matters in extension and
acquiring the knowledge. Through employing SNA, the outcomes of the
farmers’ cooperation can be examined. In the same way, through which
information channels are conveyed, who is the key subjects or in other words,
pioneer or leader farmers are, how these key actors affect the network and
how the information is used are such the important points in agricultural
extension researches can be determined (Figure 13). Similarly; SNA is
generally employed to figure out how the producers gather the knowledge from
which ways in the period of agricultural production; if these information
channels function well or not; if there are some problems, to determine what
these problems are (Demiryürek, 2008; Demiryürek and Aydoğan, 2010;
Aydoğan, 2012).

[315]
 Figure 13. Above is a Social Network Analysis for determining the leader farmers
(Demiryürek, 2008) and below is an example of a Social Network Analysis indicating
the first and second knowledge sources of the producers (Aydo
(Aydoğan ve Demiryürek,
2013)

8. CONCLUSION
In this chapter; concepts, models and approaches which are related to
agricultural knowledge, innovation systems and agricultural communication
networks are presented. Agricultural Information and Knowledge Systems
(AIKS)
S) is basically developed from the system theory and used for
understanding the information and knowledge relations between individuals
and organizations which take part in a social system). In this context,
Agricultural Information and Knowledge Systems ((AIKS) examine the relations
between information transfer process -through communication and social
interaction methods between individuals and organizations taking part in the

[[316]
agricultural production process. Information, knowledge and decision making;
determine the deficiencies and offer suggestions for developing a better
system. In the approach of Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems
for Rural Development- AKIS/RD which was developed by FAO and World
Bank, it is aimed to make people living in rural areas more aware of and make
better use of communication and knowledge sharing systems. Tackled with the
system approach in the Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems for
Rural Development- AKIS/RD model agricultural education and bridging sub-
systems (all organizations with supply farmers with inputs and credits, farmer
unions, non- governmental organizations and politics etc.) are added to the
system in addition to the basic actors such as farmer, research and extension.
With the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems-AKIS approach which
was developed later, it was aimed to strengthen the information exchange or
communication between all the actors in rural areas in the process of
developing and diffusion of innovations. It is highly important for this system to
perform the functions of interactive, participatory and multi- dimensional
communication between all the actors taking part and making common
decisions. Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) approach which was
developed later was based on network theory. Beyond analyzing and
developing information exchange between actors taking part in Agricultural
Knowledge and Information Systems (AKIS), with Agricultural Innovation
Systems (AIS) approach the development of local innovations in rural areas is
agreed to be the outcome of active participation, interactive learning and
constructing network processes between different heterogeneous groups such
as input suppliers, agroprocessors, tradesmen and non- governmental
organizations. With Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) approach, it is aimed
to present social network which is constructed by relations and interactions of
all the actors taking part in the innovation development and extension process,
determining the problems and offer alternative solution for these problems.
Different from the other approaches, in Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS)
approach, especially market shapes and politic supports are examined in
addition to agricultural production related to the process of innovation. One of
the update and effective ways of analyzing Agricultural Innovation Systems
(AIS) is to employ Social Network Analysis (SNA).
As a conclusion; the studies of analyzing agricultural knowledge and
innovation system along with social and communication networks have a very
important function in determining policies for developing rural areas.
Presenting offers for the solutions to the problems of the existing system and
determining current social (communication) network between either growers or
related stakeholders -information sources related to agriculture and agricultural
innovations- will contribute to the understanding of agricultural knowledge and
innovation system management. With Social Network Analysis (SNA),
research results which agricultural knowledge and innovation systems will be
analyzed can be employed to determine strategies and management of
agricultural systems for developing suggestions for the solutions to common
and similar problems which are faced in our country and the other developing
countries and developing research, extension and policy programs

[317]
REFERENCES
Anandajayasekeram, P., Puskur, R., Sindu, W. and Hoekstra D., 2008. Concepts and
practices in agricultural extension in developing countries: A source book. IFPRI
(International Food Policy Research Institute), Washington, DC, USA, and ILRI
(International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya, 275 pp.
Akgün, A.E. and Keskin, H., 2003. Sosyal Bir Etkileşim Süreci Olarak Bilgi Yönetimi ve
Bilgi Yönetimi Süreci. Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi,
5(1): Bahar. (in Turkish)
Aydoğan, M., 2012. Samsun İlinde Organik ve Konvansiyonel Fındık Yetiştiricilerinin
Gübre Kullanımı Konusundaki İletişim Kaynaklarının Sosyal Ağ Analizi İle
Karşılaştırılması. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Tarım
Ekonomisi Anabilim Dalı, Basılmış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Samsun. (in Turkish)
Aydoğan, M. and Demiryürek, K., 2013. Communication networks for organic hazelnut
growers in Samsun. Prpceedings of the 21st Europena Seminar on Extension
Education (ESEE), Özçatalbaş, O. (ed). 2-6 September, Antalya, Turkey, 45-56.
Chambers, R., 1983. Rural Development: Putting the Last First. Longman, Harlow.
Chambers, R., 1988. Farmer-First: A Practical Paradigm for the Third Agriculture.
Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton.
Chambers, R. and Ghildyad, B.P., 1985. Agricultural Research for Resource Poor
Farmers: The Farmer-First-and-Last Model. Agricultural Administration, 20.
Checkland, P.B., 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. John Willey and Sons,
Chichester, New York, Brisbane and Toronto.
Checkland. P. and HolwelL, S., 1998. Information, Systems and Information Systems:
Making Sense of the Field. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Çağıltay, N.E. and Tokdemir, G., 2010. Veritabanı Sistemleri Dersi. Seçkin Yayıncılık,
Ankara. (in Turkish)
de Nooy, W., Mrvar, A. and Batagelj, V., 2005. Exploratory Social Network Analysis
with Pajek. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Demiryürek, K., 2000. The Analysis of Information Systems for Organic and
Conventional Hazelnut Producers in Three Villages of the Black Sea Region,
Turkey. Published PhD Thesis, The University of Reading,UK, OMÜ Ziraat
Fakültesi Basımevi, pp 301+ xvii, Samsun.
Demiryürek, K., 2001. Tarımsal Enformasyon ve Bilgi Sistemleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma:
Kavram, Teori ve Metot Rehberi. Türkiye Ziraat Odaları Birliği, Yayın No:218,
62+vi s, Ankara. (in Turkish)
Demiryürek, K., 2008. The Use of Social Network Analysis (SNA) to Identify Opinion
Leaders: The Case of Organic Hazelnut Producers in Turkey. Journal of
Extension Systems, 24(1): 17-30.
Demiryürek, K., 2010/a. Analysis of information systems and communication networks
for organic and conventional hazelnut producers in the Samsun province of
Turkey. Agricultural Systems, 103(7): 444-452.
Demiryürek, K., 2010/b. Information systems and communication networks for
agriculture and rural people. Agricultural Economics-Zemedelska Ekonomika,
56(5): 209-214.
rd
Demiryürek, K. and Aydoğan, M., 2010. Social Network Analysis with PAJEK. 3
International Congress on Information and Communication Technologies in
Agriculture, Food, Foresty and Environment. Ondokuz Mayıs Universitesi,
Samsun, 163-169.

[318]
Demiryürek, K., Erdem, H., Ceyhan, V., Atasever, S. and Uysal, O., 2008. Agricultural
Information Systems and Communication Networks: The Case of Dairy Cattle
Farmers in Samsun Province of Turkey. Information Research, 13(2): 343.
(Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/13-2/paper343.html)
Engel, P.G.H., 1989. Building Upon Diversity: A Role for Information Technology in
Knowledge Management for Agricultural Production. European Seminar on
Knowledge Management and Information Technology. Agricultural University
and International Agricultural Centre, Wageningen.
EU SCAR, 2012. Agricultural knowledge and innovation systems in transition – a
reflection paper. Brussels.
Fenton, N. and Hill, G., 1993. System Construction and Analysis: A Mathematical and
Logical Framework. McGraw Hill, London.
Garforth, C., 2001. Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems in Eritrea: A Study
in Sub-zoba Hagaz. FAO.Haverkort, B. and Engel, P. (1986). The System
Approach. The University of Reading, AERRD: Documentation Centre No. 0435,
Rome, pp.2-11.
Land, F., 1985. Is an Information Theory Enough?. The Computer Journal, 28(3): 211-
215.
Leeuwis, C., 2004. Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking Agricultural
rd
Extension (3 ed.). Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Leeuwis, C., 1993. Towards a Sociological Conseptualization of Communication in
Extension Science: On Giddens, Habernas and Computer-based
Communication Technologies in Dutch Agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis, 33(2):
281-305.
Loomis, C., 1962. Social Systems: Essays on their Persistence and Change. Van
Nonstrand Company, Inc., USA.
Malim, T., 1994. Cognitive Processes: Attention, Perception, Memory, Thinking and
Language. Mac Millan, London.
Ortiz, O.O.E., 1997. The Information System for IPM in Subsistence Potato Production
in Peru: Experience of Introducing Innovative Information in Cajamarca
Province. Ph.D. Thesis. Reading: The University of Reading, UK.
Parsons, T., 1951. The Social System. Routledge and Kegan Poul Ltd., London.
Pound, B. and Essegbey, G., 2008. Agricultural Innovation Systems. SCARDA Briefing
Papers, Volume 3. Accra, Ghana. pp. 46-53.
Ramirez, R., 1997. Understanding Farmers' Communication Networks: Combining
PRA with Agricultural Knowledge Systems Analysis. Gatekeeper Series No. 66.
IIED, London.
Rivera, W.M., Qamar, M.K. and Mwandemere, H.K., 2005. Enhancing Coordination
among AKIS/RD Actors: An Analytical and Comparative Review of Country
Studies on Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems for Rural
Development (AKIS/RD). FAO, Rome.
(http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_kn3/kn3_050901_en.htm)
Rivera, W.M., Gary, A., James, H. and Regina, B., 2006. Enabling Agriculture: The
Evolution and Promise of Agricultural Knowledge Frameworks. Association for
nd
International Agricultural and Extension Education (AIAEE) 22 Annual
Conference Proceedings (unpublished), Clearwater Beach, FL.
Rogers, E.M., 1983. Diffusion of Innovations (Third Edition). The Free Press, New York
and London.

[319]
 Rogers, E.M., 1995. Diffusion of Innovations (Fourth Edition). The Free Press, New
York.
Rogers, E.M. and Kincaid, D.L., 1981. Communication Networks: Toward a New
Paradigm for Research. The Free Press, New York.
Rolls, M.J., 1990. The Role of, and the Need for, Agricultural Extension and Research
Linkages. An International Perspective in Proceedings of the National Workshop
on Extension and Research Linkages. Morogoro.
Rolls, M.J., Hassan, Md.S.H.J., Garforth, C.J. and Kamsah, M.F., 1994. The
Agricultural Information System for Smallholder Farmers in Peninsular Malaysia.
Rural Extension and Education Research Report No.1, AERDD, The University
of Reading, Reading.
Röling, N.G., 1988. Extension Science: Information System in Agricultural
Development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Röling, N.G., 1989. Knowledge Management and Information Technology: Brief on
Concepts and Issues. European Seminar on Knowledge Management an
Information Technology. Agricultural University and International Agricultural
Centre, Wageningen.
Röling, N.G., 1990. The Agricultural Research-Technology Transfer Interface: A
Knowledge Systems Perspective. In: Kaimowitz, D. (ed). Making the Link:
Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer in Developing Countries.
Westview Press with ISNAR Cooperation, Boulder, San Francisco and London.
Röling, N.G. and Engel, P.G.H., 1991/a. The Development of the Concept of AKIS:
Implications for Extension. In: Rivera, V. M. and Gustafson, D.J. (eds).
Agricultural Extension: Worldwide Institutional Evaluation and Forces for
Change, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Röling, N.G. and Engel, P.G.H., 1991/b. It from a Knowledge System Perspective:
Concepts and Issues. In: Kuiper, D. and Röling, N.G. (eds). The Edited
Proceedings of the European Seminar on Knowledge Management and
Information Technology. Agricultural University, Wageningen.
Spedding, C.R.W., 1988. An Introduction to Agricultural Systems (Second Edition).
Elsevier Applied Science, London and New York.
Spielman, D.J., Davis, K., Negash, M. and Ayele, G., 2011. Rural Innovation Systems
and Networks: Findings from a Study of Ethiopian Smallholders. Agriculture and
Human Values, 28(2): 195–212.
Tatlıdil, H., 1984. Tarımsal Yayım Çalışmalarında Önder Çiftçi Yaklaşımı Üzerine Bir
Araştırma. Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakülteisi Yayınları: 893, Bilimsel
Araştırma ve İncelemeler: 526, Ankara. (in Turkish)
Valente, T.W., 2006. Communication Network Analysis and the Diffusion of
Innovations. In: Singhal, A. and Dearing, J.W. (eds.). Communication of
Innovations: A Journey with Ev Rogers. Sage Publications, New Delhi.
van den Ban, A.W. and Hawkins, H.S., 1996. Agricultural Extension (Second Edition).
Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Waters-Bayer, A., van Veldhuizen, L., Wongtschowski, M. and Wettasinha, C., 2006.
Recognizing and enhancing local innovation processes. Paper presented at the
Innovation Africa Symposium, Kampala, 21–23 November, Prolinnova.
World Bank, 2006. Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond the
Strengthening of Research Systems.Washington, DC.
World Bank, 2012. Agricultural Innovation Systems: An Investment Sourcebook.
Agriculture and Rural Development Seires, Washington, DC.
[320]

View publication stats