The Emergence of Knowledge

Systems Thinking: A Changing

Perception of Relationships
Among Innovation, Knowledge
Process and Configuration
Niels R61ing

As agriculture develops, policy and management decisions increasingly

focus on agricultural innovation emerging from utilizing knowledge and/
or technology. This paper considers models for underpinning knowledge
and technology policy and management. It describes the emergence of
knowledge systems thinking. The system construct is applied to actors
(individuals, networks and institutions) involved in knowledge processes.
These actors potentially form a highly articulated and complex whole.
Knowledge policy and management focus on measures that enhance the
synergy between actors. Knowledge systems are viewed as "soft systems,"
i.e., they only become systems as a result of active construction and joint
learning. The soft systems perspective facilitates the identification of various
knowledge system models, which have consequences for policy and man-
agement decisions with respect to investment, design, and training. In an
attempt to create a unifying theory for these models, it is posited that
these models are consistent combinations of innovation, knowledge process
and structural configuration.

The Pervasive Conventional Linear Model of Agricultural

Technology Development and Utilization

Being a social scientist in an agricultural university is an interesting

experience. 1 It opens one's eyes to the extent to which "hard" scientists
m a k e decisions and give advice on the basis of w h a t one could call their
"social science" insights. These usually remain implicit, however, in that

Niels ROling was formerly professor and chair of the Department of Extension Science at the Agri-
cultural University Wageningen, The Netherlands. Currently, he is the director of an international
program on "Comparative research in knowledge systems in support of sustainable agriculture."
Knowledgeand Policy: The International Journal of KnowledgeTransferand Utilization, Spring 1992, Vol. 5,
No. 1, pp. 42-64.
R61ing 43

scientists are unaware of using them. They have no need for schooling in
social science theory and forget Maynard Keynes' pertinent remark that
people who have no need for theories and claim to be "practical," usu-
ally operate on the basis of the theories of yesteryear. This can have far-
reaching consequences, especially when the implicit social science in-
sights affect policy decisions and resource allocation.
A major instance is the utilization of social science theory with respect
to knowledge generation, exchange and utilization (KGEU). Worldwide,
the available KGEU literature (e.g., Havelock, 1973; 1986) has been ig-
nored. Instead, most scientists and economists implicitly use the "popular"
linear model of KGEU. It underpins the design of most (inter)national
agricultural knowledge institutions, the World Bank's T&V system of
extension, the training of agricultural scientists, and so on. To date, studies
in the sociology of knowledge (Eisenstadt, 1988) have not paid much
attention to this interesting phenomenon.
Because of its direct relevance for the way in which knowledge sys-
tems are designed and managed, I cannot avoid making explicit the nature
of this conventional model, if only to exorcise its dominance in thinking
about knowledge systems. Indeed, I only became aware of this in con-
junction with my acquaintance with totally different perspectives, such
as Participatory Technology Development (Chambers and Jiggins, 1987),
the 'Chain-linked Model' of Commercial Innovation (Kline and Rosenberg,
1986), Second Order Science (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1990) and Habermas'
Communicative rationality (Brand, 1990).

The Linear Model in Brief

The model is linear and sequential in that research first generates

knowledge, which is then transferred and subsequently utilized by farm-
ers. The unidirectional flow is from International to National Agricul-
tural Research Systems, to subject matter specialists, to extension workers,
to "contact farmers" and from them to "follower farmers." In industry,
the flow is from research, to development, to production and to marketing
(Kline and Rosenberg, 1986). The model does not pay much attention to
feedback paths or to the anticipation of technology needs (feedforward).
The generally accepted metaphor of a flow implies "upstream" and
"down-stream" trajectories. The model does not consider farmers as ex-
perimenters and technology developers (Chambers and Jiggins, 1987),
but as passive receptors and users.
Science is seen as the major source of new ideas and technologies.
Technology development and utilization constitute a center-periphery
process that does not allow for multiple sources of new ideas (Biggs and
Farrington, 1990).

Increased agricultural productivity is commonly explained solely in terms of

technological change. Technology, in turn, is often seen as the exclusive prod-
44 Knowledge and Policy / Spring 1992

uct of research and development. Both notions are erroneous. Implicit in the
attitudes of many scientists is the even more erroneous belief that "basic
research" is the true and ultimate source, not only of all technology, but of all
increased productivity. This frequently produces the view that everything else
is of some lower order of scientific interest and importance to society, and
thus to be relegated to second-rate minds and other inferior orders. This
elitism disorders US science policies (Bonnen, 1987).

In sum, the model assumes that technology is applied science; a phrase

inconsistent with empirical research, which shows that science often lives
off technology development (Kline and Rosenberg, 1986). Maintaining a
perspective on science as the source of all increased productivity is, of
course, politically important in that it ensures funding. A favorite meta-
phor is that of a commodity (ROling, 1990): technology is seen as a single,
uniform product which is "delivered" to "users." Bottlenecks in the "pipe-
line" can cause technology to "accumulate on the shelf." Many scientists
believe that if only all the technologies already available would be uti-
lized by farmers, most development problems would be solved. Hence
the interest in research-extension linkages to identify "de-blockers," which
would allow available technologies to be "pushed out" to farmers. The
commodity metaphor ignores the fact that technology usually changes as
knowledge products move through knowledge systems, and that farm-
ers "reinvent" technologies before incorporating them in their production
systems (Rogers, 1983).
The model "institutionally calibrates the science-practice continuum"
(Lionberger and Chang, 1970), kindled my interest in knowledge sys-
tems. A typical sequence is: basic research, applied research, adaptive
research, subject matter specialists, extension and farmers. The details
differ according to author (see e.g., McDermott, 1987, for a different ver-
sion). Implicit in this calibration is that the whole process starts with
science and ends with utilization by farmers.
In their summary of commercial innovation studies, stimulated or mo-
tivated by Japan's competitive prowess, Kline and Rosenberg (1986) have
pointed out that the contribution of science to innovation, only in special
cases comprises research (use of scientific method), and more often uses
the body of knowledge accumulated by science. Even then, the major
process underpinning commercial innovation is not science but technol-
ogy design. Thus, the emphasis on research, which has been maintained
in the conventional m o d e l does not reflect the actual processes taking
place. This misrepresentation has a price: e.g., the underinvestment in
commercialization in US industry is viewed as a major cause of the US
losing its competitive edge (Tripodi, verbal comm., 1991).
The linear model focuses on maximum returns to scarce resources,
given scientific frontiers and the state of the art of husbandry practices,
i.e., it assumes that the mix of conditions required for the utilization of
that optimal technology is somehow available to farmers--or will be
created. In other words, the conditions must be adapted to the technol-
R61ing 45

ogy. A quite different strategy would, for example, be to target technol-

ogy to a designated category of clients, anticipating the conditions in
which they must utilize and benefit from it.
The model is essentially reductionist, in that disciplinarian knowledge
is first translated into commodity knowledge, and subsequently into
technical recommendations with respect to a component of the farming
system. These recommendations are often "unfinished" in that they have
not been further developed to fit into the farming system. Such integra-
tion is usually left to the farmers.

9 more fundamental in the research-extension sequence is the failure to use

a managerial or systems perspective in the diagnosis of farmers' problems
and in the development of recommendations9 Neither the research or the
extension establishments are truly farmer-oriented because of the dominance
of the technical perspective (Collinson, 1989)9

A typical result is the neglect, if not denial, of the role of women in

agriculture.

The Model's Dominance and Pervasiveness

The popular linear model is the implicit basis for discourse in centre
directors' meetings, board meetings, reviews, planning major investment
projects, and in the corridors of power. The model is pervasive and domi-
nant. Strong incentives and political dynamics keep it alive. The model
has important implications in that it guides the design of actual knowl-
edge systems in agriculture and industry and is used to underpin major
policy and investment decisions. It has a self-fullfilling validity. But it
also blinds us: it ignores important aspects of actual innovation processes
which might be of crucial importance for the future.
One example of a situation where the linear model does not apply is
CARE's agro-forestry project in Kenya, which has been amazingly suc-
cessful (Buck, 1990)9 By 1988, 600 women's groups and schools,
respresenting some 100,000 households, had established tree nurseries.
Nine million seedlings had been produced and planted, of which 50-70
percent survived. After one year of operation, farmer enthusiasm led the
management to change from a pilot project to large-scale dissemination.
Of the + / - 40 tree and shrub species and the 23 agro-forestry practices
that the project promoted, none underwent formal testing and adapta-
tion by the project prior to large-scale dissemination9 Some had been
sufficiently tested by farmers (e.g., live fencing, home compound plant-
ing, fruit orchards, boundary plantings with familiar species) to allow
largescale dissemination. But practices were introduced that were only
minimally supported by concrete recommendations (e.g., tree borders in
cropland, high-density mini-woodlots and trees for soil erosion control).
Farmers were given "best bet" suggestions on tree spacing, but were also
46 Knowledge and Policy / Spring 1992

encouraged to adjust this spacing according to personal preferences. Thus,

the responsibility for adapting to local needs and conditions was initially
given to participating farmers, with the project taking responsibility for
monitoring their experience and communicating information about suc-
cessful innovations.
It is interesting to note that Buck herself had some qualms about this
procedure since it involves recommendations to farmers without any
scientific support. This raises the interesting question whether farmer
adoption is a sufficient criterion for judging the adequacy of a technol-
ogy. CIAT (Ashby, 1987) now uses farmer acceptance as a major criterion
for the adequacy of a technology.
In sum, the linear model implies that there is a science-based fix for all
societal problems; a promise that inhibits the search for other survival
strategies. Nevertheless, this model is perpetuated because it is the basis
for training scientists for their role in society. While much work on
knowledge systems seems to be motivated by the need to develop alter-
natives to this conventional model, progress has been slow and difficult.

Formative Experiences: First Installment

In the following, I will outline some installments of "formative experi-

ences," and present "bits" of information that seem important for the
emergence of a specific aspect of knowledge system thinking. These bits
are not systematically organized. They form a kaleidoscopic Gestalt, al-
lowing the reader to tolerate the development in knowledge system
thinking following the installment.

BOVO

In The Netherlands, agricultural research, extension and education have

always been considered a "triptich" of policy instruments (credited with
the success of Dutch agriculture in international markets). More recently,
both farmers and agri- business have been included. The four elements
(Bedrijfsleven, Onderzoek, Voorlichting and Onderwijs, or BOVO) and
their interrelationship have been reinstated at every official occasion: the
objective is to reinforce the readiness of the professionals in each sector
to continue to operate as an interactive and interlinked system with shared
objectives. Now that environmental policies and the privatization of the
extension service have disturbed the harmonious commonality of pur-
pose, the actors in the Dutch system are painfully aware of the loss of
articulation and synergy.

Research in Kenya

Research in Kenya has shown that orienting extension to small farmers

requires a change, both in the communication process and in technical
R61ing 47

content. Technology development (research) and extension should not be

separated theoretically, strategically or sequentially (Ascroft et al, 1973).
Moreover, since the best extension workers are assigned to the best farm-
ers (to prevent complaints), clients of extension services should not be
seen as passive receivers, but as an active, demanding constituency, es-
sential for effective extension (ROling, 1988; Tendler, 1982).

Significant Others

Early research by, e.g., Havelock (1973), Lionberger and Chang (1970),
Evenson et al (1979), Nagel (1980), Swanson (1989), has shown that re-
search institutes, experiment stations, extension and farmers form articu-
lated and interactive systems wherein two-way flows of information are
crucial for the performance of the whole system. Instead of loose activi-
ties or separate institutions that need to be linked, research, extension
and farmers are seen to potentially form systems, i.e., wholes that have
emergent properties over and above those of a set of loose elements
(Check]and, 1981). "Institutional calibration of the science-practice con-
tinuum" emphasizes the need to look at the whole continuum, rather
than at separate sets of institutions.

Visit to QDPI

In Queensland, Australia, we (R61ing, Jiggins and Carrigan, 1986), em-

phasized that transformation of knowledge between discipline (e.g., soil
science) and branch (e.g., range management), and between branch and
farmers (e.g., beef producers) constitutes a crucial knowledge process.
This is in addition to the transfer of knowledge. The same can be said of
the need to consolidate the knowledge generated in the various institu-
tions stimulated by the booming mango business. The fact that research
was rewarded on the basis of publication and other visible scientific
behavior, while extension was rewarded on the basis of services to farmers,
left a generally recognized gap because development work was not being
carried out. McDermott (1987) has called this a "fatal gap." This implies
that one could employ theory about agricultural technology systems as a
diagnostic tool to identify system pathologies (ROling, 1990).

Reverse Flows

The linear model ignores upstream flow of information from farmer to

extension and research because it considers all worthwhile knowledge to
come from science. Extension can then transfer the product to farmers.
This lack of attention to upstream flows and neglect of farmers' knowl-
edge and wisdom, has given rise to various corrective attempts. While
on-farm research (OFR), farming systems research (FSR), and attention to
indigenous knowledge systems (IKS), have all received wide acclaim as
48 Knowledge and Policy / Spring 1992

essential additions to conventional procedures, they have had relatively

limited impact in actually changing these procedures. This has left con-
trol in the hands of scientists. The emphasis continues to be on improv-
ing the intervention capacity (more staff, training, facilities, cars) while
the capacity to listen and anticipate remains neglected. This is becoming
increasingly apparent as the emphasis shifts to rainfed areas and to such
"post-green revolution" problems as cost reduction and sustainability
(while maintaining high productivity).

The Emergence of the Knowledge System Perspective:

From Template to Diagnostic Framework

Definition
In Wageningen, these (and other) "formative experiences" led us to
adopt a knowledge system perspective. (ROling, 1986; R61ing and Engel,
1990). This perspective, which had already emerged in e.g., Missouri
(Lionberger and Chang, 1970); Michigan (Havelock, 1973 and Bonnen,
1987); Illinois (Rich, 1982; Swanson and Petersen, 1989); California (Rogers
et al, 1976); Berlin (Nagel, 1980); and Hawaii (Beal et al, 1986), was an
idea whose time had come, especially in agriculture.
Having a knowledge systems perspective means, briefly, that farmers
and their organizations, extension services, technology developers such
as OFR/FSR teams, experiment stations, research institutes, policy mak-
ers, administrators, but also NGOs, and private commercial companies
and consultants are considered elements of a system. The actual composi-
tion of this system depends upon the set of actors relevant to a given
situation. Knowledge system is here defined as

the articulated set of actors, networks and/or organizations, expected or man-

aged to work synergically to support knowledge processes which improve
the correspondence between knowledge and environment, and/or the control
provided through technology use in a given domain of human activity (R61ing
and Seegers, 1991).

Provisional Critique
Although reasons for the need to revise this definition are given be-
low, arriving at its formulation was no sinecure. The initial problem was
the term 'system.' The current definition includes systems in sp6, i.e., sets
of institutions that do not as yet act as systems but are expected or
managed to work synergically. Polanco (1990) and Kaimowitz (1990) have
raised this point and drawn attention to the danger of speaking of a
system when all we actually have is a heap of spare parts with potential.
A second problem with the definition was to avoid the earlier mistake
ROling 49

of simplistically looking at functional differentiation by equating research

with technology development, extension with transfer, and farmers with
use. As Engel (1990) has pointed out, all actors are engaged in all knowl-
edge processes. This generated our recognition of a host of important
additional knowledge processes, such as transformation, integration and
storage and retrieval. While these tend to be forgotten in linear-based
approaches such as T&V, they play a crucial role in most actual extension
practice (Wijeratne, 1989).
A third problem was my initial inclination to consider the AKIS as
having some inherent purpose, objective or mission. It took sociologists
with a well-developed actor perspective (Long, 1984, Leeuwis et al, 1990)
to shake me out of this. Only people have objectives. A system's objec-
tives can only exist by the consent of the constituting actors. However, I
not only allow for comparative knowledge systems research to yield gen-
eralizable insights, but also believe that knowledge system theory can
provide a diagnostic framework for management and policy based on
normative statements.
A remaining problem is our use of the term "knowledge system" to
designate configurations of actors. In addition to computerized expert
and decision support systems (not discussed here), the term knowledge
system has been used to refer to cognitive systems (sets of interlocking
cognitive elements that form consistent wholes having an inherent logic).
Typically, such cognitive systems are anchored in environment, cosmol-
ogy and history. The linear model is a good example of such a cognitive
system. While our definition does not pay much attention to cognitive
systems, researchers such as Long and Van der Ploeg (1989) and Darr6
(1985) have pointed out that an analysis of the interface between differ-
ent cognitive systems can be crucial for understanding knowledge utili-
zation and management.
Another problem is that our focus on networks and institutions (even
when this includes farmers and their organizations) as carriers of knowl-
edge processes is unsatisfactory. Knowledge processes should be consid-
ered independently from institutions. We not only want to start with
institutions and look at what they (can) do, but also at knowledge pro-
cesses, considering what institutions are needed to support them.
A third remaining problem is that our initial definition still reflects the
linear model (especially in its enumeration of knowledge processes).
Similar to FSR and OFR, which can be seen as corrections of the linear
model without fundamentally changing it, our addition of "anticipation"
to the list of knowledge processes merely emphasized the implicit linear-
ity: an outside agent must anticipate needs. The definition thus failed to
take into account Box's (1990) observation that knowledge utilization is
basically a local process predicated on farmers" perceptions of produc-
tion conditions, to which outside agents can make inputs.
Whatever conceptual problems remain, there is no disagreement about
the desirability to manage separate knowledge institutions such that they
50 Knowledge and Policy / Spring 1992

constitute a system that allows the capture of properties emerging from

synergy. Indeed, FSR, OFR, T&V, R/E linkage development, NGO projects
to improve farmers' claim making capacity, and other initiatives are all
efforts to improve articulation between research and farmers, and be-
tween farmers and extension. Such articulation is a crucial determinant
of knowledge system performance, empirically demonstrated for US ag-
ricultural technology institutions in de U S D A / L a n d Grant system (e.g.,
Rogers et al, 1976; Evenson et al, 1979; Bonnen, 1987; Ruttan, 1986; Bennett,
1990). In addition to improving the articulation between research, exten-
sion and farmers by, e.g., FSR or T&V, the goal is to induce system
emergence.

Neither FSR nor T&V encompass all aspects of the technology diffusion process.
I have argued that they are complementary to each other and should be seen
as inter-related components of a larger system for generating and conveying
agricultural information (Moris, 1989).

Advantages
There are a number of reasons to expect a knowledge system perspective
to make an important contribution:

9 It draws on the experience of countries such as the US and The Nether-

lands (respectively, the largest and second largest exporters of agricultural
products by value), which have used a systems approach to management
and policy development for agricultural knowledge institutions (i.e., the
USDA/Land Grant College system and the BOVO system). It can, of
course, be pointed out that these two countries excel in having degraded
their environments by unsustainable forms of agriculture and in having
destroyed rural employment.
9 Knowledge systems are the focus of an international body of research.
Knowledge systems research is emerging as an academic field of its own
that can backstop professional training, analysis, and strategy develop-
ment, even if it is still practiced in such widely divergent academic depart-
ments as rural sociology, extension science, international agriculture, or
comparative policy analysis.
9 A knowledge systems approach draws on, and can benefit from a number
of fields (e.g., the sociology of knowledge; cognitive anthropology; cogni-
tive psychology, marketing; studies on technological change and innova-
tion, organizational change, and rural sociology). In other words, the
knowledge system can be a highly integrative concept.
9 The systems perspective allows comparative research of, e.g., health, agri-
culture, small- and medium-scale enterprise development, corporate R&D
and commercialization. In all of these sectors, institutions have been delib-
erately created to underpin knowledge processes.
9 It allows cross-national analysis. Interesting for example, is the hypothesis
R61ing 51

(Wagemans, p.c. 1990) that authoritarian regimes cannot have effective

knowledge systems because knowledge system performance depends on
the capacity of official institutions to utilize information from below;
opening themselves to client influence.
A knowledge systems perspective is capable of providing an adequate
knowledge base for knowledge management and technology policy in
periods of rapid change. Many countries face accelerated change requiring
agricultural knowledge institutions to immense, short-term efforts to cope
with changing climates, reduce the costs of production, nudge production
into more sustainable directions, satisfy the growing demand from urban
middle classes, provide answers for the complexity of rainfed systems,
and so forth.

The knowledge system perspective seems more heuristic and practi-

cally relevant than, for example, a singular focus on agricultural exten-
sion or research. It could be argued that an organization such as the
World Bank should not continue to focus on extension and research as
separate entities (even if linked through special "linkage mechanisms").
Where ministries in many countries are still organised in this way, the
World Bank could exert leadership and leverage for the emergence of a
systems perspective. Similarly, a case could be made that the limitation
of ISNAR's 2 mandate to research impairs its impact. In fact, helping
countries develop effective knowledge systems seems a potential focus of
ISNAR's consultancy and training.

Attributes

Having accepted a knowledge system perspective, a set of attributes

were developed that could be used for the analysis, design and manage-
ment of knowledge systems (R61ing and Engel, 1990; Engel et al, 1991).
Actors constituting the system: Knowledge systems differ in the nature
of the set, or array of constituting actors (individuals, networks and insti-
tutions). Important aspects are a) functional differentiation into the
(complementary) tasks performed in the system, and b) segmentation or
the principles on which systems are organized. Some systems are based
on disciplines, others on sectors, industries, single commodities, or farm
types; some use all these principles and articulate between them. Usu-
ally, the knowledge system serves a certain domain, e.g., an ecosystem,
specific agricultural industry, sector, ecosystem or client category. It is
important to recognize that the boundaries of the system are not inherent,
but defined as a deliberate arbitrary act (Ulrich, 1987). This means that
any analysis of a knowledge system must start with an enumeration of
perceived constituent actors.
Integration though linkage: Differentiation calls for integration through
communication in linkage mechanisms, networks, institutions and other
structural elements that allow spanning of interfaces between actors.
52 Knowledge and Policy / Spring 1992

Knowledge systems can usually be construed as subsystems of larger

systems within which they maintain external linkages with other sys-
tems.
Coordination: To be effective, systems must muster the contributions of
the constituting actors and overcome "incentives for default" (Sims and
Leonard, 1990). External coordination is built on such prime movers as
consumer demand, client-farmer pressure, donor pressure, policy pres-
sure, and competition. Internal coordination is based on social control,
consensus, shared ideology, management by objectives, and other tools
of communicative rationality. Mustering both types of forces is an essential
task for knowledge managers.
Power is a key aspect of knowledge systems that is often overlooked
(Dissanayake, this volume). It is an essential ingredient in the joint defi-
nition of the mission of a knowledge system, the type of feedback loops
tolerated in the system, or its (de)centralization. This has been shown to
be a key variable in determining client/system articulation by, e.g.,
Evenson, et al, (1979). Power is also essential in determining the extent
and manner to which client information and technology needs are antici-
pated and targeted in the system. Research of effective knowledge sys-
tems shows that effective political influence of the system's clients is a
crucial factor for knowledge system performance, much like effective
consumer power is a sine qua non for client-oriented commercial organi-
zations (Peters and Waterman, 1982).
The mission of a knowledge system is the purpose defined by its con-
stituent actors. Since we are dealing with soft systems made up of people
with many conflicting objectives, maintaining a shared mission is a con-
stant struggle and important objective of knowledge management.

A Diagnostic Framework

The purpose of a knowledge systems theory is to develop a tool, or

diagnostic framework for analysis, design and management. The diag-
nostic framework is based on the following normative statements:
Innovation is the desired outcome of the knowledge system. I have
tried to systematize innovation as:

1) Enhancing instrumental rationality (in dealing with the biophysical environ-

ment); involving paradigm shifts in representational systems (reality), pro-
ductivity, increased recycling, (re)developing productive resources.
2) Enhancing strategic rationality (in dealing with others) through increasing
competitiveness, innovative capacity, military combativeness, and equity;
better deployment of labour.
3) Enhancingcommunicative rationality (in dealing with others) through devel-
oping consensus, networking, institutions and systems.
4) Enhancingpropositionalrationality (in dealingwith self) through (re)invention,
(re)discovery, relativizing reified realities, learning.
R61ing 53

The performance of a knowledge system can be measured in terms of the

extent to which it creates access to relevant information and technology. What-
ever the parameters of a system, its mission is defined by its members,
and involves gaining access to relevant information and technology. The
mission allows consensus on the design of feedback loops and on the use
of powerful steering and learning mechanisms for knowledge manage-
ment. It is remarkable how little attention knowledge systems, designed
according to the linear model, pay to defining performance and to de-
signing feedback loops. In fact, our synthesis of case studies for ISNAR
(R61ing and Seegers, 1991) showed that in many agricultural knowledge
systems no one was accountable for mission achievement.
Synergy is the desired state of a knowledge system. Synergy means that the
whole is more than the sum of the parts: the emergent property of the
system. Synergy involves integrating through linkage that which is func-
tionally differentiated, and involves coordination to overcome "incen-
tives for default" (Sims and Leonard, 1990). Integration and coordination
represent the mechanics and dynamics of synergy (Minzberg, 1979; Engel,
1990; Engel and Seegers, 1991). 3
The terms "normative statement," "diagnostic framework" and "pa-
thologies" (for typical knowledge system "pathologies" see, e.g., R61ing,
1990) introduce an important element; i.e., we are interested in employ-
ing deductive thinking for managerial purposes. We believe that decision
making will be better with knowledge systems theory than without it.

Formative Experiences: Second Installment

The Importance of Rainfed Areas

Large areas with an estimated rural population of 1.4 billion (Cham-

bers, 1989) remain outside those covered by technology development
based on the linear model. These are usually fragile rainfed areas at high
risk due to uncertain weather conditions, prohibiting a high use of ex-
pensive external inputs, a high propensity for environmental degrada-
tion, the use of highly diverse farming systems to exploit all environmen-
tal opportunities and to avoid risk, and a low capacity for supporting
expensive research, extension and other institutions (Chambers and
Jiggins, 1987). Although largely neglected by mainstream agricultural
research, these areas are now recognized as offering the best hope for
adequate subsistence and employment. In a country such as India, agri-
culture will remain the main source of new employment (Swaminathan,
1990). In order to tap that potential, Chambers and Jiggins have suggested
a "reverse" model whereby farmers' own experimental efforts are sup-
ported, i.e., researchers are restricted to assisting farmer experimentation
and farmer-to-farmer communication.
54 Knowledge and Policy / Spring 1992

The Importance of Farming System Change

Consistent with its reductionist premises, the linear model emphasizes

changes in components instead of changes in farming systems. Specifi-
cally, this means changes in varieties, chemicals, equipment and, to some
extent, practices, rather than changes in resource and farm management,
which seem more important in complex systems. The prototype for agri-
cultural innovation has become the high-yielding variety (Kaimowitz,
1990). The emphasis is on production technology, instead of resource
management and development. As a result, productive resource building
(watershed management, erosion control, long-term soil structure im-
provement, terracing, land readjudication) is often neglected. Such inno-
vations are essential in complex rainfed environments (Haverkort, 1988).
They require attention to legal and other non-technical aspects, and to
building intersubjective agreement that the conventional extension ser-
vices cannot, or will not, handle because of self-imposed mandates based
on the linear model.

The Complementary Nature of Technical Innovation and Human Resource

Development

A study, completed for the Dutch government, was designed to deter-

mine how bilateral assistance can benefit small farmers (R61ing and de
Zeeuw, 1983). It identified, as one of five essentials for rural poverty
alleviation, the creation of tangible opportunities through economic mea-
sures or technology development. The other essentials were mobiliza-
tion, organization, training, and system management for balancing the
essentials. Especially the experience of NGOs in rural development
showed that creating access to external sources of new technology should
be seen as complementary to developing the capacity to innovate and
utilize technology through mobilization, organization and training. 4

Commercial innovation research

Studies on the commercial success of Japan have indicated a reliance

in Western countries on the linear model of technology development
(Clark and Staunton, 1989; Foster, 1986; Landau and Rosenberg, 1986;
Mokyr, 1990; North, 1990; Sigurdson, 1990, and Tornatzky and Fleisscher,
1990). This reliance is in conflict with what happens in practice, and
generates a lack of support for essential processes, such as early commer-
cialization, which essentially explain Japanese success. While Japan only
fully invested in basic and applied research after ca. 1987 (Kodama, 1990),
the Western model continued to emphasize (basic) research as the source
of all innovation, adopting a linear progression to adaptive research,
technology development, mass production and utilization. As previously
mentioned, Kline and Rosenberg (1986) developed a more appropriate
Riiling 55

model that emphasized technology design and marketing, with science

playing a different role at various points in this process. They firmly
reject the notion that technology is "applied science," emphasizing in-
stead that technology development is the lifeblood of much scientific
development.

Second Order Science

Major ecological disasters have led to the realization of uncertainty

about a future with which science cannot deal. This simultaneously ne-
cessitates uncertainty management and quality maintenance (Funtowicz
and Ravetz, 1990). Under these conditions, "extended facts" might be-
come as, or more, relevant than established scientific procedures.
Funtowicz and Ravetz speak of "second order science" to distinguish the
new situation from the "Kuhnian paradigm. "5

Soft Systems
Checkland (1981 and with Scholes 1990; Wilson and Morren, 1990),
and others at the University of Lancaster have developed a methodology
based on the premise that human activity systems are soft systems, com-
prising people. Unlike hard systems (e.g., rockets), they do not have
built-in goals and goal-seeking devices. If they have clear goals, feedback
procedures, boundaries, and so forth, these are the result of decisions by
the actors themselves. Consequently, operations research, systems engi-
neering, linear programming, simulation, and other applications of hard
systems approaches to human activity systems have usually failed. An-
other logic is at work. To cope with this, Checkland's methodology em-
phasizes a decision making path moving from a perceived problem to
shared learning and communal action. At each station along this path,
the actors engage in shared learning and shared decision making. Hence,
of critical importance in soft systems methodology is the building of a
"rich" picture from multiple perspectives (Linstone, 1989), together with
a consensus and methods for ensuring that decisions do not reflect only
the views of the most powerful actors (Jackson, 1985). Since soft systems
are based on unique human configurations and intentions, there can be
no question of imposing standard templates. Each human activity system
is unique, and diagnostic frameworks do not apply. It is important to
distinguish soft systems methodology from soft systems thinking. Per-
ceiving soft systems must be learned before applying the methodology.
Many of us, especially in agriculture, are so steeped in the hard systems
perspective that we find it difficult to see an ecosystem as anything other
than a natural system. While studying its behaviour objectively, we ig-
nore the fact that most ecosystems, including such wildernesses as the
"Greater Yellowstone Area" (Keiter and Boyce, 1991), are managed by
people, and that their development direction is the outcome of negotation,
56 Knowledge and Policy / Spring 1992

conflict and consensus. Sustainability and "nature" can profitably be seen

as emergent properties of a soft system (Bawden and Packam, 1991).
Habermas' Communication Theory
Habermas sees a potential "logic" (to be clearly distinguished from the
actual "dynamics") for what he calls "communicative rationality," which
deals with subject-subject relations and shared understanding of the
meaning of acts of cognition and manipulation. Such an understanding
or consensus emerges in the interpretative efforts of individuals who
coordinate their actions through claims to validity. Habermas sees com-
municative action as the mechanism for reproducing society. But money
and power can take over from language as steering mechanisms and so
escape normative control. Habermas considers acceptance of scientific
knowledge claims to be based on the intersubjectivity of shared under-
standing and consensus within forums of scientists. In all, the function of
knowledge is not only limited to creating correspondence between what
the environment is expected to be and what it is (Cantril, 1965). In addi-
tion to this i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u m e n t a l purpose, r a t i o n a l i t y is an
intersubjective quality based on language, and defended on the basis of
agreement or consensus. In modern society, the importance of communi-
cative rationality increases with uncertainty. A pertinent example is Darr6's
study of silage techniques of French dairy farmers (1985). Informal dis-
cussion among farmers served to exchange information, evaluate exter-
nal information, form concepts, and generate agreement on acceptable
courses of action.
Facilitating Local Groups
Efforts to introduce Integrated Pest Management in Indonesia (R61ing
and Van de Fliert, 1991), to introduce 'Land Care' in Australia (Campell,
1991; Chamala and Mortiss, 1991), and to deal with natural resotlrce
management (e.g., natural pastures) from a soft systems and learning
systems perspective, make clear that sustainable agriculture requires lo-
cal-specific application of general principles (Van Beek, 1991;
Sriskandarajah, et al, 1989; Bawden and Packam, 1991). Sustainable agri-
culture usually requires deliberate collective management of systems at a
level higher than the half hectare farm in Indonesia, or the 10,000 hectare
property in Australia; e.g., such levels might comprise the area at which
insect population dynamics occur, water catchment areas, or irrigation
units. To manage such system levels, pertinent information about eco-
logical functions must become visible and assessable. Introducing or sup-
porting sustainable agriculture requires more than extension to transfer
technology. It requires adult education and facilitation (as the Austra-
lians call it) to create platforms for collective decision making, to make
things visible, and to empower people experiment. In addition, regula-
tory measures may be needed to affect incentive structures. 6
R61ing 57

Conclusion

The second installment of formative experiences raises a number of

far-reaching issues for the knowledge system framework.
The locus of problem solving shifts from (basic) research to commer-
cial innovation at the company or market level (Kline and Rosenberg,
1986); to primary producers in participatory technology development
(Chambers and Jiggins, 1987, Box, 1990); to study clubs of sophisticated,
highly capitalized agricultural entrepreneurs; and to the indigenous pro-
cesses involving ordinary citizens and consumers. In these situations,
science takes on the role of an expert system, to be consulted at any stage
in the process of improvement or technology design.
This is not to imply that science is unimportant. Indeed, decision mak-
ing, even in the context of high uncertainty, is better with science than
without it (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1990). It is, however, to imply that the
role of science needs reevaluation. It should become that of a consultant
sensitive to the problem solving, knowledge generation and technology
development in the field; bringing to bear the scientific body of knowl-
edge and methodologies requisite to accelerating, improving, and other-
wise facilitating those processes.
Simultaneous problem solving occurs--without much interaction, at
the level of citizens, primary producers, companies and specialized re-
search organizations. This simultaneous activity draws attention to the
need for interaction and possible management of these processes. Thus,
research might consider feeding dairy cows in ways that reduce nitrogen
emissions, companies might carry out studies of BST to improve produc-
tivity of dairy cows, farmers might experiment with cheaper silage meth-
ods, while consumers might be engaged in the development of a "popu-
lar food science" relating child hyperactivity to chemicals in cows milk.
Obviously, integration between these levels through consensus building
and constructive conflict could be an important goal of knowledge man-
agement.
Formative experiences make clear the importance of a host of new
knowledge processes, i.e., consensus building, networking, the develop-
ment of innovative capacity, leadership development, and consultation.
In this context, a new importance is given to marketing research, com-
mercialization, and commercial technology design, as well as to indig-
enous knowledge and technology design activities. The question is
whether and, if so, how science interacts with these processes.
The priority task of knowledge management shifts from ensuring that
farmers' problems reach research and the converse, to activating the
problem solving and technology development processes at the consumer,
farmer and company level, and to ensuring an optimum support role for
specialized scientific institutions. This not only requires attention to sub-
stance, but to process. In this context, typical knowledge system roles
emerge in addition to those of research, extension and client, e.g., de-
58 Knowledge and Policy / Spring 1992

signer, broker, linker, networker, interpreter, anticipation researcher, fa-

cilitator and institution builder.
A major issue is capacity building. To my knowledge, the US Coopera-
tive Extension Service (as it is provided through the Land Grant Colleges
in the different states), is the only public extension service in the world
whose mandate includes organizing people, developing leadership, and
building institutions. All others, especially in the public sector, focus on
technical and farm management issues; with most extension workers
being frustrated farmers. Nevertheless, organizing people to solve their
problems and to develop and utilize technology is a crucial aspect of
innovation. Capacity building and creating access to relevant technology
can be seen as complementary processes. This not only applies in devel-
oping countries, where NGOs are busy creating such capacity, but also in
industrialized countries. 7
Rapidly changing issues and challenges in modern societies requires
dealing with new problems in different ways. A typical example is water
quality and availability. Increasingly, conflicts over water between ur-
ban, agricultural and ecological interests emerge, as water gets scarcer
the world over, and as high quality water becomes more expensive. Once
identified, the problem requires the collaboration of specialists and deci-
sion makers from widely different departments. 8 Knowledge manage-
ment will increasingly comprise the ability to regroup relevant actors
around new issues, effectively recreating knowledge systems around new
domains.
A crucial conclusion from our formative experiences is that the knowl-
edge system, much as all reality, is socially constructed. (For Example,
CaUon and Law, 1989; Berger and Luckman, 1967.) But a knowledge
system is also constructed in that it can only exist on the basis of consen-
sus among the constituting actors. Knowledge systems are thus soft sys-
tems, the improvement of which involves Soft Systems Methodology
(Checkland, 1981; Checkland and Scholes, 1990).

Implications for the Diagnostic Framework

A diagnostic framework has been defined as a tool for analysis, de-

sign, management and policy, the core of which is a set of normative
statements allowing discrimination between desirable and undesirable
situations, and which points the way to intervention. Innovation, perfor-
mance and synergy are proposed as core concepts for the diagnostic
framework. Although the criteria for knowledge system performance has
been limited to access to relevant technology, it should also include a
building and redeploying capacity for innovation. Moreover, all efforts
to improve knowledge systems must follow the soft systems logic and
acknowledge the imperatives of human actors.
An important implication of the second installment of formative expe-
riences is that knowledge systems theory should not only focus on con-
R61ing 59

FIGURE 1
Core Elements of Knowledge Systems Models

INNOVATION

KNOWLEDGE PROCESS CONFIGURATION

figurations of actors (e.g., in networks and institutions), but also consider

innovation, knowledge process and configuration as separate, yet mutu-
ally articulated and consistent building blocks (see Figure 1).
Major policy concerns, such as production (e.g. food security), produc-
tivity (e.g., competitiveness), equity (distribution), sustainability and sta-
bility can lead to identifying desirable innovations (Conway, 1985). Such
innovations may differ in the extent to which they focus on instrumental
control of the biophysical environment, strategic control of h u m a n activ-
ity, communicative rationality through consensus building, or any com-
bination. Supporting or promoting a desirable innovation requires certain
knowledge processes. The emphasis may be on capacity building or net-
working or, conversely, on science linkage. It stands to reason that cer-
tain knowledge process combinations are more appropriate to certain
types of innovation than others.
An important task of knowledge systems theory is to identify inter-
nally consistent Innovation-Process-Configuration combinations. Design,
management and policy focus on the appropriate combination for the
challenge at hand, on consistency between elements in the combination,
and on its rapid deployment. An important criterion for effective knowl-
edge management is flexibility in deploying and mobilizing knowledge
resources. This is especially relevant in the context of the challenges that
confront us in the distribution of the limited good; the untenability of our
present predation on the environment; and the increasing need to make
use of noncoercive methods to take decisions with respect to these chal-
lenges.

Notes

1. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Workshop on Agricultural Knowl-
edge Systems and the Role of Extension, organized by the Institute for Agricultural Ex-
tension, Rural Sociology and Applied Psychology of the Universit/it Hohenheim,
Stuttgart, Bad Boll,FRG, May 1991.
2. ISNAR(The International Servicefor National Agricultural Research in the Hague) is
part of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research, which com-
prises the major international agricultural research institutes (IRRI, CIMMYT,CIAT,
ICRISAT, IITA, and so forth). ISNAR was established to help national agricultural
research systems (nars) become more effective in supporting national agricultural
development. Its mandate is limited to research.
3. Although operating on different principles, each of the following examples provide
60 Knowledge and Policy / Spring 1992

important tools for enhancing the synergy in knowledge systems: The "Soft Systems
Methodology" developed by Checkland (1981, and with Scholes, 1990), Swanson's
"Field Methodology for the Analysis of Technology Development and Transfer Sys-
tems" (Swanson and Peterson, 1989) and the RAAKS methodology developed by
Engel et al (1991).
4. For example, in the Netherlands, as elsewhere, small- and medium-sized industrial
enterprises provide an important source of employment and economic prosperity.
Government efforts to support technological innovation in these SMEs have fol-
lowed two strategies. On the one hand, they have focused on creating "Innovation
Centers" that act as conduits for technology and information from external sources,
such as universities and government labs. Service is provided to those SMEs that ask
for it. And this leads to the usual problem that those who need it least benefit most.
Another approach has been taken in a special project called "teaching to innovate."
This project helped SMEs through specially trained consultants to make an innova-
tion plan, and to create a committee that regularly meets to discuss needed changes
and to develop means to access external information. The project has been very
successful in teaching SMEs to innovate, using available external sources of technology
and information.
5. Classic examples of second order science at work include the utilization of the results
of a ten-year, $500 million study carried out for the US Congress by the National
Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (Washington Post, January 14, 1991), and a
study of "popular epidemiology" and community action in response to child leukemia
caused by toxic waste in drinking water in Woburn, Mass. (Brown and Mikkelsen,
1990).
6. For example, in Western Australia, rapidly rising salt water levels and wind erosion
problems have followed massive land clearing in the 1960s, and made problems
visible to a point of generating government and local action. The resulting Land Care
movement has seen the emergence of Land Care Districts and total catchment man-
agement. The property with its straight fences and square paddocks is no longer the
only relevant management unit. Facilitators help local farmers work together to sus-
tainable catchment management. In one approach, farmers begin by making soil
maps of their properties after joint agreement about a common soil type classification
based on joint examination of soil pits and so on. Maps are made on the basis of
airphoto mosaics provided by the department. Farmers' maps are scanned and digi-
tized, allowing composite catchment maps with the help of GIS software. After much
mutual adjustment, a soil map for the whole catchment is agreed upon. This allows
identification of vulnerable soil types, which usually stretch across several properties.
Making visible such problems facilitates collective decision making about environment
management units, including such measures as aligning fences and creating corridors
of vegetation spanning several properties.
7. For example, in the Netherlands, the most commercial and entreprneurial farmers
are those producing hot house vegetables, potted plants and cut flowers. They have
extensive information needs regarding hot house construction, renewal and invest-
ment, heating and insulation, light, humidity and CO2 management, choice and
cultivation of cultivars, pest and disease management, use of substrates and fertiliza-
tion, labour relations, and management of product quality, assortment, packaging,
marketing, and transportation (integrated chain). A host of services are made avail-
able to these horticulturalists, to include specialized experiment stations and an army
of public, private and cooperatively paid, technical, economic and marketing extension
services.
The technical extension services are apt to view horticulturalists as receivers of tech-
nical advice. But the horticulturalists have another perspective. When privatization
of the extension service became an issue, farmers said they would not pay for techni-
cal advice, but that they were willing to pay extension to facilitate their study clubs.
These study clubs are formally convened once annually around a certain subject.
R61ing 61

However, its members meet as regularly as twice a month in the hot-houses of

individual members to look at experiments, technical achievements, and so forth
Horticulturalists consider each hot house an experimental station and look at exten-
sion and research as resources in their search for relevant innovation.
8. For example, for World Bank this meant bringing together people from urban devel-
opment, agriculture, and natural resources, each subdivided according to regions,
and specialized in different sections. The urban development department alone had
sections dealing with drinking water, effluent treatment, drainage, and public sanita-
tion, all of which needed to be regrouped around the new emerging issue (Le Moigne,
1991).

References

Ascroft, J.R., N. R61ing, J. Kariuki, and F. Wa Chege (1973). Extension and the forgotten
farmer. Wageningen: Agricultural University. Bulletin van de Afdelingen Sociale
Wetenschappen, no. 37.
Ashby, J.A. (1987). The effects of different types of farmer participation on the management
of on-farm trials. Agricultural Administration and Extension, 24: 235-252.
Bawden, R.J. and R. Packam (1991). Systems praxis in the education of the agricultural
systems practitioner. Richmond (NSW): University of Western Sidney-Hawkesbury.
Paper presented at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the International Society for the
Systems Sciences. Ostersund, Sweden.
Beal, G.M., W. Dissanayake and S. Konoshima (Eds.) (1986). Knowledge Generation, Ex-
change and Utilization. Boulder (Co.): Westview Press.
Bennett, C. (1990). Cooperative extension roles and relationships for a new era. A new
interdependence model and evaluation synthesis to foster work with other agencies
and organizations. Washington: USDA. Publication available from National Informa-
tion Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield Va 22161, P.B. 90-199530. Washington
(DC): US Government Printing Office.
Berger, P.L. and Th. Luckrnan (1967). The Social Construction of Reality. A treatise in the so-
ciology of knowledge. Garden City: Doubleday and Middlesex: Anchor Books.
Biggs, S. and J. Farrington (1990). Farm Systems Research and the Rural Poor: The His-
torical, Institutional, Economic and Political Context. Paper for the 10th Annual AFSRE
Symposium. East Lansing (Mich.): Michigan State University, Institute for International
Agriculture, October 14-17.
Bonnen, J.T. (1987). US Agricultural Development: Transforming Human Capital, Tech-
nology and Institutions. In: B.F. Johnson, C. Luiselli, C. Contreran, and R. Norton
(Eds.). US-Mexico Relations: Agriculture and Rural Development. Stanford CA: Stanford
U.P. Pgs. 267-300.
Box, L. (Ed.) (1990). From Common Ignorance to Shared Knowledge. Knowledge Networks
in the Atlantic Zone of Costa Pica. Wageningen (Neth.): Agricultural University,
Wageningen Studies in Sociology number 28.
Brown, P. and E. Mikkelsen (1990). No Safe Place: Toxic Waste, Leukemia and Community
Action. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Buck, L. (1990). Planning agroforestry extension projects: The CARE international approach
in Kenya. In: Budd, W.W, I. Duchart, L. Hardesty and F. Steiner (Eds.). Planning for
Agroforestry. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Pp. 1(11-131.
Callon, M. and J. Law (1989). On the construction of socio-technical networks: content
and context revisited. Knowledge in Society: Studies in the Sociology of Science Past and
Present, Vol 8, pp. 57-83.
Campbell, A. (1991). Community participation: a new frontier in land management. Key-
note address to the International Conference on Sustainable Land Management. New
Zealand, November.
Cantril, H. (1965). The Pattern of Human Concerns. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
62 Knowledge and Policy / Spring 1992

Chamala, S. and P. Mortiss (1990). Working Togetherfor Land Care. Group Management Skills
and Strategies. Bowen Hills (Queensland): Australian Academic Press Ltd.
Chambers, R. and J. Jiggins (1987). Agricultural Research for Resource-Poor Farmers: A
parsimonious paradigm. Agricultural Administration and Extension, 27.
Chambers, R. (1989). To make the flip: Strategies for Participatory Research and Design of Un-
dervalued Resource Agriculture. Leusden (Netherlands): ETC/ILEIA. Proceedings of
ILEIA Workshop on PTD, 1988.
Checkland, P. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chicester: John Wiley.
Checkland, P. and J. Scholes (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Chicester: John
Wiley.
Clark, P. and N. Staunton (1989). Innovation in Technology and Organization. New York:
Routledge, Champman and Hall.
CoUinson, M. (1989). On-farm research with a farming systems perspective. In: Roberts,
N. (Ed.). Agricultural Extension in Africa~ A World Bank Symposium. Washington:
World Bank. Pp. 51-59.
Darr~, Jean Paul (1985). La Parole et la Technique. L'univers de pensee des eleveurs du Ternois.
Paris: l'Harmattan
Dissanayake, W. (1991). Knowledge, culture, and power: some theoretical issues related
to the agricultural knowledge and information system framework. Knowledge and
Policy, this volume.
Dupr~, G. (Ed) (1991). Savoirs Paysans et D&eloppement. Paris: Karthala-Ostrom.
Eisenstadt, S.N. (1988). Explorations in the Sociology of Knowledge: the Soteriological
Axis in the Construction of Domains of Knowledge. Cultural Traditions and Worlds of
Knowledge: Explorations in the Sociology of Knowledge, Vol 7:1-71.
Engel, P. (1990). Knowledge management in agriculture: building upon diversity. Knowledge
in Soc/ety, 3 (3): 28--35.
Engei P., A. de Groot and S. Seegers (1991). RAAKS Manual: Rapid Appraisal of Agricul-
tural Knowledge Systems. Wageningen (the Netherlands): Agricultural University,
Department of Extension Science. Unpublished manuscript.
Engel, P, and S. Seegers (1991). Linkage Strategies: different technology systems require a
different design and management of linkages. The Hague: ISNAR/RITL, summary
report.
Evenson, R.E., P.E. Waggoner and V.W. Ruttan (1979). Economic Benefits from Research:
An Example from Agriculture. Science 205, 14 September: 1101-1107.
ILEIA (1989). Proceedings ILEIA Workshop PTD. Leusden (Neth.): ETC/ILEIA.
Havelock, R.G. (1986). Modelling the Knowledge System. ln: Beal, G.M., W. Dissanayake
and S. Konoshima (Eds.). Knowledge Generation, Exchange and Utilization. Boulder (Co.):
Westview Press. Pp. 77- 105.
Havelock, R.G. (1973). Planning for Innovation through Dissemination and Utilization of
Knowledge. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, CRUSK.
Haverkort, A.W. (1988). Agricultural production potentials: Inherent or the result of in-
vestments in technology development. Agricultural Administration and Extension, 30:
127-143.
Jackson, M.C. (1985). Social systems theory and practice: the need for a critical approach.
International Journal of General Systems, Vol 10: 135-151.
Keiter, R.B. and M.S. Boyce (1991). The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: Redefining America's
Wilderness Heritage. Boston: Yale University Press.
Kline, S. and N. Rosenberg (1986). An Overview of Innovation. In: Landau, R. and N.
Rosenberg (Eds.). The Positive Sum Strategy. Harnessing Technologyfor Economic Growth.
Washington (DC): National Academic Press. Pp. 275-306.
Kodama, F. (1990). Technological entropy dynamics: towards a taxonomy of national
R&D efforts. In: Sigurdson, J. (Ed.). Measuring the Dynamics of Technological Change.
London: Pinter Publishers. Pp. 146-170.
Kotler, P. (1985). Marketing for nonprofit organizations. Chicago: Aldine Press.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press.
R61ing 63

Leeuwis, C., N. Long, and M. Villareal (1990). Equivocations on Knowledge Systems

Theory: An Actor-Oriented Critique. Knowledge in Society 3 (3):19-27.
Le Moigne, G. (1991). Sustainability of Water resources. Washington: World Bank: Elev-
enth Agricultural Symposium: Agricultural Issues in the Nineties. January 9-11.
Sponsored by the Agriculture and Rural Development Department and Training
Division.
Leonard, D. (1985 2nd ed.). Reaching the peasant farmer: organization theory and practice in
Kenya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Linstone, H. (1989). Multiple perspectives on technology diffusion: insights and lessons.
Paper for International Conference on Diffusion of Technologies and Social Behavioul.
14-16 June, Laxenburg, Austria.
Lionberger, H. and C. Chang (1970). Farm Information for Modernizing Agriculture: The Tai-
wan System. New York: Praeger.
Long, N. (1984). Creating space for change: a perspective on the sociology of develop-
ment. Sociologia Ruralis, 24: 168-184.
Long, N. and J.D. van der Ploeg (1989). Demythologizing planned intervention. SocioIogia
Ruralis, 29 (3/4):226-249.
McDermott, J.K. (1987). Making Extension Effective: The role of extension/research link-
ages. In: Rivera, W. and S. Schramm (Eds.). Agricultural Extension Worldwide. New York:
Croom Helm.
Minzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations. A Structuring of Research. Englewood
Cliffs (N.J.): Prentice HaD.
Mokyr, J. (1990). The Levers of Riches, Technological Creativity and Economic Progress. New
York: Oxford U.P.
Moris, J. (1989). Extension under East African field conditions. In: Roberts, N. (Ed.).
Agricultural Extension in Africa. A World Bank Symposium. Washington: World Bank.
Pgs. 73-85.
Nagel, U.J. (1980). Institutionalization of Knowledge Flows. Quarterly Journal of Interna-
tional Agriculture. Vol 30, special issue.
North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Peters, T. and R. Waterman (1984). In search of excellence: lessons from America's best run
companies. New York: Warner Books.
Polanco, A. (1991). The Agricultural Technology Innovation Process in Mexico: An Analysis of
INIFAP. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University, Unpublished PhD Dissertation.
Rich, R. (1981). The knowledge cycle. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion oflnnovations. New York: Free Press.
Rogers, E.M., J.D. Eveland, and A.S. Dean (1976). Extending the agricultural extension model.
Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University, Institute for Communication Research.
ROling, N. and H. de Zeeuw (1983). Improving the quality of rural poverty alleviation. Report of
the Working Party "The Small Farmer and Development Cooperation." Wageningen:
IAC
ROling, N. (1986). Extension science: increasingly preoccupied with knowledge systems.
Sociologia Ruralis, 25: 269-290.
ROling, N. (1988). Extension Science. Information Systems in Agricultural Development. Cam-
bridge: CUP.
ROling, N., J. Jiggins and D. Carrigan (1987). Extension as part of an agricultural knowledge
system. In: Littman, M. (Ed.). Rural Extension in an Era of Challenge. Proceedings of the
Australasian Agricultural Extension Conference, Brisbane 20-22 Oct.:796--803. Brisbane:
Queensland Department of Primary Industries.
ROling, N. (1990). The Agricultural Research-Technology Transfer Interface: A Knowledge
System Perspective. In: Kaimowitz, D. (Ed.). Making the Link. Agricultural Research and
Technology Transfer in Developing Countries. Boulder (Co): Westview Press, Special
Studies in Agricultural Science and Technology. Pp. 1-42.
R6ling, N. and Engel, P (1990). Knowledge Management and Information Technology.
Knowledge in Society, 3 (3): 1-12.
64 Knowledge and Policy / Spring 1992

ROling, N. and S. Seegers (1991). Designing Knowledge Systems for Farm Innovation: a
synthesis of some results of ISNAR's RTTL study for NARSs, IARCs and Donor
Agencies. The Hague: ISNAR, Research/Technology Transfer Linkages Project. Paper
for the Synthesis Seminar, ISNAR, May.
Roling, N. and E. Van de Fliert (1991). Beyond the Green Revolution: capturing efficiencies
from integrated agriculture. Indonesia's IPM Program provides a generic case. Jakarta:
National Program for Development and Training of Integrated Pest Management in
Rice-Based Cropping Systems. Report on the IPM Program.
Ruttan, V. (1986). Technical Change and Innovation in Agriculture. In: Landau, R. and N.
Rosenberg (Eds.). The Positive Sum Strategy. Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth.
Washington DC: National Academic Press. Pp. 333-356.
Sims, H. and D. Leonard (1990). The political economy of the development and transfer
of agricultural technologies. In: Kaimowitz, D. (Ed.). Making the Link. Agricultural Re-
search and Technology Transfer in Developing Countries. Boulder (Co): Westview Press,
Special Studies in Agricultural Science and Technology. Pp. 43-75.
Sriskanadarajah, N., R.J. Bawden and R.G. Packam (I989). System agriculture: a para-
digm for sustainability. Paper presented at the ninth Annual Farming Systems Re-
search/Extension Symposium, University of Arkansas, USA, October 9-11.
Swaminathan, S.N. (1990). Rethinking ways of Assisting the Rural Poor. Ithaca (NY)."
Cornell University, International Development Programme, public lecture, 8 October.
Tendler, J. (1982). Rural projects through urban eyes: an interpretation of the World
Bank's new style development projects. Washington: World Bank. Staff Working
Paper 532.
Tomatzky, L. and M. Fleischer (1990). The Processes of Technological Innovation. Lexington
(Mass.): Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Co.
Ulrich, W. (1987). Critical heuristics of social systems design. European Journal of Operations
Research, 31:276-283.
Van Beek, P. (1991). Using a workshop to create a rich picture: defusing the ponded
pastures conflict in central Queensland. Paper for the Workshop on Managing Com-
plex Issues in Uncertain Environments: Systems Methodologies in Agriculture.
Brisbane: Queensland Department of Primary Industries, 26-27 August.
Wilson, M. and Morren, G. (1990). Systems Approaches for Improvement in Agriculture and
Resource Management. New York: Macmillan.
Wijeratne, M. (1989). Farmer, Extension and Research in Sri Lank,a: An Empirical Study of the
Agricultural Knowledge System with Special Reference to Rice Production in Matara District.
Wageningen: Agricultural University, PUDOC.