Discussion Board This week we are going to see how eco-farming in Germany was adopted. We can see that this has many elements of public policy and gives us more knowledge on how new innovations are ad

Article   in  Agricult ure and Human V alues · July 2007 DOI: 10.1007/s10460-007-9072-2 CITATIONS 133 READS 73,918 3 author s:

Some of the author s of this public ation are also w orking on these r elated pr ojects: Collabor ative rese arch and multi-st akeholder appr oaches in f ood and f arming syst ems Vie w pr oject Upland Pr ogram Vie w pr oject Volk er Hoffmann Univ ersity of Hohenheim 81 PUBLICA TIONS    694 CITATIONS     SEE PROFILE Kir sten Pr obst 8 PUBLICA TIONS    341 CITATIONS     SEE PROFILE Anja Christinck German Instit ute f or T ropic al and Subtr opical Agricult ure (DIT SL); seed4chang e Rese … 36 PUBLICA TIONS    375 CITATIONS     SEE PROFILE All c ontent f ollowing this p age w as uplo aded by Anja Christinck on 24 June 2014. The user has r equested enhanc ement of the do wnloaded file. Fachgebiet Landwirtschaftliche Kommunikations- und Beratungslehre Prof. Dr. Volker Hoffmann Module Reader M 4301-410 Knowledge and Innovation Management (KIM ) WS 2011/12 A 7020 1 Modul: Knowledge and Innovation Management (4301- 410) Modulverantwortliche/r: Prof. Dr. Volker Hoffmann Studiengang: Agrarwissenschaften - Agricultural Economics (Master, 2004 - 03 - 22), Sem., semi - elecitve Organic Food Chain Management (Master, 2005 - 07 - 01), 1. Sem., elective Bezug zu anderen Modulen: Good completion t o Rural Communication and Extension (M5121) or Beratungslehre (B0031) and/or Fachkommunikation (B0030). Teilnahmevoraussetzungen: none Sprache: englisch ECTS gesamt: 6 credits Angebotshäufigkeit: each WS Dauer des Moduls: 3,5 weeks (B04) Studienleist ung: Modulprüfung: oral Arbeitsaufwand: 140 - 180 h Lern - und Qualifikationsziele: To understand the dynamics of continuity and change, and how to manage them it in different fields like firms, administrations, universities, unions or farms. Understand t he problem solving, knowledge generation and knowledge systems and the adoption and diffusion of innovations. Ability to apply innovation and diffusion concepts to complex cases. Lehrveranstaltung: Knowledge and Innovation Management (4301- 411) LV - Verantw ortliche/r: Prof. Dr. Volker Hoffmann Lehrform: Lecture with exercises Verbindlichkeit: compulsary SWS: 4 ECTS: - credits Prüfung: Inhalt: Information and knowledge systems. Science and everyday life. Le arning, problem solving, researching and exploring. Theories of innovation, adoption and diffusion. Economics of research and development. Protection of knowledge properties. Strategies of innovation and change. Change management. Examples of technological revolutions worldwide . Literatur: Module reader – available at ASTA and under ILIAS. Veranstaltungsort: Hohenheim Anmerkungen: Lecture with exercises, homework assignments, data - projector. Open to external participants. H OFFMANN , Volker (ed.) 2011:K nowledge and Innovation Management. Module Reader. Hohenheim University. 2 Universität Hohenheim Fachgebiet:

Landwirtschaftliche Kommunikations- und Beratungslehre (430A) KIM-00 August 2011Hoffmann 4301-410: Knowledge and Innovation Management Indications on exam volume, content and literature The Module Knowledge and Innovation Management consists of 56 contact hours (4 SWS) and is offered for students in the M.Sc. Studies of Agricultural Economics and as an elective for all other Master Courses. The Module aims to provide students with a basic knowledge about the development and diffu- sion of innovations and related questions of information and knowledge systems, in order to gain more insight into the social aspects of agriculture. The Module is more than just the script and the presentations, which present basic concepts, se- lected examples, and cases. The Module starts with epistemology, looking at the relationship be- tween humans, reality, and the de velopments in the theories of knowledge, and the implications for modern science and philosophy. The Renai ssance was a tremendous period of change in Europe. It shows interaction between the parts (personalities) and the whole (political, cultural and technological change). It shows that history changes, and that much of today is owed to the past. Students get personalities from the renai ssance period to do homework with and to see changes from individual, to social and technological changes. Students should gain an apprecia- tion for the fact that the individu al can never make an impact without being a part of a network, which depends a lot on the context of time and space. The chapter on knowledge perspectives presents the emergence and development of a new field of study that links theory and practice in a sy stems approach to conceptualize the entire knowl- edge process. Based on this , the Module proceeds to deal with its main parts: knowledge man- agement and innovation processes. Case studies ar e presented to illustrate the purpose and prac- tices of knowledge management in an organizati on or a system. Through the case study exercises, students will understand the intera ctions between individuals, organizations and social networks and processes. The diffusion of innovations as a so cial process is covered at length with examples and case studies. The Module provides a summary of the classical approach to the diffusion of innovations (R OGERS 2003) and to the criticisms of diffus ion research. Book reviews are used to illustrate developments and gaps in diffusion re search. The Module presents the Hohenheim con- cept of the diffusion of innovations and its practical implications for advisory work or bringing about change. The consequences of innovations are a prevalent theme throughout the Module.

The Module ends with a final exam. Students ar e given 2 hours (120 minutes) to answer 6 ques- tions. Students must answer all six questions, but only the top five answ ers will count toward a student’s final exam score. The highest score is a 4.0. A score of 1.0 is required in order to pass. The reader together with the powerpoint-files cont ains all of the information and material neces- sary to be able to answer the questions. The reader is available as printout at the ASTA or can be downloaded from ILIAS as well as all powerpoint-presentations. 3 Objectives:

Students should • understand the dynamics and continuity of change • understand how to manage cha nge at different levels • gain insight into the knowledge creation and utilization processes and system dynamics • understand the development of the adopti on and diffusion of innovations research Exam volume • General definitions, concepts and appr oaches of knowledge management • Knowledge management in firms and organizations • The generation of knowledge thr ough science and the history of the European University • Basic definitions and concepts of R OGERS ’ classical innovation theory • The main critics on E. R OGERS • The Hohenheim concept of adoption and diffusion • The comparison of farmers’ and re searchers’ knowledge systems • The interrelationship between techni cal innovation and social change The various parts of the reader Number page KIM-01 The Allegory of the Cave 6 KIM-02 Creativity in Science and Technology 11 KIM-03 Knowledge Management 17 KIM-04 Models of knowledge transfe r: critical perspectives 23 KIM-05 Diffusion of Innovations-Summary 37 KIM-06 Diffusion of Hybrid Corn in Iowa 51 KIM-07 Acceptance of the Salk Polio Vacci ne – an example of the situational approach to the diffusion of innovations 57 KIM-08 Book Review: Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971 59 KIM-09 Book Review: Five editions (1962-2003) of Everett R OGERS : Diffusion of Innovations 64 KIM-10 Basic concepts for understanding adoption and diffusion 75 KIM-11 The diffusion of innovat ions - the Hohenheim concept 87 KIM-12 Nondiffusion of the Dvorak Keyboard 97 KIM-13 Learning selection 99 KIM-14 Farmers and researchers 120 KIM-15 The diffusion of eco-farming in Germany 138 KIM-16 Farmer innovation in Africa 154 KIM-17 As Hegel once examined students 163 4 3 PowerPoint presentations Title KIM-P01 The allegory of the cave KIM-P02 Knowledge management: The case of the Tea Company, Part 1 KIM-P03 How knowledge management works: The case of the Tea Company, Part 2 KIM-P04 Knowledge management: Basic understanding and definitions KIM-P05 Intellectual property rights KIM-P06 Renaissance KIM-P07 Carl Hirnbein KIM-P08 The history of the University KIM-P09 Adoption and diffusion theory KIM-P10 Case: Bull fattening with corn silage KIM-P11 Mapping knowledge systems KIM-P12 Farmers and researchers compared Further reading material / literature 1 The following literature can be helpful in gaining additional insights and orientation for the exam.

These books will be help deepen the vari ous topics covered during the module. BEAL , George, M., D ISSANAYAKE , Wimal, K ONOSHIMA , Sumiye (Eds.) 1986: Knowledge Generation, Exchange and Utilization. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. FGB: 3631 H OFFMANN , VOLKER . et al. (2009): Rural Extension. Volume 1: Basic Issues and Concepts (ed.) FGB:

Hdb 362,3.

L EEUWIS , C., 2003: Communication for Rura l Innovations. Rethinking Agricultural Extension. Third Edition. Blackwell. FGB: 5304.

N OTEBOOM , Bart, 2000: Learning and innovation in organi zations and economies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York. FGB: 5288 R OGERS , Everett, 2003: The Diffusion of Innovations. Fifth Edition. The Free Press, New York. FGB:

4437,4 R EIJ , Chris, W ATERS -B AYER , Ann, 2001: Farmer Innovation in Africa. Earthscan, London. 362 S. FGB 5066 1 For easy finding we indicate the library signat ures: FGB = Department library, BB =Economic and Social Sciences Library, UB = C entral Library of the University.

5 Universität Hohenheim 430 Fachgebiet:

Landwirtschaftliche Kommunikations- und Beratungslehre KIM-01 January 2007Hoffmann The Allegory of the Cave In short after P LATON 1. Plato realizes that the ge neral run of humankind can think, and speak, etc., without (so far as they acknowledge) any awareness of his realm of forms.

2. The allegory of the cave is supposed to explain this.

3. In the allegory, Plato compares people untutored in the Theory of Forms to prisoners chained in a cave, unable to turn their heads. All they can see is the wa ll of the cave. Behind them burns a fire. Between the fire and the pr isoners there is a parapet, along which puppeteers can walk. The puppeteers, who are behind the prisoners, hold up puppets that cast shadows on the wall of the cave. The prisoners are unable to see these puppets, the real objects, that pass behind them. What the prisoners see and hear are shadows and ec hoes cast by objects that they do not see. 4. Such prisoners would mistake appearance for reality. They would think the things they see on the wall (the shadows) were real; they would know nothing of the real causes of the shadows.

5. So when the prisoners talk, what are they talking about? If an object (a book, let us say) is carried past behind them, and it casts a shadow on the wall, and a prisoner says "I see a book," what is he talking about? He thinks he is talk ing about a book, but he is really talking about a shadow. But he uses the word "book." What does that refer to?

6. Plato gives his answer at line (515b2). The text here has puzzled many editors, and it has been frequently emended. The translation in G RUBE /R EEVE states the point correctly: " And if they could talk to one another, don't you think they'd suppose that the names they used applied to the things they see passing before them? " 7. Plato's point is that the prisoners are mist aken. they are using the terms in their language to refer to the shadows that pass before their eyes, rather than (as is correct, in Plato's view) to the real things that cast the shadow s. If a prisoner says "That's a book" he thinks that the word "book" refers to the very thing he is looking at. But he would be wr ong. He's only looking at a shadow.

He cannot see the real referent of the word "book" . To see it, he would have to turn his head around.

8. Plato's point: the general terms of our language are not "n ames" of the physical objects that we can see. They are actually name s of things that we cannot see, things that we can only grasp with the mind.

9. When the prisoners are released, they can turn their heads and see the real objects. Then they realize their error. What can we do that is analogo us to turning our heads and seeing the causes of the shadows? We can come to grasp the Forms with our minds.

10. Plato's aim in the Republic is to describe what is necessary for us to achieve this reflective understanding. But even without it, it remains true that our very ability to think and to speak de- pends on the Forms. For the term s of the language we usually get their meaning by "naming" the Forms that the objects we perceive participate in.

6 11. The prisoners may learn what a book is by their experience with shadows of books. But they would be mistaken if they thought that the word "book" refers to something that any of them has ever seen. Likewise, we may acquire concepts by our perceptual experience of physical objects.

But we would be mistaken if we thought that the concepts that we grasp were on the same level as the things we perceive.

And here the “original text”: Plato: The Allegory of the Cave, from The Republic Plato, the most creative and influential of Socrat es' disciples, wrote dialogues, in which he fre- quently used the figure of Socrates to espouse hi s own (Plato's) full-fledged philosophy. In "The Republic," Plato sums up his views in an image of ignorant humanity, trapped in the depths and not even aware of its own limited perspective. The rare individual escapes the limitations of that cave and, through a long, tortuous intellectual journe y, discovers a higher realm, a true reality, with a final, almost mystical aw areness of Goodness as the origin of everything that exists. Such a person is then the best equippe d to govern in society, having a knowledge of what is ultimately most worthwhile in life and not just a knowledge of techniques; but that person will frequently be misunderstood by those ordinary folks back in the cave who haven't shared in the intellectual in- sight. If he were living today, Plato might re place his rather awkward cave metaphor with a movie theatre, with the projector replacing the fire, the film replacing the objects which cast shadows, the shadows on the cave wall with the pr ojected movie on the screen, and the echo with the loudspeakers behind the screen. The essential point is that the prisoners in the cave are not seeing reality, but only a shadowy representation of it. The importance of the allegory lies in Plato's belief that there are invisible truths ly ing under the apparent surface of things which only the most enlightened can grasp. Used to the world of illusion in the cave, the prisoners at first re- sist enlightenment, as students re sist education. But those who can achieve enlightenment deserve to be the leaders and rulers of a ll the rest. At the end of the passa ge, Plato expresses another of his favorite ideas: that education is not a process of putting knowledge into empty minds, but of mak- ing people realize that which they already know. This notion that truth is somehow embedded in our minds was also powerfully influential for many centuries.

Judging by this passage, why do you think many peopl e in the democracy of Athens might have been antagonistic to Plato's ideas? What does the sun symbolize in the allegory?

Is a resident of the cave (a prisoner, as it were) likely to want to make the ascent to the outer world? Why or why not? What does the sun symbo lize in the allegory? And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our natu re is enlightened or unenlightened:--Behold! human beings liv- ing in an underground den, which has a mouth ope n towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will se e, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in fr ont of them, over which they show the puppets.

I see.

And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall car rying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall?

Some of them are ta lking, others silent.

You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.

7 Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?

True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?

And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?

Yes, he said.

And if they were able to converse with one another, would th ey not suppose that they were nam- ing what was actually before them?

Very true.

And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spok e that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?

No question, he replied.

To them, I said, the truth would be litera lly nothing but the shadows of the images.

That is certain.

And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and dis- abused of their error. At first, when any of them is libera ted and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one sayi ng to him, that what he saw before was an il- lusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision,--what wi ll be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them,--will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadow s which he formerly saw are truer than the ob- jects which are now shown to him?

Far truer.

And if he is compelled to look stra ight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take refuge in the obje cts of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality cl earer than the things which are now being shown to him?

True, he said.

And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he is forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated?

When he approaches the light his eyes will be d azzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.

Not all in a moment, he said.

He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in th e water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the st ars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?

8 Certainly.

Last of all he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.

Certainly.

He will then proceed to argue that this is he w ho gives the season and the years, and is the guard- ian of all that is in the visible world, and in a cer tain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?

Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.

And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?

Certainly, he would.

And if they were in the hab it of conferring honors among themse lves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed af- ter, and which were together; and who were therefor e best able to draw conclusions as to the fu- ture, do you think that he would care for such honors and glories, or envy the possessors of them?

Would he not say with Homer, Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner? 1 Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner.

Imagine once more, I said, such a one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?

To be sure, he said.

And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had be- come steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable), would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; 2and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death. 3 No question, he said.

1 This refers to a famous passage in Homer's Odyssey in which the gh ost of the great hero Achilles, when asked if he is not proud of the fame his deeds have spread throughout the world, answers that he would rather be a slave on a worn-out farm than king over all of the famous dead. Interestingly, Plato quotes the same passage else where as disapprovingly as depicting life after death in such a negative manner that it may und ermine the willingness of soldiers to die in war. 2 The comic playwright Aristophanes had mocked Socr ates by portraying Plato's master, Socrates, as a foolish intellectual with his head in the clouds.

3 Plato undoubtedly had in mind the fact that the Athenians had condemned to death his master Soc- rates, who Plato consider ed supremely enlightened.

9 5 This entire allegory, I said, you may now appe nd, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upw ards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world ac- cording to my poor belief, which, at your desire , I have expressed--whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, pa rent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, Here Plato describes his notion of God in a way that was influence profoundly Christian theologians. and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he woul d act rationally either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.

I agree, he said, as far as I am able to understand you.

Moreover, I said, you must not wonder that those who attain to this beatific vision are unwilling to descend to human affairs; for their souls are ever hastening into the upper world where they desire to dwell; which desire of theirs is very natural, if our allegory may be trusted.

Yes, very natural.

And is there anything surprising in one who passes fr om divine contemplations to the evil state of man, misbehaving himself in a ridiculous manner; if, while his eyes are blinking and before he has become accustomed to the surrounding darkness, he is compelled to fight in courts of law, or in other places, about the images or the shadows of images of justice, and is endeavoring to meet the conception of those who have ne ver yet seen absolute justice?

Anything but surprising, he replied.

Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from comi ng out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye; and he who reme mbers this when he sees any one whose vision is perplexed and weak, will not be too ready to laugh; he will first ask whether that soul of man has come out of the brighter life, and is unable to see because unaccustomed to the dark, or having turned from darkness to the day is dazzled by excess of light. And he will count the one happy in his condition and state of being, and he will pity the other; or, if he have a mind to laugh at the soul which comes from below into the light, there will be more reason in this than in the laugh which greets him who returns from ab ove out of the light into the den.

That, he said, is a very just distinction.

But then, if I am right, certain pr ofessors of education must be wrong when they say that they can put a knowledge into the soul which was not there before, like sight into blind eyes.

They undoubtedly say this, he replied.

Whereas our argument shows that the power and capac ity of learning exists in the soul already; and that just as the eye was unable to turn fr om darkness to light without the whole body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of the w hole soul be turned from the world of becoming into that of being, and learn by degrees to endure the sight of being and of the brightest and best of being, or in other words, of the good.

Source: Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Available at http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_ci v_reader/world_civ_reader_1/plato.html , accessed on 4. 1. 2006 10 Universität Hohenheim 430 Fachgebiet:

Landwirtschaftliche Kommunikations- und Beratungslehre KIM-02 January 2007Hoffmann Creativity in Science and Technology 1 Steven H. K IM The advance of science is not comparable to the changes of a city, where old edifices are pitilessly torn down to give place to ne w, but to the continuous evolution of zo- ologic types which develop ceaselessly and end by becoming unrecognizable to the common sight, but where an expert eye finds always traces of the prior work of the cen- turies past. One must not think then that the old-fashioned theories have been sterile and vain . Jules Henri Poincaré 2 The scientific enterprise is one of generating new knowledge for its own sake. The technological process, in contrast, refers to the application of knowledge to satisfy human needs aside from cu- riosity. The spectrum of technologi cal activities, from science to engineering and marketing, is depicted in Figure A.l. Types of Discovery If the fields of science and tec hnology are to progress in an orderly fashion, it is important to de- velop a systematic theory for the nature of resu lts attained in these domains. To this end, a framework is presented for the types of discove ries as well as their methods of derivation.

The process of scientific discovery is depicted in Figure A.2. An investigator, working individu- ally, or in concert with collea gues, envisions a result based on her knowledge of the universe.

This knowledge may result from direct personal observation or indirect knowledge through the work of others.

The result is generated through some methodology. The specific method may rely on some cogni- tive mechanism that we do not yet comprehend, such as the realization that sunrise and sunset are due to the rotation of the Earth, rather than the motion of the sun. We call these yet-unknown mechanisms "intuition" or "inspiration." On the other hand, certain methods are more strai ghtforward, as exemplified by the technique of proof by contradiction or refutation. To illustrate this, we may show that a specific statement in predicate logic must be derivable from an initia l set of hypotheses, by showing that the negation of the statement would imply some inconsistency in the overall set of statements. In fact, this refutation procedure is routinely used as th e basis for the programming language of Prolog.

The results of scientific research may be classifi ed into the following four categories: alignment, possibility, impossibility, and tr ade-off. These groups of results may be obtained by methods of construction or contradiction.

1 From: K IM, Steven H., 1990: Essence of Creativity. A Guide to Tackling Difficult Problems. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 88-92 2 POINCARE 1904: Valeur de la Science, as given in P OINCARE 1946, 208.

11 Table A. l shows examples of results by category and method of proof. These classifications are discussed further below.

Alignment Alignment refers to the fit between our models and the world around us, or among the models themselves. In attaining such harmony, our perception of the universe takes a simpler form. The issue of alignment may be furt her classified into two types: paradigm and unification.

12 A paradigm is defined by our perception of the universe. Hence a paradigmatic result refers to a shift in our views 3. For example, the replacement of the geo centric view of the solar system by the heliocentric paradigm represented a major adva nce, and was instrumental for further advances in astronomy.

On the other hand, unification refers to the alignment among our models or views of the world. A unifying structure provides a general framework for organizing results that previously seemed un- related. The structure may take the form of a fr amework, model, theory, or some combination of the three.

An example of a unifying structure is the developm ent of the periodic table, and the classification of elements into related groups based on their electron configur ations. Another example is found in the theory of electromagnetism, which unifies the seemingly unrelated phenomena of electric- ity and magnetism. This integrative model al so accounts for many types of radiation, from gamma rays at one end of the sp ectrum to radio waves at the othe r. We now recognize ultraviolet emissions, as well as light and heat, as variations on the single theme of electromagnetic radia- tion.

Another unifying structure is found in the laws of thermodynamics, relating the conservation of energy and the tendency of systems toward incr easing disorder. These two laws encapsulate ob- servations that arise in all realms of natural science and engineering.

A subcategory of unification relate s to the laws of invariance. Invariance refers to the constancy among objects that appear to be diffe rent at first sight. Such principles assert, for example, the immutable nature of certain obj ects despite transformations.

The conservation laws of physics ty pify the category of invariance principles. For example, the principle of matter-energy conser vation states that matter and energy may change from one form into another, but the total ener gy of a system remains the same.

The single most important result in the field of statistics is the Central Limit Theorem. This theo- rem states that a particular probability law call ed the Gaussian distribution is pervasive. The 3 KUHN 1962, Ch. 1 13 Gaussian function, familiar to many people as the "bell-shaped" curve, serves as a good model in many practical and theoretical applications 4. A common example is intelligence scores, whose bell curve peaks at 100 and trails off toward either end to reflect the fact that decreasing numbers of individuals possess either very high or very low scores. Engineers often rely on dimensional analysis to show the validity of thei r reasoning. This approach is ba sed on the idea that the physi- cal properties of systems may depe nd only on the combinations of certain characteristics, rather than their individual values. The field of fluid mechanics, for example, uses the Reynolds num- ber: R = pvd l µ where p is the density of a fluid having viscosity µ. and flowing with velocity v in a conduit di- ameter d. The units of these parameters are such that R is a dimensionless number. The fluid travels in orderly, laminar flow for low values of R, and becomes turbulent for high values.

Crude oil flowing in a transcontinental pipeline has a different character from water running through a garden hose. Their densities differ as well as their viscosity or internal resistance to flow; the diameters of the conduits will be dissimilar, and the speeds of flow may also vary. In other words, the values of the density p, the velocity v, the diameter d, and the viscosity µ. are distinct for each fluid. But as long as the compound factor pvd l µ is much less than the threshold of about 1000, the flow will be laminar. On the othe r hand, if the number is much higher than this threshold, the flow will be turbulent. The identity of the fluid itself is of little consequence in this determination. Only the composite parameter in the form of the Reynolds number is a reliable in- dicator of turbulence, short of actually observing the fluid under the stated conditions of flow.

The field of automata theory uses a model of computation called the Turing Machine. This model depicts computational procedures as a set of s imple operations. Much of the work in automata theory deals with the invariance of computationa l power among different versions of the Turing Machine. One such result is the equivalence of all existing computers to the Turing Machine - and therefore to each other - in the range of problems they can resolve.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity may also be rega rded as an invariance result. In particular, the laws of physics are unchanged by the choice of a particular frame of reference. Possibility Much of the work in the sciences and in engineer ing deals with showing what is possible. One of the most convincing ways is proof by construction. The most cogent means of showing that hu- mans can attain powered flight is to build a flying machine. The seminal experiment by the American chemist Stanley Lloyd Miller in the mid-1950s showed that amino acids - the basic components of life - can be formed from a broth of lifeless chemicals when exposed to a flux of energy. 5 A good deal of the theoretical work in the sciences is also one of construction. This relates to the development of general models, frameworks, or theories that can accommodate diverse empirical observations.

4 The mathematically inclined reader may be aware that according to the Central Limit Theorem, the Gaussian distribution is pervasive in the following sense. Given any set of random variables that are mutually independent and have an finite variance, their sum tends toward a Gaussian distribution when the set is large. This resu lt is unchanged by the fact that the independent variables may have similar or dissimilar probabilit y distributions, any of which (or none) might be Gaussian.

5 M ILLER , 1957.

14 Analytic studies in engineering are often dedicated to the determination of what is possible. For example, the hypothesis that manned spacecraft can visit Mars and return to Earth can be con- firmed from our knowledge of the chemical prope rties of propellants, the mechanical properties of materials, and the physics of interplanetary flight. Impossibility A negative result, if proven, is as useful as a positive result. In fact, most of the major scientific advances in the 20th century are of the negative kind: Einstein's Theory of Relativity says that there are no absolutes; Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that position and momentum cannot both be determined simultaneously with arbitrary precision; Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says that there is no decisive algorithm to prove invalidity in predicate logic; according to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, a particular set of reasonable assumptions will admit no con- sistent economic welfare function. These discoveries of the im possible actually serve to define the limits of the possible.

Trade-offs An important class of results relates to interdimensional trade-offs 6. These may relate to the rela- tionships between performance and effici ency, or time versus space, etc.. The student of economics quickly learns that life involves the pursuit of happiness under resource constraints. A simplified economy may have sufficient resources each year to produce exactly one of the following baskets of goods: 5 million mu ffins; or 800 videos; or 2 million muffins and 400 videos. These three alternatives define the "production possibi lity frontier" for the economy.

The actual choice among the three alternatives will depend on the collective disposition of the consumers and producers. The nature of the choi ce is largely a subjective matter; but the trade- offs between muffins and videos is an objec tive phenomenon whose understanding facilitates the subjective decision. Happiness may be a subjective subject, but its pursuit can be supported by ra- tional decision making.

In the realm of computer science, the area know n as complexity theory deals with the conse- quences of differing algorithms for computational efficiency, and the trade-offs between require- ments for memory versus computational time in solving a specific problem. These results support the design of computer systems, just as production possibility frontiers assist in formulating eco- nomic policy. Nature of the Categories The classification of scientific results into a set of categories provides a convenient framework for exposition and discussion. However, the various categories are not intended to be independent or mutually exclusive.

For example, the Theory of Relativity stipulates the lack of absolute frames of reference. This re- sult may be classified as an example of the impossibility of determining an absolute reference as well as one of invariance of physical laws across reference frames.

Moreover, a result that falls into one category may engender results in other categories. As dis- cussed previously, the laws of thermodynamics represent a unifying structure. The first law, how- 6 Kim, 1990, Ch. 2.

15 6 ever, stipulates the invariance of the total amount of energy in any insulated system. In addition, the second law can be used to deduce the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine.

The four categories of results hi ghlight the different types of contributions. This framework can help to promote creativity by providing a platform for the orientation of research efforts and out- lining the nature of result s that may be achieved.

Bibliography:

KIM, S. H. 1990: Designing Intelligence: A Framework for Smart Systems. Oxford University Press, New York.

K UHN , T. S., 1962: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press, Chi- cago, 1970.

M ILLER , Stanley L., 1957: The Mechanisms of Synthesis of Amino Acids by Electrical Discharges. In:

Biochimica and Biophysica Acta , v.23(3), 480-489.

P OINCARÉ , Henri, 1946: The foundations of Science: Science and Hypothesis; The Value of Science; Science and Method: transl. By G.B. Ha lsted. Science Press, Lancaster PA.

16 Universitat Hohenheim 430 Fachgebiet:

Landwirtschaftliche Kommunikations- und Beratungslehre KIM-03 November 2008Hoffmann Knowledge management 1 A combination of the two disciplines, struct uring learning processes and organization and management, has recently become popular in the field of organizational development: know- ledge management. We start with clarifying some basic terms and concepts and then go to the implications for learning of individuals and organizations.

Figure 1: The knowledge pyramid (following A AMODT & NYGARD , 1955) management knowledge Symbol competence (reading and writing) data management information management knowledge management signs data information action Ö Figure 1 shows that knowledge links informatio n with action. Information is built on data, which is composed of signs. Si gns stand for something else. Their meaning is fixed by con- vention and must be learned. Data are signs to be analyzed, and this is also possible when they are electronically stored as bits and bytes. The handling of the elements of the pyramid can be called management. Going up and down the knowl edge pyramid requires certain competences, which are normally acquired in literate societies.

Can knowledge be stored? No, at least not direc tly, not outside of living human brains. But it can be stored indirectly as information. Know ledge can be acquired through learning and in- ternalizing information, and it can be passed on by teaching and externalizing it into informa- tion. That means information can be regarded as externalized knowledge and also as processed data serving a purpose or reducing uncertainty. Computers and other machines can process da- ta, but not information. Semantic interpretation, i.e. the assessment of meaning, is a capacity requiring human intelligence, often paired with creativity and no machine can be taught this, even if the term artificial in telligence suggests it. This exte nds our knowledge pyramid as shown in Ö Figure 2. 1 1 Parts of this chapter are based on H OFFMANN , 2007.

17 Figure 2: The extended knowledge pyramid Knowledge Signs Data Information Without meaning, no context Meaning, related to facts Reduces uncertainty, purposeful Conceptualized information, interpreted, evaluated, interlinked To learn, internalize To teach, externalize Semantics Syntax Pragmatics Action Semiotics The knowledge pyramid only depicts a part of all knowledge processes, the explicit part. This can be used to pass information based on signs and data. However, there is also implicit or ta- cit knowledge. P OLANYI (1985) said that " we know more than we can tell ".

Implicit knowledge is knowledge fr om experience, is the part of knowledge that is difficult to describe, is used subconsciously and intuitivel y, is a special feeling, a talent, e.g. "green fin- gers" when dealing with plants, and cannot be co pied or programmed for robots, and is a basis for sustainable competitive advantage of enterprises.

The special trick is to find ways of rendering implicit knowledge explicit, of converting it into information that can be handed on to others. This is where the distinction ari\ ses between knowledge and capability. To acquire skills, readi ng is not very helpful. Progress only comes through repeated practice, by doi ng something again and again, and by training. Skills are im- plicit. Training that is successful in guiding a nd motivating is another teaching skill. Not every expert is also a good trainer or teacher.

Ö Figure 3 goes more into details of individual learning. The bigger circle represents the learner explaining learning as information pro cessing. Signals are perceived and interpreted under the influence of arising emotions and o ccurring cognitions, which are then stored and lead to action. Observing the own action transforms this into data and information that again enters perception. That is what we call learning by doing or experiential learning (K OLB , 1984) and what improves skills by manifold repetition called training. Instead of observing the own actions, we can also learn from the behavior of others called model learning or imitative learn- ing. Apart from behavior, we i nherit the products of previous learning processes, like cultural landscapes, tools and domestic plants and animals, which we go on using. The same happens, when we just buy products or services; there we also profit from the learning results 2 18 Figure 3: The knowledge cycle: How individuals learn Information-Processing Codes 3 of former times and other persons. The most fre quent source of learning nowadays is symbolic learning, accessing information by symbolic comm unication, mainly in school like settings, but also in individual work in libraries or distance learning. Th e lion share of such information is carried by text, spoken or written (linguistic) , often illustrated by different forms of pictures (iconic), sometimes combined with numbers or formulas (logical), and also body language or music can help to ease the information upt ake und understanding or memorizing, e.g. by ac- companying spoken words, and by crea ting additional emotional effects. N ANOKA and T AKEUCHI (1997, 85) were the first internat ionally recognized academics to point out the importance of converting knowledge between imp licit and explicit forms, which they depicted with their famous spiral, shown in Ö Figure 4.

If knowledge is available in expl icit form, then acquiring it means internalizing it. Once inter- nalized, it is implicit, an d to acquire it one must go through so cialization in this field of know- ledge and action. You grow into it and acquire it by helping and assisting, by imitation and training, and often to a great degr ee by trial and error. When you wa nt to pass it on to others without time-consuming socialization, you should ex ternalize it and make it explicit. If differ- ent contents of exp licit knowledge arise, new knowledge may emerge through a process of combination that has to prove its usefulness in actions. Therefore, it has to be internalized first.

ordering shaping Objets Environment Tools Plants Animals... Feeling Learning Behaviour Own Behaviour Beh. of Others Symbols linguistic gestural, mimical iconic logical musical Memory Thinking Reco gnizin g Action Individual Knowledge Individuum Information Uncertainty Reduction „between the ears“ Selective Projektive Data Bits and Bytes Learning Acqaintance Capacities Potential Sources of Infor- mation Perce ption Ordering Shaping 19 Figure 4: Transforming knowledge (N ANOKA & TAKEUCHI , 1997, 85) Socialization Externalization Internalization Combination explicit implicit implicit explicit Because this process between humans is never stat ic, the spiral is an appropriate symbol for representing it. The authors describe how to ex ternalize knowledge, even against all resistance, in their story of the development of the bread-baking machine. When the leader of the development department was near to despair because the bread made in the new automatic machine did not taste good, she became an apprentice to a famous baker in a five-star hotel in Tokyo. Observing what he was doing did not he lp, so she started to pound dough herself, and practice makes her perfect. After some weeks, her bread was as good as his. But in addition, she could explain in technical terms (alt hough he could not) what she was doing. Pounding dough means pulling, pushing and twisting it. The machine was only twisting the dough. To pull and push, some side bands had to be added. The rest was routine work. So by systematic variation her engineers were ab le to optimize the machine. In the first six months 500,000 small automatic household units were sold.

With this example they point out that the implic it knowledge of the co-workers is the decisive comparative advantage in international competition. When it is possible to externalize it, it can be patented, computerized, automatized, used in robots but also sold for license fees.

Organizations, as well valid for extension organizations must constantly adapt to changing conditions and co-evolve w ith their environments. This again is learning. But we stated that knowledge only exists in liv ing brains. If “knowledge is between the ears” (R ÖLING , 1994), how can organizations learn, not having ears? Ö Figure 5 gives a first answer. In an organi- zation, files and people interact. The persons can learn and can improve the information in the files, insofar their learning results can be made explicit. And in creating the outputs, the com- pany performance, the members interact by using their implicit as well as their explicit know- ledge. By interlinking files and people, imp licit and explicit knowledge, the organizations learns and creates synergies. But it would never be sufficient to withstand international competition, if an organization would depend solely on own information sources. Information is nowadays a commodity, which is partly free of charge in public domai n and partly commercialized as indicated on the right side of Figure 6, under external acquisiti on. To “make or buy” is the general question dealt with in the figure, and often buying is cheaper.

Figure 5: How organizations learn I 4 20 5 File Person Firm Ex plicit Explicit Im plicit Explicit Implicit Interlinked Information Knowing Mastering Wanting Learning Or ganization The whole is more than the sum of it‘s parts ! To make the picture more complete, Ö Figure 6 stresses on two additional points: learning by feedback through monitoring results and when exchanging information, services, goods and assets with outside partners or customers. In striving for cons tantly improved reach of objec- tives, not only the members learn and the files imp rove, but also the structures of the organiza- tion are constantly adapted and the standard procedures are improved Ö Figure 7.

In this perspective, we can understand organiza tional development also as a process of im- proving communication and knowledge management.

Figure 6: Knowledge acquisition Externally Internally Try, train Investigate, look up Buy information/ license Buy product/service Consult expert/advisor Train/educate co-workers Hire expert Figure 7: How organisations learn II 21 Services Goods 6 Members Files Structures, Procedures Information Assets, Rights By information processing Bibliography AAMODT , A., NYGARD , M., 1955: Different roles and mutual dependencies of data, Information and Knowledge. In: Data & Knowledge Engineering , 16, 191-222.

H OFFMANN , Volker, 2007: Knowledge management: what are we talking about? In: GTZ Services for Rural Development , No 15, 6-8.

K OLB , D.A., 1984: Experiential learning. Learning experience as a source of learning and development.

Prentice Hall, New York.

N ONAKA , I., TAKEUCHI , H., 1997: Die Organisation des Wissens. Campus, Frankfurt am Main, 299 pp.

P OLANYI , M. 1985: Implizites Wissen. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. RÖLING , Niels, 1994: Agricultur al Knowledge and Information Systems. In: B LACKBURN (ed.): Extension Handbook, 2 nd edition. Thompson Educational Publishing, Toronto. 57-68. 22 Universität Hohenheim 430 Fachgebiet:

Landwirtschaftliche Kommunikations- und Beratungslehre KIM-04 January 2007Hoffmann Models of knowledge transfer: critical perspectives 1 Everett M. R OGERS The field of knowledge transfer today has much reason to view its past accomplishments with considerable pride. In the last couple of decades this field of scholarly activity has attracted a growing number of dedicated rese archers and theorists, several outstanding books have appeared that synthesize work on this topic, and a numb er of university-level courses and programs of graduate-level have been launched. On the prag matic side, most government agencies (both in developing and in industriali zed nations) recognize their re sponsibility for conducting know- ledge-transfer activities. In fact, many agenci es see knowledge transfer as one of their main ac- tivities.

Critical perspectives Recently, I met with representatives of a dozen U.S. government agencies (in health, mental health, education, public transpor tation, etc.) to review their knowledge-transfer strategies. Each was allocating a portion (albeit sm all) of its total budget for knowledge transfer, and each had an office or division established to carry out knowledge-transfer functions. Significantly, each of these U.S. government agencies was, in its act ivities, questioning certain aspects of the conven- tional wisdom about knowledge transfer.

I regard this as a healthy sign. Scholarship and practice on knowledge transfer have advanced to the point where we should be questioning our pa st models, and searching for improved alterna- tives, rather than just "doing more of the same." It is in the light of such critical perspectives that the present chapter is written. A theme of this chapter is that a fundamental shift may have oc- curred in recent years as we have realized grad ually that centralized knowledge-transfer systems are not "the only wheel in tow n." While such centralized approaches have advantages under many conditions, in certain cases a more decentral ized model of knowledge transfer may be more appropriate.

Every field of scholarly activity makes certain simplifying assump tions about the complex reality that it studies. Such assumptions are built into th e intellectual paradigm that guides every field.

Often these assumptions are not very fully recognized, even as they affect such important matters as what is studied and what is ignored and which research methods are favored and which are re- jected. So, when a scholar follows a theoretical paradigm, he or she puts on a set of intellectual blinders that help the researcher avoid seeing much of reality. "The prejudice of training is al- ways a certain 'trained incapacity': The more we know about how to do something, the harder it is to learn to do it differently" (K APLAN 1964,31). Such trained incapacity is, to a certain extent, ne- cessary; without it, a scholar could not cope with th e vast uncertainties of the research process in his field. Every research worker, and every field of science, has many blind spots.

1 Source: Everett R OGERS , 1986: Models of Knowledge Transfer : Critical Perspectives. In: B EAL , George, M., D ISSANAYAKE , Wimal, K ONOSHIMA , Sumiye (Eds.): Knowledge Generation, Exchange and Utilization. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 37-60 23 The growth and development of a research field is a gradual puzzle-solving process by which im- portant research questions are identified and ev entually answered. The progress of a scholarly field is helped by realization of its assumptions, biases, and wea knesses. Such self-realization is greatly assisted by intellectual criticism. Unfort unately, the field of knowledge transfer has not been subjected to much critical review, a defici ency that we hope to remedy in this chapter.

What is knowledge transfer?

Past scholarship on issues of knowledge generation, exchange, and utilization grew out of several different disciplines, each of wh ich favored certain theoretical viewpoints, research approaches, and terminologies. While the general trend is toward integration of this intellectual diversity, such academic unity is yet far from being accomplished. Perhaps a certain degree of difference in ap- proach is a good thing, at least up to a certain point, but one area in which diversity still causes troublesome problems is in terminology. What I loos ely refer to in this chapter as "knowledge transfer" is also known as knowledge, utilization, technology, transfer, and the diffusion of inno- vations (although these concepts are not exact synonyms).

We often use "innovation," "technology," and "know ledge" as synonyms, but in fact they are not the same. An innovation is an idea perceived as new. A technology is a design for instrumental action that reduces the uncertainty in the cause-e ffect relationships involved in achieving a de- sired outcome (R OGERS 1983,12). A technology usually has two components: (1) a hardware as- pect, consisting of the tool that embodies the technology as a mate rial or physical object, and (2) a software aspect, consisting of the information ba se for the tool. Both the hardware and software dimensions of a technology encompass knowledge, but of course there are many other kinds of knowledge besides the new knowledge that is involved in an i nnovation or a technology. Never- theless, most of the past studies of knowledge transfer have actually been re searches focusing on innovation or technology transfer.

The scope of knowledge transfer th at has been studied in the past has been the process through which technological information resulting from an R & D system is transferred by a linking sys- tem (e.g., an agricultural extension system) to a user system (e.g., farmers). This conception of knowledge transfer implies that it is mainly a one-way process: in actuality (or at least ideally), the R & D may have been initiated at the request of the user system, or at least in order to meet certain of their needs, further, once the users have received the knowledge and put it into use, feedback (as to how well the knowledge meets th e preexisting needs) may be conveyed back to the R & D system. So it is an ove rsimplification to think of knowle dge transfer as a one-way, top- down process. 2 The agricultural extension model Any discussion of models of know ledge transfer must begin with agriculture extension, both for historical reasons and because the agriculture exte nsion model has so influenced all of our think- ing about this topic. While ou r intellectual dependence upon this model was mainly functional in the past, we have also been unf ortunately limited in the scope of our conceptualizations about 2 This discussion of the c oncept of knowledge transfer raises t he issues of what should be the main dependent variable(s) (1) in research on knowledge transfer, and (2) in practice, as an indicator of performance. In past studies of the diffusion of innovations, the usual dep endent variable has been adoption versus rejection of a technological innovation. But there are many other possible dependent variables in knowledge transfer research and/or practice: Awareness-knowledge of a technological innovation or of another idea, de velopment of a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the innova- tion or another idea, or beneficia l consequences of adoption or rejecti on of the idea (to meet the orig- inal needs).

24 knowledge transfer. The first step in breaking outside the bounds of our prior thinking is to real- ize that certain alternative models may be possi ble. Of course, it may be advantageous to com- bine certain elements of a rela tively centralized model like agricu ltural extension with parts of a decentralized model to formulate a knowledge transfer system that is especially suited to a set of particular conditions. This contingency approach to knowledge transfer is more academically sound than the numerous descriptions of a knowledge transfer system in the past, which stated or implied that that system was the best alternative for a wide range of conditions. For example, it has been claimed that the agricultural extensi on model could be effectively applied to solve knowledge transfer problems in education, fam ily planning, vocational rehabilitation, and so forth. An examination of these "extensions" of the agricultural extension model, however, has shown them to be relativel y unsuccessful unless major m odifications were made (R OGERS , EVEL- AND , and B EAN 1984). The agricultural extension model is a set of assumptions, principles, and organizational struc- tures for diffusing the results of agricultural research to farm audiences in the United States. This "model" is based directly on the experience of the U.S. government agency responsible for diffus- ing agricultural innovations; it closely parallels the conventional conceptions of a research and development/diffusion/u tilization process.

Eight main elements constitute the agricultural extension model:

1. A critical mass of new technology , so that the diffusion system has a body of innovations with potential usefulness to practitioners.

2. A research subsystem oriented to utilization , as a result of incentives and rewards for re- searchers, research funding policie s, and the personal ideologies of the agricultural researchers.

3. A high degree of user control over the know ledge transfer/research utilization process, as evidenced through client participation in policy determination, attention to user needs in guiding research and diffusion decisions, and the importance accorded feedback from clients on the sys- tem's effectiveness. 3 4. Structural linkages among the research utilization system's components , as provided by a shared conception of the system, use of a comm on "language" by members of the system, and by a common sense of mission.

5 A high degree of client cont act by the linking subsystem, which is facilitated by reasonable agent/client ratios and by a rela tively homogenous client audience. 6. A spannable social distance across each in terface between components in the system (where social dist ance might occur in levels of professi onalism, formal education, technical ex- pertise, and specializatio n). Generally, these variables decrease as one moves from the research subsystem (where Ph.D. 's are usually employed) , through linkers, to the client subsystem.

7. Evolution as a complete system , rather than the knowledge transfer system having been grafted on as an additional component to an existing research system.

8. A high degree of control by the system over its environment, thus enabling the system to shape the environment rather than passively reacti ng to changes. Such a system is less likely to face unexpected crises or competit ors, and is able to obtain adequate resources. The degree of 3 While much rhetoric is given to this feedback about needed research from farmers through the ex- tension service to agricultura l scientists, it is actually a fairly rare occurrence.

25 control is expressed through the system's power base, its perceived legitimacy, and its policial- legal influence.

The following generalizations are offered about the agricultural extension model:

1. In response to alterations in the environment, the agricultur al extension model has changed considerably since its origin in the United States in 1911. To a large extent, these adjustments are a reason for its relative success.

2. The agricultural extension model is based on cl ient participation in identifying local needs, program planning, and evaluation and feedback.

3. Agricultural research activities are oriented toward potential utili zation of research results. This pro-utilization policy facil itates the linking function of the extension workers.

4. State-level extension specialists are in close social and spatial contact with agricultural re- searchers in their specialty, whic h facilitates their performance in linking research-based know- ledge to farmer problems.

5. The agricultural extension model was more eff ective in diffusing agricultural production tech- nology to farmers (such as in crop and livestock production) than in its latter-day extensions to farmers on other subjects and to non-farm audiences.

6. The agricultural extension model recognizes the importance of communication as a basic process-skill for extension change agents an d provides communication training on an in-service basis.

7. The agricultural extension model includes not onl y a systematic procedure for the transfer of innovations from researchers to farmers but also an institutionalized means for orienting research activities toward users' needs. Thus, the land-grant college/agricu ltural experiment station/extension service complex is a total knowledge utilization system, which includes innova tion-diffusion as only one of its components.

The federal investment in agricultural extensi on represents a heavy commitment, compared to that in agricultural research. Fe derally funded extension activitie s represent about 40 to 60 per- cent of the annual federal investment in agricu ltural R & D. For example, the USDA recently al- lotted $423 million for R & D. This figure would be considerably higher (over $600 million) if state funding were also included. 4 The annual federal budget for extension was $200 million:

with state and county government contributions, the total annual budget for the extension services was about $500 million. Thus the total extension budget almost approaches the total public agri- cultural R & D budget. Even if only the federal investment is consider ed, extension receives about half the funding of R & D. Comparable figur es for federal extension-type activities as a proportion of federally supported R & D are much, much smaller in other fields:

1. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration 14 % 2. National Institute of Education 10 % 3. U. S. Department of Labor 3 % 4. National Institute of Mental Health 2 % 5. National Aeronautics and Space Ad ministration (NASA) 0.17% 4 The activities of the extensi on services over the years have focused somewhat narrowly on imme- diate technical problems in agriculture, rather th an on the longer range social, political, economic, and ecological consequences of technological change in U.S. agriculture (H IGHTOWER 1972).

26 Undoubtedly one of the reasons for the success of the agricultural extension services is their rela- tively high, stable budget. The financial success is, in turn, aided by the support given to the agri- cultural extension services by the powerf ul American Farm Bureau Federation.

Extending the agricultural extension model What factors drawn from the agricultural exte nsion model can be applied to other knowledge transfer systems, and which are unique to the agricultural extension services? In other words, can the agricultural extension model be extended to other situations? R OGERS , EVELAND , and B EAN (1984) compared seven selected attempts to ex tend the agricultural extension model on the eight main elements of the model (that we stated pr eviously). The seven "extensions" occurred during the 1955 to 1975 period and represent cases with which the analysts were personally acquainted.

These seven "extensions" have (in most cases) been extensively evaluated , and so rather definite conclusions are possible.

The general pattern of extension system development in the agricultural case, and the relative successes and failures evidenced in the other seve n cases, suggest some broad conclusions about knowledge transfer. The historical development of the agricultural extension system stretches over about 100 years. Comparatively speaking, know ledge transfer efforts in education, vocation- al rehabilitation, and other fields appear woefully underfunded and to have been treated like un- wanted children of over-expectan t parents. Two experiences (agricultural extension and family planning) in the developing countries of Latin America, Africa, and Asia show a lack of under- standing of the importance of cultural adaptation of elements of the agricultural extension model (even when the model is applied to agricultural problems).

The county extension agent in th e United States was a product of commercial agriculture, not subsistence farming. Until American agriculture be gan to modernize, there was not much need for an extension service. Subsistence (precomme rcial) farming in developing countries has not embraced the agricultural extensi on model with much success, a fact that suggests that the suc- cessful introduction of a knowledge transfer system must be carefully timed so that a feeling of need for its services exists or can soon be developed.

Attempts to introduce one or two elements of the agricultural extension model to non-agricultural settings should not be undertaken without adeq uate appreciation of the difficulties involved. The time and resources required to permit these knowledge transfer elements to prove their utility and to become assimilated into the culture of the host system can be easily underestimated. The fail- ure of modestly funded efforts to transplant spec ific elements of the agricultural extension model into other sectors sugge sts that an extension system approach needs to be taken. When only cer- tain elements of the agricultural extension model were introduced without support from the other elements, they usually failed.

Knowledge cannot be transferred effectively unless the goals of such transfer are very clear. The goals of the agricultural extension services were fairly di rect and unambiguous: to produce more food and to raise farm incomes. In education and in rehabilitation, for example, the goal situation is much more complicated, with multiple, conflicting goals for knowledge transfer.

The agricultural extension services begin with users' needs and problems, and the system operates to find useful information to meet these needs, while many other, less effective knowledge trans- fer systems take an opposite approach of conducti ng research largely in answer to researchers' needs, and then attempting to find some use for th e results. Naturally, the research topics usually do not match with users' needs. An effective know ledge transfer system must begin with users' needs.

27 Decentralized diffusion systems We have already implied that there is considerable flexibility in the way the eight elements of the agricultural extension model can be adapted in se lected knowledge transfer systems. During very recent years, a diffusion system in marked contrast to the centralized diffusion system of the agri- cultural extension model has been id entified: decentralized diffusion.

Centralized Diffusion System In 1971, Professor Donald S CHON of MIT wrote that " theories of diffusion have characteristically lagged behind the reality of emerging systems. " S CHON particularly singled out classical diffu- sion theory for criticism: he te rmed classical diffusion a "cente r-periphery model." This model, S CHON (1971, 81) said, rests on the basic assumption that " An innovation to be diffused exists ful- ly realized in its essentials, prior to its diffusion " and that the diffusion process can be centrally managed. The best-known example of a centralized diffusion system is the agricultural extension services.

In this classical diffusi on model, an innovation originated from some expert source (often an R & D organization). This source then diffuses the innovation as a uniform package to potential adop- ters, who accept or reject the i nnovation. The role of the adopter of the innovation is that of a rel- atively passive accepter. This classical model owes much of its popularity to the success of the agricultural extension services and to the fact th at the basic paradigm for diffusion research grew out of the R YAN and G ROSS (1943) hybrid corn study. Much agri cultural diffusion in the United States is relatively centralized, in that key decisions about which innova tions to diffuse, how to diffuse them, and to whom are made by a small num ber of technically expert officials near the top of a diffusion system. While S CHON noted that it fails to capture the complexity of relatively decentralized diffusion systems in which innovati ons originate in numerous sources and evolve as they diffuse via horizontal networks.

During the late 1970s, I gradually became aware of diffusion system s that did not operate at all like the relatively centralized diffusion system that I had described in previous publications. In- stead of coming out of formal R & D systems, innovations ofte n bubbled up from the operational levels of the system, with the inventing done by users. Then the new ideas spread horizontally via peer networks, with a high degree of re-inventing occurring as the innovations were modified by users to fit their particular c onditions. Such decentralized diffusi on systems usually are not run by a small set of technical experts. Instead, decision making in the diffusion system is widely shared with adopters making many decisions. In many cas es, adopters served as their own change agents.

Gradually, I begun to realize that the centralized diffusion model was not the only wheel in town.

Comparing centralized versus decentralized diffusion systems How does a decentralized diffusion system differ fr om its centralized counterpart? Table 1 shows six of the main differences betw een centralized and decentralized diffusion systems. This distinc- tion is somewhat oversimplified because it suggests a dichotomy, rather than a continuum, of centralized/decentralized diffusion systems. In real ity, an actual diffusion system is usually some combination of the elements of a centralized an d a decentralized diffusion system. For example, the agricultural extension services in the United St ates are nearer the more centralized end of the centralized/decentralized continuum, although they ha ve certain characteristics of a decentralized system.

In general, centralized diffusion systems are based on a linear, one-way model of communication.

Decentralized diffusion systems more closely follow a convergence model of communication, in 28 Table 1: Characteristics of centralized a nd decentralized diffusion systems Characteristics of diffusion Centralized diffusion systems Decentralized diffusion systems The degree of centralization in decision-making and power. Overall control of decisions by national government adminis- trators and technical subject- matter experts. Wide sharing of power and con- trol among the members of the diffusion system; client control by local officials/leaders.

Direction of diffusion.

Top-down diffusion from ex- perts to local users of innova- tions. Peer diffusion of innovations in- novations through horizontal networks.

Sources of innovations.

Innovations come from formal R & D conducted by technical ex- perts. Innovations come from local ex- perimentation by nonexperts, who often are users.

Who decides which innova- tions to diffuse?

Decisions about which innova- tions should be diffused are made by top administrators and technical subject-matter spe- cialists. Local units decide innovations should the basis of their evalua- tions of the innovations.

How important are clients' needs in driving the diffu- sion process?

An innovation-centered ap- proach; technology-push, em- phasizing needs created by the availability of the innovation. A problem-centered approach; technology-pull, created by local- ly perceived needs and prob- lems.

Amount of re-invention ?

A low degree of local adapta- tion and re-invention of the in- novations as they diffuse among adopters. A high degree of local adaptation and re-invention of the innova- tions as they diffuse among adopters.

Source: R OGERS 1983,335 which participants create and share information with one another in order to reach a mutual un- derstanding (R OGERS and K INCAID 1981). A fundamental assumption of decentralized diffusion systems is that members of the user system have the ability to make sound decisions about how the diffusion process is managed. This capacity of the users to run their own diffusion system makes the most sense (1) when the users are highl y educated and technically competent practitio- ners (for example, cardiovascular surgeons), so that all the users are experts, or (2) when the in- novations being diffused are not at a high level of technology (for example, home energy conser- vation or organic gardening versus building a nucle ar power plant), so that intelligent laymen have sufficient technical expertise.

The fact that relatively decentralized diffusion syst ems exist in a wide variety of fields and loca- tions suggests that in the past we may have se verely underestimated the degree to which the user system was capable of managing its own knowledge transfer process. Our understanding of de- centralized diffusion systems is still limited, owing to the general lack of investigations of such user-dominated diffusion. However, it seems appare nt that certain elements of decentralized dif- fusion systems might be combined with certain asp ects of the centralized model to fit a particular situation uniquely. In other words, the classica l diffusion model is being questioned in certain very important ways.

29 Advantages and Disadvantages of Decentralized Diffusion Decentralized diffusion systems have both advantages and disadvantages. Compared to centra- lized systems, the innovations that decentralized systems diffuse are likely to fit with users' needs and problems more closely. Users feel a sense of control over a decentralized diffusion system, as they participate in making many of the key decisi ons, such as which of their perceived problems need most attention, which innovations best meet these needs, how to seek information about each innovation and from what source, and how much to modify an innovation as they adopt and implement it to their particular setting. The high degree of user control over these key decisions means that a decentralized diffusion system is gear ed closely to local needs. Problems of change agent/client heterophily are minimized. It is main ly user motivations to seek innovations that drive a decentralized diffusion pro cess, and this may be more cost-efficient than situations in which professional change agents manage the diffu sion process. User self-reliance is encouraged in a decentralized system, finally, decentralized diffusion is publicly popular: users generally like such systems. Several disadvantages, however, often characterize decentralized diffusion sys- tems:

1. Technical expertise is sometimes difficult to bring to bear on decisions about which innova- tions to diffuse and to adopt, and it is possible for "bad innovations" to diffuse through a decen- tralized system because of this lack of "quality control." So wh en a diffusion system is dissemi- nating innovations that involve a high level of technical expertis e, a decentralized diffusion sys- tem may be less appropriate than a mo re centralized diffusion system. 2. Furthermore, extremely decentralized diffusion systems lack a coordinating role (that is, the "big picture" of the system, where problems exis t and which innovations might be used to solve them). For example, a local user may not know wh ich other users he or she could visit to learn about an innovation. Thus, completely decentralized diffusion systems suffer from the fact that local users, who control the system, lack certain aspects of the big picture about users' problems and about available innovations to meet these problems.

3. A highly decentralized system will not be appr opriate for innovation for which potential users do not feel a need. An example is family pl anning in developing nations, which a government may regard as a high priority but which people may not want. There are very few decentralized diffusion systems for contraception in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Thus, our present discussion suggests that: 1. Decentralized diffusion systems are most appropria te for certain conditions, such as for diffus- ing innovations that do not involve a high level of technical expertise, among a set of users with relatively heterogeneous conditions. When these conditions are homogeneous, a relatively more centralized diffusion system may be most appropriate.

2. Certain elements of centralized and decentralized diffusion systems can be combined to form a diffusion system that uniquely fits a particular situation. For example, a diffusion system may combine a central-type coordina ting role, with decentralized decisions being made about which innovations should be diffused and which users others should site-visit. Technical evaluations of promising innovations can be made in an otherwise decentralized diffusion system.

Biases in knowledge transfer The constructive criticisms that have been made of knowledge transfer models in very recent years help us identify several biases in such work, and they also suggest ways of overcoming such biases.

30 The pro-innovation bias The pro-innovation bias is the implication that an innovatio n should be diffused and adopted by all members of a social system, that it should be diffused more rapidly, and that the innovation should be neither re-invented nor rejected. Seld om is the pro-innovation bias straightforwardly stated in scholarly publications. Rather, the bias is assumed and implied. This lack of recognition of the pro-innovation bias makes it especially troublesome and potentially dangerous in an intel- lectual sense. The bias leads researchers to ig nore the study of ignorance about innovations, to underemphasize the rejection or discontinuance of innovations, to overlook re-invention, and to fail to study anti-diffusion programs designed to prevent the diffusion of "bad" innovations (like marijuana or drugs or cigarettes, for example). Th e net result of the pro-innovation bias is that we have failed to learn about certain very important aspects of the diffusion of innovations. What we do know about diffusion (and other aspects of knowledge transfer) is unnecessarily rather limited.

But it need not be so.

How did the pro-innovation bias originally occur? Part of the r eason is historical. Undoubtedly, hybrid corn was profitable for each of the Iowa farmers in the early R YAN and G ROSS (1943) dif- fusion study, but most other innovati ons that have been investigated do not have this extremely high degree of relative advantage. Many individuals, for their own good, should not adopt them.

Perhaps if the field of diffusion research had not begun with highly profitable agricultural innova- tions in the 1940s and the 1950s, th e pro-innovation bias would have been avoided, or at least recognized and dealt with properly.

During the 1970s, several critics of diffusion res earch recognized the pro-innovation bias. For ex- ample, D OWNS and M OHR (1976,700) stated; " The act of innovating is still heavily laden with positive value. Innovativeness, like efficiency, is a characteristic we want social organisms to possess. Unlike the ideas of progress and growth, which have long since been casualties of a new consciousness, innovation, especially when seen as more than purely technological change, is still associated with improvement . " What causes the pro-innovation bias in diffusion research?

1. Much diffusion research is funded by change agencies; they have a pro-innovation bias (un- derstandably so, since th ey are in the business of promoting innovations), and this viewpoint has often been accepted by many of the diffusion researchers whose work they sponsor, whom they call upon for consultation about their diffusion pr oblems, and whose students they may hire.

2. "Successful" diffusions leave a rate of adoption that can be retrospectively investigated by dif- fusion researchers, while an unsuccessful diffusion does not leave visible traces that can be very easily studied. For instance, a reje cted and/or a discontinued innovati on is not so easily identified and investigated by a researcher by interroga ting the rejectors and/or discontinuers.

As a general result of the pro- innovation bias, we know much more (1) about the diffusion of ra- pidly diffusing innovations, (2) a bout adoption than about rejection, and (3) about continued use than about discontinuance. The pro-innovation bias in diffusion research is understandable from the viewpoint of financial, logistical, methodol ogical, and practical policy considerations. The problem is that the pro-innovation bias is limiti ng in an intellectual sense: we know too much about innovation successes and not enough about i nnovation failures. While we have largely dis- cussed the pro-innovation bias here in terms of the diffusion of innovations, it also permeates all other aspects of the knowle dge transfer process. How might the pro-innova tion bias be overcome? 31 1. Alternative research approaches to post hoc data-gathe ring about how an innovation has dif- fused should be explored in knowledge-transfer re search. Diffusion research does not necessarily have to be conducted after an innovation has di ffused completely to the members of a system.

Such a rearward orientation to most diffusion st udies helps lead them to a concentration on suc- cessful innovations. It is also possible to investigate the diffusion of an innovation while the dif- fusion process is still underway, or , in fact, before it even begins.

2. Researchers should become much more questioni ng of, and careful about, how they select their innovations of study. Even if a successful innovation is selected for investigation, a scholar might also investigate an unsuccessful innovation that failed to diffuse widely among members of the same system. Such a comparative analysis would help illuminate the seriousness of the pro- innovation bias. In general, a mu ch wider range of innovations should be studied in knowledge- transfer research.

3. Researchers should investigate the broader cont ext in which an innovation diffuses, such as how the initial decision is made that the innova tion should be diffused to members of a system, how public policies affect the rate of diffusion, how the innovatio n of study is related to other in- novations and to the existing practice (s) that it replaces, and how it was decided to conduct the R & D that led to the innovation in the first place. This wider scope to research studies would help illuminate the broader system in whic h the knowledge-transfer process occurs.

4. We should increase our understanding of the motivations for adopting an innovation. Strange- ly, such "why" questions about adopting an innovation have only seldom been probed by diffu- sion researchers; undoubtedly, motivations for adoption are a difficult issue to investigate. Some adopters may not be able to tell a researcher why they decided to use a new idea. O\ ther adopters may be unwilling to do so. Seldom are simple, direct questions in a survey interview adequate to uncover an adopter's reasons for using an innovati on. But we should not give up on trying to find out the "why" of adoption just because valuable data about adoption motivations are difficult to obtain by the usual methods of di ffusion research data-gathering.

It is often assumed that an economic motivation is the main thrust for adopting an innovation, es- pecially if the new id ea is expensive. Economic factors are undoubtedly very important for cer- tain types of innovations and thei r adopters, such as the use of agricultural innovations by U. S.

farmers, but the prestige secured from adopting an innovation before one's peers may also be an important factor. Certainly the first and most impo rtant step in shedding a pro-innovation bias in knowledge-transfer research is to recognize that it may exist.

The Individual-Blame Bias in Knowledge Transfer In addition to a pro-innovation bias in much past diffusion research, there has also been a source- bias, a tendency for diffusion resear ch to side with the change agencies th at promote innovations rather than with the audience of potential adopters. This source-bias is perhaps even suggested by the words that we employ to describe this field of research: "Diffusion" research might have been called something like "problem-solving," "innov ation-seeking," or the "evaluation of innova- tions" had the audience originally had a stronger influence on this research. One cannot help but wonder bow the diffusion research approach might have been different if the R YAN and G ROSS (1943) hybrid corn study had been sponsored by the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (a farmer's or- ganization) rather than by an agricultural resear ch center like the Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station. And what if the Columbia University drug study (C OLEMAN , KATZ , and M ENZEL 1966) had been sponsored by the American Medical Asso ciation, rather than by the Pfizer Drug Com- pany? The source-sponsorship of early diffusion studies may have given these investigations not only a pro-innovation bias but may have also struct ured the nature of diffusion research toward individual-blame.

32 Individual-blame is the tendency to hold an individual responsible for his or her problems, ra- ther than the system of which the individual is a part (C APLAN and N ELSON 1973). In other words, an individual-blame orientation implies th at "if the shoe doesn't fit, there's something wrong with your foot." An opposite point of view would blame the system, not the individual: it might imply that the shoe manufacturer or the mark eting system could be at fault for a shoe that does not fit.

Of course it is likely that some of the factors underlying a particular social problem may indeed be individual in nature, and that any effective solution to the problem may have to deal with changing these individual factors. However in ma ny cases the causes of the social problem lie in the system of which the individual is a part. Ame liorative social policies that are limited to indi- vidual interventions will not be very effective in solving system-level problems. How a social problem is defined is an important determinant of how we go about solving it, and therefore of the effectiveness of the attempted solution. A frequent error in defining a social problem is to overstress individual-blame and to underestimate system-blame.

System-blame may be defined as the tendency to hold a system responsible for the problems of individual members of the system. How else can the person-blame bias be overcome?

1. Researchers must attempt to keep an open mind about the causes of a social problem, at least until exploratory data are gathered, and guard against accepting others' definitions of knowledge- transfer problems, which often tend to be in terms of individual-blame. 2. All the participants should be involved, including potential adopters, in the definition of a re- search problem, rather than just those indivi duals who are seeking amelioration of a problem.

3. Social and communication structural variables, as well as intra-individual variables, should be considered in knowledge-transfer research. Past diffusion studies largely consisted of audience research, while seriously neglecting source rese arch. The broader issues of who owns and con- trols (1) the R & D system that produces innovations and (2) the communication systems that dif- fuses them, and to whose benefit, also need atte ntion in future knowledge-transfer investigations.

As in the case of the pro-innovation bias in diffusion research, perhaps one of the first and most important ways to guard against the individua l-blame bias is to be aware that it exists. To what extent does knowledge-transfer re search have an individual-blame bias? It is difficult to as- sess the degree of individual-blame in past rese arches accurately, but, on careful reading, there seems to be a certain flavor of individual-blam e in many of the resulting publications. An indi- vidual-blame orientation is not, in and of itself, always inappropriate. Perhaps individual-level variables are the most appropriate to investigate in a particular study. By no means do we advo- cate the complete discarding of all individua l-level, psychological variables in knowledge- transfer research, but in almost all cases, such a psychological approach centering on individual- level variables is not a complete explanat ion of the behavior being investigated. The generation of innovations Knowledge transfer consists of much more than just diffusion. Past investigations have over- looked the fact that a great deal of relevant activities and d ecisions usually occurred long before the diffusion process began: A perceived proble m, funding decisions about R & D activities that led to research work, inventi on of the innovation and then its development and commercializa- tion, a decision that it should be diffused, transfer of the innovation to a diffusion agency, and its communication to an audien ce of potential adopters. Then the first adoption occurs.

This entire pre-diffusion series of activities and d ecisions is certainly an important part of the in- novation-development process, of which the diffusion phase is but one component. The impor- 33 tance of what happens prior to the beginning of an innovation's diffusion (especially those events that affect the nature of diffusion later on) has been almost entirely ignored in past research.

The innovation-development process consists of all of the deci sions, activities, and their im- pacts that occur from recognition of a need or problem, through research, development, and commercialization of an innovation, through diffusi on and adoption of the innovation by users, to its consequences. Here we take up each of the main steps in the innovation-development process, which corresponds roughly to the process of knowledge transfer.

1. Recognizing a Problem or Need. One of the ways in which the innovation-development process begins is by recognition of a problem or need, which stimulates research and develop- ment activities designed to create an innovation to solve the problem/need. In certain cases, a scientist may perceive a forthcoming problem and launch research to find a solution. An example is the agricultural scientist at the University of California at Davis who foresaw a severe labor shortage for California tomato farmers when the bracero program ended and initiated an R & D program to breed hard tomato variet ies that could be machine-picked.

In other cases, a problem/ need may rise to high priority on a system's agenda of social problems through a political process. Research and development to develop safer cars and highways had been conducted and accumulated for several years, but the results were not put into practice until the mid-1960s when a series of highly public ized legislative hearings and Ralph N ADER 's (1965) book, Unsafe at Any Speed , called national attention to the high rate of traffic fatalities. The so- cial problem of auto safety rose to a high national priority owing to higher fatality rates in the ear- ly 1960s, when the annual death rate reached 50,000. But the interpretation of this dangerous trend was in large part a political activity.

2. Basic and Applied Research . Most innovations that have b een investigated in diffusion re- searches have been technological innovations. Most such innovations are created by scientific re- search activities, alt hough they often result from an interp lay of scientific method and practical operations. The knowledge base for a technology usually derives from basic research, defined as original investigations for the advancement of sc ientific knowledge that do not have the specific objective of applying this knowledge to practical problems. In contrast, applied research con- sists of scientific investigati ons that are intended to solve practical problems. Scientific know- ledge is put into practice in order to design an innovation that will solve a perceived need or prob- lem. Applied researchers are the main users of basic research. Thus, an invention may result from a sequence of (1) basic research followed by (2) applied research leading to (3) development.

3. Development . The abbreviation R & D corresponds closel y to the concept that it represents:

"R" always appears together with "D" and, more over, always precedes "D"; development is al- ways based on research. In fact, it is usually difficult or impossible to separate research and de- velopment, which is why the term "R & D" is so often used.

Development of an innovation is the proc ess of putting a new idea in a form that is expected to meet the needs of an audience of potential adopters. This phase nor mally occurs after research but prior to the innovation that stems from research.

4. Diffusion and Adoption . Perhaps the most crucial decision in the entire innovation-develop- ment process is the decision to begin diffusion of an innovation to potential adopters. On the one hand, there is usually pressure to approve an i nnovation for diffusion as soon as possible, as the social problem/need that it seeks to solve may ha ve been given a high priority. Public funds may have been used to sponsor the research, and such financial support is an unrealized public in- vestment until the innovation is adopted by users. On the other hand, the change agency's reputa- tion and credibility in the eyes of its clients rests on only recommendi ng innovations that will 34 have beneficial consequences for their adopters. Scientists tend to be cautious when it comes time to translate their scientific findings into practice.

A novel approach to gatekeeping medical innovati ons is followed by the National Institutes of Health through the cond uct of "consensus development conferences." Consensus development is a process that brings together biomedical res earch scientists, practicing physicians, consumers, and others in an effort to reach general agr eement on whether a given medical technology is safe and effective (L OWE 1980). The technology may be a device, a drug, or a medical or surgical procedure. A consensus conference differs from th e usual state-of-the-art scientific meeting in that a broadly based panel is cons tituted to address a set of predetermined questions regarding the particular medical innovation unde r review. A three-day consensus conference typically begins with a series of research synthesis papers that are discussed by the expert investigators, users of the technology, and their consumers, A consensus statement is prepared by the panel and read on the final day of the conference to the audience, who then react to it. The final consensus state- ment is then published by the U.S. Government Printing Office and widely disseminated to phy- sicians, the mass media, medi cal journals, and the public.

Consensus conferences were begun in 1978 in recogniti on of the fact that the medical field lacked a formal process to assure that medical research discoveries were identified and scientifically evaluated to determine if they were ready to be used by doctors and other health-care workers. It was feared that some new technologies might have been disseminated without an adequate scien- tific test, while other well-validated medical t echnologies might be diffusing too slowly. The con- sensus panels have, in fact, occasionally reco mmended against using a given medical or surgical procedure, device, or drug under certain conditions. So, they serve an important function in gate- keeping the flow of medical innovati ons from research into practice.

Some other fields also utilize a formal procedure for deciding when an innovation should be dif- fused. Most knowledge transfer systems however, do not evaluate innovations for diffusion in such a rigorous way. Here, perhaps, we see an example of how one knowledge-transfer system can learn and adapt useful lessons from another such system. Such transfer of knowledge-transfer methodologies can be greatly facilitated by th e world of scholars of the knowledge-transfer process, as they engage in comparative analyses and evaluations of knowledge transfer systems. The entrepreneurial transfer of knowledge Previously in this chapter we argued that past research on the knowledge transfer process has been unduly limited in scope. There are many types of knowledge transfer that have been ignored by scholars. One of these is techno logy transfer that occurs between private firms and that is dri- ven by market forces, rather than by public pol icies enacted through activities of a government agency. We should not forget that most of wh at we now understand about the nature of know- ledge transfer is based, rath er narrowly, upon the transfer of innovations from a national govern- ment agency to individuals; here again we see the considerable influence of the agricultural ex- tension model upon our thinking about knowledge tr ansfer. Yet a great deal of knowledge trans- fer obviously must take place in th e context of for-profit firms that are competitively seeking to market innovative products to consumers. One sp ectacular illustration is provided by Silicon Val- ley, the high-technology complex in Northern California that is the world center of the microelec- tronics industry. Silicon Valley produces the se miconductor chips, microcomputers, video games, and lasers that are transforming industriali zed nations into information societies.

At the heart of Silicon Valley is severe compe tition in continuous technological innovation; each company tries to gain an advantage over its competitors by being the first to market (perhaps by only a month or two) with a new product. In this setting, gaining technical information about a new idea translates directly into profits. In the early days of Silicon Valley (in the 1960s), much 35 14 of the information came from research laboratories at Stanford University. Today much of the new information comes from R & D that is co nducted by the firms themselves. One reason for the high rate of job mobility (estimated to be a bout 30 percent per year) in Silicon Valley is that each firm tries to hire key employees away from its competitors in order to learn company se- crets. Further, one or several ke y employees frequently spin-off of an established firm in order to start their own company, which usually is in dire ct competition with its parent. The new firm is usually organized around a new product, which, if successful, can make the founders of the start- up millionaires within a few years.

Here we see an entirely different type of knowle dge transfer from that represented by the agricul- tural extension model. The U.S. government has not played a direct role in the rise of Silicon Val- ley, nor in the dozen or so other "Silicon Vall eys" that are springing up around the United States.

Significantly, each of these new high-technology co mplexes has a research university at its center (an example is HIT in the Route 128 complex around Boston, the University of North Carolina in the Research Triangle complex, etc.).

So each of these high-technology ce nters represents an example of a special kind of technology transfer. Perhaps the research university repres ents today the central institution in the emerging information society (R OGERS and L ARSEN 1983).

Much more needs to be learned about this entrepreneurial model of know ledge transfer. Perhaps it illustrates an important lesson for scholars and practitioners of knowledge transfer: that they need to broaden their definitions and con ceptions of the knowledge-transfer process. References CAPLAN , N., and S. N ELSON . 1973. "On Being Useful. The Natu re and Consequences of Psychological Research on Social Problems." In: American Psychologist 28, no. 3: 199-211.

C OLEMAN , J. S., E. KATZ , and H. M ENZEL . 1966. Medical Innovation; A Diffusion Study. New York: Free Press. D OWNS , G. W., and L. B. M OHR . 1976. "Conceptual lssues in t he Study of Innovations." In: Adminis- trative Science Quarterly 21, no. 4; 700-714.

H IGHTOWER , J. 1972. Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times; T he Failure of America's Land Grant College Complex. Washington, D.C.: Ag ribusiness Accountability Project; and Cambridge: Schenkman.

K APLAN , A. 1964. The Conduct of Inquiry. San Francisco; Chandler.

L OWE , C. U. 1980. "The Consensus Development Programme: Technology Assessment at the Na- tional Institute of Health." In: British Medical Journal 280, no. 6231: 1583-1584.

R OGERS , E. M. 1983. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.

R OGERS , E. M., and D. L. K INCAID . 1981. Communication Networks; A New Paradigm for Research.

New York; Free Press.

R OGERS , E. M., and J. K. L ARSEN . 1983. Silicon Valley Fever; The Rise of High-Technology Culture.

New York: Basic Books.

R OGERS , E. M., J. D. EVELAND , and A. S. BEAN . 1984. Extending the Agricultural Extension Model. Washington, D.C.; University Press of America.

R YAN , B., and C. G ROSS . 1943. "The Diffusion of Hybrid Seed Corn in Two Iowa Communities." In:

Rural Sociology 8, no. 1; 15-24.

S CHON , D. 1971. Beyond the Steady State. London: Temple Smith. 36 Universität Hohenheim 430 Fachgebiet:

Landwirtschaftliche Kommunikations- und Beratungslehre KIM-05 January 2007Hoffmann Diffusion of Innovations 1 1 Everett M. R OGERS Summary Chapter 1 – Elements of diffusion Diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communi- cated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system. Diffusion is a special type of communica- tion concerned with the spread of messages that are perceived as new ideal. Communication is a process in which partici- pants create and share information with one another in order to reach a mutual understanding. Diffusion has a special cha- racter because of the newness of the idea in the message con- tent. Thus some degree of uncer tainty and perceived risk is involved in the diffusion process. An individual can reduce this degree of uncertainty by obtaining information. Informa- tion is a difference in matter ener gy that affects uncertainty in a situation where a choice exists among a set of alternatives.

The main elements in the diffu sion of new ideas are: (1) an innovation (2) that is communicated through certain channels (3) over time (4) among the members of a social system. 1 Elements of diffusion 2 A history of diffusion re- search 3 Contributions and criticisms of diffusion research 4 The generation of innovation 5 The innovation-decision process 6 Attributes of innovations and their rate of adoption 7 Innovativeness and adopter categories 8 Diffusion networks 9 The change agent 10 Innovation in organizations 11 Consequences of innova- tions 1.1 Innovation An innovation is an idea, practice, or object perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption. Most of the new ideas discussed in this book are technological innovations. A tech- nology is a design for instrumental action that reduces the uncertainty in the cause-effect rela- tionships involved in achieving a desired outcom e. Most technologies have two components:

(1) hardware , consisting of the tool that embodies the technology as a material or physical object, and (2) software, consisting of the knowledge base for the tool.

The characteristics of an innovation, as percei ved by the members of a social system, deter- mine its rate of adoption. Five attributes of innovations are: (1) relative advantage, (2) compa- tibility, (3) complexity, (4) triala bility, and (5) observability.

Re-Invention is the degree to which an innovation is changed or modified by a user in the process of its adopti on and implementation.

1.2. Communication Channels A communication channel is the means by which messages get from one individual to another.

Mass media channels are more effective in creating knowledge of innovations, whereas inter- personal channels are more effective in forming and changing attitudes toward a new idea, and thus in influencing the decision to adopt or reject a new idea. Most individuals 1 Source: Everett R OGERS , 2003: The Diffusion of Innovations. Fifth Edition. The Free Press, New York.

37 evaluate an innovation not on the basis of scien tific research by experts but through the subjec- tive evaluations of near peers who have adopted the innovati on. These near peers thus serve as role model, whose innovation behavior tends to be imitated by others in their system.

A distinctive aspect of diffusion is that at least some degree of heterophily is usually present in communication about innovations. Heterophily is the degree to which two or more individuals who interact are different in certain attributes, such as beliefs, education, social status, and the like. The opposite of heterophily is homophily, the degree to which two or more individuals who interact are similar in certain attributes . Most human communication takes place between individuals who are homophilous, a situation that leads to more effective communication.

Therefore, the heterophily that is often present in the diffusion of innovations leads to special problems in achieving effective communication. 1.3. Time Time is involved in diffusion in (1) the i nnovation-diffusion process, (2) innovativeness, and (3) an innovation's ra te of adoption. The innovation decision process is the process through which an individual (or other decision-making unit) passes fr om first knowledge of an innova- tion to forming an attitude towa rd the innovation, to a decision to adopt or reject, to implemen- tation of the new idea, and to confirmation of this decision. We conceptualize five steps in this process: (1) knowledge, (2) pers uasion, (3) decision, (4) implemen tation, and (5) confirmation.

An individual seeks information at various stages in the innovation-decision process in order to decrease uncertainty about an innovation's ex pected consequences. The decision stage leads (1) to adoption, a decision to make full use of an innova tion as the best course of action avail- able, or (2) to rejection, a decision not to adopt an innovation. 2 38 3 1.4. Social System A social System is a set of interrelated units that are engaged in joint problem solving to ac- complish a common goal. A system has structure, defined as the patterned arrangements of the units in a system, which gives stability and regu larity to individual behavior in a system. The social and communication structur e of a system facilitates or impedes the diffusion of innova- tions in the system. One aspect of social structure is norms, the established behavior patterns for the members of a social system.

Opinion leadership is the degree to which an in dividual is able to influence informally other individuals' attitudes or overt behavior in a desired way with relative frequency. A change agent is an individual who attempts to influence clients innovation-decisions in a direction that is deemed desirable by a change agency. An aide is a less than fully prof essional change agent who intensively contacts clients to influence their innovation-decisions.

We distinguish among three main types of innovation-decisions: (1) optional innovation- decisions, choices to adopt or reject an innovation th at are made by an individual independent of the decisions of other members of the system, (2) collective innovation-decisions, choices to adopt or reject an innovation that are made by consensus among the members of a system, and (3) authority innovation-decisions, choices to adopt or reject an innovation that are made by relatively few individuals in a system who possess power, status, or technical expertise. A fourth category consists of a sequential combination of two or more of these three types of innovation decisions: Contingent innovation-decisions are choices to adopt or reject that are made only after a prio r innovation-decision.

A final way in which a social syst em influences diffusion concerns consequences, the changes that occur to an individual or a social system as a result of the adoption or rejection of an in- novation.

Summary Chapter 2 – A history of diffusion research This chapter showed that although diffusion research began as a series of scientific enclaves, it has emerged as a single, integrated body of concepts and generalizations, given though the investigations are conducte d by researchers in different scientific disciplines. A research tra- dition is a series of investigations on a similar topic in which successive studies are influenced by preceding inquiries. The major diffusion trad itions described are anthropology, early soci- ology, rural sociology, education, public health/medical sociology, communication, marketing, geography, and general sociology.

Eight main types of diffusion research were identified:

1. Earliness of knowing about innovations. 2. Rate of adoption of different innovations in a social system.

3. Innovativeness. 4. Opinion leadership. 5. Diffusion networks. 6. Rate of adoption in diffe rent social systems.

7. Communication channel usage.

8. Consequences of innovation.

When scholars follow an intellectual paradigm in a research field, it enables them to pursue a coherent set of research directions. The paradigm also imposes and standardizes a set of as- sumptions and conceptual biases that, once begun, are difficult to recognize and overcome.

That is the challenge for the next generation of diffusion scholars. In my first book on diffu- 39 4 sion (R OGERS 1962,x), I stated, "This book suggests that students of diffusion have been work- ing where the ground was soft . . . The challenge for future research is to expand the area of digging and to search for different objectives than those of the past. Perhaps there is a need to dig deeper, in directions that theory suggests." Summary Chapter 3 – Contributions and criticisms of diffusion research We reviewed four major shortcomings of diffusi on research in this chapter. We conclude that the beginnings of diffusion research left an indelible stamp on the approaches, concepts, me- thods, and assumptions of the field. The biases that we inherite d from our research ancestors have been inappropriate for certain important diff usion research tasks of today. It is ironic that the study of innovation has itsel f been so traditional.

The four major criticisms of diffusion re search, discussed in this chapter are:

1. The pro-innovation bias, the implication of most diffusi on research that an innovation should be diffused to and adopted by all members of a social system, that it should be diffused rapidly, and that the inno vation should be neither re-invented nor rejected.

z. The individual-blame bias, the tendency to hold an indivi dual responsible for his or her problems, rather than the system of which the individual is a part.

3. The recall problem in diffusion research, which may lead to inaccuracies when respondents are asked to remember the time at which they adopted a new idea.

4. The issue of equality in the diffusion of innovations, as socioeconomic gaps among the members of a social system are often widene d as a result of the spread of new ideas.

Alternatives to the usual diffusion research approaches were proposed for overcoming each of these four criticisms of diffusion research.

Summary Chapter 4 – The generation of innovations Past diffusion researches usually began with the first adopter of an innovation, that is, with the left-hand tail of the S-shaped diffusion curve. Events and decisions occurring previous to this point have a considerable infl uence upon the diffusion process. Th e scope of future diffusion research should be broadened to include study of the entire process through which an innova- tion is generated.

The innovation-development process consists of all the decisions, activities, and their impacts that occur from recognition of a need or pr oblem, through research, development, and com- mercialization of an innovation, through diffusion and adoption of the innovation by users, to its consequences. Recognition of a Problem or need may occur when a social problem rises to a high priority an the agenda of topics which deserve research.

Many, but not all, technological in novations come out of research. Basic research is defined as original investigations for the advancement of scientific knowledge and that do not have the specific objective of applying th is knowledge to practical problem s. The results of basic re- search may be used in applied research, which consists of scientific investigations that are intended to solve practical problems. Lead users develop innovations and then convince a manufacturing company to pr oduce and sell the innovation, ofte n after the lead user has created a prototype of the innovation. The usua l next stage in the innovation development process is development, defined as the process of putting a new idea into a form that is ex- pected to meet the needs of an audience of potential adopters. Technological determinism is the belief that technology causes changes in society. An opposite viewpoint is social construc- tionism, which states that social factors shape a technology. A next stage, commercialization, is defined as the production, manufacturing, packaging, marketing, and distribution of a prod- 40 uct that embodies an innovation. Commercialization is carried out mainly by private firms.

A particularly crucial point in the innovation-de velopment process is the decision to begin diffusing an innovation to potential adopters. How are innovations evaluated for their efficacy, safety, and other factors? Finally, an innovation may diffuse, be adopted, and, eventually, cause consequences, the final stage in the innovation-development process. The six stages de- scribed here may not always o ccur in a linear sequence, the tim e order of the stages may be different, and certain stages may not occur at all.

Summary Chapter 5 – The i nnovation-decision process The innovation-decision process is the process through which an individual (or other deci- sion-making unit) passes from first knowledge of an innovation, to forming an attitude toward the innovation, to a decisi on to adopt or reject, to implemen tation of the new idea, and to con- firmation of this decision. This process consists of five stages: (1) knowledge, when the indi- vidual is exposed to th e innovation's existence and gains an understanding of how it functions; (2) persuasion, when the individual forms a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the inno- vation; (3) decision, when the individual engages in activities that lead to a choice to adopt or reject the innovation; (4) implementation, when the individual puts an innovation into use; and (5) confirmation, when the individual seeks reinforcemen t for an innovation-decision already made but may reverse the decision if e xposed to conflicting messages about it. Earlier knowers of an innovation, when compared to later knowers, are characterized by more formal education, higher social status, greate r exposure to mass media channels of communi- cation, greater exposure to inte rpersonal channels of communi cation, greater change agent contact, greater social participation, and greater cosmopoliteness. 5 Re-invention is the degree to which an innovation is ch anged or modified by a user in the process of its adoption and implementation. Re-i nvention occurs at the implementation stage for many innovations and for many adopters . A higher degree of re-invention leads to (1) a faster rate of adopti on of an innovation and (2) a greater degree of sustainability of an innova- tion . Sustainability is the degree to which an innovation is continued over time after a diffu- sion program ends.

41 6 Discontinuance is a decision to reject an innovation afte r having previously adopted it. Dis- continuance can be of two types: (1) replacement discontinuance, in which an idea is rejected in order to adopt a better idea which superseded it, and (2) disenchantment discontinuance, in which an idea is rejected as a result of dissatis faction with its performance. Later adopters are more likely to discontinue innovati ons than are earlier adapters.

We conclude that stages exist in the innovation-decision process, although further study of this issue is needed.

A communication channel is the means by which a message gets from a source to a receiver.

We categorize communication channels (1) as eith er interpersonal or mass media in nature and (2) as originating from either localite or cosmopolite sources. Mass media channels are means of transmitting messages that involve a mass medi um such as radio, television, newspapers, and so on, that enable a source of one or a few individuals to reach an audience of many. In- terpersonal channels involve a face-to-face exchange be tween two or more individuals.

Mass media channels are relatively more important at the knowledge stage, and interpersonal channels are relatively more important at the persuasion stage in the innovation-decision process. Cosmopolite channels are relatively mo re important at the knowledge stage, and loca- lite channels are relatively more important at the persuasion stage in the innovation-decision process. Mass media channels are relatively mo re important than interpersonal channels for earlier adopters than for later adopters. Cosmopolite channels are relatively more important than localite channels for earlier adopters than for later adopters.

The innovation-decision period is the length of time required fo r an individual or organization to pass through the innovation-d ecision process. The rate of awareness-knowledge for an in- novation is more rapid than it s rate of adoption. Earlier adopters have a shorter innovation- decision period than do later adopters.

Summary Chapter 6 – Attributes of i nnovations and their rate of adoption This chapter suggested five attributes of innovations by which an innovation can be described.

Individuals' perceptions of thes e attributes predict an innovation's rate of adoption. We rec- ommend that measures of the five perceived attr ibutes should be developed in each diffusion study, rather than utilizing existing scales borrowed from previous investigations.

Rate of adoption is the relative speed with which an innovation is adopted by members of a social system. In addition to the perceived attr ibutes of an innovation, such other variables affect its rate of adoption as (1) the type of innovation-decision, (2) the nature of communica- tion channels diffusing the innovatio n at various stages in the innovation-decision process, (3) the nature of the social system ; and (4) the extent of change agents' efforts in diffusing the innovation. Most past research, ho wever, concentrated on predicting the rate of adoption by the five perceived attributes of innovations.

Relative advantage is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the idea it supersedes. The relative advantage of an innova tion, as perceived by members of a social sys- tem, is positively related to its rate of adoption. Overadoption is the adoption of an innovation when experts feel that it should be rejected. Preventive innovations, defined as new ideas that an individual adopts now in order to lower the probability of some unwanted future event, diffuse more slowly than incr emental (nonpreventive) innovations.

Compatibility is the degree to which an innovation is pe rceived as consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and n eeds of potential adopters. The compatibility of an innovation, as perceived by members of a social system, is positively related to its rate of adoption. Nam- ing an innovation and positioning it relative to pr evious ideas are important means of making 42 an innovation more compatible. Change agen ts often ignore indigenous knowledge systems, which provide one means by which individua ls give meaning to an innovation.

Complexity is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as relatively difficult to under- stand and to use. The complexity of an innovation, as perceived by members of a social sys- tem, is negatively related to its rate of adoption.

Trailability is the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis.

The trialability of an innovation, as perceive d by members of a social system, is positively related to its ra te of adoption.

Observability is the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others. The ob- servability of an innovation, as perceived by memb ers of a social system, is positively related to its rate of adoption.

A basic theme of this chapter is that change agents and diffusion scholars must understand how potential adopters perceive new ideas. Such perceptions count in determining the nature of the diffusion process. 7 43 Summary Chapter 7 – Innovativeness and adopter categories Adopter categories are the classifications of the members of a social system on the basis of innovativeness, the degree to which an individual or othe r unit of adoption is relatively earlier in adopting new ideas than other members of a system. A variety of categorization systems and titles for adopters have been used in past st udies. This chapter described the standard five adopter categories that are widely followed today in diffusion research, and their applications.

Adopter distributions tend to follow an S-shaped curve over time and to approach normality .

The continuum of innovativeness can be partitio ned into five adopter categories (innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, a nd laggards) on the basis of two characteristics of a normal distribution, the mean and the standa rd deviation. The dominant attributes of each category are: Innovators-venturesome; early adopters-respect; earl y majority-deliberate; late majority-skeptical; and laggards- traditional. The relatively earlier adopters in a social system are no different from later adopters in age, but they have more years of formal education, are more likely to be literate, and have higher social status, a greater degree of upward social mo- bility, and larger-sized units, such as farms, companies, schools, and so on. These characteris- tics of adopter categorie s indicate that earlier adopters have generally higher socioeconomic status than do later adopters.

Earlier adopters in a system also differ from la ter adopters in personality variables. Earlier adopters have greater empathy, less dogmatism, a greater ability to deal with abstractions, greater rationality, greater intell igence, a more favorable attitude toward change, a greater abil- ity to cope with uncertainty and risk, a more favorable attitude towa rd science, less fatalism and greater self-efficacy , and higher aspirations for formal education, higher-status occupa- tions, and so on.

Finally, the adopter categories ha ve different communication behavior. Earlier adopters have more social participation, are more highly interc onnected in the interpersonal networks of their system, are more cosmopolite, have more cont act with change agents, greater exposure to mass media channels, and greater exposure to interpersonal communication channels, engage in more active information seeking, a nd have greater knowledge of innovations, and a higher degree of opinion leadership. 8 44 9 Past research thus shows many important differe nces between earlier and later adopters of innovations in (1) socioeconomic status, (2) pe rsonality variables, and (3) communication be- havior. The distinctive characteri stics of the five adopter categories mean that these adopter categories can be used for audience segmentation , a strategy in which different communi- cation channels and/or messages are used to reach each sub audience.

Summary Chapter 8 – Diffusion networks This chapter dealt with opinion leadership, co mmunication networks, and the critical mass.

Opinion leadership is the degree to which an individual is able to influence informally other individuals' attitudes or overt behavior in a desired way with relative frequency. Opinion lead- ers play an important role in diffusion networks, and are often id entified and utilized in diffu- sion programs.

Homophily is the degree to which individuals who communicate are similar. Heterophily is the degree to which individuals who in teract are different in certain attributes. Interpersonal diffu- sion networks are mostly homophilous. Homophily can act as an invisible barrier to the rapid flow of innovations within a social system, as similar people interact in socially horizontal patterns, thus preventing a new idea from tric kling down from those of higher socioeconomic status, more education, and gr eater technical expertise.

When interpersonal diffusion networks are heterophilous, followers generally seek opinion leaders of higher socioeconomic status, with mo re formal education, greater mass media expo- sure, more cosmopoliteness, greater contact with change agents, and more innovativeness.

Compared to followers, opini on leaders have greater mass media exposure, more cosmo- politeness, greater contact with change agents, greater social participation, higher social status, and more innovativeness. Opinion leaders confor m more closely to a system's norms than do their followers. When a social system's norms favor change, opinion leaders are especially innovative.

A communication network consists of interconnected individuals who are linked by patterned flows of information. An individual's network li nks are important determinants of his or her adoption of innovations. The network interconnectedne ss of an individual in a social system is positively related to the i ndividual's innovativeness. Interconnectedness is the degree to which the units in a social system ar e linked by interpersonal networks.

Networks provide a certain degree of structure and stability in th e predictability of human be- havior. Communication structure is the differentiated elements that can be recognized in the patterned communication flow s in a system. This structure cons ists of the cliques within a sys- tem and the network interconnections among them that are provided by bridges and liaisons.

Individuals are identif ied as belonging to cliques on the basis of communication proximity, the degree to which two linked individuals in a network have personal communication networks that overlap. A personal network consists of those interconnected individuals who are linked by patterned communication flows to a given individual. Personal networks that are radial (rather than interlocking) are more open to an individual's environment, and hence play a more important role in the diffusion of innovations. The information exchange potential of commu- nication network links is negatively related to their degree of (1) communication proximity and (2) homophily. This generalization expresses Mark G RANOVETTER 's theory of "the strength-of-weak-ties." Individuals tend to be linked to others who are close to them in physi- cal distance and who are relatively ho mophilous in social characteristics.

The critical mass occurs at the point at which enough individuals in a system have adopted an innovation so that the innovation's further rate of adoption becomes self-sustaining. The cri- tical mass is particularly important in the diffu sion of interactive innovations such as e-mail, where each additional adopter increases the utility of adopting the innovation for all adopters.

45 10 Interactivity is the degree to which participants in a communication process can exchange roles in, and have control over, their mutual di scourse. As more individuals in a system adopt 46 11 a noninteractive innovation, it is perc eived as increasingly beneficial to future adopters (this is a sequential interdependence effect on later adopters). However, in the case of an interactive innovation, the benefits from each additional adoption increase not only for all future adopters, but also for each previous adopter (this is reciprocal interdependence).

A threshold is the number of other individuals who must be engaged in an activity before a given individual will join that activity. An innovator has a low threshold of resistance to adopting a new idea, and so few (or no) interper sonal network influences are needed for adop- tion. In contrast, a late majority individual has a much higher th reshold that must be overcome by near-peer network influences in order to overcome resistance to the innovation. Thresholds act for individuals in a somewhat parallel way to the critical mass at the system level. An indi- vidual is more likely to adopt an innovation if mo re of the other individuals in his or her per- sonal network adopted previously. Summary Chapter 9 – The change agent Change agents operate interventions, defined as actions with a coherent objective to bring about behavior change in order to produce iden tifiable outcomes. For example, an HIV pre- vention program such as ‘stop AIDS’ in San Francisco was designed to slow the rate of HIV infection. Targeting (defined as the process of customiz ing the design and delivery of a com- munication program on the basis of the characteristics of an intended audience segment) is one means of segmenting a heterogeneous audience so that customized messages that fit each indi- vidual's situation are delivered. Currently, the Intern et is often utilized to deliver such targeted messages.

A change agent is an individual who influences clients' innovation decisions in a direction deemed desirable by a change agency. Change ag ents face two main problems: (1) their social marginality; due to their position midway between a change agency and their client system, and (2) Information overload, the state of an individual or a system in which excessive com- munication inputs cannot be processed and use d, leading to breakdown. Seven roles of the change agent are: (1) to develop a need for cha nge on the part of clients, (2) to establish an information exchange relationshi p, (3) to diagnose problems, (4) to create an intent to change in the client, (5) to translate intentions into action, (6) to st abilize adoption and prevent discon- tinuance, and (7) to achieve a term inal relationship, with clients.

A change agent's relative success in securing the adoption of innovations by clients is positive- ly, related to (1) the extent of the change agent' s effort in contacting clients, (2) a client orien- tation, rather than a change ag ency orientation, (3) the degree to which the diffusion program is compatible with clients' needs, (4) the change agent's empathy with clients, (5) his or her homophily with clients, (6) credib ility in the clients' eyes, (7) the extent to which he or she works through opinion leaders, and (8) increasin g clients' ability to evaluate innovations.

Further, we propose that contact by change agents is positively related to (1) higher socioeco- nomic status among clients, (2) greater social participation, (3 ) higher formal education, and (4) cosmopoliteness.

An aide is a less than fully professional change ag ent who intensively contacts clients in order to influence their innovation-decisions. Not only do aides provide lower-cost contacts with clients than is possible with professional change agents, but they are also able to bridge the heterophily gap between professionals and clients, especi ally lower socioeconomic status clients. Aides have less competence credibility, the degree to which a communication source or channel is perceived as knowledgeable and expert, but they have greater safety credibility, the degree to which a communication source or cha nnel is perceived as trustworthy. An aide's safety credibility is due to his or her homophily with the client system. Inauthentic professio- nalism is the process through which an aide takes on the dress, speech, or other identifying, 47 12 marks of a professional change agent. In recent decades diffusion scholars have become aware that an alternative to the classical diffusion mode l exists in the form of decentralized diffusion systems. These diffusion programs have outrun the classical model (a relatively centralized approach). In centralized diffusion systems, such as the agri cultural extension services in the United States, overall control of diffusion decisions (such as which innovations to diffuse, which diffusion channels to use, and to whom to diffuse innovations) is held by government officials and technical subject-matter experts. Diffusion in centralized systems flows from the top down, from experts to users. In contrast, decentralized diffusion systems are client- controlled with a wide sharing of power and control among the members of the diffusion sys- tem. Instead of coming out of R&D systems, innovations in decentralized systems bubble up from local experimentation by non expert users. Local units decide which innovations should diffuse through horizontal networks, allowing a high degree of re-invention. Decentralized diffusion systems are based upon convergence comm unication, in which participants create and share information with one another in or der to reach a mutual understanding. Decentra- lized diffusion systems are (1) most appropriate for certain conditions and (2) can be com- bined with elements of centralized systems to form a hybrid diffusion system.

Summary Chapter 10 – Innovation in organizations An organization is a stable system of indi viduals who work together to achieve common goals through a hierarchy of ranks and a division of labor. Individual behavior in an organization is relatively stable and predictable because organi zational structure is characterized by predeter- mined goals, prescribed roles, an authority structure, rules and regulations, and informal pat- terns. Although behavior in organizations is relatively stable, innovation is ongoing.

At first, innovation in organizations was main ly studied by correlating independent variables with organizational innovativeness in cross-sectional data analysis. A consistent finding in this organizational innovativeness resear ch was that larger organizations are more innovative. Ra- ther low correlations of characteristics variables with orga nizational innovativeness were found, perhaps because the organizational structure variables that were studied were related to innovation in one direction during the initiation subprocess of the innov ation process and in the opposite direction during the implementation subprocess. For instance, low centralization, high organizational complexity, and low formali zation facilitate innovation in the initiation subprocess, but impede implementation. Today, research an organizational innovativeness is much less likely to be conducted than is st udy of the innovation process in organizations.

The presence of an innovation champion contributes to the success of an innovation in an or- ganization. A champion is defined as a charismatic indivi dual who throws his or her support behind an innovation, thus overcom ing the indifference or resistance that the new idea may provoke. Research has shown that innovation cham pions may be powerful individuals in an organization, or they may be lower-level individuals who possess the ability to coordinate the actions of others. The degree to which champi ons are powerful seems to depend on the nature of the innovation and the organizati on in which it is gaining acceptance.

Studies of organizational innov ativeness tended to be replaced by research on the innovation process in organizations. We divide the i nnovation process into two subprocesses: (1) initia- tion, all of the information gather ing, conceptualizing, and planni ng for the adoption of an innovation, leading up to the decision to adopt and (2) implementation, all of the events, ac- tions, and decisions involved in putting an innovation into use. Th e two initiation stages are (1) agenda-setting and (2) matc hing. The three implementation st ages are (1) redefining/ re- structuring, (2) clarifyi ng, and (3) routinizing.

Agenda-setting occurs in the innovation pr ocess when a general organizational problem that 48 13 may create a perceived need fo r an innovation is defined. A performance gap, the discrepancy between an organization's expectations and its actual performance, can trigger the innovation process. Matching is the stage in the innovation process at which a problem from the organiza- tion's agenda is fit with an innovation, and this match is planned and designed.

Redefining/restructuring occurs when the innovation is re-invented so as to accommodate the organizations needs and structure more closely and when the organization's structure is mod- ified to fit with the innovation. Both the innovation and th e organization usually change during the innovation process.

Clarifying occurs as the innovation is put into more wi despread use in an organization, so that the meaning of the new idea gradually become s clearer to the organization's members. Routinization occurs when the innovation has become incorporated into th e regular activities of the organization and loses its separate identity. Sustainability, a c\ los ely related concept to routinization, is defined as the degree to whic h an innovation continues to be used after the initial effort to secure adoption is completed. Sust ainability is more likely if widespread partic- ipation has occurred in the innovation process, if re-invention took place, and if an innovation- champion was involved. This fifth stage, rou tinization, marks the end of the innovation process in an organization.

Summary Chapter 11 – Consequences of innovations Consequences are the changes that occur to an individual or to a social system as a result of the adoption or rejection of an innovation Although obviously im portant, the consequences of innovations have received inadequate attention by change agents and by diffusion researchers.

Consequences have not been studied adequately because (1) change agencies have overem- phasized adoption per se, assuming that an innovation's consequences will be positive, (2) the usual survey research methods may be inappropr iate for investigating consequences, and (3) consequences are often difficult to measure.

Consequences are classified as (1) desirable vers us undesirable, (2) direct versus indirect, and (3) anticipated versus unanticipated. Desirable consequences are the functional effects of an innovation for an individual or for a social system. Undesirable consequences are the dysfunc- tional effects of an innovation for an individua l or for a social system. Many innovations cause both positive and negative conseque nces, and it is thus erroneous to assume that the desirable impacts can be achieved without also experienci ng undesirable effects. We conclude that the effects of an innovation usually cannot be managed so as to separate the desirable from the undesirable consequences.

Direct consequences are the changes to an individual or a system that occur in immediate re- sponse to an innovation. Indirect consequences are the changes to an individual or a system that occur as a result of the di rect consequences of an innova tion. They are the consequences of the consequences of an innovation.

Anticipated consequences are changes due to an innovation that are recognized and intended by the members of a system. Unanticipated consequences are changes due to an innovation that are neither intended nor recogn ized by the members of a system.

The undesirable, indirect, and unanticipated consequences of an innovation usually go togeth- er, as do the desirable, direct, and anticipated consequences. An illustration is provided by the introduction of the steel ax among Australia n aborigines, which caused many undesirable, indirect, and unanticipated consequences, including breakdown of the family structure, the emergence of prostitution, and misuse of the i nnovation itself. The case of the steel ax illu- strates three intrinsic elements of an innovation: (1) form, the directly observable physical ap- pearance and substance of an innovation, (2) function, the contribution made by the innovation 49 14 to the way of life of individuals or to the social system, and (3) meaning, the subjective and frequently subconscious perception of the innovation by members of the social system.

Change agents more easily anticipate the form and function of an innovation for their clients than its meaning.

Stable equilibrium occurs when almost no change is occurring in the structure or functioning of a social system. Dynamic equilibrium occurs when the rate of change in a social system is commensurate with the system's ability to cope with it. Disequilibrium occurs when the rate of change is too rapid to permit the system to adjust. Change agents generally wish to achieve a rate of change that leads to dynamic e quilibrium, and to avoid disequilibrium.

One goal of diffusion programs is to raise the le vel of Good in a system. A second dimension of consequences is whether the distribution of Good among the members of a system becomes more or less equal. The consequences of th e diffusion of innovations usually widen the so- cioeconomic gap between the earlier and later adopting categories in a system. Further, the consequences of the diffusion of innovations usually widen the socioeconomic gap between the audience segments previously high and low in socioeconomic status.

A system's social structure par tly determines the equality vers us the inequality of an innova- tion's consequences. When a system's structure is already very unequal, the consequences of an innovation (especially if it is a relatively high-cost innov ation) will lead to even greater inequality in the form of wider socioeconomic gaps.

What strategies could be followed in order to narrow gaps? The answer depends on three main reasons why socioeconomic gaps ordinarily widen as a consequence of diffusion: (1) "ups" have greater access to informati on that creates awareness of innovations; (2) they have greater access to innovation-evaluation information from peers; and (3) "ups" possess greater slack resources for adopting innovations than do "downs ". When special efforts are made by a diffu- sion agency, it is possible to narrow, or at least not to widen, socioeconomi c gaps in a social system. In other words, wideni ng gaps are not inevitable. The digital divide is the gap that exists between individua ls advantaged by the Internet and those individuals relatively disadv antaged by the Internet. This inequality exists both within the United States and between North America a nd Europe versus developing nations. Efforts to bridge the digital divide, such as providing public access to computers and the Internet in cyber cafés and telecenters, are under way.

50 1 Universität Hohenheim 430 Fachgebiet:

Landwirtschaftliche Kommunikations- und Beratungslehre KIM-06 January 2007Hoffmann Diffusion of Hybrid Corn in Iowa 1* Everett M. R OGERS RYAN and G ROSS ’s (1943) study of the diffusion of hybrid seed corn in Iowa is the most in- fluential diffusion study of all time, despite the 5,200-plus diffusion investigations conducted since this pioneering study. The hybrid corn investigation include s each of the four main ele- ments of diffusion (an innovation, communication ch annels, time, and the social system) that we have just discussed and serv es to illustrate these elements.

Hybrid corn became one of the most important ne w agricultural technologies after it was re- leased to Iowa farmers in 1928. The new seed ushered in the agricultural innovations in the 1930s through the 1950s that led to an agricultu ral revolution in farm productivity. Hybrid seed was developed by agricultural scientists at Iowa State University and other state land- grant universities. The diffusion of hybrid seed was heavily promoted by the Iowa Agricultur- al Extension Service and by salesman from seed corn companies. Hybrid corn yielded an in- creased harvest of about 20 per cent per acre over the open-pollinat ed varieties that it replaced.

It was also more drought-resistant and better suite d to harvesting with mechanical corn pick- ers. The seed lost its hybrid vigor after the first generation, so farmers had to purchase hybrid seed each year. Previously, farmers had saved th eir own seed, selected from their best-looking corn plants. The adoption of hybrid corn meant that an Iowa farmer had to make important changes in his corn-growing behavi or. Hybrid seed corn ushered in a new era of farmers' de- pendence on agribusiness companies that sold chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and other farm inputs.

When Professor Bryce R YAN , fresh from his Ph.D. studies in sociology at Harvard University, arrived at Iowa State Univers ity in 1939, he chose hybrid corn as the innovation of study in his investigation of social factors in economic decisions. This interest drew him to study how Iowa farmers' social relationships with their neighbors influenced them to adopt hybrid corn.

Ryan had read anthropological work on diffusion while he was at Harvard, so he cast his Iowa study of hybrid corn in a diffusion framework. But unlike the qualitative methods used in anthropological studies of diffus ion, the Iowa investigation mainly utilized qualitative data from survey interviews with Iowa farmer s about their adoption of hybrid corn seed.

In the summer of 1941, Neal C. G ROSS , a new graduate student in rural sociology, was hired as a research assistant on the hybrid corn diffusion project. R YAN and G ROSS selected two small Iowa communities located some fifty mile s west of Ames and conducted personal inter- views with all of the farmers living in these two systems. Using a structured questionnaire, Neal G ROSS , who did most of the data gathering, interviewed each respondent as to when the farmer decided to adopt hybrid co rn (the year of adoption was to become the main dependent variable in the data analysis ), the communication channels us ed at each stage in the innova- tion-decision process, and how much of the fa rmer’s corn acreage was planted in hybrid (ra- 1 Source: Everett R OGERS , 2003: The Diffusion of Innovations. Fifth Edition. The Free Press, New York, 31-35, 273.

* This case illustration is based on R YAN and GROSS (1943), GROSS (1942), RYAN and GROSS (1950), and VALENTE and ROGERS (1995). Fig. 1 –4 and Table 1 are added from the original publi- cation, R YAN and G ROSS 1943, by Volker Hoffmann.

51 ther than open-pollinated seed) each year. In addition to these recall data about the innovation, the two rural sociologists also asked each resp ondent about his formal education, age, farm size, income, frequency of travel to Des Moines and other cities, readership of farm maga- zines, and other variables that were later correlated with innovativeness (measured, as the year in which each farmer decided to adopt hybrid corn).

Neal G ROSS was from an urban background in Milw aukee, Wisconsin, and initially felt somewhat uncomfortable interviewing Iowa farmers. Someone in Ames told G ROSS that farm people got up very early in the morning, so on his first day of data gathering, he arrived at a respondent's home at 6:00 A.M., while it was stil l half dark. By the end of this first day, G ROSS had interviewed twenty-one people, and he averaged an incredible fourteen Interviews per day for the entire study! Today, a survey in terviewer who averages four interviews per day is considered hardworking. During one personal interview, an Iowa farmer, perhaps slyly leading him on, asked G ROSS for advice about contro lling horse nettles. G ROSS had never heard of horse nettles. He told the farmer that he should call a veterinarian to look at his sick horse (horse nettles are actually a kind of noxious weed). Source: R YAN & G ROSS 1943,22 Neal G ROSS personally interviewed 345 farmers in the two Iowa communities, but twelve farmers operating less than twenty acres were discarded from the data analysis, as were 74 respondents who had started farmi ng after hybrid corn began to diffuse. Thus, the data analy- sis was based on 259 respondents.

When all of the data were gathered, R YAN and G ROSS coded the farmers' interview responses into numbers. The diffusion researchers analyzed the data by band tabulation and with a desk calculator (Computers were not available for data analysis until some years later). Within a year, G ROSS (1942) completed his masters thesis on the diffusion of hybrid corn, and shortly thereafter R YAN and G ROSS (1943) published their research fi ndings in the journal Rural So- ciology (this article is the most widely cited publication from the study, although there are several others). This paper became the founding document for the research specialty of the diffusion of innovations. Several previous studi es had been completed on the diffusion of agricultural innovations, but they did not lead to a research tradition because they did not create a research paradigm fo r the diffusion of innovations (V ALENTE and R OGERS 1995). The 2 52 3 ugh they did not use t the new idea. The overall shape of the rate of adoption looked like an "S" (see Figure. 7-1).

R YAN and G ROSS (1943) study established the customary research methodology to be used by most diffusion investigators: retrospective surv ey interviews in which adopters of an innova- tion are asked when they adopted, where or fr om whom they obtained information about the innovation, and the consequences of adoption. R YAN and G ROSS (1943) popularized the term "diffusion" (which had previously been used by Anthropologists), altho the concept of "innovation”. That term would come from later scholars.

All but 2 of the 259 farmers had adopted hybrid corn in the thirteen years between 1928 and 1941. When plotted cumulatively on a year-by-year basis, the adoption rate formed an S- shaped curve over time. After the first five years, by 1933, onl y 10 percent of the Iowa far- mers had adopted. Then the adoption curve "too k off," shooting up to 40 percent adoption in the next three years (by 1936). Then the rate of adoption leveled off as fewer and fewer far- mers remained to adop Rogers, 2003, 273 Source: ROGERS 2003 53 4 oines, Iowa's largest city, located about seventy- five miles from the two study communities.

f about one acre, before deciding to plant 100 percent of his corn acreage in hybrid varieties.

Table 1: Medi ual Years by e W h ra irs ed br eed Farmers were assigned to adopter categories on the basis of when they adopted the new seed (G ROSS 1942). Compared to later adopters, the innova tors had larger-sized farms, higher in- comes, and more years of formal education. The innovators were also more cosmopolite, as measured by their number of trip s to Des M Although hybrid corn was an i nnovation with a high degree of relative advantage over the open-pollinated seed that it replaced, the t ypical farmer moved slowly from awareness- knowledge of the innovation to adoption. The innovation-decision period from first know- ledge to the adoption decision aver aged about nine years for all respondents, an indication that the innovation-decision process invo lved considerable deliberation, even in the case of an in- novation with spectacular results. The average re spondent took three or four years after plant- ing his first hybrid seed, usually on a small trial plot o an Per Cent of Corn Acr eage in Hybrid for Individ Y ar in hicOpe tor F t us Hyid S Year first used hybrid 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 No. of cases Before 19341 38,0 50,0 67,0 100100100100100 100 24 1934 20,0 29,0 42,067,095,0 100100 100 16 1935 18,0 44,0 75,0 100100100 100 21 1936 20,041,062,5 100100 100 36 1937 19,055,0 100100 100 61 1938 25,079,0 100 100 46 1939 30,091,5 100 36 1940 60,514 100 1941 54,0 3 Total 257 Never accepted 2 Total sample 259 1 The median hybrid planting for this group in first year of acceptance was 12 per cent of total corn acreage. Source: R YAN and G ROSS 943,19 Communication channels played different roles at various stages in the innovation-decision process. The typical farmer first heard of hybrid seed from a salesman, but neighbors were the most frequently cited channel leading to pe rsuasion. Thus salesmen were more important channels for earlier adopters, and neighbors were more impor tant for later adopters. The R YAN and G ROSS (1943) findings suggested the important role of interpersonal networks in the diffusion process in a system. The farmer-to-farmer exchanges of their personal expe- riences with hybrid seed were at the heart of diffusion. When enough such positive expe- riences were accumulated by the innovators, and especially by early adopters, and exchanged with other farmers in the community, the rate of adoption took off. This threshold for hybrid corn occurred in 1935. After that point, it would have been impossible to halt its further diffu- sion. The farm community as a social system , including the networks linking the individual farmers within it, was a crucial element in th e diffusion process. In order to understand the 54 5 43) should have asked - nity members as if they were unrelat ed respondents in a random sample" (K ATZ et al. 1963).

role of diffusion networks and opinion leadership, R YAN and G ROSS (19 sociometric questions of their respon dents, such as "From which other Source: R YAN and G ROSS 1943,17 farmers did you obtain information about hybrid co rn?" The sample design, which consisted of a complete enumeration in two communities, would have made the use of such communi- cation network questions appropriate. But " information was simply collected from all commu Source: Ryan & Gross, 1943, 20-21 55 6 ividuals who are influenced to follow their lead. Diffusion is fundamentally a social process.

m. The hy- brid corn study has left an indelible stamp on the histor y of all diffusion research.

GR e Diffusion of a Culture Trait in Two Iowa Townships. MSc Thesis, Iowa K A s of Research on the Diffusion of R Y 43: The Diffusion of Hybrid Seed Corn in Two Iowa Communities.

R Y Two Iowa V A radigm as an Exam ple of Scientific Growth. In: Science Communication 16(3):238-269 Even without sociometric data about diffusion networks, R YAN and G ROSS (1943) sensed that hybrid corn had spread in th e two Iowa communities as a kind of social snowball: "There is no doubt but that the behavior of one individual in an interacting population affects the beha- vior of his fellows. Thus, the demonstrated su ccess of hybrid seed on a few farms offers new stimulus to the remaining ones." The two rural sociologists intuitively sensed what later diffu- sion scholars were to gather more detailed evid ence to prove; that the heart of the diffusion process consists of interpers onal network exchanges and social modeling by those individuals who have already adopted an i nnovation to those ind Study of the invisible college of rural sociologists investigating diffusion as of the mid-1960s identified the researchers who first utilized a new concept and/or methodological tool in stud- ying diffusion (C RANE 1972), R YAN and G ROSS launched fifteen of the eighteen most widely used intellectual innovations in the rural sociology diffusion research tradition. So Bryce R YAN and Neal G ROSS played key roles in forming the classical diffusion paradig Bibliography: CRANE , Diana, 1972: Invisible Colleges. Univ ersity of Chicago Press, Chicago. OSS , Neal C. 1942: Th State College, Ames. TZ , Elihu, L EVIN , Martin L., H AMILTON , Herbert, 1963: Tradition Innovations. In: American Sociological Review , 25:237-253. AN , Bryce, G ROSS , Neal C. 19 In: Rural Sociology 8: 15-24. AN , Bryce, G ROSS , Neal C. 1950: Acceptance and Diffusion of Hybrid Seed Corn in Communities. Research Bulletin 372, Agricu ltural Experiment Station, Ames, Iowa. LENTE , Thomas W., R OGERS , Everett M. 1995: The Origins and Development of the Diffusion of Innovations Pa 56 1 Universität Hohenheim 430 Fachgebiet:

Landwirtschaftliche Kommunikations- und Beratungslehre KIM-07 January 2007 Albrecht, Hoffmann Acceptance of the Salk Polio Vaccine – an example of the situational approach to the diffusion of innovations An early American study by J. C. BELCHER 1 indicates that the diffusion of innovations must be seen and explained in a situ ational approach. It shows that the relations between adoption behavior and independent variab les are not always as relevant as assumed and do not always follow the expected direction. Until today the importance of this study has been overlooked in diffusion literature, or at least ignored 2, despite showing the fallacies of taking factors as fix, and always influencing in the same direction, instead of taking the special conditions of the situation into consideration, a nd understanding that a factor’s influence depends on the con- text.

B ELCHER began his investigation about the diffusion of the Salk Polio Vaccination with the hypothesis that, in this case, as in the many kno wn studies regarding the diffusion of agricul- tural innovations, factors like income, education level, expos ure to information (reading jour- nals, access to television, etc.), living standard etc. would be definitive in people’s readiness to get their children vaccinated. However, he found out in his study in Central Georgia with 701 households that there were to tally different innovators and early adopters. The first ones were Afro-American families with low soci o-economic status and education level.

B ELCHER tried to follow up this phenomenon of unexp ected behavior by searching for expla- nations. He studied the course of the public discussion about this new vaccine, interviewed some concerned persons, and combined these findi ngs with some simple facts. This enabled him to conclude some rather convincing interpretations.

The press had recently reported in great detail and on high ranks about the unsatisfying results of previous polio vaccinations. This resulted in a rather skeptical attitude towards that new vaccine from the families, reading newspapers – usually the more educated ones with better income and of European origin. The vaccination was offered free of charge by th e Public Health Service, an institution that the white population considered to be created especi ally for black and low income people. There- fore, the more affluent families did not like to bring their children to the Public Health Service for vaccinations. However, the children of low income Afro-American families were driven by school busses free of charge to go to vaccination, and this was not t\ he case for most child- ren from affluent white families. White persons in social professions, being trusted by Afro- Americans, supported the vaccination program. Teachers were in a competition with each 1 Acceptance of the Salk Polio Vaccine. In: Rural Sociology, 23, 1958,2,158-170 2 Everett R OGERS (1962) shows knowing this study, first on p. 24 , where he refers to a list of stu- dies by Katz and Levin indicating „ 21 drug studies plus additional analysis of medical innovations such as polio vaccine “, and again polio vaccine on p. 45, then in a list of „ studies about public health ideas “ on p. 37, in footnote 16 he cites Belcher 1958, and on p. 174, in a chapter about adopter categories, where he lists studies, confirming the hypothesis: Higher Social Status Than Later Adopters , he states in the related footnote 23: „ Research studies which support this state- ment are .... Belcher (1958) . ..“. This is doubtless false, may be not intentionally, because the op- posite is the finding of Be lcher, the early adopters had t he lowest social status.

57 2 other to reach the 100% vaccinations in their cl asses. They even made the promotion to the next class dependent on being vaccinated. Fina lly, the influence of Afro-American preachers, with whom the Public Health Service co-operated for years in addressing the Afro-American clientele, was effective in convinc ing most of the Afro-Americans.

Whether or not these facts and factors were influe ntial in this specific case is not really rele- vant beyond that example. But knowing at least this plausible interpretation, it cannot be de- nied that factors measured independently from the specific situation are not sufficient to ex- plain the diffusion process. Instead, for any ne w situation, the question about what the rele- vant factors are, has to be asked again. It can al so be concluded that it is not enough to take a situational approach to influentia l factors because the course of events, the specific process is as decisive as the structure of factors in adoption and diffusion.

58 1 Universität Hohenheim 430 Fachgebiet:

Landwirtschaftliche Kommunikations- und Beratungslehre KIM-08 January 2007Hoffmann Book Review: Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971 1 Hartmut A LBRECHT This book is substantially an enlarged, reedit ed and complemented new edition of the best known book of Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations from 1962. The order of presentation is es- sentially the same as in the previous edition, which gave a comprehensive overview on diffu- sion research. The following is emphasized as new:

1. The old book was written for stud ents in later semesters; the new book “is directed to social scientists with an academic interest in the microanalysis of communication and change, and to change agents whose purpose is to diffuse innovations”(p. xviii).

2. The new book shows in many parts a new orientation, generally taking examples? from communication theory. This is in line with the ne w title, the review of the research tradition of diffusion investigations, as well as with the ch oice of new terms, like the replacement of the adoption process by innovation-deci sion process and the related phases: knowledge, persua- sion, decision, confirmation.

3. The book shows two entirely new chapters, sh owing a relevant enlargement in theme com- pared to the first edition: instead of looking at innovation and diffusion exclusively from situa- tions of free choice for single individuals, now group- or collective decisions as well as deci- sions in organizations receive th eir own chapters. The look at co llective decisions is based on orientations mainly developed by George M. B EAL (1966, 233ff) and became known under the label social-action-concept, and through the inve stigations of political scientists, who tried to find out, who mainly influences decisions in la rger communities (power holders). The discus- sion of decisions in organizati ons is based on the sociological ly and social-psychologically oriented work of the gene ral organization literature.

Special importance is devoted to the appendi x. The bibliography lists about 1200 empirical and 300 non-empirical studies from all over the world, classified into research traditions of the respective authors (Cultural anthropology, ag ricultural economy, communication, education, early sociology, agricultural ex tension, geography, general econom ic science, sociology, engi- neering, journalism, marketing, medical soci ology, psychology, administration, rural sociolo- gy, statistics and rhetoric). This overview al one makes the purchase of the book worthwhile for all, who are active in this field of research and teaching.

The classification of the empirical studies according to main research methods applied and main results (done in the Diffusion Documentati on Center at Michigan State University, East Lansing) created the possibilit y, to link the generalizations about diffusion with all studies confirming the stated relationshi p, contradicting it, or showing that such a relationship could not be assessed at all; e.g. “early adopters have larger size d units (farms, and so on) than do later adopters (152 studies, or 67 % support; 75 studies do not support) ”(p. 361). I do not know any publication, offering a comparab le overview on diffusion research.

1 Source: A LBRECHT , Hartmut, 1973, In: Sociologia Ruralis, 13(3,4)294-299 Book Review of: Rog- ers, E.M. and F.F. Shoemaker (1971): Communica tion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York, 476 pp. Translation from German to English by Volker Hoffmann.

59 2 The critic, presented in the following, is intended to stimulate the rethinking of the relevant aspects of diffusion research and th e analysis of its results by R OGERS and S HOEMAKER , who come from a different orientation.

Following P OPPER , the value of a theory is proved if seri ous efforts to refute it fail; because it is not difficult, in a recurrent investigation of similar situati ons to find confirmation of estab- lished hypotheses. From this orientation, studies that contradict (‘not supporting’) the hypo- theses have to be seen as refutation. Under this perspective, - if confirmation is only seen at a limit at minimum 90 % of the studi es – only 41 out of 101 generalizations persist. For these 41 not rejected generalizations near ly without exception less than 10 studies exist, which in gen- eral have not been designed as ‘effort of refutation’ (P OPPER ). Practically this means, that the core of the derived relationships (to which the generalizations of the studies refer) in the pre- sented form cannot be confirmed. This claims evidently for a reformulation of the generaliza- tions (hypotheses). Either the c onditions of validity must be sp ecified more clearly or relation- ships in another theoretical or ientation have to be found. The necessity for this has been recognized for a long time. Striking for me is the investigation of B ELCHER , on participation in a recommended vaccination campaign against polio in Geor- gia, USA, published 1958 in the journal “R ural Sociology.” The study was designed on the basis of the generalizations that came from th e rural sociological diffusion research at that time, and checked the vaccination acceptance ag ainst characteristics like income, school edu- cation level, contact to media, cosmopoliteness, et c. It was discovered that most of the rela- tionships did not match the expectations, in fa ct they often contradicted the hypotheses. The fact, that a great deal of hypot hesized generalizations have no t been confirmed by the observa- tions, means that the same factor (age, size of en terprise, contact to media, etc.) does not have the same direction and strength of effect upon a doption behavior in different situations. There- fore effects cannot be explained by isolated factors, but only by constellations of factors , - the whole context of the specific situation. Respecting this fact, L EWIN had developed and tested the approach of field theory in 1931. R OGERS and S HOEMAKER make use of the studies that came out of this orientation at different places throughout their book (L EWIN , LIPPITT , CHIN and others).

Approaches to this perspective are also visible in the first edition (diffusion of innovations) in the final chapter, written together with A. Eugene H AVENS (pointing to C OTTERELL ’s ‘situa- tional field’, 1942). However. theses approaches have not been used so far for the further de- velopment of a theoretical foundation for diffusion research.

As a consequence, the new book also does not offer a satisfying interpre\ tation of the expe- rience, that – successful – diffusi on processes frequently show a wave like curve, that means, that the curve of adoption per unit of time at first inclines only slowly, than more quickly, turns, and fades out again slowly. R OGERS and S HOEMAKER make analogy to explain the curves of the individual l earning processes, (p. 178: “If a social system is substituted for the individual in the learning curve, it seems reasonable to expect that experience with the innova- tion is gained as each successive me mber in the social system adopts it.” ) and the course of epidemic diseases. The first explanation equa tes learning (recall) performance with decision and action, and equates individual and social syst em – two risky theoretical jumps. The second explanation equates decision and action with passive suffering (being infected). Another ex- planation is also given, (in the old edition ‘interaction effect’) which says, that many informed persons, as compared to only a few informed persons, can inform (influence) more non- informed people per unit of time. The slowed c ourse of diffusion in the second half of the process then can only be based on the reason, (an assumption far from reality) that towards the end of the process it becomes more and mo re difficult to find non-knowers to whom the knowers could tell about the innovation (p. 179).

60 3 The course of successful and failed diffusion processes, and the critical consideration of inno- vators in the early stage of th e diffusion process can be interpre ted on the basis of well proofed theory, if the following points are considered:

1. In the initial situation the potential readiness for action of all members of the social system are already differentiated (accor ding to attitude, relative attachment to norms, knowledge and skills, subjectively felt urgency, relative advant age of an innovation, objective conditions and options for action, etc.). In many cases for these factors norma l distribution can be assumed.

(only a few cases with exclusively driving fact ors, and only a few with exclusively inhibiting factors).

2. The situations of action are to be seen as force fields, in which the factors in different strength act as driving or restraining forces (H RUSCHKA 1964, 117ff).

3. The change of the constellation of forces cau ses behavior change, and is decisive: the sub- jective appreciation of the assumed consequences of an innovation (in case of succeeding) as well as the likelihood of success and the fear of the possible negative consequences of the adoption of an innovation (in case of failu re) as well as the likelihood of failure.

4. In small scale social system s (with which advisory work a nd more general support normally deal) the perception fields of its members overlap. The behavior of ot hers (relevant members of the social system) influences a change of the action situation in the remaining ones (reci- procal dynamic action-reaction relations).

5. Firstly, Innovations cause uncertain ties (defense attitude of the others). With the proof that desirable results can be realized, they then intr oduce driving forces into the action situation of others and reduce restraining forces (risk). This effect is multiplied, if influential persons (comparable relevant others) adopt and rende r the innovation into the new norm. These dy- namic effects are situated – in successful diffusi on processes – timely in the first half of the whole process. Afterwards, in substance, only the differentiation of the action situations inhi- bits action. This explains the slow fading out of the process (for the whole process compare e.g. A LBRECHT 1969, 2566ff.; B OESCH 1966; E MERY 1962).

Such an interpretation, without additional assumptions, or anothe r theoretical approach, makes it possible, to also explain processes, that so far unfortunately have not gained recognition in diffusion research, namely those where promoti onal efforts create active resistance, actuate conflicts in the social system and fail partially or totally. The underlying reasons for these so- cial psychological processe s have been analyzed by S PIEGEL (1961). With the help of the se- mantic differential profile (polar ities profile) he assessed the distribution of opinions in the social field (concerning a pr oduct, an object of opinion, an innovation) and could thereby make the emergence and the crystallization of th e fronts of rejection visible. Based on this and other studies, the likely processes of the introduction of innovations opposing norms or the introduction of innovators not fit ting to the norm can be described and receive their first orien- tation in reality (A LBRECHT 1969,268ff.).

Lastly,: Rogers and Shoemaker state explicitly, th at directed change, or planned change is the main theme of their book. An adviser or change agent, seeking helpful orientation for his work, - unfortunately – will not find much help. Two facts seem to be relevant here:

1. The great majority of diffusion studies are based on ex-post interv iewing of the ‘adopting units’. Together with the surely necessary and revealing consideration of the time factor (the relative position of the adopti on in time compared with other adopters): ‘innovativeness of members of a social system,’ has led research to nearly exclusively successful innovation processes but not ones that have failed. The causes of failure woul d have been of special inter- est. Without investigating the cau ses of failure of directed change, diffusion research can only describe such change without methodologically targeted support. The effects of restrain 61 4 ing factors in specific situations are not a matter of research. Therefore, no insights can be gained about how these restraining forces can be lowered or overcome.

2. As an advisor, one can learn from diffusion re search, that individuals with better education, higher income, greater prestige, cosmopolite pers onal contacts, increased media access , etc., adopt innovations earlier than others. These are factors of the situation, scarcely influenced by an advisor. He can only infl uence his methodological appro ach. The methodological proce- dures of support organizations were researched in too few studies in connection with the adop- tion and diffusion of innovations, that this category of studies does not meas ure (see p.72f.), as even a possible category of studies. Field experi ments – that would give answers to questions about purposeful methods of promotion – are exp licitly cited as necessary by the authors. They state (p. 65), that recently there is a trend in th is direction. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to direct the theoretical orientat ion, that up to now nearly exclusively concerns the target sys- tem, with a same emphasis on th e support system. If support fails, then causes have to be searched for in the whole field of interaction (that is in the support system, the target system and between the two systems). C HIN 1962, and R ILEY and R ILEY 1959, among others, give valuable theoretical contri butions on this issue. For the actual state of the art diffusion resear ch, referred by Rogers and Shoemaker therefore is valid, what B ENNIS (1965,339) criticized correctly, but in another context: “ They are theo- ries of change, and not of changing”. That is the reason to point here to work of B ENNIS , BENNE AND CHIN (1962) and of H AVELOCK (1971), in which the possibilities and problems of planned change are dealt with.

Alltogether: the book of R OGERS and S HOEMAKER is extremely informative, stimulating, and highly readable – it needs readers who can critically check it.

Bibliography ALBRECHT , H. (1969): Innovationsprozesse in der Land wirtschaft. Eine kritische Analyse der ag- rarsoziologischen 'adoption'- u nd 'diffusion'- Forschung in bezug auf Probleme der landwirt- schaftlichen Beratung. D. Br eitenbach Verlag der SSIP Schriften, Saarbrücken.

B EAL , G. M. (1966): Decision making in social change. In: Schweitzer, H. J. (Eds.): Rural sociology in a changing urbanized society. Dept. of Agricultural Economics, AES, Urbana, III.

B ELCHER , J. C. (1958): Acceptance of the Salk polio vaccine. In: Rural Sociology, 23, pp. 158-170. BENNIS , W. G., (1965): Theory and method in applying be havioral science to planned organiza- tional change. In: The Joumal of Appli ed Behavioral Science, Washington, D.C., 1 , 337-360.

B ENNIS , W. G., B ENNE , K. D., and C HIN , R., (1962): The planning of change. Readings in the ap- plied behavioral sciences. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

B OESCH , E. E. (1966): Psychologische Theorie des sozialen Wandels. In: B ESTERS , H. und B OESCH , E. E. (Eds.): Entwicklungspolitik. Handbuch und Lexikon. Matthias Grünewald, Stutt- gart, Berlin. Kreuznach u. Mainz, Col. 335-416.

C HIN , R. (1961): The utility of syst em models and developmental models for practitioners. In: B EN- NIS , W. G., BENNE , K. D. U. CHIN , R. (Eds.): The planning of cha nge. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York:, pp. 201-214.

C OTTRELL , L, S. (1942): The analysis of situational fields in social psychology. In: Americ. Socio- logical Review. New York, 7, pp. 370-382 .

62 5 EMERY , F. E. (1962), Group dynamics in rural extension. A case study of the diffusion and adop- tion of a new practice. International Agricultural Center, Wageningen.

H AVELOCK , R. C. (1971): Planning for innovation throug h dissemination and mobilization of know- ledge. 3. edition. Institute for Social Research, Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

H RUSCHKA , E. (1964): Psychologische Grundlagen des Beratungsvorgangs. In: Probleme der Be- ratung. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, pp. 107-136.

L EWIN , K. (1931): Der Übergang von der Aristoteli schen zur Galileischen Denkweise in Biologie und Psychologie. In: Erkenntnis, 1, pp. 421-466.

L EWIN , K. (1958): Group decision and social change. In: M ACCOBY , E. E., NEWCOMB , T. M. AND HARTLEY E. L.(eds.): Readings in social psychology. 3. edition. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 197-211.

L IPPITT , R., W ATSON , J. and W ESTLEY , B. (1958):The dynamics of planned change. Harcourt, Brace & Co., New York.

R ILEY , J. W,. jr., and R ILey, M. W., (1959): Mass communication a nd the social system. Merton, Broom and Cottrell (Eds.): Sociology today . Basic Books, New York, pp. 537-578.

R OGERS , E. M., 1962: Diffusion of Innovations. T he Free Press of Glencoe, New York.

S PIEGEL , B., 1961: Die Struktur der Meinungsverte ilung im sozialen Feld. Das psychologische Marktmodell. Hans Huber, Bern und Stuttgart.

63 Universität Hohenheim Fachgebiet: Landwirtschaftliche Kommunikations- und Beratungslehre KIM-09 January 2007Hoffmann Book Review: Five editions (1962-2003) of Everett ROGERS:

Diffusion of Innovations 1 Volker Hoffmann Preface Innovation and diffusion was a main topic of study in the early professional life of Hartmut Albrecht, my academic teacher and predecessor. This interest connected him to colleagues such as Eugene Wilkening, Herbert Lionberger, Everett Rogers in the USA; Anne van den Ban in the Neth- erlands; and to many of the ea rly participants of the ESEE 2 group. I find my-self, now, one of the senior members of this group. Out of respect and appreciation, I am bringing to completion, in the footsteps of Erna Hruschka and Hartmut Albrecht, some of their unfinished work. A new MSc bloc- course on ‘Knowledge and Innovation Management ’ brought about the opportunity to study the books of Rogers again, and to add to the book re-view of Hartmut A LBRECHT of the second edition now one of all five. This review of his work is, indeed, late in coming especially as Albrecht’s re- view in 1973 was published only in German in Sociologia Ruralis, along with his “habilitation” (1969) about innovation processes in agriculture which provided his alternative theoretical concept.

As Everett R OGERS in edition two refers to 3 of Albr echt’s earlier German publications (1963, 1964, 1965), it is noticeable that A LBRECHT ’S later and even more significant writings (1969, 1973) do not appear in editions three to five. When th e three of us met on 17 June 1996, at Schloss Thur- nau in Bavaria for an afternoon symposium among economists, Rogers acknowledged Albrecht “as his most important German colleague” . Unfortunately, Albrecht and Rogers are no longer with us to read and react to this review themselves. Ho wever, life and science goes on and from this per- spective it is never too late.

Positive Assessment Judging by the number books sold and ci tations given, Rogers is the most successful scientist to ever come out of the tradition of Rural Sociolo gy. This begs an explanation. Everett Rogers is a highly gifted writer, a very tale nted communicator and has a feeling for relevant and challenging is- sues. Much of his communication success is due to his ability to make complex things simple. He gives his audience a feeling of understanding by grasping the few common features and factors un- derlying the confusing diversity of reality. He appears as the great simplifier, showing that within research on innovation and diffusion thousands of phenomena, cases, and studies from many differ- ent research domains and research traditions can be traced back to a few simple principles and a limited number of generalizations.

In each edition, his carefully selected cases and ex amples provide persuasive evidence that impress and often surprise the reader. Some of these, such as ‘Water Boiling in Peru’, ‘Steel Axes for Stone- 1 H OFFMANN , Volker, 2007, In: Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, Vol. 13, No. 2, 147-158, with minor modifications 2 ESEE = European Seminar on Ext ension Education, bi-annual informal conference meeting of re- searchers and University teac hers, mainly from Europe.

64 Age Aborigines’ or ‘Hard Tomatoes in California’ have circled the globe and entered innumerable Social Science textbooks.

Despite the growing boom of new studies – primarily sparked by his own writings - his efforts to keep up-to-date did not diminish. Each new edition of his famous first book was revised as he strove to integrate new developm ents and findings as well as answer criticisms. This is demon- strated by the additional pages, new chapters and bib liographies listing recent titles in each edition, including the fifth edition (2003) which appeared one year before he passed away at 83 on 31 Octo- ber 2004.

Albrecht’s critique was based on R ogers’ books, especially the first tw o editions; as is this updated review version. Many of our criti ques get their inspiration from Rogers’ texts. His work is a fore- runner without which many of our alternative concepts and theoretical frame-works (e.g. A LBRECHT et al. 1989) could not have been developed. In this sense, we are proud to be his scholars and see our contributions as complementary to a unique a nd paradigmatic masterpiece of applied social sci- ence in agriculture.

Critical Considerations By highlighting Rogers’ efforts, and not just his achievements in the positive assessment above, some seed of criticism appears. Ultimately, Rogers must be measured by his self-established yard- stick and aspirations. Rigor is required, especially as his outstanding success sees him widely re- garded as the classic aut hor in this field. Where he fails, coun tless novices fail with him. Even where he does not fail but only gives rise to the s lightest misunderstanding, he shares responsibility for the resulting consequences for science and practice.

Here I will state a few general criticisms, followed by several sub- chapters which discuss specific points in greater detail, al ong with evidence from sources.

Herbert L IONBERGER (1960) summarized the findings of th e rural sociology tradition in his book “Adoption of New Ideas and Practices”, obviously writ ten for extension staff and use in the work of Land Grant Colleges. Along with the key findings a nd generalizations, most of the special termi- nology can be found there. He even included the most prominent of the early medical sociology studies (C OLEMAN & M ENZEL . 1955, COLEMAN ET AL. 1957). The famous diffusion curve with adopter categories and percentages along mean and standard deviation is presented on page 37, re- ferring back to R OGERS & BEAL (1958, 33).

R OGERS refers to L IONBERGER regularly in his first two editions, in the third edition his name only appears as the co-author of a study about Taiwan, and in the last two editions L IONBERGER is no longer mentioned. Rogers claims to go far beyond the rural sociology tradition and to summarize findings and approaches from all di fferent disciplines (six in the first edition, eight in chapters and 16 as categories in the bibliography of the fift h edition). His subtitle of edition two “A Cross- Cultural Approach” even includes the traditional so cieties in developing countries. Rogers writes for scientists but also for other educated readers like “advanced co llege students enrolled in” social science courses. He presents a more scie ntific attitude and writing style than L IONBERGER although there is not much difference in substance. While L IONBERGER reads like a summary of experiences gained from research and extens ion work, Rogers reads like a su mmary of findings only from re- search, and as the theoretical foundation of a new tradition of interdisciplinary research. We see a clear strategy of confirming importan ce by applying the “more of the same” principle.

L IONBERGER (1960) refers to exactly 100 diffusion studies. ROGERS (1962) reviews 506 diffusion studies in edition one (p. 5), continues with more than 1500 in edition two (p. 41), and cites 5200 studies in the preface of edition fi ve (p. xvii). Here the interested reader can also find a type of an 65 academic CV with the author’s evaluation of the different stations and their performances over his career. Compared with the marked increase in st udies, the promised qualitative gains are less re- markable: “The stream of diffusion scholarsh ip over the past sixty years represents both similarities and differences, continuities and discontinuities, and so does this book. By no means, however, do I seek only to synthesize the important findings from past re-search. I also strive to criticize this work (including my own) and to suggest direct ions for the future that are different to the past. I have once again titled this book diffusion of innovations to identify it with the forty- year sequential tradition of diffusion studies marked by my 1962 book of the same title. ”(V:

xviii) Over the five editions it is difficult to avoid the impr ession that his first and foremost aim is to build up, defend and maintain the author’s reputation. This desire, in moderation, fuels most outstanding performances but it should not aff ect scientific quality. Errors are always attributed to others; criti- cisms only concern other researchers, the readers, or whom ever, but never Everett Rogers himself.

At no point do we read ‘here I have failed, here I have to correct previous statements or explana- tions’. Yes, progress is seen in terminology and in sights; yes, Rogers was incomplete, therefore, more studies were included and complementary chapters added, but he himself was never wrong.

Only under the heading of “Shortcomings of the Pre- sent Approach” (II: 91ff.) does he deal with his own approach to summarizing findings, but in a defe nsive way that is without further consequences.

(See my paragraph on generalizations, later.) This unwillingness for self-criticism and self- correction leads to more and more inconsistencies and internal contradictions from edition to edi- tion.

A Critical Attitude, but Not App lied to his Own Thoughts and Writings In I: 38: “One general criticism of the rural sociology tr adition which has been voiced by rural soci- ologists themselves (examples are Lionberger 1952 and 1960), is the lack of attention to so- ciological theory. There is a noticeable tendency for many rural sociology dif-fusion studies to approach raw empiricism, with little emphasis u pon the sociological significance of findings.” And two pages earlier: “ a great number of later rural sociological studies have followed an uni- maginative ‘factors-related-to-innov ativeness’ approach. The results add very little, in many cases, to present knowledge of how new ideas diffuse except further verification of previous findings.”(I:

36f.) In Table 2.1 he points out that the only co mmon interest of five re-search traditions (except anthropology) was to create findin gs on correlates of innovativeness. At the end of the book, he lists 52 non-linked (context free) generalizations, making it easy for generations of students and scholars to select their research hypotheses and do exactly wh at he had pointed out to be useless (I311-315).

In the later editions, these “useless” studies help increase the number of studies supporting his gen- eralizations. Meanwhile this is done mainly by applying multivariate statistics, mostly Probit and Logit regression models and taking premises and ma gnitude of the regression coefficients as true, even if sometimes there is no way to find any plau sible explanation. The most glaring inconsistency is in his attempt at posing a theory first and fo llowing it with 52 “generalizations” which should provide “a skeleton summary of the major conclusions of what is known about the diffusion of inno- vations ” in his chapter I,XI, (I: 300-315. 101 generalizati ons detailing all studies supporting or not supporting are mentioned in II: 346- 385). More about this inconsistency between a holistic “situa- tionist” theory and isolated cont ext-free generalizations follows.

66 Contextual dependency of Causal Relations - In Search of the Appropriate Theory „ A science without a theory is b lind because it lacks that element which alone is able to or- ganize facts and give direction to research. Even from a practical point of view the mere gathering of facts has very limited value. It canno t give an answer to the question that is most important for practical purposes namely, what must one do to ob tain a de-sired effect in given concrete cases? To answer this question it is necessary to have a theory, but a theory which is empirical and not specula tive. This means that theory and facts must be closely re- lated to each other. L EWIN , 1936“ Rogers chose this statement of L EWIN as a preface to his chapter I, XI; certainly a good choice. He then states: “A search of the diffusion literature reveals (1) a general lack of agreement upon sociological concepts involved in adoption behavior, and (2) absence of a synthesis of these concepts into a general theory that might be tested by empirical research. The many studies that have been completed provide an excellent base for an attempt to formu- late a general theory of the diffusion and adopt ion of innovations. Ordinarily, one would ex- pect theoretical considerations to appear in the early chapters of a book. They could then serve as a framework for the entire volume. How ever, in the present case it is our belief that any theoretical statement must be so highly tentative that it is more appropriately placed at the end rather than at the beginning of the present work. The purpose of\ this chapter is to state a direction in which analysis should proc eed toward a general theory of the diffusion and adoption of new ideas. ” Rogers continues under the headli ne „Theoretical Approach“:

„ Perhaps one of the most effective means of conceptualizing adoption and diffusion behavior is first to view this behavior in its most basic and elementary form, and then to develop some of the complex variables affecti ng this behavior. At one level of conceptualization, adoption of a new idea by an individual is a type of ac tion. According to Parsons and Shils (1952, p. 56), an act consists of three basic elements: (1) an actor (2) orienting to (3) a situation. This con- ceptualization of human behavior implies:

1. Behavior is oriented toward attaining ends or goals.

2. It takes place in situations.

3. It is normatively regulated. 4. It involves an expenditure of effort or "motivation." After identifying an ultimate goal as an individual’s desire for security, he defines security as the „ subjective state of well-bei ng which minimizes tension “(I: 301). This again reminds me of Lewin’s field theory of behavior and beha vior change, where driving and inhibiting forces orient action to reach an equilibrium of forces under different levels of tension. And so do the next two citations:

„ Behavior takes place in situa tions. Individuals do not exist as a mass of disconnected units.

They are members of social systems, and these memberships in social systems have important effects upon their behavior. The situational fields3 in which behavior occurs do not necessar- ily follow community or organizational boundarie s. One may be psychologically identified with a group and take the group's perspective as his own wit hout being on the membership list. Of course, physical proxim ity, along with social status and other psychological identifica- tions, are factors influencing freq uency of interaction. 3. The term "situational field" (Cottrell, 1942) is somewhat preferable to "situation," as the former does not imply time boundaries, while the latter does. "Situation" tends to conno te a given time and place. Situational field is 67 defined as that part of the environment which is perceived by an actor as significant for him.“ (I: 302) „ Perception - The concept of perception is a key dimension in understanding the diffusion of ideas. Although a new idea may be regarded as advantageous by experts in some field, a par- ticular actor may not perceive the innovation in a similar manner. Perception is the way in which an individual responds to any sense or impression which he detects (Lindesmith and Strauss, 1956, p. 85). Perception is a function of the situational fields within which the indi- vidual operates. Knowledge of these situational fields, the manner in which the individual identifies himself, his sense of security, and the normative regularities may enable the theo- retical specification of some of the conditio ns for adoption behavior. As Cottrell (1924) 3 stated, "Items of behavior such as attitudes, traits, etc., studied apart from the context pro- vided by the actor's definition of the situation, yield meaningless results." Thus, it is essential that the present model for adopti on behavior account for the actor's perceptions of the situa- tion. “ Rogers had the right th eoretical perspective, whether based on L EWIN or other more or less contem- porary sources does not really matter, he could clearly define it. The pity is that he did not apply it. Not in the previous chapters, for which the theore tical attempt came too late, nor in his subsequent conclusions. He does not come back to this theoretical approach in the following four editions nor does he apply it. Instead, he falls back on the li st of 52 context-free and independent “generaliza- tions”, unfortunately, ex actly what people were looking for a nd what has survived until today. Gen- eralizations resistant to deeper insights like w eeds resistant to herbicides, which he carefully enlarged and confirmed th rough four more editions.

At least a bit of “situationism” appears when he e xplains why he restricts himself to those strategies which “ apply to a broad range of change agent-client relationships ”. “Such recommendations are often useless outside of a very sp ecific situation because they are rarely general in their applica- tion ” (I: 278). In his later editions two to five, he is more detailed and methodology -oriented in his respective chapters about the change agent.

B ELCHER (1958) as an Example of How Excepti ons are Used to Confirm the Rule Clear empirical evidence for the contextual dependenci es of causal relations is given in the form of the study of B ELCHER (1958) published in Rural Sociology on the acceptance of polio vaccination.

This study contradicts all common hypothesis from the rural sociology diffusion research tradition up to that point. Everett R OGERS (1962) shows knowledge of this study, first on p. 24 where he re- fers to a list of studies by Katz and Levin indicating “21 drug studies plus additional analysis of medical innovations such as polio vaccine “. Polio vaccine is also mentioned on p. 45; then again in a list of „studies about public health ideas” on p. 37. In footnote 16 he cites B ELCHER 1958 and on p. 174 in a chapter about adopter categories he lists 17 studies confirming the hypothesis: “Higher Social Status Than Later Adopters ”. He states in the related footnote 23: „ Research studies which support this stat ement are .... B ELCHER (1958) ...“. This is doubtlessly false because B ELCHER found the opposite - the early adopters had the lowest social status. By committing this error R OGERS could maintain the hypothesis more easily. His readers did not have a ny incentive to check the original study as it was part of a longer list, and one of 500 studies reviewed overall as Rogers states in his preface. In the second edit ion, the study is classified correc tly as not supporting the generali- zation, but the list of suppor ting studies totals 275 agains t 127(II: 357, 359). The name B ELCHER is not included in the author index (many others are also missing) and in editions three to five his name is no longer mentioned.

3 Typing error, should read 1942 68 Generalizations and How to Confirm Them?

In the second edition there is an extra little chapter “Purpose of This Book”. There we find: “ The primary purpose of this book is to synthesize a series of generalizations from research on the diffu- sion of innovations. Each of thes e generalizations represents the relationship found between two or more concepts.” (II: 41) But what are these generalizati ons? Obviously, they are not hypothe ses about causal relations be- tween variables or groups of variables because they do not take any context into consideration. Are they correlations? Again, no, because they do not statistically relate variables. The basis of these generalizations is a given number of studies. As more studies confirm rather than contradict the generalization, the more likel y it is to be confirmed again in future studies – provided the context is the same as in the studies review ed, or that the context does not matter. This would produce a type of a general socio-economic law, and no contradict ing studies would be found from the past nor in the future.

Rogers himself is well aware of this problem in edition two: “ Another shortcoming of our generali- zations in the follo wing chapters is the deceit of their neatness and simplicity. Or generalizations deal almost entirely with pairs of concepts, wherea s the real nature of diffusion is certainly a cob- web of interrelationships among numerous variables ”…Why not include more variables? ” Unfortunately it cannot be. Most of the empirical diffusion studies reviewed in this book fo- cus upon only two-variable hypotheses, and we c annot summarize findings that do not exist.

Further, our ability to understand three-variable, four-variabl e, and so on generalizations usually suffers in direct proportion to the numbe r of variables included. Therefore for the sake of clarity and because we lack an empirical basis to do other-wise, the generalizations in this volume, with only a few exceptions, deal with two concepts. 1 1) However, where the original research publication provided a basis for doi ng so, we coded a generalization as ‘condi- tional’, meaning that the rela tionship found between two variabl es depends upon a third vari- able.” … ”However, only 331 (about 5 percent) of the 6,811 empirical generalizations avail- able as of July 1968, were conditional. All the re st (95 percent) are two-variable generaliza- tions. In Appendix A we consider the conditional relationships as not supporting each diffu- sion generalization. ” (II: 93f. and III: 131, but without the footnote. The entire Appendix A is omitted in editions three-five, but a smaller num ber of generalizations is presented throughout the chapters and in the summaries.) At first glance the procedure, clearly made explic it, might convince quick readers. But what does it really mean? “ For the sake of clarity ” the appropriateness of the gene ralizations is purposefully sac- rificed. He counts “ conditional relationships ” as not supporting the two- variable relation. The only reason given to maintain and even increase the number of generalizations from the first edition is the scarcity of such studies with conditional re lations, and the over-whelming majority of studies using inappropriate study design.

Unfortunately, many readers and resear ch scholars did not see it like that, but took it as widely con- firmed hypotheses valid for all types of innovation-situations.

Does the Diffusion Curve Often Follow a Normal Distribution?

Early mainstream social sciences tried to follow the standards of natural sciences. That meant using quantification, statistical analysis and testing hypothesis, as general as possible, to find “social laws” analogous to natural laws. This was abandoned later on, all human action came to be regarded as context bound and only roughly pr edictable when the context remained more or less the same and qualitative research increased in importance ag ain. At the time the first edition came out, it was a sensation that a social phenom enon like the diffusion of innovati ons should follow the normal dis- 69 tribution. This, never really true but carefully established and maintained myth, contributed a large part to the public interest in diffusion research and Everett ROGERS’ books.

“ The major findings from the hybrid study are: 1. The first use of hybrid seed followed a bell shaped (but not exactly normal) distribution wh en plotted over time. (Ryan and Gross, 1943)”.

(I: 34) “ Testing Adopter Distributions for Normality. A ge neral finding of past investigations is that adopter distributions follow a bell shaped curve over time and approach normality . There are useful implications of th is generalization for a standard me thod of adopter categorization.

Eight adopter distributions test ed by Rogers (1958b) were bell shaped and all approached normality, although half of those tested were found to deviate significantly from normality (Table 6 2). Four additional studies appear in the l iterature on the normality of adopter dis- tributions. None of these analyses utilized the most precise statistical tools for determining normality, but each found that adopter distri butions approached normality. 1. Ryan and Gross (1943) found the distributi on of dates first use of hybrid corn was nearly normal.... “ Looking at Table 6-2, the correct re sult of Ryan and Gross is presented, significantly different from normal distribution at one percent level of signi ficance (Ryan and Gross underline that by figure 4, which shows the curve they observe d next to the one normally expected). In the commentary to his table 6-2, Rogers suggests possible reasons for deviations come from how the time of adoption (trial versus full adoption) was determined and by how farmers were considered, for instance, did they start farming during the course of diffusion. At the end of the four cases he cites, none of which really support normal distribution but only a certain similarity to it, he sums up:

„ Most adopter distributions closely appr oach normality and many are normal. 8 Further re- search is needed to determin e specifically why some adopter curves are normal and some are not. 8.) No claim is made, however, that adopter distributions for all innovations are neces- sarily normal. Sorokin (1959, p. 684) has attacked such a claim: "The convincing logical con- siderations as well as the factual tests do not give any basis for a belief in the existence of any 'normal' or even typical curve of diffusion or di ffusion rate for all cultural values in all cir- cumstances. Such a 'normal' curve is but a myt h." I prefer to disagree with Sorokin, as do most diffusion researchers. The normal adopter dist ribution is useful if viewed as an "ideal type" that provides a standard from which statistical goodness-of-fit can be computed.“ (I:

158f.) In the second edition this reads: “Research has generally shown t hat the adoption of an innova-tion follows a normal, bell shaped curve when plotted over time on a frequency basis.” (II: 176f.) Later, he again gives details to support this although the facts presented do not confirm the generalization so clearly (II: 179f., c ontinued up to V: 275).

Finally, he concludes by introducing his famous diffusion curve with the adopter categories accord- ing to mean and standard deviations of the normal di stribution in Figure 6-1 in I: 162. (Fig. 5-2: II, 182; Fig 7-3, V: 281). The Problem with Innovativeness “The criterion for adopter categorization is innova tiveness, which is the degree to which an individual is relatively earlier to adopt new ideas than other me mbers of his social system.

Thus, it is plain that innovativeness is a "relative" concept. One has either more or less in- innovativeness than others in a social system. It is essential to specify the social system whose members one is classifying on th e basis of their innovativeness. “ (I: 159f.) 70 This is right when only one innovation is considered. Often, Rogers and his followers computed in- novativeness across several innovations over a number of years. In this case, it is not only the type of social system but also the type of innovations considered that in fluences the measured construct.

Those readers who are not trained in the social sciences will regard innovativeness as an absolute measure of a personal characte r trait. Even though Rogers knows better, he enhances research around innovativeness and devotes much space in his books to this question of correlates of innova- tiveness. That he knows better is shown in his little chapter on „Consistency of Innovativeness.“ (I: 186f.) „ There is no clear-cut evidence, as to whether or not i nnovating behavior is completely con- sistent.“...“There is less evidence, however, that a farm innovator is also an innovator in po- litical ideology, consumer behavio r, or other areas of life. In any event, it is doubtful whether an individual who is an innovator for one idea is a laggard for another idea. “ (I: 187) The last sentence is a statement of opinion, not ba sed on facts. Life experience shows that the oppo- site is also likely. People do not follow the latest fashions in all fields of life even when, for exam- ple, they are very innovative in th eir job. Or they may be risk averse and reluctant to innovate in their job, but very innovative in their hobby. Rogers admits this indirectly, in the subchapter on „ Changes in Adopter Categories over Time “, (I: 189), and he states that it is a fact that also comes out in several panel studies. But then Rogers bri ngs in a pile of potatoes analogy that attempts to demonstrate that innovativene ss is more consistent. “ In fact, the shifting of individuals among adopter categories over time may be likened to a bell-shaped pile of potatoes. The potato pile rest s precipitously near the edge of a table. As the potatoes rearrange their relative positions within the stack over time, an occasional potato is shoved over the edge of the table and out of the pile and distribute themselves throughout the stack. While the pile reta ins its bell shape over a time period, individuals within may be changing positions.” (I: 191). Changes occur because it is a rela tive construct. and so it is clearly not a stable character trait.

Most of his „generalizations“ must be seen as an artifact of method because they are based on a ma- jority of studies reviewed. While a minority of studies do not support them, this majority results from the type of innovations selected, better even to say innovation-situations selected. Most of studies reviewed come from Rural Sociology and deal with farm modernization. Evidence from other research fields is then ecl ectically added, most of the cases again deal with modernization is- sues, to give an impression of the ove rall validity of the generalizations.

By establishing „ideal types“ of diffusion curves and of adopter categories and their characteriza- tion, he mixes up normative and empirical considerati ons leaving the reader with an impression that this all is based on empirical evidence.

Explanation of the Second Part of the Diffusion Curve The most difficult task for Rogers – and he never solved the problem – was to explain why the dif- fusion curve, shaped like a normal distribution, went down in its second part: “The writings of early sociologis ts, learning psychologists, and students of the interaction ef- fect provide theoretical reasons for expecting adopter distributions to be normal. The interac- tion effect is the process through which indivi duals in a social system who have adopted an innovation influence those who have not yet adopted. Adopter distributions follow a bell- shaped curve over time and approach normality. ” (I: 191f.) 71 The writings of early sociologists only indicate a similarity to a bell-shaped curved without offering any explanation. The analogy to learning curves – wh ich in themselves are not widely accepted in learning psychology – is pure speculation. Rogers unconvi ncingly offers the inter-action effect as an explanation: “If the first adopter of the innovat ion discusses it with two other members of the social system, and these two adopters pass the new idea along to tw o peers, the resulting distribution follows a binomial expansion. This mathematical func tion follows a normal shape, when plotted.” (I:

154) “ The interaction effect begins to level off after the second half of the individuals in a social system have adopted because each new adopter finds it increasingly diffi\ cult to tell the new idea to a peer who has not yet adopted.” (I: 155, V: 274) The first statement is wrong because the y = x 2 function gives a J-curve. The second statement may be right, but is irrelevant because while informat ion is a precondition for adoption it is not the only factor of influence. The standard case of hybrid corn is sufficient to prove this empirically: “ Nonadopters are often aware of an innovation but are not motivated to try out and adopt it.

Ryan and Gross (1943) reported that almost all of the Iowa farmers in their study heard about hybrid seed corn before more than a handful were planting it.”(I: 108) “Knowing about an innovation is often quite a diffe rent matter from using the idea. Most individuals know about many innovations which they have not adopted. ” (II: 108) Nevertheless, this “ information trickle down ” explanation is kept alive up to the fifth edition (V:

274).

Pro-innovation Bias In editions two-five Rogers criticizes diffusion research as suffering from a “ pro-innovation bias”.

In later stages he also admits that rejection or discontinuance is sometimes more rational and better for the actor than “unwise” adoption, because i nnovations are not equally good for all potential adopters. “There may be both rational and irrational disc ontinuances just as there are both rational and irrational adoption decisions. ”(I: 91) ” Most past research on the diffusion of innovat ions investigated either rational adopters, or irrational under-adopters, or else compared the two types of individuals. Few studies are available on irrational over- adopters or rational rejectors.”(I: 142) “ Our discussion should not be interpreted to me an that traditional norms are necessarily un- desirable. In many cases, tradi tion may lend stability to a soci al system where it is undergoing rapid change and the danger of disorganization. ”(I: 62) But the following text in the same chapter is so clearly in favor of “ modern” and so disparaging of “ traditional ” that the cited statement is discredited. (V: 282-285). This is also implied in calling the latest adopter category “ laggards”, a terminology maintained through all five editions, instead of using a more neutral term like “ latest adopters”. (V: 281).

Closing Statement “ Altogether: the book of R OGERS and S HOEMAKER is extremely informati ve, stimulating, and highly readable – it needs readers who can critically check it. ” This is how Hartmut A LBRECHT ended his 72 review of the second edition from 1973. The reception of the book up to edition five indicates that this type of reader is in the minority.

References A LBRECHT , Hartmut, 1963: Zum heutigen Stand der a doption-Forschung in den Vereinigten Staa- ten. Versuch einer kritischen Analyse im Hinblick auf die Relevanz für die Landwirtschaftliche Be- ratung. In: Berichte über Landwirtschaft , 41, H2, 233-282 pp.

A LBRECHT , Hartmut, 1964: Die theoretischen Ansät ze der Amerikanischen Adoption-Forschung:

Eine kritische Analyse zur Orientierung de r Beratungsforschung. In: Rheinwald, H. (ed.) Probleme der Beratung , Ulmer, Stuttgart, pp. 9-57 A LBRECHT , Hartmut, 1965: Die Bedeutung von Demonstrations-Betrieben als einer Form landwirt- schaftlicher Entwicklungshilfe: Wirkungsbedingungen und Problembereiche des Demonstrierens.

Institut für Ausländische Landwirtschaf t, Göttingen, 34p. (Veröffentlicht vorher in Zeitschrift für Ausländische Landwirtschaft , 3, H2, pp. 97-120.

A LBRECHT , Hartmut, 1969: Innovationsprozesse in der Landwirts chaft. Eine kritische Analyse der agrarsoziologischen “adoption”- und “diffusion”- Forschung in bezug auf Probleme der land- wirtschaftlichen Beratung. Verlag der SSIP-Schriften Breitenbach, Saarbrücken. 362 pp.

A LBRECHT , Hartmut, 1973: Book Review of: Rogers, E.M. and F.F. Shoemaker (1971): Communi- cation of Innovations, The Free Press, New York, 476 pp. In: Sociologia Ruralis, 13(3/4), pp. 294- 299.

A LBRECHT , Hartmut et al. 1989: Agricultural extension. Volume 1: Basic Concepts and Methods .

TZ-Verlag, Rossdorf, 276 pp.

B ELCHER , J. C. 1958: Acceptance of the Salk Polio Vaccine. In: Rural Sociology, 23(2), pp. 158- 170 C OLEMAN , J. S. & M ENZEL , H., 1955: On the Flow of Scientific Information in the Medical Profes- sion: A Study of the Adoption of a New Drug. In: Journal of Chronic Diseases 9, pp. 1-19 C OLEMAN , J.S. et al, 1957: The Di ffusion of an Innovation. In: Sociometry 20, pp. 253-270 C OTRELL , L. S., 1942: The Analysis of Situa tional Fields in Social Psychology. In: American Socio- logical Review 23, pp. 171-179 L EWIN , K., 1936: Principles of Topological Psychology . New York: McGraw-Hill.

L INDESMITH , A & S TRAUSS A., 1956: Social Psychology . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston L IONBERGER , Herbert, F., 1960: Adoption of New Ideas and Practices. A Summary of Research Dealing with the Acceptance of Technological Change in Agriculture, with Implications for Action in Facilitating Such Change. Iowa State University Press, Ames. 164 pp.

P ARSON , T. & SHILS , E.A.., 1952: Towards a General Theory of Action . Cambridge Massachusetts:

Harvard University Press R OGERS , Everett M., 1962: Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press of Glencoe, New York. 367p.

R OGERS , Everett M., S HOEMAKER , Floyd F.,1971: Communication of Innovations. A Cross-Cultural Approach . Second Edition. The Free Press, New York. 476 pp.

73 11 R OGERS , Everett M., 1983:

Diffusion of Innovations . Third Edition. The Free Press of Glencoe, New York. 453 pp.

R OGERS , Everett M., 1995: Diffusion of Innovations. Fourth Edition. The Free Press of Glencoe, New York. 518 pp.

R OGERS , Everett M., 2003: Diffusion of Innovations. Fifth Edition. The Free Press of Glencoe, New York. 550 pp.

R OGERS , Everett M. & B EAL , George M., 1958: The Importance of Personal Influence in the Adop- tion of Technological Changes. Social Forces 36, pp. 329-335 R YAN , Bryce & G ROSS , Neal C., 1943: The Diffusion of Hybr id Seed Corn in Two Iowa Communi- ties. In: Rural Sociology 8: pp. 15-24.

S OROKIN , P. A. 1959: Social and Cultural Mobility . New York: The Free Press of Glencoe 74 Universität Hohenheim 430 Fachgebiet:

Landwirtschaftliche Kommunikations- und Beratungslehre KIM-10 Volker HoffmannJanuary 2007 Basic concepts for understanding adoption and diffusion 1 Explanation of the selection and use of concepts 2 Framework model of organised support 3 Behavior and behavior modification 4 Perception 5 Defence mechanisms 6 Problem solving and decision making In this paper the "concept fa mily” we are using in under- standing and explaining the adoption and diffusion of inno- vations will be presented. It be gins with an explanation of the function of concepts for the support of social processes (Chapter 1). After presenting a framework model of orga- nized support as an overvie w and introduction of the sys- tems perspective (Chapter 2), a series of concepts on the understanding of individual and social behavior (Chap- ter 3 -6) follows.

1 Explanation of the selection and use of concepts Adopting innovations to solve prob lems that have been insoluble before requires a change of behavior. Anyone wanting to help must have accurate ideas on the determinants of human behavior and its modification. Since an expert extension worker has normally had specialist training, he must also acquire an orientation and mental equipment from the social sciences, so that he can use the right methods to apply his technical expertise and to support individual and social change processes.

Thus the problem of appropriate selection aris es, complicated by the fact that the social sciences today present a vast array of theories , models and findings of the most contradictory nature, through which even experts can scarcely find their way. It is necessary, therefore, to give reasons for and to expl ain the selection made here.

In contrast to the rest of nature, man is ble ssed to a special degree with the freedom to make decisions. The result is what psyc hologists call the plasticity of behavior, in other words the possibility that the same person in exactly the same situation can behave differently. As a re- sult the social sciences can only make statemen ts of probability and no "dead certain" predic- tions.

Human behavior arises from the interaction of persons and their environment in specific situa- tions in a dynamic, unrepeatable process. Thus, we must be extremel y cautious about using formulas or recipes in dealing with other people , but instead start from more general concepts of human behavior and then apply them according to different sets of circumstances. There- fore, these concepts are not statements about concrete reality, but simplifying descriptions, general thoughts and ideas, abst ractions for passing on general e xperience, aids to promoting a better understanding of new situations, and poi nters to improved perception and comprehen- sion. A schematic presentation of the formation of concepts is presented in diagram 1.

Everything that we call experience is ultimately a whole set of such concepts. They facilitate our rapid action, and reaction, and give us orient ation and security. Thus the choice of con- cepts has a decisive influence on our percepti on, thinking and actions. If we make the wrong choice, and if the concept is not appropriate to the context of the situation and problem, 1 75 Diagram 1: Experiences and concept building (A‘, B‘ = Exper ience, Model, Concept ) C oncept s influence on our per cept ion, t hinking and act ion Interpretation Concretisation Differentiation Interpretation Abstraction Reduction Situation A Situation B A‘ Generalisation B‘ Transfer it prevents us from taking the right action, blinds us to reality, and the result of our action will be different from what was intended.

Therefore we should:

• remain critical towards our own concepts and be receptive of other concepts; • not turn failures into annoyances with other people, but interpret them as reminders that our reading of a situation was pe rhaps inaccurate or that we should correct wrong ideas and un- suitable concepts. • The selection of useful con cepts (model, theory, instruction) should be based upon the ac- tual and specific situation, and upon the targeted objective an d the context of utilization.

The following selection of fundamental concep ts for understanding innovation processes is based on the fact that they were useful fo r advisory work and comprehensible by the non- social-scientist. They have prove d their worth in the training and further training of advisers and are, in our opinion, clear, r ealistic and sufficiently explanat ory. Most of them are heuris- tic 1 concepts which means, they help in:

• searching for and identifying rele vant elements and coherence, • better observing processes • better understanding events But they should not be seen as a miniaturized copy of reality.

Experience shows that it does not benefit one ‘s own work very much if one simply knows these concepts in theory. What is required is practice in applying these concepts correctly in particular situations, which means giving the th eoretical model the correct practical form in 1 “Heurec a!” (I found it!), A RCHIMEDES exclaimed while he had the decisive idea of how to deter- mine the volume and weight of an object.

2 76 real life, and then deriving accurate abstract ideas from the real life situation. Being able to run up and down the ladder of abstraction in this way comes about only through longer experience of applying these concepts in the field. Dialogue is helpful, especially with extension col- leagues in the various speciali zed departments, as is further training emphasizing practice and application, and on-the-job training.

The concepts as presented are intended to give factual content to any system, i.e., clarify what belongs in it (the elements), its internal re lations (the structure), what the elements mean for the functioning and maintenance of the whole (the function) and the sequencing of events (the processes). The concepts are chosen so that they fit together; in other words, they supple- ment each other without giving rise to inconsistencies.

If the extension worker or diffusion researcher masters the concepts, he or she should be able to answer for himself or herself the following five questions in concrete extension situa- tions with the help of con cept-led and target-related situation analyses:

• Why do the participants presen tly behave as they do? • Are there other possible ways of behaving?

• What are the driving and inhi biting forces that can determine a change of behavior?

• By what means can bring a bout a change in behavior?

• What consequences will changes in behavior have?

2 Framework model of organized support To gain more insight into what actually takes place between extension workers and individuals seeking advice or whole target gr oups, it is useful to create first a general framework that pro- vides an overview before goi ng into details. The outline model of organized extension work shown in Diagram 2 is a general illustration of the interaction between a promotion organiza- tion and its target groups.

Diagram 2: Framework Model of organized (promotion) support Communication Interaction Tar ge t S yst em P ro m oti o n S yst e m Social and cultural milieu People in their fields of relationships Social structure Structure of organisation Area of operations of extension The aim of the model is to show above all how the behavior of individuals, of both, e.g., the extension worker and the extension part ner, therefore, it has always been rooted in and consi- derably influenced by the wider social context . Behavior is thus embedded in: 3 77 4 • a complex of personal relations. In the case of the individual seeking support or advice, this includes, e.g., his family, circle of friends and the village community. The same is true about the extension or development worker, but he also has informal contacts with other members of the extension serv ice or the support agency • a social structure in the case of the target gr oups (see Chapter 7) and additionally in an or- ganizational structure in the case of the extens ion or development worker (see Chapter 12).

In contrast to the personal relations of th e extension worker within his organization, the emphasis in the case of advisers to an organi zation is on the formal relations and arrange- ments.

• a cultural milieu. In the target groups the orientation is mostly traditional and rural; in the extension service it tends to be modern and urban.

• a cultural and social syst em. Normally this is the same fo r the support service and the target groups. With development co-operation, however , there are quite often intercultural con- tacts within the development aid system and between it and the target population.

In the model the support system and the target population are shown side by side as complete- ly separate social systems, but it is essential for successful extension work that the two sys- tems overlap as much as possible (as is the cas e when, the field adviser comes from the same village as his clients and belongs to his circle of acquaintances). The extent to which an over- lapping of the two systems is possible depends on the advisory approach and the structure of the support organization.

The systems perspective cl early points out, that partial relations in the two interrelated systems highly depend on the processes in the system as a whole. Observations and experiences cannot be isolated from their context and cannot eas ily be transferred into different contexts.

3 Behavior and behavior modification There is no one single cause of hu man behavior; it results from the interplay of diverse factors which create a set of circumstances through th e dynamic interaction of man and his environ- ment. According to the psychological field theory of Kurt L EWIN , the interaction of situational factors with the perceived envi ronment can be described as a field of forces, a system in ten- sion or, a psychological field.

This can be expressed in a fo rmula as follows: b = f (P, E subj. ) Behavior is a function of the interaction of the individual and his perceived environment .

It is not the totality of factors in his environm ent that influences his behavior, but only those which are perceived by the indivi dual. As we explain in more detail below, human perception is to a high degree an individua l and subjective process that differs from person to person. In the physical environment, only the part that forms the psychological environment influences behavior.

Not only current information, but also knowledge drawn from past experience, and the expeca- tion of future events, or contribute to the subjective perception of circumstances.

Referring to Diagram 3, behavior can be described as follo ws. A person (P) in his environment (subjectively perceived environment) feels someth ing is worth striving for (a target, a desira- ble state of affairs, an object that is positivel y desired), and he mobilizes his personal powers to attain the goal in question. When something negative or undesirable occurs, he activates his personal powers in the same way to avoid the negative situation. Ways of reaching targets and avoiding negative situations can be blocked or impeded by barriers or inhibiting factors (lack of knowledge, uncertainty about consequences, insufficient means, social sanctions, etc.).

78 Diagram 3: Model of the psychological Field Forces conducive to positive targets are described as driving forces and those conducive to negative situations are termed inhibiting forces. Behavior is thus seen as resulting from the psycho- logical field of forc es in which inhibit- ing and driving forces are present in a state of equilibrium or disequilibrium with varying degrees of tension between them. target route Individual person barrier Subjectively perceived environment + The process of behavior modification can be directly explained by the field theory view of behavior as determined by inhibiting and driving forces . This is illustrated in Diagram 4. Behavior modification is seen as a three-phase process:

• removal of previous equilibrium; • shift towards a new level of equilibrium; • stabilizing the modified behavior.

Diagram 4: Model of Behavior Modification Extension work acquires an important function in each of the three phases if its aim is to pro- mote and facilitate the processes of behavior mo dification, which is also at the base of adopt- ing innovations. Phase 1 Phase 3 Phase 2 Behaviour at different times Inhibiting forces Driving forces Disturbance of former equilibrum Perception of problem Shift to new equilibrum Stages of implementationStabilisation of modified behaviour Solution to problem or relapse time An existing state of equilibrium can be changed by:

• introducing driving forces; 5 79 6 • removing inhibiting forces; • combining these two processes.

If in the case of strongly inhi biting forces only the driving for ces are increased, the inner ten- sion is raised and this high level of tension in the new state of equilibrium increases the danger of relapse to the old level of behavior, respectively the discontinuance of the innovation.. In- ner tension and the danger of relapse are reduced when, in addition to introducing new posi- tive forces of change, existing negative forces of change are also removed Extension’s a particularly important role in th e third phase is often overlooked. Shortly after a change of behavior has been achieved, the new st ate of equilibrium is still not sufficiently sta- ble. "Post-decision conflicts " occur repeatedly – anyone wh o has bought shoes that do not quite fit presumably knows what is meant – and unexpected problems in carrying out the al- ternative increase the danger of relapse too. In this case the adviser ought to be on the spot to help overcome the difficulties and to boost the ex tension partner’s confidence in the validity of the decision until he himself realizes and can f eel the benefit of his modified behavior or the adopted innovation.

Another reason for behavior not ch anging is that the importance of some of the factors is still unclear, and they cannot take effect in the same way as unambiguous forces of positive or negative change.

The confusion of the person seeking advice can be caused by his not clearly recognizing and not correctly assessing his own pos ition and role in relation to his targets and needs. He cannot " stand back from the problem ", i.e., view his problem objectivel y. In such cases it is the job of the extension worker to help his client gain insight into the structure and context of his problems as well as into his targets and the ev aluation of his needs. He can then acquire a more objective view of his problems, with the re sult that he recognizes them and defines them for himself. He is then in a position to percei ve an appropriate solution. Thus, the adviser sets in motion a mental process of restructuring and re-ordering the psychological field of his extension partner. The condition of diffuse, undirect ed tension is converted into a state of clear disequilibrium, which facil itates a change of behavior and targeted action.

If forces in the psychological fi eld determine behavior, the quest ion arises as to where these forces originate and how they come about. This brings us to the question of perception, which we have already touched on when we said that it was not the whole environment, but simply the subjectively perceived environm ent that determines behavior.

The psychological forces develop through the process of perception , where information enters our consciousness either through our registering the experience in the moment, from past experience, or from expect ations of the future. At the same time we relate these expe- riences and expectations to our targets, desires and needs – in short they are evaluated – and it is through this process of evaluation that the content of perceptions becomes a stimulus for particular types of behavior. Pe rceptions are developed into act ive forces in the psychological field. 80 4 Perception Understanding the processes of human percepti on is crucial to understanding behavior. The main point is that perception is not just the technical recording of events ; our eyes do not work like a film camera and our hearing is not like a tape recorder. Our selection depends on our focus of attention, and the items we select are ordered by us and altered in the act of per- ceiving. In this way a clear distinction arises between the physical and the subjective envi- ronment, i.e., our perceived environment, that can also be called the psychological environ- ment . This process is illustrated in Diagram 5.

Diagram 5: Process of the human perception Psychological situation of the observer Storage in memory Registering through sense organs PROCESSING selective, giving meaning, ordering, projective Physical factors Person Functional factors Stimuli On the other hand, important influences on how we process and store perception stimuli are physical factors , and depend on the structure and effici ency of our sense organs, which is different from. functional factors, which derive from the psyc hological situation of the ob- server.

The functional factors, e.g., moods, needs and e xperiences, give shape to the registering and processing of perception stimuli in permanent in teraction with our memory and personal inner world. Among the functional factors are:

ƒ Experiences My soil is not good enough for that; I can‘t get the credit I need. (The adviser’s experiences help determine his perception.) ƒ Values That‘s not worth the effort - preference for leisure or social prefe- rence; this is the "right" way to farm the land.

ƒ Expectations Migration to the town, hope that the sons will do better, or hopeless- ness.

ƒ Needs It‘s enough for me to live on; the old waterhole is a good meeting place; if we had a well in the village square, it would almost be like a "Plaza".

ƒ Attitudes The women stay at home, heavy work is men‘s work; fertility rites affect the crop.

ƒ Internalized socio- cultural norms Milking is stealing what belongs to the calf; women are not allowed to operate a pedal-driven mill. 7 81 8 Cognitive philosophy maintains that humans can never recognize the "real world" as such, we always remain dependent on creating our own image of the world. The psychology of percep- tion tells us what means we use to create our picture of the world. Perception occurs selec- tively, through projection and im poses order, meaning and shape.

Selection is the process of extracting from the in finite abundance of possible sense stimuli those that interest us, our pr esent needs and our ordered stat e of mind focus our attention.

Projection means the way in which we transfer some thing of ourselves, our feelings, wishes or anxieties, into perceptions or for example, a statement. In so doing, mostly imperceptibly, the external and internal worlds are interchanged. In dealing with people, "I" and "you" are confused. Is there anyone who doe s not recognize the situation where in answer to the state- ment, "But only a moment ago you wanted to ..." comes the angry reply, "What do you mean?

Not me! Who wanted to? It was you !" Thus the wish does not just turn out to be the "father of the thought" but is actually the "mother of perception" as well.

Order, meaning and shape, these, are principles which deri ve from our need for orientation and which we have to impose on new perceptions to enable us to store them in our memory.

Without order, meaning and shape an impressi on cannot be categorized, stored or recalled.

Categorizing impressions is so important because our thinking, and to a large extent our per- ception , is fundamentally shaped and influenced by language.

Even if segments of the picture are missing, if the pattern is incomplete, this does not prec- lude the processing of perceptions . The mind still creates relationships between individual stimuli, and they are stored in the memory as a complete unit of meaning. We make connec- tions between individual segments according to the criteria of simplicity, proximity, unity and familiarity. These "wholes" are more than equal to the sum of their parts. They are qualitative- ly of new significance.

As a consequence of the processes described, we can say that, as a rule,\ we prefer to perceive contents that are subjectively important, which will meet our needs, increase our security, seem appropriate for achieving targets, fulf ill our expectations and confirm our expe- rience. 5 Defense mechanisms Changing our behavior is unpleasant. It is often easier to change our perception and our judgment than our behavior. If we assume that all people have a need for security and for a sense of direction , and bear in mind the principles of per ception described above, it is e xpected that information that creates too much uncertainty will not pass th rough the process of perception without some adjustments. Even though a state of inner tensio n is necessary for action, only a certain degree of tension is acceptable or bearable. Laughing, cr ying, and rage are acts of discharging ten- sion. At the same time there are other ps ychological processes, which serve to reduce tension, and create psychological relief , this sometimes occurs so au tomatically and subconsciously that we are less aware of these processes. Th ey have been investigated in psychology and identified by the term "cognitive dissonance". Let us recall the first phase in the behavior modification model (see Chapter 3) where a dise- quilibrium occurs through the introduction of driv ing forces or the removal of inhibiting forces. We assumed that a predominance of driving forces resulted in behavior modification. Now we have to admit that this representation is too simple, because a change of behavior is only one of the possible reactions to an imbalance of forces.

82 9 Cognitive dissonance describes the situation when elements in our thinking and perception are in conflict and form a state of discord. Before this state affects our actions, there is the possibility of remedying the di scord at the level where it was first experienced. With a great deal of discordant information this happens immediately during perception, without the ob- server’s awareness. Thus, conflicting information can be ignored even while it is being perceived (overlooking what is seen, disregarding what is heard). It can be changed, weakened or even twisted to mean the opposite during the process of percepti on itself. If it enters our consciousness, there is still the possibility of us actively forgetting it. If the information comes from people or or- ganizations, there is always th e possibility of doubting their credibility. Conversely, the doubt- ful credibility of individuals colors what th ey represent (extension organization with a bad image or the poor political image of somebody ma y rub off on the innovation he is practicing or promoting).

We can actively avoid situations and informati on that produce discord or we can deliberately seek them out, cultivating contact with thos e people who reinforce our own position. Finally, there are various strategies fo r denying reality, including daydreaming, peri odic use of drugs and intoxicants, delusions, obsessions, escapism and the many forms of mental illness.

It is to be expected that be havior modification is unpleasant fo r most people and that an imbal- ance of psychological forces is first resisted by processes that reduce dissonance before it acts as an incentive to change beha vior. Visible signs that the extension partner is seeking psycho- logical relief give the adviser an indication of the nature and extent of inner resistance to be- havior modification and enable him to bear in mind the underlying factors in his advisory work. 6 Problem solving and decision making Advisory work as a means for psychological help to solve problems can be accomplished more effectively when the adviser knows the l ogical steps that can lead to a good solution and when he or she knows the recurrent difficulties with which the farmers have to contend. But, if the provision of help in solving problems becomes a problem for the adviser himself, he too can be helped by the "stages of systematic problem solving" (see Diagram 6.) The steps involved in systematic problem solving are not fundamentally different from the stages of systematical ly planned extension work, and bel ong to the basic functions of man- agement. The procedure always begins with the analysis of the given situation and ends with the evaluation of the results. For practical reason s only the intermediate steps are differentiated in a slightly different form at this point. Some of the steps shown are self-explanatory, but critical connections are described in more detail.

The discrepancy between an existing state of affa irs and a set of circumstances which in prin- ciple is considered attainable and regarded as mo re desirable is subjectively felt to constitute a problem. This kind of perception of problems can arise basically via two routes: the expe- rience of deterioration of a situation or the awareness of realizable possibilities of improve- ment. Having seen extent to which perception is subjective, it is essential in extension work to describe the initial situation fully. This invo lves specifying the people concerned, any other aspects of the situation and the assumed connections, so that at the second stage this percep- tion of the situat ion can be checked . This is necessary to prevent the extension worker and the partner from tacitly starting from quite different interpretations of circumstances. The ad- viser also gets his first chan ce to identify and discuss distor tions of perception and misjudg- ments on the part of the extension partner. While the description of the initial situation certain- ly contains an objective core, and to this extent not only invites, but actually requires the in- 83 volvement of the adviser, determining the target and defining the problem are ultimately subjective acts conditioned mainly by needs and values . Therefore, the adviser should exer- cise restraint. His supportive role expresses itself in that both targets and problem definitions are positively sought, devel oped as alternatives and realistically formulated.

Diagram 6: Stages of Systematic Problem Solving forwards if possible; if problematic, then back to previous stages analysis of causes and problem definitions choice between alternatives search for goal implementationof solution re-examination of perceptions identification of results search for solutions perception of a problem description of initial situation evaluation of results If evaluation of results is negative, begin again Function of advisory work support through “mental help” in structuring and restructuring by informing, motivating and enabling These targets can only be developed from an analysis of the client’s needs and should then be formulated with regard to both the direction and degree of target attainment. Frequently the final fixing of targets cannot be undertaken until concrete alternative solutions are available for consideration.

This stage of problem definiti on related to a consideration of causes and consequences of problems is often missed, even though it is the card inal point in all problem-solving initiatives.

The way in which the problem is specified automa tically directs the attention to certain ways of solving it, in other words since half the solution is contained in the definition of the problem. Therefore, the adviser should first make su re that the problem is defined in several ways, from which the final defini tion can be framed in the course of the search for solutions and in the course of decision making. Problem definitions can be seen as only a footstep to- wards the ideas of solutions. Like in brainsto rming, all ideas should be welcomed. The more the better. The screening comes later.

If the search for solutions is not successful, this is an indication that the target or the problem definition has to be modified. Targets cannot us ually be laid down in advance but are depen- dent on needs and the level of aspiration. If the demands on the clie nt’s own capabilities or on the work of others prove to be too high, the onl y solution is to reduce the level of aspiration.

When possible solutions present themselves, we ha ve to examine whether they should in fact be tried. If there are several possibilities we must choose between the alternatives, the choice being guided by a comparison of the advantages in the case of success with the disadvan- tages in the event of failure . In weighing up these factors, tw o issues are considered, namely 10 84 the anticipated benefits and the probability of these benefits being attained, in other words the risk – the certainty or uncertainty – of reaching the goal. This is illustrated by Diagram 7.

Diagram 7: Components in the Choice between Alternatives Expected value of an alternative Anticipated benefit Probability of success Feared adverse effects Probability of failure =x-x If successful If a failure Normally the alternative selected is the one which, compared with others, promises a high- er likelihood of success, or which has the highest comparative advantage. The result of this way of looking at alternatives is that very posi tively evaluated alternatives, with a relatively high probability of success, are not realized when the potential negative effects in the case of failure are seen as very seri ous (e.g., giving up subsistence cropping to grow fruit for the mar- ket involves the risk of star vation unless the purchase of food can be one hundred percent guaranteed).

A mature decision is the result of more than just a rational calculation . It must be felt as the correct decision from the point of view of internalized cultural values. In clarifying problems and examining possible solutions, " clarifying your own thoughts" and "social adjustment " are essential.

The carrying out and evaluatingthe selected solu tion will reveal, even if earlier stages have not, whether the solution is based on sound reasoning (and not ju st a chain of rationalized ar- gument), whose revelation will fi nd social acceptance. In the language of the behavior modifi- cation model (see Chapter 3) we would say: a la ck of clear personal thought and social accep- tability increases tension and the danger of re lapse. Decisions which have not been thought through, which are later justifie d by rationalization, alienate and aggravate the problem.

The adviser has an important role to play in this choice of alternatives. His specialist know- ledge and expertise are called upon when it is a question of assessing how far the alternatives are likely to contribute to targ et attainment, the probable fina ncial input and the associated risks and possible undes irable consequences.

From the point of view of his approach, he must try to ensure that a positive process of self- clarification and social adjustment takes place in which objective considerations are channeled toward good effects.

Carrying out the problem-solving measure is not the end of the matter . Only after the results have been established and evaluated can it be seen whether or not the problem has been solved. In evaluating the results it is us ually difficult to decide which reasons and caus- es underlie particular results.

It is easier to assess results if the target has been formulated in specific terms, i.e., if it has been accurately quantified. Only if the effects and results can be accurately ascertained is it possible to make a final evaluation. If it is positive, the danger of relapse is finally eliminated.

The special function of th e adviser consists in motivating his extension partner and enabling him to solve his own problems. The most important means of doing this is supporting him in the process of structuring and restructuring his ideas. First of all, a good advisor listens to the client, and – specifically th rough questions – makes sure th at none of the important steps are skipped. He will bring in his/her knowledge on the subject matter where it is useful. Oth- 11 85 12 erwise, he restrains him/herself, specifically he will not give his/her opinion and personal judgments nor will she/he give advice, since this only shows that the client (partner) has not yet gained complete insight.

Instead, she/he will lead the client back thr ough the steps of the sequence to find the weak points that impede a sound and well-founded decisi on and problem solution. When s/he is se- verely affected by problems, th e psychological tension of the cl ient narrows his view and re- stricts his perception; he suffers from increased sensitivity, increased reluctance to act and reduced creativity. If you are deeply enmeshed in a problem, you can rarely cut yourself free; if you are stuck in a bog, you cannot pull yours elf out by your own forelock like Baron Mün- chhausen. Through this perspective on problems – as far as the problem of helping to solve problems are concerned – we find the ultimate ju stification for effective extension assistance.

By promoting the diffusion of innovations as a se lf carrying process, the same processes of problem solving and decision making will happen with the adopters. But, the possibilities of support decline as diffusion occurs. This increases the danger of inappropriate adoption lead- ing to failure or of adoption by clients who lack the prerequisites, and cannot get the intended benefits from the innovation. Working on macro-le vel instead with individuals increases the risk and responsibilities for the supporting orga nization. But, if successful, it increases the efficiency of the personal inputs considerably.

Obviously there are more fruitful concepts in social science, which could be applied to adop- tion and diffusion processes, e.g., group dynamics, communication and learning theories, but we stop here and leave it to th e reader to apply more concep ts, to understand diffusion better.

The main underlying concepts to understand th e Hohenheim interpretation of adoption and diffusion have now been made transparent.

86 Universität Hohenheim 430 Fachgebiet:

Landwirtschaftliche Kommunikations- und Beratungslehre KIM-11 Volker HoffmannJanuary 2007 The diffusion of innovations – the Hohenheim concept The introduction and diffusion of innovations, is ex amined from the point of view of recurring processes and causational factors. How can they be explained with the help of the theoretical concepts described in the previous papers, and wh at conclusions can be drawn for extension prac- tice. The main concepts applied in this context are:

• Our framework-model or “intersystem-m odel” of organized promotion work • The field theory of Kurt L EWIN , explaining behaviour and behaviour change • Our model of human perception, including de fence mechanisms (cognitive dissonance re- duction) • Our model of the stages of systematic problem solving Innovations in the sense that we use the term can be new products and equipment but also new methods and ideas. For the purposes of extension, we are interested in those innovations that re- late to improved problem solving. In fact, the te rm "changes" might be more exact, but the word is not commonly used in this cont ext. We state categorically, therefore, that an innovation is by no means always something new and need not n ecessarily be an improvement on current ideas and practices.

Although "biological" or "o rganic" farming has suddenly become topical again, and represents a radical innovation for many farmers, it should be remembered that this method was, until re- cently, the only method of farming in the history of agriculture, which stems back more than five thousand years. We should also not be too eager to equate good with new and old with bad. When extension promotes innovations, we must not blindl y equate this with progress. Innovations are only to be understood as changes to the status quo, which using the best\ current judgement are considered to be a better solution to problems.

The first person to practi ce an innovation in a social system is called the innovator. Carrying out his decision, in other words modifying his behavi our to accomplish the change, is referred to as the adoption of the innovation. If adop tion can be tried out at small scale, this is called trial and especially in research adoption is referred to the point in time, when full use of the innovation is made for the first time. If the innovation is abandoned afterwards, this is called discontinuation.

If more members of the social system also a dopt the same innovation, dissemination of the inno- vation occurs, which is termed the diffusion process. Research in diffusion processes (diffusion or adoption process research) bega n in the mid 1920‘s in an effort by the American Agricultural Extension Service to get feedback on the effectiveness of its services. Since it was difficult to gage the success of the main objective of the Extension Servi ce through imparting knowledge, at- titudes and skills to improve the conditions of life, the number of farmers adopting a recom- mended innovation served as a convenient indi cator of the efficiency of advisory work.

Although introducing innovations in all spheres of society is an important activity, agricultural sociologists (followed in the m eantime by geographers) are still in the forefront of this research.

Today thousands of surveys are av ailable all over the world using different approaches to tackle the problem and sometimes producing varied and contradictory results. Af ter much debate, the method that seems to be slowly gaining ground in recent years is the " situation-specific ap- 87 proach". We also adopt this systems- based perspective, because it arises naturally from the con- sistent application of the basic concepts described above.

What recurrent factors can we observe?

There is a typical shape for a diffusion curve when are innova tions established successfully and remain undisturbed in a social system. At the outs et the adoption rate is low; it then rises gradu- ally and falls again towards the end. If we present it graphically as a curve of percentages ( Diagram 1 ), it usually takes the shape of an S. But sometimes at the beginning adoption is par- ticularly hesitant and accelerates increasingly only in the final phase; this gives rise to a J-shaped curve. Diagram 1: Two different curves of diffusion 100% 50%0 S-shaped curve time Total percentage adoption 100% 50%0 J-sharped curve time Total percentage adoption If we look at the rates of adoption as an absolute number of adopters per unit of time instead of in percentages, the result is a bell-shaped or wave curve, as in Diagram 2, similar to a normal dis- tribution.

Moreover, we observe again and again that the innovator is usually in a very difficult position.

In addition to bearing the burden of risk for his innovation, he may also be shunned in his so- cial system. Nevertheless, there is eventually a change of opinion and, after the hesitant adop- tion of the innovation by a few individuals in the early stages, the process of diffusion gets under way and runs on its own accord without further counselling and promotion throughout the so- cial system. From these observations we can divide the diffusi on process into four phases, as in Diagram 2.

The explanation of events can then be based on these phases.

Diagram 2: Phases in the diffusion process 88 Number of adopters per unit of timetime 1 2 3 4 1 The innovator as “trouble maker” 2 The critical phase (end or turning point) 3 Transition to the self-sustaining process 4 Final phase of the wave 1 The innovator as “trouble maker” The diffusion of innovations does not occur simply as the reaction to new information. Someone must first experience a problem for which he would like to find solutions. If new alternatives re- sult from his search for solutions, the potential innovator is then faced with the dilemma that the innovation he is considering has no t been tried out in his locality. His estimation of necessary in- puts is still uncertain and he cannot know whether, or to what extent he will achieve the desired results. In short, the innovator runs a special risk , both economic (something ventured, nothing necessarily gained) and social (insult added to injury).

It is mostly financially and socially secure peop le who take risks like these – they do not plunge blindly into possible rui n, but try to limit risk as much as pos sible very carefully gathering maxi- mum information and trying to extend their knowle dge and security by the cautious and, if at all possible, phased implementation of the innovation. This is why innovators tend to have a longer trial phase compared with those adopting the in novation at a later stage. If the opposite happens, as stated by R OGERS , (2003, 218) the so called “innovativeness” difference overrules the influ- ence of reduced risk along the diffusion process. However, we think that R OGERS and many of his scholars overemphasize the personal influence and undervalue situational aspects in the person- situation-interaction. To the ex tent that the neighbours can obser ve what is happening, for them the innovator takes on the function of local expe rimenter. Seeing what he does and observing him being successful reduces the risk of adopting fo r the followers, a phenomenon also visible in the R YAN & GROSS data (see KIM-06.doc).

The activities of the innovator have an unsettling effect on the others and create psychological tension, for which an outlet must be found. The devi ant behaviour of the innovator is a silent re- proach to the others that th eir methods are old-fashioned, b ackward and ultimately wrong. For them to spend time trying to asse ss the innovation is a much more laborious way of relieving ten- sion than simply to dismiss it for the time being – thus they reject the innovation and the innova- 89 tor. Rejection can take different forms such as avoiding contact, not greeting, joking and render- ing the innovator and hi s innovation ridiculous.

Sometimes this rejection and opposition can be more than just dealing with cognitive dissonance.

The others might anticipate disadvantages to th emselves, if the innovator succeeds with the inno- vation and if this innovation spreads. Massive in terventions, like destroying his field or burning his barn, might need additional explanations.

Innovators often experience this rejection by their contemporaries first hand, but there is no go- ing back. Giving up would be precisely the disgra ce that the others wish upon them, and it would not help the problem that the innovation was inte nded to solve. Thus, the innovator searches for contacts outside his locality or strengthens his contact w ith people who can offer him both so- cial affirmation and the chance to discuss the innovation at a well-informed level . In a neighbouring social system ther e may already be innovators who have begun the innovation ear- lier and may have broader experience.

2 The critical phase Not all neighbours react equally negatively. Some see themselves in a situation comparable to the innovator either because they have to contend with a similar problem or because they feel themselves to be of equal status and, therefore, ha ve a right to take a leading part in any new de- velopments. Some are friends or relatives to th e innovator and, therefore, keep in contact and withhold their mistrust or rejection.

The more that individuals identify with the innovator, the greater their interest in his behaviour and the possible success of the innovation . It may well be that they do not seek direct contact with the innovator, perhaps because it would m ean they were admitting their own ignorance, but they begin to observe, and to make e nquiries through casual conversation or seek information deliberately from other farmers, the extens ion service, magazines or the Internet.

If the innovation proves successful a nd fulfils the expectations of the innovator, the risk of failure is reduced for the others, so that some of them start to try it out too . If there are several farmers who adopt the innovation, the search for information by the other members of the social system becomes easier. Other farmers are then more willing to compare themselves to these early adopt- ers than to the innovator himself. Moreover, usually among the early adopters there are key peo- ple who can influence various groups to imitate them.

The initial reaction – rejection of the innovator and his innovation – can scarcely bring about an adequate reduction of tension for the othe r farmers any longer, because by now the innovation has become undeniably attractive and there is far less risk to deter them. Thus open-mindedness and interest in the innovation can develop on a wide scale.

This phase is referred to as the critical phase, because this point finall y decides whether or not the innovation takes off. The few data available on this problem show that the diffusion process sustains itself with no further need of support by the extension service or of development meas- ures when about 10 to 20% of potential adopters have taken up the innovation. Most critical are unsatisfying results by some of the early adopters , that enhance existing resistances and approve the scepticism of the non-adopters.

3 Transition to the self-sustaining process While the successful adoption of the first few fa rmers confirms the attractiveness of an innova- tion and reduces their risk, adoption by influential people brings a new dynamism into the proc- 90 ess: it can now be recognized that what is currently new is going to be the norm in the future.

What was regarded as deviant behaviour on the part of the innovator is n\ ow felt to be a new ap- proach which is a valid path for development. This recognizable trend increases the tendency of others to join such a movement. The diffusion pr ocess now develops its own impetus to continue, and a wave of adoption follows. The tension that prompts behavioural change consists now of avoiding the negative forces that would occu r if they did not join the common trend.

But, this does involve the danger of more adoption of innovations without full appreciation of the prerequisites and the consequences. Farmers may no longer adequately check whether the inno- vation is really beneficial in th eir specific situation. Thus, the risk of misguided adoption of in- novations increases, with the frequent result that economic differences are intensified: the al- ready economically weak farmers are tempted to ward misplaced investment and can no longer maintain their position in the system of local competition.

4 Final phase of the wave If the innovation had become the norm, we woul d expect the curve to show diffusion taking off again and then coming to an abr upt end when all members of the social system had adopted it.

Why then do the adoption rate s sink slowly and gradually after reaching their peak?

This can only be explained if we assume that the innovation is not equally appropriate and advan- tageous for all concerned. Just as the innovator was initially psychologically closest to the inno- vation, and was logically the first to adopt it, there are now people for whom inhibiting forces are far stronger than the driving forces. We can assume , therefore, that all potential adopters, if we were to classify them before the start of the diffusion process according to their pattern of psy- chological forces in relation to the decision on adoption, form approximately a normal distribu- tion which is expressed by the bell-shaped diffusion curve.

Up to the peak of the diffusion curve, more ne w driving forces have been produced by the diffu- sion process itself. These new driving forces have then caused the balance of forces in the subse- quent adopters to be altered. Now no further driving forces derive from the pr ocess itself, so that the flattening out of the curve can only be expl ained by the disappearance of inhibiting forces in the adopters – which is a result of a fortuitous change in their circumstances over time .

We can imagine this happening, for example, where the capital for adopting an innovation has, by a certain point in time, been finally saved, or wher e an old loan has been paid off and more credit can now be borrowed, or where the farmer has got the freedom to decide in favour of an innova- tion because he could take over the farm from his parents . 5 The situation-specific approach After this explanation drawing on behaviour theory and the " situation-specific approach", we have to point out that this can only be regarded as an example of the possible courses of events.

In reality the diffusion of an i nnovation through the whole social system is exceptional. It is probably more common for innovations to be adopt ed by a few individuals and not disseminated.

Often the innovation spreads in sections of the social system only or in various sub-groups in separate diffusion processes that r un their individual courses. The diffusion curve can also sud- denly break off, if for example. an unknown pest invade s or if clearly better methods become available before the previous met hod has been fully disseminated, etc.

Diffusion is hindered in particular if it begins with the wrong farmer or if the innovation con- travenes existing norms. 91 The nature and speed of the diffusion of innovations depends ultimately on the combined effect of a large number of recurring factors. They include the features of the innovation, the character- istics of the adopters and their si tuation, the type of information s ources that come into play, the structure of the communication re lationships, the course of preceding stages of the process and the results of new forces in the psychological field of the potential adopters of the innovation.

Despite many common characteristics in different processes, we must be careful not to simply transfer experiences from a few individual cases to future extension projects. The dissemination of innovations depends on the specifi c conditions of particular situations. The exact same factor can have a completely different significance, and possibly also a completely different effect, in different contexts. Thus, the extension worker is well advised to analyse each situation afresh and with great care to find out which factors can cause th e target groups to change their behav- iour. This is what we mean by the term "situation-specific approach".

In some cases, innovations have not been successful, because • there was no social contact between advisers and the target group • the "wrong innovator" began the innovation • no support was given from the social system • positive results were not apparent at the beginning.

These examples are clear indicators of how extens ion work should be approached. Before the in- novations are undertaken, important r ecurrent features that can affect the course and speed of the diffusion, and recurrent obstacles to devel opment measures, have to be overcome (Table 1 and Table 2 ). Most characteristics of innovations are gr eatly shaped by the observer, therefore, com- prehensibility largely depends on the level of unde rstanding of the observer. Objective features do not count as much as their subjective perception.

Table 1: Recurring problems in the diffusion of innovations Contact How have contacts to the innovator been made? Is there any possible, rejection of the innovator?

Observability To what extent can first results and ongoing processes be ob- served e.g., microbial processes, or events in private life? Due to selective perception the observer may not notice it. Comparability of motiva- tion Can potential adopters who are in a different situation and with different needs relate to their own situation and understand the principles of the innovation and assess it as useful or useless for their own situation?

Compatibility in modes of thought Is the innovation a concrete and visual object, which can be re- lated to the experiences and situation of the possible innovator or is it an abstract concept to which clients cannot relate?

Previous experiences To what extent are possible innovators influenced by previous experiences, e.g., previous failures or successes, relation to ex- tension worker, other services and organizations, etc?

Risk experience Does the client have reserves? In case of failure, can he take these reserves to compensate the risks involved? Is there any guarantee to cover loss, how is solidarity within the group?

Comparability Can the innovation and the abilities needed for application be linked to other experiences or similar situations?

Compatibility of norms Does the innovation match or clash with e.g., legal prescriptions or social norms, such as propriety, customs, morals, taboos? Or 92 is it neutral? Unintentional effects Do any unforeseen changes occur, e.g., wrong or uncritical adop- tion of innovations, changes in the social structure, damage to the environment?

Source: Adapted from A LBRECHT et al. 1989, 96. Table 2: Important recurring attributes of innovations that can affect the course and speed of diffusion Comprehensibility Do clients understand why the suggested innovation is a solu- tion? Do they know about the effects? How much information and knowledge would be necessary to modify the innovation?

(to adapt better to their situation) What can be varied and to what extent without endangering success?

Complexity How many stages does the innovation involve? How severe are these changes with respect to the known situation; what is the clarity of the consequences?

Divisibility, Triability Can it be tried out on a small scale, extended in stages, par- tially adopted?

Risk For example, what is the certainty of yield? Can inputs be calculated? What are the consequences of failure?

Observability Is it possible to observe any result during implementation e.g., of all/some or none of the stages, and the results of col- leagues, on model farms or demonstration plots?

Observability of success How can first successes be observed and when? How long does it take between the stage of inputs and possible experi- ence of success?

Observability of failure How and when? What reasons are given for the successes and failures and how are they linked with the innovation?

Comparability of motivation Does the potential adopter have the same motives as the in- novator, do the objective advantages of the innovation meet subjective needs? (is the innovation really a solution or does it cause additional problems?) Compatibility with norms Can the adoption of the innovation be reconciled with existing rules, with social norms? Does the innovation match existing cultural practices and norms?

Comparative advantage (The innovation compared with the precursory practice) e.g., Labour input What implication does the innovation have on labour input? To what extent are there physical implications, e.g., difficulty of work or lack of practice, or also psychological implications, e.g., when rigid habits are changed?

Costs What costs are involved, direct or indirect, short or long term, with the problems of allocation or the demands on liquidity?

Return What is the benefit of the innovation, e.g., in monetary terms or other benefits, how can you quantify non-monetary bene- fits?

Source: Adapted from A LBRECHT et al. 1989, 97.

93 6 Consequences of innovations There are no purely technical innovations. Diffusion is not only a social process, it also has social consequences, and it creates winners and losers. So cial status and prestige, but also the economic ranking of members of a social system cha nge as a result of innovation processes. Even so called “sustainable innovations,” adopted and maintained by all members of the social system, can prove to be unsustainable in a wider sense, that is they create negative effects for the economy or the ecology, which in the medium or l ong term are greater than the short term bene- fits for the adopters.

But losers can be the next generation of innovators. H AGEN (1962,217) stated that entrepreneur- ship and innovativeness in tradi tional societies emerges especially within persons and groups, as a consequence of withdraw al of status respect.

Technology assessment is an attempt to forecast the intended and unintended effects of the inno- vations, especially new technologies. But, since th e task is complex and difficult to resolve, those having vested interest in the diffusion do not like being stopped, technology assessment is not po- litically supported. Globalisation and increased international competition is another mechanism, not to hold back techno logical developments.

7 Conclusions for the met hodology of extension work Finally, after considering the basic concepts underlying extension and the diffusion of innova- tions, let us take preliminary stock and draw so me conclusions about the methods applied in ex- tension work.

A general principle for all advisory work is, therefore,: think from the point of view of the cli- ent and take his whole social context into consideration.

In order to do so, we have to es tablish the inhibiting and driving forces in the field of action of the client; we have to un derstand the particular way of looking at the problem from his subjective perception and mode of thought. Only with this a pproach can we conclude what kind of help, ar- guments and reasoning will really fit the problem s ituation of the extension partner. But, because extension is only one factor in a social environment, the possible reaction and influence of both the contact person and the groups to which the client relates have an important role in attaining and implementing solutions to problems.

In areas where innovations can sugg est that the situation of a large target groups is improved, ex- tension has the possibility of making a wide impact if it succeed s in setting in motion a self- sustaining process of diffusion of innovations. For this success, innovators have to be found who have benefited from the solution to the probl em and are in a position to take the necessary action, and who have as many points as possible in common with the other members of the target group. They then have to be given the technical support that will enable them to achieve demon- strably good results with the innovation. If the first people to adopt the innovation in the social system experience rejection, they have to be given support of a social kind. This support should come from the adviser helping them establish c ontact with innovators with the same or similar problems in the vicinity.

The best initial situation is an established contact to a group, showing interest for a certain prob- lem solution, where an innovator is nominated and supported by the gr oup to try it out. The rejec- tion of the social community is th en easier to bear and the critical phase can be shorter and less critical.

94 Any good results must be effectively made known to the other members of the social system.

Excessive emphasis on early adopter s should be avoided, since this can create new defensive re- actions. Different segregated a udiences should be addressed with special messages and through specific information channels.

If a self-sustaining diffusion process comes about, it presents the extension service with a new task. Ill-considered or the wrong adoption of innovations has to be prevented , because experi- ence shows that later adopters exam ine the innovation less carefully. What is more effective than just stating that an innovation is unsuitable is showing other, more appropriate solutions for the people in question. It is advisable to bear this problem in mind from the start, so that the exten- sion worker can have proven alternat ives ready if the occasion arises.

There is no point in using pressu re or financial grants to encourage the introduction of innova- tions unless the target group e xperiences and appreciates the value of the innovation after its adoption, so that they will retain it for its own value when the fina ncial aid ceases or the pressure is removed. Therefore, instead of direct material incentives to the innovators, it is better to use only pledges to cover the risk of failure.

Innovations should not be seen as detailed bluepr int solutions, because to work successfully in a range of situations, they should be adaptable to the specific circumstances and requirements.

There is no difference in extension betw een standard solutions or innovations. R OGERS (2003,17) terms it “ re-invention” . The developers and promoters of i nnovations have to carefully monitor the variations, adaptations and rein ventions of adopters, to incorporate the more useful and wide- spread applicable ones into the recommendations. This joint learning between developers and us- ers is a process comparable to bi ological evolution, and, therefore, D OUTHWAITE (2001) talks about “learning selection ” as an additional task for research, development and extension. Bibliography ALBRECHT , H., 1969: Innovationsprozesse in der Landwirtschaft. Eine kr itische Analyse der agrarso- ziologischen „adoption“- und „diffusion“- Forschun g in bezug auf Probleme der landwirtschaftli- chen Beratung. SSIP-Verlag, Saarbrücken. 362 S.

A LBRECHT , Hartmut. et al. (1989/1990): Agricultural Extension. Volume 1 (1989): Basic Methods and Concepts. Volume 2 (1990): Examples and Backg round Materials. Rural Development Series BMZ/GTZ (eds). 276 and 446 p.

B ENNIS , W.G., BENNE , K. D., CHIN , R., 1962: The Planning of Change. Readings in the Applied Be- hovioral Sciences. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. F ESTINGER , Leon, 1962: A theory of cognitive dissonance. Tavistock, London. 291 S.

D OUTHWAITE , Boru, 2001: Enabling Innovation: A practical Gu ide to Understanding and Catalysing Technological Change. Zed Books Ltd, London. 266 p.

H AGEN , E. E. 1962: On the Theory of social Change (How Economic Growth B egins). Dorsey Press, Homewood, Illinois. 557 p.

H AVELOCK , R. C., 1971: Planning for Innovation Through Disse mination and Mobilisation of Knowl- edge. Third Edition. Institute for Social Research, Center for Research on Utilisation of Scientific Knowledge, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor. L IONBERGER , Herbert, F., 1960: Adoption of New Ideas and Practices. A summary of research deal- ing with the acceptance of technological change in agriculture, with implications for action in facili- tating such change. Iowa State University Press, Ames. 164p.

R OGERS , Everett M., 1962: Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press of Glencoe, New York. 367p.

R OGERS , Everett M., Shoemaker, Floyd F.,1971: Comm unication of Innovations. A Cross-Cultural Approach. Second Edition. T he Free Press, New York. 476p.

R OGERS , Everett M., 1983: Diffusion of Innovations. Th ird Edition. The Free Press of Glencoe, New York. 453p.

R OGERS , Everett M., 1995: Diffusion of Innovations. Fourth Edition. The Free Press, New York. 518p.

95 10 ROGERS , Everett M., 2003: Diffusion of Innovations. Fifth Edition. The Free Press of Glencoe, New York. 550p.

96 1 Universität Hohenheim 430 Fachgebiet:

Landwirtschaftliche Kommunikations- und Beratungslehre KIM-12 Hoffmann January 2007 Nondiffusion of the Dvorak Keyboard 1 * Everett M. R OGERS Most individuals who write on a computer do not realize that their fingers tap out words on a keyboard that is known as "QWERTY," named afte r the first six keys on the upper row of letters. The QWERTY keyboard is intentionall y inefficient and awkward. This keyboard takes twice as long to learn as it should and makes us work about twenty times harder than neces- sary. But QWERTY has persisted since 1873, and today unsuspecting individuals are taught to use the QWERTY keyboard, unaware that a much more efficient keyboard is available. In recent years of talking about the QWERTY ke yboard with hundreds of large audiences, the present author has never encountered anyone who uses an alternative.

Where did QWERTY come from? W hy does it persist in the face of much more efficient al- ternative keyboard designs? QWERTY was invent ed by Christopher Latham Sholes, who de- signed this keyboard to slow down typists. In his day, the type bars on a typewriter hung down in a sort of basket and pivoted up to strike the paper; then they fell back into place by gravity.

When two adjoining keys were struck rapidly in succession, they jammed. Sholes rearranged the keys on a typewriter keyboard to minimize su ch jamming; he "anti-engineered" the letter arrangement in order to make the most commonly used letter sequenc es awkward. By thus making it difficult for a typist to operate the machine and slowing down typing speed, Sholes's QWERTY keyboard allowed early typewriters to operate with a minimum of jamming. His design was then used in the manufacture of all typewriters. Early typewriter salesmen could impress customers by pecking out "TYPEWRITER" as all of the letters necessary to spell this word were found in the top row (QWERTYUIOP) of the machine.

Prior to 1900, most typists used the two-finger, hunt-and-peck system. Later, as touch typing became popular, dissatisfaction with the QWER TY typewriter began to grow. Typewriters became mechanically more efficient, and th e QWERTY keyboard design was no longer neces- sary to prevent jamming. The search for an improved design was led by Professor August Dvorak at the University of Washington, who in 1932 used time-and-motion studies to create a much more efficient keyboard arrangement. D vorak filmed people while they were typing and spent a decade analyzing which operations sl owed them down. The Dvorak keyboard has the letters A,O,E,U,I,D,H,T,N, and S across the home row of the typewriter (Figure 1-1). Less frequently used letters were placed on the uppe r and lower rows of keys. About 70 percent of typing is done on the home row, 22 percent on the upper row, and 8 percent on the lower row.

On the Dvorak keyboard, the amount of work a ssigned to each finger is proportionate to its skill and strength. Further, Professor Dvorak engi neered his keyboard so that successive keys- trokes fell on alternative hands; thus, while a finger on one hand is stroking a key, a finger on the other hand can be moving into position to hit the next key. Typing rhythm is thus facili- tated; this hand alternation was achieved by putting the vowels (which represent 40 percent of all letters typed) on the left-hand side and the major consonants that usually accompany these vowels on the right-hand side of the keyboard.

1 Source: Everett R OGERS , 2003: The Diffusion of Innovations. Fi fth Edition. The Free Press, New York.

* Further details on resistance to t he Dvorak keyboard are found in D VORAK et al. (1936), P ARKIN- SON (1972), LESSLEY (1980), and DAVID (1986).

97 Professor Dvorak was thus able to avoid the typing inefficiencies of the QWERTY keyboard. For instance, QWERTY overloads the left hand, which must type 57 percent of ordinary copy.

The Dvorak keyboard shifts this emphasis to 56 percent on the stronger right hand and 44 per- cent on the weaker left hand (for a right-hander, as are 90 percent of the public). Only 32 per- cent of typing is done on the hom e row with the QWERTY system, compared to 70 percent with the Dvorak keyboard. The newer arrangement requires less jumping back and forth from row to row. With the QWERTY keyboard, an effi cient typist's fingertips travel more than twelve miles a day, jumping from row to row. These unnecessary, intricate movements cause mental tension and carpal tunnel syndrome and l ead to more typographical errors. Typists typ- ing on the Dvorak keyboard have broken all speed records.

One might expect, on the basis of its overwhe lming advantages, that the Dvorak keyboard would have completely replaced the inferior QWERTY keyboard. On the contrary, after more than seventy years, almost all typists still use the inefficient QWERTY keyboard. Even though the American National Standards Institute and the Equipment Manufacturers Association have approved the Dvorak keyboard as an alternate design, it is still almost impossible to find a typewriter or a computer keyboard that is arra nged in the more efficient layout. Vested inter- ests are involved in hewing to the old design: manufacturers, sales outle ts, typing teachers, and typists themselves. Unknown to most computer us ers, their machine that comes equipped with a QWERTY keyboard can easily be switched to a Dvorak keyboard. Nevertheless, a consider- able effort, estimated at about a weeks traini ng, is required for someone accustomed to the QWERTY design to become prof icient on a Dvorak keyboard.

Here we see that technological innovations are not always diffu sed and adopted rapidly, even when the innovation has obvious advantages. Bibliography:

DAVID , Paul A., 1986: Clio and the economy of QWERTY. In: American Economic Review, 75 (2),332-337.

D VORAK , August et al. 1936: Typewriting Behavior. New York: American.

L ESSLEY , Bradley J., 1980: The Dvorak keyboard. Report. Dvorak International Federation. Salem Oregon.

P ARKINSON , Robert, 1972: The Dvorak Simplified Keyboa rd: Forty Years of Frustration. In: Com- puters and Automation, 21:1-8 2 98 Universität Hohenheim 430 Fachgebiet:

Landwirtschaftliche Kommunikations- und Beratungslehre KIM-13 January 2007Hoffmann Learning selection: an evolutionary model for understanding, implementing and evaluating participatory technology development 1 B. D OUTHWAITE , J. D. H. K EATINGE , J. R. P ARK Abstract This paper develops a model of th e early adoption process that takes into account modifications made by users. The model is bas ed on data from 13 attempts to introduce six postharvest technolo- gies into the Philippines and Vietnam. It is built on an analogy between technology change and Dar- winian evolution. At the core of the model is the interactive experiential learning process - learning selection (LS) - that is analogous to natural selection in t he living world. In learning selection stake- holders engage with a new technology, individually playing the evolutionary roles of novelty genera- tion and selection , and in their interactions creating recombinations of ideas and experiences and the promulgation of beneficial novelties. Peoples' motivations to engage in learning selection, and its outcomes, are influenced by the interaction between their lifeworlds and their environments. The model has implications for management of agricultural technology change. It suggests the need for a nurturing of new technology during its early adapt ation and adoption, until the point where the benefi- ciary stakeholders (manufacturers and users) are sufficiently numerous and have adequate know- ledge to play the evolutionary roles themselves. The LS model, while developed with data from agro- mechanical technologies, could prov ide a theoretical underpinning for participatory technology devel- opment. 1. Introduction The Food and Agriculture Organizati on estimates that international assistance to agricultural de- velopment fell from $16 billion in 1988 to $10 billion in 1994 (ODI 1 997). In 1996 the Orga- nisation for Economic Co-operation and Developmen t (OECD) agreed international development targets that included a halvi ng of the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015 (OECD 1996). Poverty reduction ha s since been adopted as a goal by many donor organisations.

The implication of these two developments is clear. If international agricultural research wants to increase its funding levels then it must demonstrat e that it is having an impact in poor farmers' fields to a greater degree th an it has done in the past.

Unfortunately though, public-sector ag ricultural research is sometimes seen as having more im- pact in richer farmers' fields than in poorer ones. One commonly cited reason is that researchers implicitly assume a relatively simple mental map of the research, development and transfer process that better matches the relatively simp le farming systems found in favourable production environments (where farmers tend to be richer ) than those found in less favourable production environments. This simple mental map has been called the Transfer of Technology (TOT) model or Central Model (C HAMBERS and J IGGINS 1986; B IGGS 1989). It is based on the positivist para- digm that underpins conventional science and considers that reality is objective, independent and 1 From: Agricultural Systems 72, (2002), 109-131 99 based on natural laws that science can uncover (R ÖLING 1996). According to the TOT view, scientific method can be used to understand re ality and design technologies. Hence agricultural scientists believe that th ey can and should be able to deliver technologies that work in farmers' fields. Local knowledge might be important for finetuning, but this can be captured during on- farm testing prior to release. The technology should not be released before it has been ‘perfected’ by which time the researchers have finished their j ob. It is then up to the extensionists to deliver the package to the farmers who e ither do or do not adopt, but are not expected to make innovative changes. This model has worked well in genera ting and delivering simple technologies - high yielding crop varieties - into relatively favourable production systems, and in the process spawned the Green Revolution.

In 1995 the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and the University of Reading began a study to examine the extent to which the TOT view fitted the innovation processes of relatively complex new agricultural technology. This paper presents an evolutionary model of the early stage of the adoption process which may fit reality much better than th e TOT model. While de- veloped from agricultural engineeri ng data it is suggested here that the model is also relevant to planning, implementing and evaluating particip atory technology development in other discip- lines. Participatory approaches are increasingly being recognised as being more effective at achieving adoption and impact in poor farmers' fields than the technology generation and transfer approaches traditionally used by much agricultural research (W ORLD BANK 1996). 2. Methodology One of the challenges facing an ex -post study of innovation is that there is no evidence left of the critical steps in the innovation process, and that people have forgotten about them. This study considers agricultural machinery be cause it has a physical manifestation that is relatively easy to modify (cut and weld) and it then , in effect, leaves a ‘fossil’ record of adaptation because the changes are difficult to destroy.

A case study methodology is used because technology adoption is a complex process (T IDD et al.

1997) and case study methodology is, " a method for learning about a complex instance, based on a comprehensive understanding of t hat instance obtained by extensive description and analysis of that instance taken as a whole and in its context ." GAO (1987, 9).

The case study technologies chosen are all the ri ce harvesting and rice drying technologies intro- duced to the Philippines and Vietnam after 1975. Th e definition of ‘introduced’ used in the paper was that at least 100 machines had been used in either country. Two types of harvester qualified.

Both are relatively cheap and light mechanical harv esters, and achieve this by being controlled by an operator who walks behind the machine rather th an riding on it. Four types of dryer were also eligible. They ranged in capacity and cost from the locally-made SRR dryer - SRR is an acronym for "very low cost" in Vietnamese - which can be bought for $100 and dries 1 t of rice in 2-4 days, to recirculating dryers im ported from Taiwan which cost 150 times more but can dry 6 t in 8-10 h. The case study technologies are shown in Tables 1 and 2.

The Philippines and Vietnam were chosen to take advantage of a natural experiment (F REED- MAN 1991) created by the “ Postharvest Technologies for Rice in the Humid Tropics project” 2.

This project gave National Agricultural Research and Extension Systems (NARES) in the Phili- 2 This project was co-ordinated by IRRI and fund ed by the German government, through GTZ. In the implementation phase of the proj ect NARS chose postharvest technologies which they were then funded to evaluate and initiate co mmercialisation. The implementation phase ran from January 1993 to December 1997.

100 ppines and Vietnam similar resources to pilot test two technologies - the stripper gatherer (SG) harvester, and the low temperature in-bin drying system (LT-IBDS), from which the SRR dryer was developed. The inputs into the pilot testing, modification and initial dissemination programs set up by the NARES in both coun tries were the same although the outcomes were quite differ- ent. This natural experiment allowed an analys is of the effect of people (their lifeworlds) 3 and the environment on the innovation process. Also, the GTZ Project gene rated a great deal of process documentation which is necessary for developi ng a detailed understanding of the adoption pro- cess. Furthermore, the first author was a complete participant (project leader and chief designer) in the development of the SG harvester and a participant observer 4 (team member) in the de- velopment of the SRR dryer. Participant observa tion is a way of gathering data on the motives, meanings and experiences of stakeholders in a social process like innovation (B URGESS 1984).

Hence the SG harvester and SRR dryer case studies were constructed with much more detail and data than the four others. Although there is debate about wh ether the technology generation and adoption process is linear there are nevertheless discernible stages in the life of an innovation. One categorisation, after Yin (pers. comm. with S. S ECHREST 1996), is shown in Fig. 1. According to the TOT approach re- searchers should hand-over their technology to extension workers at the beginning of the adapta- 3 Lifeworlds are the realities that people adaptively construt for themthelves. They are the sum total of the mental maps and models that people have built to allow them to cope in their environments and as such are made up of past experienc e and personal and shared understanding (L ONG 1992). 4 Complete participant and participant observer are tw o ideal field roles described by Gold (quoted by B URGESS 1984). For more details see D OUTHWAITE (1999). 101 tion phase, hence this phase and the start-up phase before it, are the two of interest in this study to test the validity of th e TOT view of innovation.

Case studies may be criticised for lacking bot h internal and external validity (GAO 1987; Y IN 1989; S ECHREST et al. 1996). The main threat to external validity is that generalisation of the findings to other situations is not legitimate. The four ‘minor’ case studies provided a check to the relevance of the findings from the two ‘main’ ones. Life histories of all 13 innovation at- tempts were constructed describing the time-orde red sequence of events, the stakeholders who were responsible for or influenced the ev ents, and other contextual influences (S ECHREST et al.

1996). As well as analysing the i ndividual life histories, cross case comparisons were also made.

Inaccuracy, bias and lack of objectivity are the main threats to internal validity (Y IN 1989). The use of life histories is an impor tant guard against these. In addi tion, the large amount of process documentation for each of the main case studies, and the use of multiple data sources for all case studies, helped maintain internal validity.

Multiple data sources included:

1. surveys of key stakeholders (m anufacturers/suppliers and users); 2. participant observa tion (for the main case studies only); 3. process documentation and other secondary literature; 4. key informant interviews (often r ecorded and transcripts made); and 5. documentation of physical ev idence by photograph and video.

The whole population of manufact urers was interviewed for the main case study technologies, and half the population of adopters, or 40, whichever was smaller. For the minor technologies an attempt was made to interview two manufacturer s/suppliers and six adopters. Another methodo- logical safeguard was that key pe ople were asked to read the main case studies as a further guard against inaccuracy, and as a check against subjectivity and bias 5.

5 Caesar J. M. T ADO , Senior Research Specialist currently working on stripper harvesting at the Phil- ippine Rice Research Institute commented on t he SG harvester case studies, and Martin G UMMERT , former GTZ project manager and drying expert commented on the SRR dryer case study.

102 One challenge to constructing effective and persuasive case studies is to avoid becoming swamped in data and detail. S ECHREST et al. (1996) recommend construction of a theory of the case to act as a guide to data gath ering and analysis. Our theory of the case was based on an anal- ogy that has been made between technol ogy change and Darwinian evolution (N ELSON and W IN- TER 1982; M OKYR 1990). If this analogy is valid then technology change must be driven by a process analogous to natural selection. Hence our theory of the case is simply that there is an analogue, which we call learning selection, shown in Fig. 2. Learning is central to innovation (N ELSON and W INTER 1982; M OKYR 1991; C LARK 1995; L EONARD 1995) which is why it is the basis of the learning selection model. K OLB 's (1984) experiential learning model was chosen in particular because the two types of learning that characterise the innovation process - ‘learning by using’ and ‘learning by doing’ (R OSENBERG 1982) - are both types of experiential learning.

R OSENBERG defines ‘learning by using’ as learning during manufactur ing that leads to improve- ments in the manufacturing process while 'lear ning by doing' is learning during the use of the technology that make it work better. The analogy suggested here betw een natural selection and learning selection is not perfect.

Rather, it is an 'analogy as a heuristic'; an anal ogy that suggests ways of thinking about innova- tion processes from the much bette r understood evolutionary process (R USE 1984). One obvious difference between natural and learning selection is that natural selection is 'mindless' while learning selection is not - genetic mutations occur at random but farmers make changes to their machines for a reason. This difference means that to make learning selection into a useful tool for understanding and predicting the ou tcomes of the early stages of innovation processes, an under- standing of the motivations of people involved in learning pro cesses is required. For instance, what motivates people to want to interact with ne w technology in the first place? ... what is likely to influence the outcomes of the learning select ion iterations they go through? Some factors will help the technology evolve. L ONG 's (1992) actor-oriented approach is designed to understand the ways in which groups interact with an interven tion such as a new technology, and how these in- teractions are affected by cultural, social, political and power dynamics. D OUTHWAITE et al.

103 (2000) examine how the actor-oriented approach and the learni ng selection approach can be inte- grated.

Fig. 2 is a model of how learning selection works. It illustrates two of the potentially many par- ticipants involved in their own learning cycles wh ile at the same time interacting with others. In- dividually participant i and j are carrying out two of the three roles necessary within an evolu- tionary system:

1. Novelty generation that creates differences between individual members of the species (N EL- SON 1987), e.g. individual differences between machines of the same type, or the way they are used.

2. Selection of beneficial novelties (N ELSON 1987).

They do this during an experiential learning process based on work by K OLB (1984) and H UNT (1987) and consisting of four stages shown in Fig. 2.

Experience - suppose a farmer finds that the rice miller pays her a low price for the grain dried in her dryer because some of it is not properly dried. Making Sense - she reflects on this experience from di fferent points of view to give it mean- ing. For example, she realises that uneven drying is losing her money and that it might be sen- sible to try and improve the dryer's performance. Drawing conclusions - she then develops personal explan ations of what happened from her own or others previous experien ce or theories. For example, she hypotheses that if she reduces the amount of paddy she loads into the dryer then drying will be more uniform. Action - she then decides to test her hypothesis, and in so doing generates a novelty.

Testing the novelty begins a nother learning cycle. Her selection decision to adopt or reject the novelty will depend on whether the rice miller pays her more for her product. The miller will make this price decision after goi ng through his own learning cycle when he tests a sample of her rice for milling quality. If the farmer is participant i in Fig. 2 then the miller represents participant j .

The third component required of an evolutionary system is a promulgation and diffusion me- chanism. In our example promulgation of the novelty occurs when the farmer tells people in her social network, represented in Fig. 2 by the ‘oth er participants’ box, about the benefits of her novelty and they select to adopt it. Moreover, many of these people may be going through their own learning cycles creating the conditions for the recombination of differing observations and experiences that can lead to the generation of novelties that have ‘hybrid vigour’. In the process the technology evolves and with it the participants’ opinions and knowledge of it and the way they organize themselves to use and promote the technology. These processes are all involved in learning selection, and the implicit as sumption is that they will lead to improvements in fitness of the technology, where fitness is ta ken in the biological sense to mean improvements in the likeli- hood that the technology will be adopted and promulgated. This concept of fitness, or adopta- bility, is similar to L YOTARD 's (1996) concept of performativity, which he defines as the best pos- sible input/output ratio. L YOTARD argues that performativity itself is the main form of legitimisa- tion of knowledge.

Part of the purpose of developi ng the learning selection model is to guide case study data collec- tion, as already discussed. The mode l does this by suggesting that life histories describe the de- gree to which learning selection took place. Modifications made to a technology are evidence of learning selection having been carried out. The life histories should therefore identify modifica- 104 tions and evaluate their effect on the performance of the technology. This is an investigation of the novelty generation function. Data should also be collected on the selection and promulga- tion functions, namely, which modifications were se lected and who promoted the modifications and the technology itself, and how. Contextual data should be gathered on participant characteris- tics and their environment to expl ain the outcomes of the learning selection iterations. This data will also help identify factors that affected peoples’ motivation to participate.

3. Case study findings The six technologies shown in Table 1 were majo r inventions when they were first introduced into Vietnam and the Philippines. The 13 subsequent innovation attempts provide data to support M OKYR 's (1990) conclusion that major inventions are nearly always followed by a learning pro- cess which improved the ‘fitness’ of the technology. The case studies of th e technologies with a public source of innovation ( public technologies) clearly show th at manufacturers, users and sometimes researchers made many modifications a nd selection decisions after commercialisation.

While the overall effect of these changes was to generally reduce production and operation costs (improve input/output ratio), some changes, particularly in the early adoption stages, proved det- rimental to the technology’s fitn ess and its evolutionary prospect s. Examples of equipment evolu- tion after commercialis ation are given for four technologies, followed by an examination of the degree to which learning selection occurred. The full details of the case studies are presented in D OUTHWAITE (1999). 3.1. Examples of equipment evolution 3.1.1. The flat bed dryer in Vietnam A university lecturer in stalled the first flatbed dryer in 1983 in Soc Trang Province in the Mekong Delta. The dryer was introduced into an area wher e the move from single rice cropping to double rice cropping, made possible by the development by IRRI of shorter growth duration rice varie- ties, was being seriously constrained by problems drying the first crop in the middle of the wet season. By 1985 local entrepreneurs began copying th e design but made mistakes in replicating the blowers due to a lack of technical knowledge. As a result rice traders paid 5% less for flat- bed-dried rice compared with sun-dried rice. Nevertheless farmers used the dryers because they were often the only way of drying their produce. Over a 10-year period a whole set of improve- ments to the dryer and the way it was used meant that the price paid for mechanically dried paddy was by 1994 5% higher than the price paid for sun-dried paddy. These improvements were made by manufacturers and users as part of ‘learning by doing’ and ‘learning by using’, respectively\ . In this period the cost to farmers of using flatbed dryers fell from as much as 12% of the value of the yield to 5%. A reduction in fuel costs was largely responsible for this \ fall, brought about by vil- lage craftspeople realisin g that their indigenous rice hull cook-stove could be used as the basis of a furnace design that would burn rice hull instead of more expensive wood. As the flatbed dryer became cheaper to use, it spread without public sector intervention, beyond its cradle in Soc Trang Province to other areas of the Mekong Delta . There are now an estimated 1000 dryers in the Mekong Delta drying about half a million to nnes of paddy per year, and in so doing saving Vietnam millions of dollars.

3.1.2. The SG harvest er in the Philippines The SG harvester was first commercialised in 19 93. The first farmers to adopt in the Philippines, and the first larger-scale manufacturer to start building, did so af ter hearing about the technology in newspaper and other media stor ies that resulted from an IRRI press-release. The initial units 105 sold had problems with the reliability of the ground-drive transmission, due in part to the substi- tution by manufacturers of cheaper and lower qua lity components. In 1995 IRRI released the Mark II SG harvester design which had a heavier duty transmission, as well as other strengthened components. This reduced the reliability problem, but increased the weight by 31%, making the machine harder to manoeuvre and more liable to bog down in soft field conditions. In 1996 a manufacturer - Morallo Metal Indus tries - developed its own version of the Mark II design that was almost as light as the first version but far more reliable. Another manufacturer developed an idea for an improved wheel design that was furthe r developed by IRRI and proved to give much better mobility in muddy field conditions. In 1997 I RRI released drawings of the Mark III SG harvester based on the Morallo SG harv ester and incorporating the novel wheel.

3.1.3. The SRR ("very low cost") dryer in Vietnam The first SRR dryer was sold to a farmer in Oc tober 1995, built by an R&D team at the Univer- sity of Agriculture and Forestry (UAF). The first units sold were fitted with a 1 kw electric cooker element to heat the air blown into the pa ddy being dried. Again, the first farmers to buy heard about the dryer from the media and came to UAF to find out more about the technology.

Initially sales were limited to areas near Ho Chi Minh City where farmers had a good electricity supply. In 1996 the R&D team added a coal stove as an optional replacement for the electric cooker element. This meant that the SRR dryer coul d be used in areas with a poor electricity sup- ply (low voltage). Another ma nufacturer started copying the S RR dryer in 1995 and began sup- plying dryers with a 110 V motor rather than 220 V one to operate in areas with poor electricity supply. He also reduced the power demand and cap acity of the blower. These modifications in- creased the potential market for the SRR dryer stil l further but the 110 V motors proved more li- able to damage from voltage fluctuations and the reduced blower capacity reduced drying effi- ciency. The net effect of these manufacturers' modifications on the fitness of the technology was negative.

Owners of the SRR dryer made important modificat ions to the operation instructions provided by UAF with the machine. UAF’s instructions to turn the heater off during the day were to minimise fuel costs, but led to long drying times. Most farmers, however, had more than one batch (1 t) to dry at a time and so reducing drying time was th eir main priority. Hence most ignored the UAF recommendation and kept the heater on all, or nearly all, of the time. Even if they did turn the heater off, hardly any used the UAF-recommen ded drying strategy, choosing instead to devise versions of their own, matched to their electrical supply, the initial moisture content of paddy to be dried, and personal pref erence. By adopting such strategies owners were able to reduce the drying time by 39%, or by 42 h for a 22% increase in energy costs if coal was used, or 37% in- crease if an electric heater was used.

3.1.4. The mechanical reaper in the Philippines The Kubota mechanical reaper sold in the Philippines is one of the two technologies that had a private sector source of innovation ( private technology). The same machine is still being sold and has not been modified at all. This is in contrast to the public technologies wh ich were all modified, some a great deal, after first commerci alisation. Very limited numbers of changes have been made to the other private technology in the su rvey, the recirculating dryer. The private technology hardware evolved less than the public technologies because both had been developed, commercialised and ‘perfected’ in other countries before introduction into the Philippines, and because the designs were bei ng built by only one manufacturer. Public technologies were often built by many manufacturers and so had multiple sources of novelty generation and selection.

For example 12 manufacturers have built the SG harvester. The advantage, therefore, of private technology is that it can be expected to work be tter when first released onto the market. The dis- advantage is that there is just one source of hardware novelty generation that is often geographi- 106 cally distant from the market. As a result private technology can be expect ed to be less respon- sive than public technology to chan ging local needs.

While the private technology hardware changed little, ow ners and operators made important changes to the way they used the technologies, as they did with the public technologies. For ex- ample, teams of harvest labourers now hire Kubota mechanical reapers when prior to 1983 all harvesting was done by hand. When the Kubota reap er was first introduced owners competed di- rectly with manual harvest teams for work. Manua l harvesters responded in some cases by sabo- taging the machines by placing iron rods in unharvested crops to destroy the reaper cutterbar. 6 Another strategy for discouraging th e use of the machine was for labourers to refuse to hand har- vest crops for reaper owners when the reaper di d not work, for example in badly lodged crops and deep mud. The organisational innovation that helped solve this problem is one that allows the la- bourers to decide if and when to use the reaper, so they no longe r see it as competition. Rather they see it as a useful tool that allows them to harvest a greater area and earn more. Increasing la- bour shortage due to alternative off-farm employment has meant that harvesting teams have not come into conflict with each ot her. Harvest teams now use the machine in good crop conditions, while in poor crop and field conditions they hand harvest but charge farmers more. This willing- ness to compensate for the technical shortcomings of the machine has made them less of a con- straint to usage and adoption. The SG harvester case study showed that similar technical limita- tions have reduced the utilisat ion rate of the technology. 3.2. Learning selection carried out by stakeholders 3.2.1. Researchers 6 The Sabotage technique was also used when mec hanical harvesting was first introduced into the UK (Farming Today on BBC Radio 4, 7 November, 1998).

107 The researchers’ main role was to develop a promising prototype of a new technology. This ‘plausible promise’ began the learning selecti on process by convincing at least some manufactur- ers and farmers that it could be of benefit to th em, and hence to adopt. However, rather than handing the technology over to an extension organisa tion at this point, as the TOT model dictates, in many cases the R&D team continued to stay involved. In eight out of the 13 case studies the R&D team played a clear ‘product champion’ role in working after initial adoption "to push the new technology through the innova tion process and overcome obstacles " (P ETERS and W ATER- MAN 1982,64). In terms of the lear ning selection model the resear chers championed their tech- nologies by selecting beneficial modifications made by manufacturers and users, and then prom- ulgating them. Researchers often fa cilitated learning selection by identifying ‘knowledge gaps’ that were causing the key stakehol ders problems, and then working to fill them, while at the same time recognising and filling the gaps in their ow n learning. The net effect of the R&D teams ef- forts was often to build a ‘common property re gime’ in which manufacturers, who would other- wise be competing with each other, contributed their ideas to wards the common goal of develop- ing a better technology. Engineer Lawrence M ORALLO of Morallo Metal Industries explained why he let IRRI take his improved design (see Fig. 3) and then give the drawings out for free.

" Further improvements can still be made on the design that we gave to IRRI. Improvements can always be made to the stripper. Even other manufacturers can st ill make changes. At least we can also get ideas from them. We can adapt their ideas." One of the main impediments to researcher learning selection were government programs that began widespread diffusion of technologies too early because they assumed the machinery was sufficiently perfected. Eight of the 11 public sector innovations were promoted in nationwide programs which began very early - on average just 2.3 years after research started. According to C OLLINSON and T OLLENS (1994), it can take 10 years to pro duce a useful technology if beginning with basic research. Nevertheless R&D teams and their donors agreed to the inclusion of their technologies in these programs because they saw th is as an indicator of success because it meant large numbers were built and sent to the field. However, this effectively set the design in stone (it is hard to tell a manufacturer you made a mistak e and to recall hundreds of machines) and made the R&D team defensive to subsequent criticism. Furthermore, even if the R&D team remained receptive to suggestions for improvement the SG harvester case study showed that once the gov- ernment promotion program began most of the R&D team's time was taken up with training re- 108 gional technicians. 3.2.2. Extension workers The degree to which extension workers became involved in learning selection depended on how the extension program was organised. If the pr ogram assumed the TOT model, as was the case with the promotion of the SG harvester and flash dryer, then they were not expected to make modifications and were not given the resources or responsibility to do so. Worse still, they felt that their recommendations and suggestions were i gnored. They had very little incentive to be pro-active in solving or reporting problems. In c ontrast, when extension workers were able to modify and promote the SRR dryer on their own in itiative, they became a large driving force be- hind the dryer’s refineme nt and rapid adoption.

3.2.3. Manufacturers Manufacturers modified the technology hardware a great deal, making, for example, an average of 23 changes to the basic design of the SG harv ester they were copying. These changes came in four categories:

1. changes to the design to make it cheaper or easier to build; 2. changes to the design to improve the performance of the machine; 3. continuing to use a feature of an older design that they had been bui\ lding prior to adopting the new design, and which they did not think was worth changing; and 4. mistakes or oversights. Manufacturers were behaving as novelty generators when making the first two types of change.

In the third category they were behaving as selectors in deciding not to adopt certain aspects of the design. The fourth category of modification did not immediately involve learning because it was a mistake or oversight. Once the mistake was made, however, feedback sometimes led to a changed perception, le arning and modification. Promulgation occurred when manufacturers cop- ied changes made by other manufacturers, or deta iled in the periodically updated drawings circu- lated by the R&D group.

Manufacturers made some very important improveme nts to the technology. For example, Morallo Metal Industries reduced the weight of the SG ha rvester by 25% making it cheaper and easier to use. In the medium-term manufacturers improve d the fitness of the technology, but when they first started building machines there was a tendenc y for them to make more detrimental changes than improvements. Fig. 3, which shows the net e ffect of the modifications made by nine SG har- vester manufactures, indicates that only Morallo Metal Industries would have had a net positive effect on the design without some ‘industrial extension’ by the research team. 7 An example of one manufacturer modification that was particularly disastrous was the reduction of the rotor and forward speed on the 14 units supplied to regional demonstration centres in the Philippines. The change meant the machines harvested with high loss and as a result much damage was done to the reputation of the technology amongst extensionists and co-operative members who attended the demonstrations. The manufacturer did change b ack to the original speeds a few months later but did not recall the demonstration units or ev en mention the problem. The R&D team who per- 7 Each modification made by a manufacturer and ident ified during the survey was rated on a +5 to -5 scale. The sum of these valuations is shown in Fig. 3. See D OUTHWAITE (1999) for methodological details.

109 haps should have noticed the problem were too busy training regional technicians to thoroughly test the units before they went out to the regional demonstration sites.

Most of the modifications made by manufacturers were to the machine hardware, i.e. the embod- ied knowledge. Nevertheless they also made some important innovations to the software knowl- edge, that is the knowledge not embodied in the machine itself, but necessary to build the ma- chine cheaply and well, or to use it properly. Fo r example, some manufacturers developed jigs and fixtures to make fabricati on quicker and easier. An exampl e of an innovation made in the way labour was organised in building the machine is the adoption of the pakyaw system of hiring contract labour to avoid empl oyer obligations under Philippine labour laws. The workers were paid a piece rate according to their output but as a result tended to rush the work. Without strict quality control the pakyaw system had a large detrimental effect on quality. Even though some manufacturers and customers knew this, adequa te quality control was rarely in place.

Government machinery programs were found to be a disincentive to learning selection, partly be- cause of the tendering process. Manufacturers wi shing to build machines for a government pro- gram had to copy a standard design and then su bmit a prototype to be checked for compliance with the standar d. This accreditation process, plus the fact that ma nufacturers were not selling di- rectly to the intended users, hampered learning selection by reducing the ma nufacturers’ scope to make changes and by reducing feedback about potential shortcomings, respectively.

3.2.4. Users In contrast to the manufacturers, users made most of their changes to the technology software.

The organisational innovation already discussed above surrounding the use of the reaper is one example. Another was that some SG harvester owners paid their operators according to area har- vested, rather than a daily wage, and enjoyed a significantly higher seasonal usage rate as a result (see Table 3).

Although owners were making less than one tenth of the number of modifications made by manu- facturers they nevertheless repr esented an important source of design improvement through their recommendations for modifications. Over half of the 24 non-trivial recomme ndations recorded by owners in the survey were incorporated in late r designs by manufacturers, or in the drawings pro- duced by IRRI.

Users also played an important promulgation role. This was particularly clear in the case of the SRR dryer where on average 68 people visited each unit in the survey sample. UAF built their ex- tension strategy for the SRR dryer around users in key villages who would teach and promote the technology to others. In the case of the recirculating dryer, adopters said that recommendations made by neighbours and associates were important in persuading them to buy the machine. The SG harvester and flash dryer case studies show ed how adopters who have a negative experience with a technology could dissuade others from buying or using the machine.

Government programs also tended to limit user le arning selection because by giving equipment to users at a highly subsidised rate they reduced th e incentive to sort problems out when they oc- curred. As one manufacturer said, " farmers don't appreciate the machine if it is a dole-out (given for free) " (pers. comm. with A. A TIENZA 1997). Co-operatives who acquired the SG harvester vir- tually free under a government program used th e machine less than private individuals who had paid the full price for the machine.

110 111 4. Discussion 4.1. Developing a conceptual model of the innovation process The case studies show that a very large amount of innovation took place after release of the tech- nology. The conventional TOT model did not fit reality - scientists and engine ers were not able to produce useful technologies, only protot ypes that promised to be useful.

Fig. 4 shows a schematic representation of what really happened, and as such is a component of a new conceptual model of the innovation process. It shows a successful case-study technology beginning its life history as a bri ght idea that is then developed during the development phase. At this stage the R&D team are driving the proc ess and the farmers and manufacturers - the key stakeholders - participate, if at all, as consulta nts. This laboratory phase ends when the research- ers develop their ‘best bet’ - a prototype embodime nt of what they believe will benefit the key stakeholders - and take it to the field. During the start-up phase the R&D team demonstrates the machine or loans it, and then seeks feedback fr om potential customers and manufacturers. On the basis of this feedback the R&D team modify their ‘best bet’. Key stakeholders become increas- ingly interested in the technology to the point where one or two manufacturers and a few farmers believe that the machine makes a ‘plausible promis e’ of being of benefit to them. The essential difference between a ‘best bet’ and a ‘plausible prom ise’ is, therefore, that the former is defined by the R&D team and the latter is decided by the key stakeholders. Another difference is that the ‘plausible promise’ embodies more knowledge, so me of which comes from the key stakeholders.

This is shown in Fig. 4 as an increase in the ar ea of the gear-wheel depiction of the technology, and a change in its shading.

The adaptation phase begins when the key stakeholde rs show they believe in the ‘plausible prom- ise’ by adopting, and in so doing invest materially in the technology. This research found that the first farmers to adopt closely resembled R OGERS (1995) definition of an innovator, the first in five 112 categories of adopter types he identified. The others are early adopters, early majority, late major- ity and laggards. Rogers descri bed innovators as venturesome, enjoying the technical challenges posed by new technologies and actively seeking them out.

It has been suggested that the R&D team needs to remain involved during the adaptation phase to nurture learning selection by filling knowledge ga ps amongst the key stakeholders, selecting beneficial modifications and pr omulgating them, and in carrying out their own learning selection iterations. It is exactly this phase, though, that the conventional mental maps of the innovation process ignore, or regard as a black box - somewhere inside wh ich one cannot look and therefore understand or use as the basis for predictions.

Fig. 5 shows how the learning selection model can explain the workings of the black box. It shows that the ‘plausible promise’, which em bodies some key stakeholder knowledge but is largely a creation of the R&D t eam, gains knowledge and evolves in to a fitter ‘widely adoptable technology’ through many learning se lection iterations. The widely adoptable technology is de- picted as a set of interlocking gear -wheels to represent the ‘meshing in ’ that takes place during the adaptation phase. This ‘meshing in’ process, in which a new technology is shaped by the community in which it is adopted, and that comm unity is in turn shaped by the technology has been called ‘the social construction of the technology’ by B IJKER (1994). The labour arrangement innovation negotiated between the owners of the mechanical reaper and the manual rice labourers is a good example of part of the social constr uction of a new technology. As already discussed L ONG 's (1992) actor-oriented approa ch can help understand how learning selection and the social construction process is affected by cultural, social, political and power dynamics between groups in a community.

113 5. Implications of the learning selection (LS) model to managing R&D -— the LS approach The conceptual model of the innova tion process based on learning selection (i.e. the LS model) is a better match to reality than the TOT conceptual model for the case study innovations presented here because it explicitly recognises key st akeholder innovation during the early adoption phase, something that the TOT model does not. The LS model, together with the experience derived from the case studies, has some clear implicatio ns for the design and management of public sec- tor agricultural engineeri ng projects, which is referred to as the Learning Selection approach. Be- low are seven principles for setting up and managing a successful co-development effort.

5.7. Start with a ‘plausible promise’ The key to developing a successful innovation is a successful partnership between the stake- holder, who holds the technica l knowledge about the new tec hnology, and the key stakeholders, the people who are going to build and use it. This partnership needs to be motivated by the belief amongst at least some of the key stakeholders that the prototype technology makes a plausible promise to benefit them. A measure of whether the R&D team's ‘best bet’ makes a ‘plausible promise’ is whether some key stakeholders ad opt it and hence invest time, money and effort.

5.2. Keep the 'plausible promise' simple A plausible promise should be simple, flexible enough to allow revision by the key stakeholders, and robust enough to work well even when not perfectly optimised. It should match the key stakeholders’ needs and knowledge levels rather th an the R&D team’s inclination to technical so- phistication and elegance.

5.3. Find a product champion During the early adoption of a new technology many things can go wrong, any one of which could potentially kill off the tec hnology. It is, therefore, important to identify an individual or a small group who have sufficient interest and knowledge to nurture the innovation. Nurturing means building a common property regime and prom oting learning selection - working with the key stakeholders to identify and promulgate be neficial modifications, weeding out detrimental ones, plugging knowledge gaps while at the same time engaging in experiential learning oneself.

Nurturing also means being a good f acilitator of adult learning, for which the literature on people- centred learning can provide a guide (e.g. M AC KERACHER 1994). In practice the product cham- pion is likely to come from the R&D team who de veloped the ‘plausible promise’ because they have both the technical expertise and the motivation to do the job. 5.4. Work in a pilot site or sites where the need for the innovation is great The key stakeholders will be influenced by their environment. Their motivation levels will be sustained for longer if they live or operate in an environment where the new technology promises to provide great benefits. In addi tion, they are more likely to receive encouraging feedback from members of their community.

114 5.5. Work with innovative and motivated partners The outcome of learning is a function of the interaction between the learner and his or her envi- ronment (L EWIN 1951; M AC KERACHER 1994). Having chosen the right environment the next step is to choose innovative-adopters who possess the ab ility to make improvements and are drawn to the challenge of doing this. The SG harvester and SRR dryer case studies showed that media cov- erage was very effective at pr ompting innovative-adopters to seek out the technology and then buy it, hence effectively selecting themselves. E nquirers should be charged the market value for the machine to ensure they are adopting because they believe in the ‘plausible promise’ and not to get something cheap or for free. Also, people gene rally value something more highly if they have paid for it and they will be more committed to sort out the problems when they emerge. On the other hand the first adopters will need to know that they are working with the product champion as co-developers, and as such w ill not be left taking all the risk. 5.6. Don't release the innovation too widely too soon For the innovation to evolve satisfactorily, the changes the stak eholders make to it need to be beneficial. As those generating the novelties will have gaps in their knowledge, product champi- ons should restrict the number of co-developers so that they can work with them effectively.

When people show enthusiasm for a prototype it is very tempting to release it as widely as possi- ble but this entails jumping from the start-up to the expansion phase and missing out the adapta- tion one. This should be resisted. However prom ising the technology might appear, there are many things that can and will go wrong. First adopters need to be aware of this and have ready access to the product champion. Otherwise, their ent husiasm will quickly turn to frustration and the product champion will end up defending the tec hnology against their criticisms when the problems appear. Once the product champion becomes defensive, he or she will be far less useful at sorting out problems.

5.7. Know when to let go Product champions need to become personally invol ved and emotionally attached to their projects to do their jobs properly. This makes it easy fo r them to continue championing a technology when it has become clear to everyone else that the technology is not going to succeed. Equally, project champions can continue trying to nurture th eir innovations long after they entered the ex- pansion phase and proper market selection ha s begun. Market selection begins when enough of the key stakeholders know enough, and are suffici ently motivated, to ensure the technology con- tinues to evolve and diffuse through their own novelty generation, selection and promulgation ef- forts alone.

6. Application of the LS model beyond agricultural engineering The LS model describes a process by which key st akeholders, helped by researchers, experiment with technology and make it their own through ad aptation. The researchers are learning in the process and making their own innovations. This is the essence of participating technology devel- opment (PTD) which van V ELDHUIZEN et al. (1997) describe as a process by which outside facili- tators and rural people interact so that the target groups have a greater capacity to adapt new technology to their conditions and th e facilitators have a better understanding of traits and charac- teristics of local farming systems. Therefore, the LS model may help understand PTD by focus- ing attention on the fundamental process by whic h rural technology change occurs: interactive 115 experiential learning, or learning selection as it is referred to here. L OEVINSOHN (1998) has gone further than this in saying that evolutionary theory could provide the needed theoretical under- pinning to assist understandi ng and design of participator y research in general.

As well as helping to provide a fundamental unders tanding of PTD, learning selection should also be able to provide a guide to planning and managing a PTD approach through implementing the seven steps of the LS approach. Furthermore, lear ning selection may be able to help in the moni- toring and evaluation of PTD project s by measuring increases in the capacity of the target groups to interact with technology through identifying and explaining th e novelties generated, selection decisions made and promulgation mechanis ms. Combining the LS approach with L ONG ’s actor- oriented approach can give a full picture of how cultural, social, political and power dynamics af- fected the process.

The LS approach may be relevant beyond agriculture. V ON HIPPEL (1988) in his influential book the ‘Sources of Innovation’ found that people working in the USA industry employed a mental map of the innovation process that is si milar to the TOT model. He writes: "It has long been as- sumed that product innovations are typically de veloped by product manufacturers. Because this assumption deals with the basic matter of who th e innovator is, it has inevitably had a major im- pact on innovation-related resear ch, on firms' management of research and development, and on government innovation policy. However, it now appears that this basic assumption is often wrong" ( VON HIPPEL 1988,3). D OUTHWAITE (2001) finds evidence of LS-type innovation proc- esses in areas as far apart as the development of the Linux computer operating system and the Danish wind turbine industry. He concludes that the LS approach is relevant beyond agriculture.

Further evidence that the LS model and approach may be valid beyond agricultural engineering is that others, from different bac kgrounds and disciplines, have developed similar models. Eric R AYMONDS (1997) in his paper ‘The Cathedral and the Bazaar’ describes what he calls a bazaar innovation model to develop software. In the bazaar approach a product champion uses a plausi- ble promise to build a co-developer community to write code, fix ‘bugs’ and build the program into something better. R AYMONDS grounded his bazaar model on the innovation history of the very successful Linux operating system (D OUTHWAITE 2001). The LS approach is also similar to the Center for International Fo restry Research's (CIFOR) ‘adaptive co-management’ (pers.

comm. with C. G OLFER 2000; B ELCHER et al. 2000) developed for forestry. 7. Conclusions In agricultural research it has often been a ssumed that researchers develop new technology and farmers either adopt it or not, without signifi cantly adapting it themselves. A similar assumption in industry, that manufacturers are the sole source of innovation for new products, has been shown to be incorrect with some types of techno logy. This paper has shown that at least with ag- ricultural equipment, user, manufacturer and resear cher innovations are present and essential in machinery that is widely adopted. Failure by pub lic sector researchers to realise farmers and manufacturers must first adapt new technology to local conditions before widespread adoption will occur has led to the too-early promotion of some equipment and wastage of public money.

The learning selection (LS) cognitive model of the early adoption process can help research planners and managers see innovation as an e volutionary process, and manage it as such.

The LS model sees technology e volving during adoption as a result of stakeholders making modi- fications (novelty generation), a nd then selecting and promulgating some of these. The model ex- plicitly recognises that during the initial adop tion of a publicly-developed technology, the key stakeholders (those with most to gain) may not know enough about the new technology for this learning selection to improve the fitness of the new technology. Also, the technology may not work well enough for them to be motivated to persevere when unforeseen problems arise. Re- 116 searchers need to be active participants in the early adoption process to nurture new technology until market selection begins to work. In this way early release of new machinery can provide a mechanism to create a valuable synthesis betwee n local and research knowledge that should lead to more appropriate technology, and increase key stakeholder capacity to interact with new tech- nology. The LS model is based on the view that ne w technology can be seen as an increment in the knowledge of the System into which it is introduced. Although developed based on data from equipment technology this generic basis makes th e LS model applicable to any technology where ‘learning by using’ and ‘learning by doing’ are likely to significantly improve its fitness and adoption prospects.

Acknowledgements The research presented in this paper was carried out while the first author was employed at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), PO Box 3127, Makati Central Post Office, 1271 Makati City, Philippines, in collaboration with the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice), Mufioz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines and the Universi ty of Agriculture and Forestry (UAF), Thu Duc, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, The research was funded by IRRI, the Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group (IAEG) set up by the Consultative Group on Inte rnational Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and by the German Government through Deutsche Gesellschaft fü r Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GTZ). The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewer for helping to make this a better paper.

References BELCHER , B., COLFER C., MAE DICKEN , K.G., 2000. Toward INRM: three paths through the forest. Pa- per presented at the workshop INRM in the CGIAR: Approache s and Lessons, ICLARM, Penang, Malaysia, August 21-25.

B IGGS , S.D., 1989. A multiple source m odel of innovation of agricultural research and technology pro- motion. ODI Agricultural Administration Network Paper: 6. Overseas Deve lopment Institute, Lon- don.

B IJKER , W., 1994. Of Bicycles, Bake lites and Bulbs. Steps Toward s a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

B URGESS , R.G., 1984. In the Field: An Introduction to Field Research. Contemporary Social Re- search: 8. Routledge, London.

C HAMBERS , R., JIGGINS , J., 1986. Agricultural research for re source poor farmers: A parsimonious pa- radigm. Discussion Paper 220. Institute of Devel opment Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton.

C LARK , N., 1995. Interactive nature of knowledge systems: some implications for the Third World. In:

Science and Policy 22,249-258.

C OLLINSON , M.P., TOLLENS , E., 1994. The impact of the international research centers: measurement, quantification and interpretation. In: lssues in Agriculture: 6. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (GIAR) Secretariat, Washington.

D OUTHWAITE , B., 1999. Equipment evolution: case studies of changes in rice postharvest technolo- gies in the Philippines and Vietnam . PhD thesis, University of Reading, Reading, England. Availa- ble at: www.douthwaite.net . D OUTHWAITE , B., 2001. Enabling Innovation: A Practica l Guide to Understanding and Catalysing Technological Change. Zed Books Ltd, London.

D OUTHWAITE , B.N. DE HAAN , N.C., MANYONG , V.M., KEATINGE , J.D.H., 2000. Blending 'hard' and 'soft’ science: the 'Follow the Tec hnology' approach to catalysing and evaluating technology change.

Paper presented at Integreated Natural Resour ce Management in the CGIAR: approaches and lessons. 21-25 August 2000, Penang, Malaysia. Available at http://www.inrm.cgiar.org/Workshop2000/abs tract/ Douthwaite/fulldouthwaite.htm.

117 EVERITT , B.S., 1992. The Analysis of Contingency Tables. Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability 45, 2nd Edition. Chapman and Hall, London. F REEDMAN , D.A., 1991. Statistical models and shoe leather. In: M ARSDEN , P. (Ed.), Sociological Me- thodology 21. Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford. GAO (General Accounts Office), 1987. Case Study Evaluation. Program Evaluation and Methodology Division, Transfer Paper 9. GAO, Washington DC. VON HIPPEL , E., 1988. The Sources of Innovation. Ox ford University Press, New York. H UNT , D., 1987. Beginning with Ourselves: In Prac tice, Theory and Human Affairs. OISE Press, To- ronto. K OLB , D.A., 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development.

Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ.

L EWIN , K., 1951. Field Theory in Social Sc ience. Harper and Row, New York.

L OEVINHSOHN , M.E., 1998. Practising evoluti on: theory for understanding and evaluating participatory research. Discussion Paper No. 98-14. Internati onal Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR), The Hague. L EONARD , D., 1995. Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation.

Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.

L ONG , N., 1992. From paradigm lost to paradigm regaine d. The case of actor-oriented sociology of development. Chapter 2. In: L ONG , N., LONG , A. (Eds.), Battlefields of Knowledge: The Interlocking of Theory and Practice in Social Research and Development. Routledge, London and New York, pp. 16-43. L YOTARD , J.F., 1996. The post-modern condition: a report on knowledge. In: C AHOONE , L. (Ed.), From Modernism to Post-Modernism: An Antholog. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. M AC KERACHER , D., 1994. Making Sense of Adult Learning. Culture Concepts Inc, Toronto. M OKYR , J., 1990. The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress. Oxford Uni- versity Press, Oxford. N ELSON , R.R., 1987. Understanding Techni cal Change as an Evolutionary Process 8. Professor Dr.

F. de Vries Lectures in Economics, North Holland, Amsterdam. N ELSON , R.R., WINTER , S.G., 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

ODI (Overseas Development Institute), 1997. Globa l hunger and food security after the world food summit. Briefing paper 1997 (l) Februar y. Published on the internet at http://www.oneworld.org/odi/ briefing/l_97.html. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), 1996. Shaping the 21st Century:

The contribution of devel opment co-operation. Development Assistance Committee. OECD, Paris.

P ETERS , T.J., WATERMAN , R.H., 1982. In Search of excellenc e: Lessons from America's best run companies. Harper & Row, New York. R AYMONDS , E.S., 1997. The cathedral and t he bazaar. Downloaded from http://www.openresouces.com /documents/cathedral-bazaar/index.htm. R OGERS , E.M., 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. 3rd Editi on. Rev. Edition of: Communication of innova- tions. The Free Press, New York. R ÖLING , N., 1996. Towards an interactive agricultural science. In: Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 4, 35-48. Available at: http:/ /www.agralin.nl/ejae/v2n4-5.html. R OSENBERG , N., 1982. Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

R USE , M., 1986. Taking Darwin Seriously . Basil Blackwell, Oxford. S ECHREST , L., STEWART , M., STICKLE , T.R., SIDANI , S., 1996. Effective and Pe rsuasive Case Studies.

Jaguar Graphics, Tucson, Arizona. T IDD , J., BESSANT , J., PAVITT , K., 1997. Managing Innovation: Int egrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change. Wiley, Chichester, UK. V AN VELDHUIZEN , L., WATERS -B AYER , A., DE ZEEUW , H., 1997. Developing Technology with Farmers:

A Trainer's Guide for Participatory Learning. Zed Books Ltd, London. 118 21 WORID BANK , 1996. The Worid Bank Participation Sourcebook. Published on the Internet at http:// www.woridbank.org/htmi/ edi/sourcebook/sbhome.htm . Yin, R.K., 1989. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications Inc, California.

119 Universität Hohenheim 430 Fachgebiet:

Landwirtschaftliche Kommunikations- und Beratungslehre KIM-14 January 2007Hoffmann Farmers and researchers: How can collaborative advantages be created in participatory research and technology development?

Kirsten P ROBST , Volker H OFFMANN , Anja C HRISTINCK 1 Introduction 1 The basic idea of participatory research is that farmers and professional researchers have different knowledge and skills which may complement each other, and by working together both groups may reach better results than by working alone. Ideally the constraints and limita- tions of one group would compensate for the strengths of the other group and vice versa .

This sounds good, but requires a sound understanding of both one’s own and the other groups knowledge, skills and constraints. Since partic ipatory research projects are often implemented where previ ous contacts and practical cooperation between farmers and scientists are very li- mited, it can be helpful to build on some theoretical con- siderations as well as on the practical experiences of oth- er researchers. In this paper we start by appreciating farmer’s achievements, and recommend optimizing col- laboration for rural innovation in five steps: Mo re user orientation, more decentralization of research and results di ssemination, openness for informal modes of experimentation, more externalization of tacit k nowledge and more respect fo r farmers’ opportunity cost. 1 Introduction 2 Farmers’ inventions and achievements of modern science 3 Optimizing collaboration for technological rural innovation 3.1 User-orientation and setting research priorities 3.2 Decentralized agricultural re- search making use of farmers’ experimentation and dissemi- nation capacity 3 .3 Openness to farmers’ informal experimentation 3.4 Externalization of tacit knowledge 3.5 Respecting opportunity costs 4 Conclusions 2 Farmers’ inventions and achievements of modern science Indigenous technical knowledge, ecological ‘wisdom’ and traditi onal farming practices were first studied and documented by cultural anthropologists and geographers – long before the first programmatic statements on ‘farmer participatory research’ were made in public agricul- tural research. Anthropologists tended to look at the cultural change and the diffusion of tech- nology. Farming practices where often thought of as ‘traditional’ and static, and li ttle attention was initially paid to invention and e xperimentation by small-scale farmers. J OHNSON (1972) was the first anthropologist to document how fa rmers routinely experimented with their crop- ping systems. Over the last few decades many bo oks and articles have been published that draw attention to farmer experimentation and local innovation (recent literature e.g. S AAD 2002; ILEIA 2000; R EIJNTJES and W ATERS -B AYER 2001). Though some scientists might still be skep tical regard- ing farmers’ innovation and practices, consid ering them sub-optimal and unscientific (G UPTA 1989: 25), “the experimenting, innovative, adap tive peasant farmer is now accepted as the 120 2 norm not the exception” (R ICHARDS 1989:20). Farmers have developed agricultural practices and innovations 1 since the Stone Age without the contributions of modern science and formal research institutions. Some examples of areas where farmers played a key role in innovation development are provided below. Crop varieties and farm animals. Of the 27,000 species of higher plants, about 7,000 species are used in agriculture (C ROMWELL et al. 2003:7). From these pl ants farmers have developed unnumbered locally well-adapted varieties and landraces of high productivity. While domesti- cation and breeding through farmers started 10,000 years ago, formal plant and animal breed- ing by scientists emerged only 100 years ago. Today formal breeding is still no substitute for farmers’ informal innovation and selection of appropriate technology. In developing countries 60-90 percent of the planting material stems from farmers’ personal sources. Several examples are reported where farmers selected and multiplied varieties that were previously rejected by official research, but then became widely sp read through farmer-to-farmer extension (e.g., M AURYA 1989:10; H ODCÉ and C HACÓN 2000). The success of many pa rticipatory plant breed- ing programs is based on the fact that farmers are enthusiastic seekers of new varieties. The same applies to farm animals: Of about 50,000 known mammal and bird species, 40 have been domesticated. From these species about 5,000 id entified breeds have been developed mostly by farmers (and some by formal breeders) to f it local environmental conditions and meet spe- cific needs (C ROMWELL et al. 2003: 9). Classification systems. Farmers have developed complex cl assification systems and folk tax- onomies, particularly for plants and soils that usually differ from those developed by scientists (IDS W ORKSHOP 1989; B ERLIN 1992) but also e.g., for insects (B ENTLEY and R ODRIGUEZ 2001). S ILLITOE (2003) describes, for instance, how th e Wola in the highlands of Papua New Guinea divide their crops into male and female categories which correspond to the gender di- vision of labor in plant production. Researchers from CIAT realized that farmer communities, who have been interacting with their soils for a long time, could provide insight into the sus- tainable management of tropical soils. They de veloped an approach to identify and classify local indicators of soil quality related to permanent and modifiable soil properties (B ARRIOS et al. 2001). Production systems. Manifold agricultural production sy stems have been developed by far- mers all over the world. Farmers are constant ly experimenting with new cropping patterns, i.e., new combinations of crops, crop rotation, spacing, fertilization etc. Agroforestry, for in- stance, which has become popular throughout the world, is merely a new word used to de- scribe age-old land-use practices familiar to millions of farmers and herders in many parts of the world (R OCHELEAU et al. 1989,15). R HOADES (1989) reports an example where pioneer farmers who came from the Peruvian highlands to the jungle of Yurimaguas, were quicker in developing a new irrigated rice pr oduction system without any external support, than scientists in the same area who attempted to establish a ne w farming system as an alternative to shifting cultivation. In Europe, farmers have developed different variants of eco-farming, in spite of opposition from the institutionalized science (G ERBER and H OFFMANN 1998). Farm equipment . Farm machinery is one of the most popular fields of examples of farmers’ 1 Innovations can be products and equipment (technology), but also methods and ideas for changes in practices, that are different from what exists in a cert ain social system and/or a spatial and temporal context. An innovation occurring in one context might already be common in another area or might already have been known in the past. Hence, innovations are not always something absolutely new, and “new” shoul d not be equated with “good” (A LBRECHT et al. 1989,90). New technologies present opportunities , but they may also pose threats. In fact, each technological innovation induces changes producing buth winners and losers. The wheat and rice technology of the ‘green revolution’, chemical pesticides and fertilizers, veterinary se rvices and biotechnology are only some examples of innovations with both benefits and costs/risks.

121 3 inventions and developments. Many technical de vices, machines and procedures have been invented and developed by farmers. An Amer ican farmer, Cyrus McCormick, developed the first mowing machine, and from these beginni ngs a multinational corporation International Harvesting Corporation (IHC) evolved. Also P RETTY (1991) explains th at though credit for innovations during the British agri cultural revolution was given to a few innovators, e.g., Jeth- ro Tull (1674-1741) for his corn drill, it became clear that these ‘innovators’ were simply good popularizers. All of their innovations were already being practiced by some farmers 50 to 100 years before the populari zers were even born. Social innovations . T CHAWA (2000) shows that farmer s’ innovations are not as isolated as they may seem at first glance, but that there may be close connections between them. In Babanki, Cameroon, one innovation triggered a series of innovations – including socio-cultural and in- stitutional innovations, e.g., the night-paddock syst em led to contracts between farmers and herders, a new harvesting tool, an irrigation sy stem, live fences for paddocks, the growing of fodder grasses etc. Over recent years there has been an increased interest – particularly among non-governmental organizations – in documenting grassroots i nnovations. The honeybee network has collected over 10,000 examples of contemporary innovations and outstanding examples of the use of traditional local knowledge in sustainable natu ral resource management, and has launched a local innovation database 2 (G UPTA 2000). Similarly, the Global Partnership Program “PRO- moting Local INNOVAtion (PROLINNOV A)” seeks to take inventory of local innovations related to ecology-oriented agriculture a nd natural resource management (PROLINNOVA 2003). To avoid the conflict between secrecy in or der to protect the intellectual property of local communities and individuals, and the disse mination of innovations for people-to-people networking, G UPTA (2000) suggests an international i nnovations registry INSTAR (Interna- tional Network for Sustainable Technol ogies Application and Registration).

However, while most of “the agricultural technology in use throughout the world is accounted for by informal innovation” (B IGGS and C LAY 1981,326) and scientists often draw on technol- ogies derived from farmers 3, the limitations of farmers’ info rmal innovation also need to be acknowledged. Despite the unnumbered local inn ovations, the informal system on its own has been unable to halt environmental degradatio n and is vulnerable to unforeseen changes (H UMPHRIES et al. 2000,3). Some of the limitations mentioned by different authors are, that improvements are limited to what can be done w ith the local pool of techniques, materials and genetic resources, the innovative capacity may be unevenly distributed among individuals, and farming experience may be low in areas where many farmers have migrated to other areas.

Moreover, informal research is rarely forward looking, i.e., able to anticipate opportunities and risks of changing conditions, and it cannot easily deal with topics where lengthy and costly research processes are required, etc. (B IGGS and C LAY 1981,326; S WIFT 1979 in IDS W ORK- SHOP 1989,37; H UMPHRIES et al. 2000,3). In this regard formal agricultural research ha s some strengths, which justify its existence and can help to overcome the limitations of informal innovation: Scientists have received substan- tial formal education and dispose of highly sophi sticated research equipment and methods. Not 2 The innovation database (http://www.sristi.org/grassroots_innovations.htm ) includes various innovation categories, e.g., farm equipment, non-fa rm equipment, grain storage, crop protection, livestock healers, soil and water conservation, on-farm activity, entrepreneur, artisan. 3 G. G OODELL found that 90 percent of the technologies promoted by IRRI had been derived from Asian farmers and were brought to IRRI by Asi an researchers who came for a year’s sabbatical (G OODELL , G. (1982). “Communication from farmer to scientist.” Unpublished Manuscript cited by R HOADES (1989)).

122 4 only do they have more time and money for doing research in a professional way; they also have better access to written ma terial and worldwide exchange on methods and results with their colleagues. 3 Optimizing collaboration for technological rural innovation The question of how farmers and formal research ers can work together most efficiently con- tinues to be intensely debated in publicly funded international agricultural research. There is still disagreement about the roles of formal and informal research and development (R&D), and whether both are “synergistic” or “complementary”: On the one hand, it is assumed that a collegial research relationship between farm ers and researchers can yield synergies by com- bining indigenous and scientific knowledge, provi ding quicker solutions to real problems at the local level, strengthening local innovation de velopment etc. On the other hand, critics ar- gue that there are few concrete examples of new technologies that have been developed by farmers and researchers working together: “At least in some cases, farmers do better when left alone than when outsiders interact with them” (B ENTLEY 1994,143). Thus, several authors hold the position that there are complementary role s for farmers’ research and formal research (S UMBERG and O KALI 1997; Lyon 1996; R ICHARDS 1989). Instead of teaching formal research methods to farmers, they should be encouraged to evaluate and adapt technologies, provided by the formal system, to their own needs, acco rding to their own ideas, methods and economic possibilities (S UMBERG and O KALI 1997, in H UMPHRIES et al. 2000,2). With the active promotion of participatory research as a new fashionable approach and a pana- cea for achieving impacts at the local level, mi sconceptions have become widespread, for in- stance, it is often assumed that ‘more’ participation is always better, that researchers should work on the research priorities identified by farmers, and that local innovation should be strengthened by farmers doing formal experi mentation etc. (for more critics see N EEF 2005; L EEUWIS 2004,248-256).

This paper argues that farmers and formal rese archers have different comparative advantages in the generation and dissemina tion of agricultural technology 4. The question we aim to ad- dress in this paper is: “What should collaboration between farmer s and formal researchers look like in order to bring about their mutual advantages, and to generate relevant agricultural tech- nology more efficiently?” Taking into consider ation the respective comparative advantages, and inspired by theoretical concepts in th e fields of knowledge management, innovation processes and participatory research, we suggest that • there are complementary roles for farmers and researchers in setting research priorities; • there is a need for decentralized community -based technology testing to make use of farmers’ experimentation and dissemination capacity; • formal research should be more open to farmers’ informal experimentation; • more attention needs to be paid to the externalization of expert farmers’ tacit know- ledge; • opportunity costs should be respected if farmers dedicate time to research.

The following sections will go deep er into each of the suggestions; and provide examples and 4 The starting point for this work wa s a heuristic framework hypothesized by H OFFMANN , which compares ‘ideal-types’ of a farmer and (natural/agricultural) scientist – well-knowing that this gen- eralization is reductive and a simplification (H OFFMANN , V. (1996): “Farmers and Researchers Compared: Who has comparative ad vantages in generating and disseminating agricultural knowl- edge?” Presentation given at ISNAR, The Hague, 3rd of October 1996).

123 5 theoretical underpinnings that support our arguments. The focus of this paper is on the colla- boration between farmers and scientists in strate gic and applied research for the generation of “technological” innovations relevant to the mana gement of individual farms. We neither ad- dress farmers’ roles in the generation of knowl edge for uses at higher scales beyond the farm level, nor in the areas of economic, social and policy research. This does not mean that farmers do not have roles in thes e other areas. In fact, much of the contemporary debate also discusses local stakeholder participation in strategic na tural research management and policy research (see P ROBST and H AGMANN 2003). 3.1 User-orientation and setting research priorities There is no doubt that in order to achieve results that are relevant in practice, scientists need to have direct contact with (a sa mple of) the users of their research products and acquaint them- selves with the respective local context and sy stems of relevance. Only farmers can express the problems they perceive as relevant to them. Therefore, scientists need to describe the prob- lems they aim to solve from the users’ point of view when formulating their research propos- als. However, though the farmers’ problem percep tion needs to be at the center of research efforts, farmers might not know whether the problems they mention can be solved through research. Only researchers can assess whethe r their knowledge and methodological approaches can contribute to problem solving in a specif ic case or not. Moreover, many of the problems mentioned by farmers may not require strategic or applied research, but can be solved by other means (adaptive research, extension/advisory se rvices or development activities). Consequent- ly, in the definition of research priorities ther e are clearly complementary roles for farmers and researchers. The roles of farmers and researchers in the subsequent research process, their par- ticipation and ownership depend mainly on the identified research problem and on whose questions have to be answered (P ROBST and H AGMANN 2003; P ASTAKIA et al. 2002,18). 3.2 Decentralized agricultural research making use of farmers’ exper\ imentation and dissemination capacity It is increasingly acknowledged that public sector research and extension agencies are unable to develop new technologies tailo red to the heterogeneity of individual needs, local agro- ecological conditions and cultural preferences. A SHBY et al. (1995) argue that when, an effec- tive decentralization of technology testing in high ly diverse environments is not possible with- in public sector research services, it is esse ntial to devolve major responsibility for adaptive testing to the farmers. Obviously, farmers have comparative advantages in decentralized experimentation: There are large numbers of producers all over the worl d who represent around 6,000 cultures with their diverse perceptions and practices . Further variation follows from ecological difference among the agricultural production sites. Therefore, comp ared to researchers, farmers altogether have very large samples of observable phenomena (pla nts, fields, animals, events) , and there is unlimited variation in the combination of input s used. Moreover, the significance of natural selection (pests, drought, radia tion, etc.) interfering with human purposiv e and accidental in- tervention is overwhelmingly important in agricultural innovation processes (B IGGS and C LAY 1981,321). Many kinds of innovations and new know ledge may arise from that diversity; however, they are usually bound to a locality. There is no doubt that fa rmers also have comparative advant ages in evaluating and testing new technology. Living and practicing ag riculture in a specific location, farmers usually deal with their whole farm, family, natural and social e nvironment simultaniously. Thus, from their ho- listic perspective, life, work and studying form an integrated whole. A farmer can easily eva- luate the innovations s/he or others generate taking into consideration the complexity of his farming system. A farmers’ main objective is the guaranteed production of his crops and an improvement of his livelihood. Professional researchers in turn tend to live under completely 124 6 different circumstances: They rarely practice agriculture, are employed by a company or or- ganization, often live in urban cen ters and usually separate their work from their private life.

They tend to be disciplinary specialists, their focus is on analysis and theory, and their incen- tive for innovation is recognition and building their scientific careers, which allow the re- searchers to earn a living. Sin ce the “generator of technology and users are no longer one and the same” (B IGGS and C LAY 1981,327), it is difficult for profe ssional researchers to know far- mers’ preferences and to understand the comple xity of their situation. Recognition from col- leagues, ideas about respectable and rigorous research methods, insight into donor policies to obtain funding and publishing in scie ntific journals are more relevant to get on in one’s job than the generation of results that are applicable in the field. Farmers also have comparative advantages in disseminating agricultural innovation. Having acquired new knowledge, farmers may share it oral ly through their manifold social networks.

Such communication is personal and since farmers are neighbors with a similar socialization the information received from other farmers is usually more trustworthy than the information provided by outsiders (researchers or extension agents). Apart from being transferred orally, new knowledge may also be encoded in action or in objects. This means that farmers’ know- ledge can also be exchanged at the local leve l through open the visibility of on-farm innova- tions (i.e., new practices, technology, varieties etc.). The scientific knowledge generated by formal research in turn is usually encoded literal ly, in text and visual representation. It is ex- changed through publications and conferences, which are hardly accessible to farmers. Some- times competition and the requirement to protect intellectual property ri ghts inhibit exchange and transparency even further. Scientists us ually trust in a functioning ‘research – develop- ment continuum’, assuming that their findings w ill be transferred to farmers through extension and/or development agencies. However, in many countries this research and development con- tinuum is dysfunctional and from the farmers’ point of view the adoption of innovations com- ing from socially distant outsiders is riskie r than the adoption of farmer-developed innova- tions.

Therefore, we agree, that publ icly funded formal agricultural research cannot produce ‘fixed technology packages’ or ‘detailed solutions’, bu t should instead focus on the development of adaptable ‘prototypes’ and ‘principles’, and harness the vast pool of farmers’ innovative ta- lent 5. Based on an analysis of cases from agriculture, industry, economy and software development, Boru D OUTHWAITE (2002) has constructed a highly significant approach to technological in- novation, which he calls ‘learning selection’. The learning selecti on model runs counter to the other top-down centralized mode ls of novelty generation of our age, which rely on patents and privatization of technologies, and on “Big Scie nce” (i.e., a few experts who are confident that their knowledge and tools would be enough to produce useful novelties for farmers) 6.

D OUTHWAITE ’s model suggests that the most succe ssful researcher-developed technologies were those that the key stakeholders (i.e., pe ople who built, bought or used that technology) modified the most. Therefore, a “co-developmen t” model where the key stakeholders and for- mal researchers construct a technology together is needed, especially during the early adoption 5 A restriction of farmers’ innovative practices – e.g., through patents or limited access to tech- nologies – would certainly run counter to sust ainable and locally adapted agricultural develop- ment. The concept of Farmers’ Rights under the FAO’s Internati onal Treaty on Plant Genetic Re- sources for Food and Agriculture ex plicitly recognizes farmers’ crucial role in the maintenance and development of the diversity of genet ic material in traditional varieties, modern cultivars, crop wild relatives as well as other wild plant species for food and agriculture.

6 On the other hand, D OUTHWAITE (2002) admits that not all technologies can be advanced by learning selection (e.g., moon rockets or pharma ceuticals, i.e., technologies were consumers do not need to use the technology themselves, or have little to learn or adapt).

125 7 phase, which is called adaptation phase. The m odel rests on nurturing local experimentation in order to allow different stakehol ders to experiment with a new technology (researchers’ ‘best bet’) and carry out the evolutio nary roles of novelty generation, selection, and promulgation – analogous to natural selecti on in Darwinian evolution 7. D OUTHWAITE suggests that formal research institutes can contribute to the gene ration of new agricultural technology by generat- ing novelties that plausibly promise to bring benefits to farmers, or by supporting farmers to generate and select novelties themselves. Formal research s hould crystallize knowledge into a prototype (their ‘best bet’), work with innovative and motivated partners in pilot sites where the need for the innovation is great, and, most importantly, set up a meta-selection and prom- ulgation mechanism. The latter involves an asse ssment of the improvements made by different stakeholders and the facilitati on of information exchange. In accordance with D OUTHWAITE ’s learning selection model, we suggest that formal research should put more emphasis on monitoring and making sense of what different farmers are doing with ‘prototype technol ogies.’ The improvements and adaptations made by farmers should be monitored, relayed back, and assessed by formal research, in order to crystallize and disseminate the respective principles or lessons that can be generalized.

Examples/Cases. An example of groups of farmers performing decentralized adaptive research and the results being sent back into a central headquarters is the German experimental farmers associations (“Versuchsringe”) and their manage rs (“Ringleiter”) who are paid by the respec- tive farmer group. The system was initiated 1920 by Prof. T. Römer from Halle University.

Over time, the “Ringleiter” started providing mo re and more counseling and advisory services on economic questions rather than providing support to adaptive research, this reflects the con- tinuum between researchers following up on farmers’ adaptive experiments and extension work.

The local agricultura l research committees known by the Spanish acronym of CIALs ( Comités de Investigación Agrícola Local ) in Latin America are another innovative example, where an attempt has been made to institutionalize decentralized community-based research and to feed the results of local research back into the formal system. The CIAL approach was developed from 1990-1994 by the International Center for Tr opical Agriculture (CIAT). A CIAL can be defined as a “farmer-run research service that is answerable to the local community, […] expe- rimenting with locally unknown and unproven farming methods, to compare them with estab- lished practice” (A SHBY et al. 2000,27) 8. A basic principle of the CIAL approach is to teach the farmers the methods of formal research, in volving the application of controlled compari- sons through split-plot trials and replications. It is argued that if the CIALs become familiar with more positivist formal research methods, this may help to increase the local capacities for research, and develop a common vocabulary between farmers and researchers, which in turn would make it easier for farmers to provide feed back to, and influence, research and extension systems (B RAUN et al. 2000; H UMPHRIES et al. 2000). As a platform for information exchange among the farmer-run research groups from one or several countries and the formal research system, annual CIAL meetings have been organized. Experiences with the CIAL met hod in Honduras revealed that “ even though some of the far- mers may have become excellent [formal] resear chers, […] they are poor farmers first and foremost ”, and participatory res earch alone did not sufficiently motivate them (H UMPHRIES et al. 2000,11-12). While some farmers might be intere sted in learning formal methods of expe- rimentation, we suggest that instead of attempti ng to ‘transform’ farmers into formal research- ers, scientists also need to acknowledge farm ers’ intellectual autonomy and separate episte- 7 The importance of ‘user-innovations’ is outlined for industrial products by H IPPEL (1988: 11-27). 8 By the end of 1999, the number of active CIALs had reached a total of 249 in eight Latin Ameri- can Countries. Colombia’s national agricultural research institute CORPOICA has started applying the methodology nation-wide (A SHBY et al., 2000: 90).

126 8 mology. This leads us to the next argument.

3.3 Openness to farmers’ informal experimentation Various authors have addressed the question of the similarity and difference between the processes of western scientific, versus local experimentation (e.g. HORTON 1967; J OHNSON 1972; H OWES and C HAMBERS 1979; L IGHTFOOT 1987; R ICHARDS 1989; R HOADES and B EB- BINGTON 1991; P OTTS et al. 1992; B IGGELAR and H ART 1996; L YON 1996; S AAD 2002). In formal agronomic research analytical experimentation is commonly used. Hypotheses are set and specific conditions or treatments created through which the hypotheses can be tested.

Thus, the theory is confirmed through experimentation (deduction). Experiments consist of side-by-side comparisons of treatments. Thr ough reductionism, the analysis of components, and careful control of confounding va riables, scientists attempt to gain an understanding of the processes involved and explain why and how certain outcomes occur. Generalizations are vali- dated through replications under different conditions and by statistical analysis.

A broader definition of experimentation must be adopted if we look at farmers’ experiments.

According to O KALI et al. (1994) an “experiment” can al so occur without being predetermined and without the treatments being es pecially created, as long as there is an initial observation of the conditions followed by observation and m onitoring of the results and effects (O KALI et al.

1994; in: L YON 1996,42-43). In his study of arable ag riculture in East Anglia, UK, L YON (1996) analyzed 74 examples of farmers experimenting with new ideas and practices (includ- ing original ideas, “re-inventing the wheel”, an d adapting ideas from other farmers and scien- tists to the specific context). He distinguished three different forms of local learning and expe- rimentation: (i.) learning during action, (ii.) le arning from chance, and (iii.) structured experi- ments similar to conventional formal experimentation. Farmers’ “learning during action” occurs as part of the day-to-day practice and is experiential rather than experimental. This form is not pl anned and includes a series of “rolling adjust- ments” during the agricultu ral season. Similarly, R ICHARDS (1989) draws attention to “agricul- ture as performance” 9 and S TOLZENBACH (1994) to “move-testing experiments”. Unlike re- searchers, farmers live and work on their farms; they have more time for observation and the particular advantage that unintentional percep tion (“seeing” objects without observing them as such (P OLANYI 1974,98)) goes hand in hand with inte ntional analysis. According to N ORRE- TRANDERS (2000,191) around 11 million bits are sent from the senses to the human brain each second, only about 40 bits enter into conscious processing. All the rest are processed uncons- ciously.

“In learning during action, farmers evaluate their techniques [… ] either during action, […] or after it. The evaluation can be done consciously […] or subconsciously, and form part of far- mers’ tacit knowledge” (L YON 1996,42). Comparisons are made between the results of pre- vious years on their own or neighboring farms. Thus, most farmers can dispense a control treatment to test and evaluate an innovation, sinc e they observe replicates over time rather than space. In contrast to formal researchers who tend to work on short term, cross-sectional re- search projects, farmers work in a kind of life-long longitudinal case study set-up. Whereas chance has almost no opportunity to in fluence the outcome of carefully controlled formal experiments; chance and accidental variat ion can easily occur in the farm environment and may result in side-by-side treatments (e.g., a farmer runs out of fertilizer and leaves a patch of his field unfertilized). Farmers can observe these chance occurrences and find genera- lizations by drawing conclusions from their ob servations. Ultimately, they may also design 9 The crop mix of Hausa farmers in northern Nigeri a who try to cope with poor rainfalls is not a ‘design’, but “an historical record of what happened to a specific fa rmer on a specific piece of land in a specific year” (R ICHARDS 1989,40).

127 9 ds.

structured experiments similar to formal contro lled comparisons (e.g., testing of new varieties in home gardens). Formal researchers attempt to identify cause-eff ect relationships by isolating certain variables and testing them under relatively controlled cond itions. However, there is a risk that the processes identified under such conditions fail when put into complex interaction with other factors. Farmers in turn do what we call “b lack-box-experimentation”: Under complex condi- tions they variegate the inputs used and observe the respective outcomes, without necessarily attempting to explain what happens in the “bl ack box”. Through the frequent variation of in- puts and observation of the outcomes, they can determine what works well and what does not work 10. The tremendous body of traditional medical knowledge may be another example of local people’s “black-box-experimentation”. Of course, farmers may also come to false con- clusions about the reasons and pr ocesses behind a good performance (L YON 1996,44).

Thus, direct experiential contact forms the basi s for farmers’ generalization and understanding.

In principle farmers use “phenomenology” (Goethe’s style of phenomenology, see S EAMON and Z AJONC 1998) as a way to study nature: Through in-depth study, empathetic loo\ king and seeing, which is grounded in dire ct experience, the core aspects and qualities of a phenomenon can be identified (“our-phenomenon”) and a more complete understanding gathered. G OETHE believed that observers are not a ll equal in their ability to see, that the methods and recording instruments of conventional science tend to separate the researcher from the thing studied, and that we must learn to make fuller use of our senses (S EAMON and Z AJONC 1998). Several scientists reported that they gained a lot by learning from farmers’ observational skills (e.g., S PRANGER and W ALKENHORST 2001).

We conclude that while supportin g local innovation, scientists should neither try to “scientifi- cate” farmers’ experimentation nor insist on farmers using rigorous agronomic research me- thods. Formal researchers would do better by broadening their epistemological base in order to understand the importance of phenomenology and ta cit knowledge, and to learn from farmers about their strategies for dealing with complex ity. It needs to be acknowledged that – though the agricultural sciences have long been dominated by the positivist worldview – different disciplines, particularly the social sciences, ha ve already enriched the epistemological debate within the academy. The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge, for instance, has looked at the practice of science and comes to the conclusion that the elements contributing to scientific knowledge underlie influences similar to the products of any other way of knowing, e.g., rules of thumb, improvisation, tacit kno wledge and craft skills, face-to-face interaction, and discip- line or culture specific circumstances (e.g., K NORR -C ETINA 1981).

Those supporting farmer experimentation need to become more open to farmers’ informal ex- periments, and seek more systematically farm ers’ assessment of a technology and the reasons they give for their assessment. Particularly thos e aspects that seem irrational, odd or inexplica- ble to a researcher at first glance, may give valuable hints for further research 11. Scientists may learn from farmers’ black-box experimentation and help to explain cause-effect relation- ships within the “black box”. Farmers’ descri ption of the phenomena observed and respective explanations can serve scientists to formulat e hypotheses and detect correlations using their own means and metho However, this does not mean that we want to return to agricultural research which involves 10 Using R HOADES ’ (1989,9) example: Farmers can answer the question ‘how to grow potatoes?’, whereas researchers, particularly in basic research, often ask ‘how do potatoes grow?’ 11 While some researchers denied that the parasitic weed Striga hermonthica would grow on groundnut, some farmers in Ghana guided them to a field and provided the – rare, but real – evi- dence (F ISCHER 1999). Hence, researchers can learn parti cularly from farmer’s observation skills and diagnostic capacities. What indicators do farmers use? What kind of relationshi ps do they see between certain phenomena and indicators?

128 10 solely consultative farmer participation. Strengthening farmers’ capacity for (formal and in- formal) experimentation has a right on its own; the social impact and empowerment achieved through research work with farmer groups (s uch as the CIALs) can be significant.

Examples/Cases. As an example of a professional resear cher combining the rules of positivist scientific methodology with extr a rational or extra logical components of thought, and embo- dying both ‘farmer’ and ‘scientist’ charac teristics we can refer to Barbara M CCLINTOCK , a maize geneticist who was the first women elected President of the Genetics Society of Ameri- ca in 1944 (see K ELLER 1983). M CCLINTOCK conducted lifelong research on maize. The fact that she worked with slow technology and on a slow organism (two crops per year) gave her time for intensive looking. It derived from a lif etime of experiences and many years of close association, that she developed a “feeling for the [maize] organism” and could finally “see further and deeper into the mysteries of genetics than her colleagues” (K ELLER 1983,198).

However, while she had developed exceptional obse rvation and conceptualization skills, it was difficult for her to put her insights – which we re partially gained through meditation – into language understandable to scientific colleagues, i.e., to make her tacit knowledge explicit 12.

After years of having been ignored and misunde rstood by the scientific community, she re- ceived the Nobel Prize in 1983. With the pace of current research, today’s scientists rarely have the time to take a contempla- tive stance similar to M CCLINTOCK . However, farmers do have this time, and researchers could profit from their insight s and especially from their tacit knowledge and skills. 3.4 Externalization of tacit knowledge Michael P OLANYI (1983,4) stresses that “we can know more than we can tell”. Hence, only a certain part of our entire body of knowledge can be put into la nguage or other symbol systems and externalized. P OLANYI makes a distinction between “explicit knowledge” and “tacit know- ledge”. Whereas explicit knowledge is transmittable into language, tacit knowledge is hard to express and communicate. The latter is context- specific, based on experience, often used intui- tively and unconsciously, constitutes a keen sense of something (e.g., having “green a green thumb”) and cannot easily be copied or automated 13. N ONAKA and T AKEUCHI (1995,60) main- tain that tacit knowledge does not only contain technical elements (concrete know-how, crafts and skills), but also “mental models” (schemat a, paradigms, perspectives, beliefs and view- points) that help individuals to perceive a nd define their world. The example of Barbara M CCLINTOCK showed a scientist with a lot of tacit knowledge, w ho sometimes had difficulty making it explicit.

“Experts” tend to hold a consid erable body of tacit knowledge: D REYFUS and D REYFUS (1986) lay out five stages of human skill acquisition, which they call novice, advanced beginner, competent, proficient and expert. They describe a progression from the analytic behavior of the detached beginner, conscious ly decomposing his environment into recognizable elements, and following abstract rules, to the involved, intuitive behavior of an expert. When talking 12 M CCLINTOCK reported genetic changes that are under the control of the organism. Such results did not fit the standard frame of anal ysis. But it was not only the ideas themselves that were for- eign, and thus difficult to grasp for most geneticists ; the very kinds of evidence she presented, or rather the patterns formed, were also difficult to follow. Moreover, many of her ideas emerged from sudden intuitive insights during meditation, not through systematic laboratory work (K ELLER 1983,144). 13 A similar distinction of different kinds of knowledge has been made by H ERON (1981) who differ- entiates between‚ propositional’ knowledge about something which can be obtained through read- ing and listening, experiential knowledge gained through direct encounters with people, places and things, and practical knowledge demons trated in a skill or competence (H ERON 1981; In:

R EASON 1994,326). “The ancient Greeks already made a distinction between practical knowledge, called ‘techne’ and knowledge about things, called ‘episteme’.” (N OTEBOOM 2000,38). 129 about experts we often have in mind competent persons characterized by their ability to solve problems through rational thought. D REYFUS and D REYFUS (1986,30-31) stress the importance of intuition:

“ An expert generally knows what to do, he does not see problems in some detached way and work at solving them, […] based on mature and practiced understanding. When deeply in- volved in coping with his environment. When things are proceeding normally, experts don’t solve problems and don’t make decisions; they do what normally works .” On the basis of experience experts have built up an immense library of distinguishable typical situations stored in their memory (Figure 1). Intuition is understood neither as wild guessing nor supra-natural inspiration, but as the unders tanding that effortlessly occurs upon seeing similarities with previous experiences. Figure 1 : Learning by building up experiences, concepts Based on the definition of D REYFUS and D REYFUS (1986) experienced farmers must clearly be seen as experts who have developed a deep s ituational understanding of their environment and their profession. A considerable part of their performance is intuitive and non-reflective, and entails a large body of tacit knowledge.

According to N ONAKA and T AKEUCHI (1995) the mobilization and externalization of tacit knowledge, is a key factor in creating new explicit knowledge and information, which can be passed on. In their spiral of knowledge creation N ONAKA and T AKEUCHI refer to the impor- tance of conversion processes between explicit a nd tacit knowledge (Figure 2). They postulate four different modes of knowledge conversion: (1) If knowledge is explicit, i.e., in the form of information 14, its acquirement or embodiment is called “ internalization”; (2) Once it has been 11 14 As suggested by H OFFMANN (2003), who draws on the definiti ons of a computer scientist, an information sociologist, and three business economists (M IROW 1968,39; W ERSIG 2000,19; W ITTE 1972,12; W ILD 1971,688; K OREIMANN 1976,55), we state „ information is, what leads to a reduction of uncertainty“. Information that would not lead to a r eduction of uncertainty must be considered disinformation (or ‘information garbage’) rather than information. This means of course, that every- thing can potentially constitute information because uncertainty is subjective, and whether some- thing reduces uncertainty depends on the user and the intended use. Information can be stored on data carriers. After ages it may still help to an swer the questions asked by living users, as long as they are in a position to decode and understand it. 130 Figure 2: Spiral of knowledge creation (from N ANOKA and TAKEUCHI 1995,71) internalized it is ta cit, and to gain access to this form of knowledge, one has to socialize \ in this field of knowledge and action. One may be grow ing up within it, and/or acquire tacit know- ledge through shared ex perience, collaboration, imitation and practice (“ socialization”). (3) To pass on tacit knowledge (without time-consuming socialization) it has to be externalized (“ ex- ternalization ”). This is easy, when it is both taci t and explicit. For example, you may know how to plow with oxen, and you may be able to describe it verbally, in which case your know- ledge of plowing would be explicit and tacit. Farmers can talk at great length about their knowledge, making it explicit. However, it is more difficult to externalize purely tacit know- ledge e.g., by observation of expe rts’ activities. (4) Ultimately, different bodies of explicit knowledge can be combined to form new knowledge (“combination ”), which then has to prove its relevance. Since these conversion pro cesses between different individuals never stop, the authors chose symbolize them with a spiral.

N ONAKA and T AKEUCHI (1995,66) hold the view that “extern alization holds the key to know- ledge creation, because it creates new, explicit concepts from tacit knowledge”. How the tacit knowledge (or skill) of an expert can be externalized, is described by N ONAKA and T AKEUCHI (1995,63-64), in the example of an automatic home bread-making machine. The bread-making machine was developed only after the chief engi neer volunteered to apprentice herself to a hotel’s master baker to capture his tacit knowle dge (through socialization). She noticed that the baker, and later on she hers elf was not only pressing and stretching the dough but also “twisting” it, which turned out to be the secret for making tasty bread in a tiny and fully au- tomatically working household machine.

We argue that the extern alization (or articulation, descripti on) of the tacit knowledge of farmer experts is a field of activity that has been ne glected by agricultural researchers so far. We therefore, suggest that scientists put more emphasis on the identification of farmer experts – i.e., men and women farmers who achieve better results with their techniques than others – and try to externalize their know-how and skills. The externalization of tacit knowledge is par- ticularly relevant if researchers aim to develo p (a.) new working tools (i.e., automation, simi- larly to N ONAKA and T AKEUCHI ’s example of the bread-making baking machine), (b.) detailed working instructions of a certain practice that can be used by other farmers (novices, begin- ners), or (c.) new hypotheses for further resear ch. Through externalization, the tacit knowledge of farmer experts can be passed on as info rmation and can be used by others. The fac- tors/preconditions contributing to an optimal result must be carefully identified, i.e., scientists must also provide information under which co nditions the practices/tools are applicable. 12 Given that experts tend to act intuitively and without making conscious decisions, it is difficult 131 13 for them to articulate their tacit knowledge in to explicit concepts. Tacit knowledge could be shared through socialization, i. e., through a sharing of experien ces and expertise over time in a mentoring or master-apprentice relationship. Howe ver, scientists are expensive and socializa- tion may be too time-consuming a means for sh aring tacit knowledge. Other methods for con- verting tacit knowledge into exp licit concepts involve: (participant) observation of how novic- es learn from experts (e.g., children from their pa rents); the use of video and detailed descrip- tion; the sequential use of me taphors, analogy and model (N ONAKA and T AKEUCHI 1995,66) etc. While there is no doubt th at the sharing of tacit knowledge requires close physical proxim- ity, an effort needs to be made to develop and test suitable methods that help to externalize farmers’ tacit knowledge effectivel y and efficiently. At the same time care needs to be taken to ensure that such externalization is done based on “prior informed consent”, that it gives recog- nition to the farmers’ intellectual contribution and that it strives for a fair sharing of the poten- tial benefits arising out from (the commercial use of) a research product.

3.5 Respecting opportunity costs In order to achieve results that are relevant in practice, to acquaint themselves with the respec- tive local context and systems of relevance, and to facilitate the articulation of tacit know- ledge, scientists need to get involved at the lo cal level and have direct contact with farmers.

However, time is a precious commodity not only for scientists but also for farmers. In choos- ing to interact with outsiders, such as res earchers and extension workers, farmers have to weigh their input or time investment with the expected output of the interaction for them- selves, their families and maybe their relatives and friends. They have to calculate the oppor- tunity costs, i.e., what they could earn in th at time by doing something else. If this assessment is not promising, they tend to avoi d the contact with the outsiders. For especially poor farmers’ time that is take n away is a scarce and precious good, and this has often been overlooked by well-meaning researchers. Especially Participatory Rural Ap- praisal (PRA) exercises demand a considerable amount of time – often to an extent, that is not tolerable by many villagers. Villagers might also secretly expect a compensation after a PRA exercise (e.g., improved infrastructure), while re searchers or development agencies frequently regard to the “enormous” capacity building and aw areness raising effect of such an undertak- ing as its own reward. Institutionalized experi mentation and learning requires leisure time, a luxury that most poor farmers cannot afford. Therefore, transaction costs must be kept low to ensure that benefits surpass the costs. Careful assessment of whether or not it is necessary to collaborate with a larger group of different farmer s or whether it will be sufficient to work with a few representatives or only an expert farmers needs to be made. “Local expert” partici- pation might be sufficient in the case of co -developing a specific technological innovation 15.

Of course who participates in the research process will also influence the type, usefulness and social inclusiveness of the final product, and caution must be taken that the emerging innova- tion do not merely serve a fa vored groups in a society. If the research results are meant for a larger community than just the few participating farmers, it would be honest and fair to remunerate farmers for their (time) contributions to the research.

More difficult is to finding an appropriate co mpensation for their knowledge input, since it might already be common herita ge of many other farmers.

We would like to give the follo wing points for consideration:

How much time is required, and in which part of the year? If people are busy with farming or other income-generating activities, research work competes directly with these activities. The situation may be different during the off-seas on, or if you work with the people during their 15 In contrast, inclusiveness is central in stakeholder participation, if the focus is on collective ac- tion, conflict management and social lear ning for natural resource management (P ROBST and H AGMANN 2003,7). 132 14 “free” time (in a village tea shop etc.). For better planning, it would be advisable to learn about people’s daily and seasonal activities in the in itial phases of your project. The activities and duties of female and male, poor and wealthy farmers as well as people belonging to different age groups may differ considerably.

Is the participation on a volunt ary basis free from further obligations in the longer term? If people free to choose whether or not to partic ipate in a one-time workshop, or and interview- payment may not be necessary. But, if regular activities are required, and you need the regular participation of people over a longer tim e period, payment should be considered.

Does the farmer have control over the experiments, or does he/she manage experiments ac- cording to the requirements of others? If farmers experiment with material which they them- selves selected as promising, and conduct the ex periment according to their own methods, the risk is fully controlled by the farmer and paymen t is not required. If farmers are asked to con- duct on-farm experiments with many different opti ons, in order for the researcher to test on- farm performance, and, if the experiment requires more area and considerable input from the farmer (additional labor, taking observations etc.), and is not designed according to the far- mer’s own experimental approach, payment should be considered.

How much should be paid? The remuneration should cover th e opportunity cost for farm la- bor, for example the amount which a farmer woul d have to pay to other villagers for doing agricultural work on his farm on that particul ar day. Non-monetary forms of compensation could also be considered in some cases.

How to decide payments? For a number of issues which may arise in the course of a participa- tory research project, it may be advisable to form a planning committee with participating farmers. The committee could then discuss and define the rules and guidelines for payment and compensation... In any case, if payments are given, there should be clear guidelines and criteria in order to avoid problems.

4 Conclusions “How should collaboration between farmers and form al researchers look like in order to bring about their mutual advantages, and to generate relevant agricultural technology more efficient- ly?” was the question initially raised in this article. Our analysis has shown that formal and inform al researches are both complementary and syn- ergistic. Farmers and researchers can yield synergies (e.g., improved and adapted technology, new explicit concepts) by working closely toge ther over a longer period of time. Through col- laboration between the two different types of part ners with their different contributions syner- gy is more likely to take place. More particip ation is not automatically better. Division of la- bor, and the sharing of the research budget and the emerging property rights should also be a goal.

Farmer’s main advantage is their lifelong worki ng in one complex farm experiment, leading to a large body of mainly tacit knowledge. The interaction betw een researchers and farmers should mainly focus on making parts of this taci t knowledge explicit and feeding it into further formal research processes.

References ALBRECHT , H., BERGMANN , H., DIEDERICH , G., GROßER , E., HOFFMANN , V., KELLER , P., PAYR , G., SÜLZER , R., (1989). Agricultural Extension. Vo l 1: Basic Concepts and Methods. Rural Devel- opment Series. Eschborn, Germany: GTZ and Wageningen, The Netherlands: CTA. 133 15 ASHBY , J. A., T. GRACIA , M. P. del G UERRERO , C. A. QUIRÓS , J. I. ROA , and J. A. BELTRAN (1995).

Institutionalising farmer partici pation in adaptive technology testi ng with the CIAL. Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper No. 57. London, UK: ODI.

A SHBY , J. A., A. R. BRAUN , T. GRACIA , M. P. GUERRERO , L. A. HERNÁNDEZ , C. A. QUIRÓS , and J. I. ROA (2000). Investing in Farmers as Researchers: Experience with local agricultural research committees in Latin Americ a. Cali, Colombia: CIAT.

B ARRIOS , E., M. BEKUNDA , R. DELVE , A. ESILABA , and J. MOWO (2001). Identifying and classifying local indicators of soil quality. Cali, Colombia: CIAT.

B ENTLEY , J. W. (1989). “What farmers don’t know can’t help them: the strengths and weaknesses of indigenous technical knowledge in Honduras.” In: Agriculture and Human Values 6(3): 25- 31. B ENTLEY , J. W. (1994). “Facts, Fantasies, and Failures of Fa rmer Participatory Research.” In: Agri- culture and Human Values 11: 140-150. B ENTLEY , J. W. and G. R ODRIGUEZ (2001). “Honduran Folk Entomology.” In: Current Anthropology 42(2): 285-301. B ERLIN , B. (1992). Ethnobiological classification. Pr inciples of Categorization of Plants and Ani- mals in Traditional Societies. Princeton, N.J., USA: Princeton University Press.

B IGGELAAR , DEN C. and N. H ART (1996). Farmer experimentation an d innovation: a case study of knowledge generation processes in agroforestr y systems in Rwanda. Rome, Italy: FAO and Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish Universi ty of Agricultural Sciences.

B IGGS , S. and E. J. C LAY (1981). “Sources of innovation in agricultural technology.” In: W ORLD DEVELOPMENT 9: 321-326. B RAUN , A. R., G. THIELE and M. FERNÁNDEZ (2000). Farmer field schools and local agricultural re- search committees: Complementary platforms fo r integrated decision-making in sustainable agriculture. Agricultural Research and Ext ension Network Paper No. 105. London, UK: ODI.

B UNCH , R. and G. L ÓPEZ (1996). Soil recuperation in Central America: Sustaining innovation after intervention. Gatekeeper Series SA 55. London, UK: IIED. C HRISTINCK , A., E. W ELTZIEN and V. H OFFMANN (eds.) (2005). Setting breeding objectives and developing seed systems with farmers. A handbook for practical use in participatory plant breeding projects. Weikersheim, Germany: Margraf Publishers and Wageningen, The Nether- lands: CTA.

C ROMWELL , E., D. COOPER and P. M ULVANY (2003). “Defining Agricultural Biodiversity.” In Conser- vation and Sustainable Use of Agricultural Biodive rsity: A Sourcebook. Volume 1. International Potato Centre – Users’ Perspectives with Agricu ltural Research and Development (pp. 5-12).

Los Banos, Laguna, Phili ppines: CIP-UPWARD.

D OUTHWAITE , B. (2002). Enabling Innovation. A Practi cal Guide to Understanding and Fostering Technological Change. London, New York: ZED Books.

D REYFUS , H. L. and S. E. DREYFUS (1986). Mind over machine: the power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York, USA: The Free Press. D RUCKER , P. F. (1993). Post-Capitalist Society. Oxford, UK: Butterworth Heinemann.

F ISCHER , P. A. (1999). Action research in extension message and material development. The Striga problem of Northern Ghana revisited. Weikersheim, Germany: Margraf Publishers.

G ERBER , A. and V. H OFFMANN (1998). „The diffusion of Eco-Farming in Germany.” In: R ÖLING , N.

G. and M. A. E. W AGEMAKERS (eds.), Facilitating Sustainabl e Agriculture (pp. 134-152). Cam- bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

G UPTA , A. (1989). “Scientists’ view of farmers’ practices in India: barriers to effective interaction.” In: C HAMBERS , R., A. PACEY , and L. A. T HRUPP (eds.), Farmer first. Farmer innovation and agri- cultural research (pp. 24-31). London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications.

G UPTA , A. (2000). “Grassroots innovations for survival.” In: ILEIA Newsletter for Low External In- put and Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA) 16(2): 5-6. 134 16 HERON , J. (1981). “Philosophical basis for a new paradigm.” In: R EASON , P. and J. R OWAN (eds.), Human inquiry: A Sourcebook of new paradig m research. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

H IPPEL , E. von (1988). The Sources of Innovation. New York, USA: Oxford Un iversity Press.

H OCDÉ , H. and M. CHACÓN (2000). “This is my own innovation: The history of Limpo grass.” In:

ILEIA Newsletter for Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA) 16(2): 31-32. H OFFMANN , V. (2001). „Das eigene Wissens netz spinnen: unser Ansatz in der Lehre.“ In: H OFF- MANN , V. (ed.), 50 Years of Hohenheim Extens ion Studies (p. 97). Weikersheim, Germany:

Margraf Publishers.

H ORTON , R., (1967). “African traditional thought and west ern science. Part I: From tradition to sci- ence. Part II: The closed and opened predicaments.” In: Africa 37: 50-71, 155-187.

H OWES , M. and R. C HAMBERS (1979). “Indigenous Technical Knowledge: Analysis, Implications and Issues.” In: IDS BULLETIN 2(2): 5-11.

H UMPHRIES , S., J. GONZALEZ , J. JIMENEZ , and F. SIERRA (2000). Searching for sustainable land use practices in Honduras: Lessons from a programm e of participatory research with hillside far- mers. Agricultural Research and Extensi on Network Paper No. 104. London, UK: 104.

IDS Workshop (1989). “Farmers’ knowledge, innovations, and relation to science.” In: C HAMBERS , R., PACEY , A. and L. A. THRUPP , (eds.), Farmer first. Farmer innovation and agricultural re- search (pp. 31-38) . London, UK: Intermediate Technolog y Publications. ILEIA (2000). Grassroots Innovation. Newsletter fo r Low External Input and Sustainable Agricul- ture (LEISA) 16 (2).

J OHNSON , A. W. (1972). “Individuality and Experimentation in Traditional Agriculture.” In: H UMAN ECOLOGY 1(2): 149-159. K ELLER , E. F. (1983). A feeling for the organism. The life and work of Barbara McClintock. New York, USA: W.H. Freeman and Company.

K NORR -C ETINA , K. (1981). The Manufacture of Knowle dge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

K OREIMANN , D. S. (1976). Methoden der Informat ionsbedarfsanalyse. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.

K OTHARI , B. (2002). “Theoretical streams in Margina lized Peoples’ Knowledge(s): Systems, Asys- tems, and Subaltern Knowledge(s).” In: Agriculture and Human Values 19: 225-237. L EEUWIS , C. with contributions from A. VAN DEN BAN (2004). Communication for Rural Innovation.

Rethinking Agricultural Extension. Third Editi on. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Publishers and Wageningen, The Netherlands: CTA.

L IGHTFOOT , C. (1987). “Indigenous research and on-farm trials.” In: Agricultural Administration and Extension 24: 79-89. L YON , F. (1996). “How farmers research and learn: The case of arable farmers of East Anglia, UK.” In: Agriculture and Human Values 13(4): 39-47.

M AURYA , D.M. (1989). “The innovative approach of Indian farmers.” In: C HAMBERS , R., PACEY , A., and L. A. T HRUPP (eds.), Farmer first. Farmer innovation and agricultural research (pp. 9-14).

London, UK: Intermediate Te chnology Publications.

M IROW , H. M. (1968). Kybernetik: Grundlage einer a llgemeinen Theorie der Organisation. Wies- baden, Germany: Gabler.

N EEF , A. (2005). “Introduction.” In: N EEF , A. (ed.), Participatory approaches for sustainable land use in Southeast Asia (pp. 3-32). Bang kok, Thailand: White Lotus Press.

N ONAKA , I. and H. T AKEUCHI (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. How Japanese Compa- nies Create the Dynamics of I nnovation. New York, USA and London, UK: Oxford University Press.

N ORRETRANDERS , T. (1994). Spüre die Welt. Die Wissenschaft des Bewusstseins. Reinbek, Ger- many: Rowohlt Verlag.

135 17 NOTEBOOM , B. (2000). Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies. New York, USA:

Oxford University Press.

O KALI , C., J. SUMBERG and J. F ARRINGTON (1994): Farmer Participatory Research: Rhetoric and Reality. London, UK: Intermediat e Technology Publications. P ASTAKIA , A., B. KOTHARI , and V. D HERRY CHAND (2002) Farmer led Participatory Research. Cases from Western India. Bangalore, India: Books for Change.

P OLANYI , M. (1974). Personal Knowledge. Towards a Post -Critical Philosophy. Chicago, USA: The University of Chicago Press. P OLANYI , M. (1985). Implizites Wissen. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.

P OTTS , M., G. WATSON , R. SINUNG BASUKI , and N. G UNADI (1992). “Farmer experimentation as a basis for cropping systems research: a ca se study involving true potato seed.” In: Experimental Agriculture 28: 19-29.

P RETTY , J. (1991). “Farmers’ Extensi on Practice and Technology Adapt ation: Agricultural Revolu- tion in the 17 th-19 th Century Britain.” In: Agriculture and Human Values 8: 1-2.

P ROBST , K. and J. HAGMANN with M. FERNANDEZ and J. A. ASHBY (2003): Understanding Participa- tory Research in the Context of Natural Resource Management – Paradigms, Approaches and Typologies. AGREN Network Paper No. 130. London, UK: ODI.

PROLINNOVA (2003). Progress with PROLINNOVA. Launching the Participatory Design of a Global Partnership Programme. Leusden, The Netherlands: PROLINNOVA.

R EASON , P. (1994). “Three approaches to participative inquiry.” In: D ENZIN , N. K. and Y. S. L IN- COLN , Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 32 4-339). London, UK and New Delhi, India:

Sage Publications.

R EIJNTJES , C., B. HAVERKORT and A. W ATERS -B AYER (1992). Farming for the future. An Introduc- tion to Low External-Input and Sustainable Agriculture. London, UK: The Macmillan Press.

R EIJNTJES , C. and A. W ATERS -B AYER (eds.) (2001). Farmer innovation in Africa. A source of inspi- ration for agricultural development. Lo ndon, UK: Earthscan Publications.

R HOADES , R. (1989). “The role of farmers in the creation of agricultural technology.” In: C HAMBERS , R., A. PACEY and L. A. T HRUPP (eds.), Farmer first. Farmer innovation and agricultural research (pp. 3-9). London, UK: Intermedi ate Technology Publications.

R HOADES , R. and A. BEBBINGTON (1991). “Farmers as Experimenters.” In H AVERKORT , B., J. van der K AMP and A. W ATERS -B AYER (eds.), Joining Farmers’ experiments (pp.251-253). London, UK: Intermediate Techno logy Publications.

R ICHARDS , P. (1989). “Farmers also Experiment: A Neglected Intellectual Resource in African Sci- ence.” In: Discovery and Innovation 1(1): 19-25.

R OCHELEAU , D., K. WACHIRA , L. MALARET , and B. M UCHIRI WANJOHI (1989): “Local knowledge for agroforestry and native plants.” In: C HAMBERS , R., A. PACEY and L. A. THRUPP (eds.), Farmer first. Farmer innovation and agricultural research (pp. 14-24). London, UK: Intermediate Tech- nology Publications.

R ÖLING , N. (1990). “The Agricultural Research-Technology Transfer Interface. A Knowledge Sys- tems Perspective.” In: K AIMOWITZ D. (ed.), Making the Link: Agricultural Research and Tech- nology Transfer in Developing Countries (pp. 1-42). Boulder, USA: Westview Press.

R OGERS , A. (1992). Adults learning for development. London, UK: Cassel.

R OGERS , S., T. IOSEFA , T. HOPONOA , S. HAZELMAN , and D. H UNTER (2000): “Farmer Innovation in the South Pacific.” In: ILEIA Newsletter for Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA) 16(2): 7-8.

S AAD , N. (2002). Farmer processes of experimentation and innovation – A review of literature.

PRGA Working Dokument No. 21. Cali, Colombia: PRGA Program.

S EAMON , D. and A. Z AJONC (eds.) (1998). Goethes’ Way of Science: A Phenomenology of Nature.

Albany, NY, USA: State University of New York Press. 136 18 SILLITOE , P. (2003). “The Gender of Crops in the Papua New Guinea Highlands.” In: H OWARD , P.

(ed.), Women and Plants. Gender Relations in Biodiversity Management and Conservation (pp.

165-180). London, UK and New York, USA: Zed Books.

S PRANGER , J. and M. W ALKENHORST (2001). “Ausgerechnet Goethe: P hänomenologie als Schlüs- sel zur Tiergesundheit.“ In Forschungsring für Bi ologisch-Dynamische Wirtschaftsweise e.V. / University of Kassel-Witzenhausen (eds.), Biol ogisch-Dynamische Landwirtschaft in der For- schung (pp. 117-133). Darmstadt, Germany: Verlag Lebendige Erde.

S TOLZENBACH , A. (1994). “Learning by improvisation: farmers’ experimentation in Mali.” In S COONES , I. and J. THOMPSON (eds.), Beyond Farmer First: ru ral people’s knowledge, agricul- tural research and extension practice. London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications.

S UMBERG , J. and C. OKALI (1997): Farmers’ experiments: Cr eating Local Knowledge. Boulder, USA and London, UK: Lynne Riemer Publishers. S WIFT , J. (1979). “Notes on traditional knowl edge, modern knowledge, and rural development.” In:

IDS Bulletin 10(2): 41-43.

T CHAWA , P. (2000). “Chains of innovation by farmers in Cameroon.” In: ILEIA Newsletter for Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA) 16(2): 14-15.

T URNBULL , C. M. (1993). “Local Knowledge(s) and comparat ive scientific traditions.” In: Knowledge and Policy 6(3/4): 29-54.

W ERSIG , G. (2000). Informations- und Kommunikations technologien. Eine Einführung in Geschich- te, Grundlagen und Zusammenhänge. Konstanz: UVK Medien.

W ILD , J. (1971). „MIS als Hilfsmittel bei der Unsicherheitsabsorption und Risikopolitik.“ In: G ROCH- LA , E. and N. S ZYPERSKI (eds.), Managementinformationssysteme (pp. 679-694). Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.

W ITTE , E. (ed.) (1972). Das Informationsverhalten in Entscheidungsproze ssen. Tübingen, Germa- ny: Mohr.

137 Universität Hohenheim 430 Fachgebiet:

Landwirtschaftliche Kommunikations- und Beratungslehre KIM-15 January 2007Hoffmann The diffusion of eco-farming in Germany 1 Alexander G ERBER and Volker H OFFMANN 1 Introduction Over the last decades, agricultural intensification has greatly contributed to envir onmental pollution in Germany (e.g. D IERCKS 1993; B ACH 1987; S CHELLER 1993; B UR- DICK 1994; K ÖPCKE 1994). The emergence of ecological farming, or eco-farming as we shall call it here, in 1924, at first in the form of bio-dyna mic farming, coincided with the onset of agricultural in tensification. Nowadays, eco- farming is considered to be the farming system which best fulfils the requirements of sustainability (R AT DER SACHVERSTÄNDIGEN FÜR UMWELTFRAGEN 1985). 1 Introduction 2 The epistemology of eco-farming 3 Phases of the diffusion of eco- farming 4 Assessment of the diffusion of eco-farming based on diffusion theory 5 Examples of knowledge and communication systems support- ing eco-farming 6 Conclusions Eco-farming, with the development of its knowledge system and its diffusion, provides an exam- ple of the driving and inhibiting forces that govern any sustainabl e innovation that affects and in- volves society. The knowledge syst em supporting eco-farming includes:

• all the know-how and facilities necessary for producing, proce ssing, marketing and consum- ing products within the eco-farming system; • the epistemology and the influence of the soci o-cultural context; and the institutions support- ing the promotion of these processes.

This chapter provides an overview of the emergence and diffusion of eco-farming in Germany, from its inception in the anthroposophical movement to its present market-driven development. It describes the epistemology of eco -farming, and the different phases of its diffusion since 1924. It then describes the typical nature of the knowle dge system and other institutional arrangements supporting eco-farming. The chapter ends with some statements about the future of eco-farming which are suggested by the historical overview.

2 The epistemology of eco-farming Eco-farming voluntarily restricts its elf to the use of certain management options. This is a special feature of its knowledge system and a main reason for its environmental compatibility. These voluntary restrictions owe thei r inspiration to an expanded understanding of science.

Mainstream natural science, even today, assumes that living nature is only a complicated struc- ture of unliving matter (M ENGEL 1991). Implicitly, it is presumed that the total can be described 1 Source: G ERBER , A., HOFFMANN ,V., 1998: The diffusion of eco-farming in Germany. In: R ÖLING and W AGEMAKERS , (Hrsg.): Facilitating Sustainable Agricultur e. Cambridge University Press, S. 134-152. 138 as the sum of its parts and as having mono-causal relationships. Eco-farming principles hold that only the relationships between matter in a biological system can be described by chemical and physical laws, not the organism as it functions as a whole. An organism has a history which in- fluences its behaviour, has activities and variability, and organizes its living processes, all of which indicate a higher order. It was Johann W OLFGANG von Goethe, who first tried to describe this scientifically. His `org anic' theory was taken up and developed further by Rudolf S TEINER , the founder of bio-dynamic farming, th e oldest variant of eco-farming.

Departing from the organic understanding of nature and alluding to the ordering principles of bio- logical systems, S TEINER (1924) postulated farming to be the shaping and managing of the farm as an organism. As such, the farm should devel op an ‘agricultural individuality’ in each respec- tive location, with the associated economic and social conditions of that location, and it should be understood as such. This is rec ognized as a basic principle in all types of eco-farming. ‘Eco- farming follows the principle that the farm is a goal-oriented organization of agricultural produc- tion which is to a large extent self-sufficient and internally balanced’ (K ÖPCKE 1994).

Conventional modern farming suppresses undesira ble elements on the farm through the use of pesticides, and introduces desired ones through the use of chemically synthesized fertilizers. Eco- farming tries, instead, to intervene by stimulatin g natural processes and consciously makes use of ecological relationships (S CHAUMANN 1977).

3 Phases of the diffusion of eco-farming The diffusion of eco-farming to date is seen as having three main phases: The first, a generating and consolidating phase, is follo wed by two phases of expansion.

3.1 First phase (1924-1970): the genera tion of eco-farming through bio-dynamic farming Some farmers, veterinarians and researchers w ho were members of the anthroposophic movement were disturbed and unsettled by th e early development of modern `industrialized' agriculture. The findings of J USTUS von Liebig on the importance of nutrien ts led to a search for substitutes for natural and organic matter and to the synthetic production of nitrogen. At this early date, the an- throposophists had already observed some problema tic developments, for example, decreasing fertility in cattle, increasing soil acid ity after fertilization, a decrease in produc t quality, as well as the decreasing ability to sustain legumes ove r several years. So they approached S TEINER and asked him to advance a viewpoint for the well-b eing of agriculture derived from his philosophy and research, which had already led to concrete achievements in other fields, such as medicine, pedagogy and the arts. The `Agricultural Course', held by S TEINER at Whitsuntide in 1924, is seen as the start of bio-dynamic farming.

K LETT (1994) gives another reason for the early emergence and di ffusion of the bio-dynamic sys- tem of farming, which he saw, perhaps somewhat ro mantically, as rooted in the history of human consciousness: ‘Until that time, agriculture had b een practised more or less intuitively. It was still part of the conserving impetus of tradition, and even though it was fading, the moral imperative of work made itself felt through the inherited force of the community’.

The new trends in agriculture asked for a more rationally based professionalism. At the time, the need to transform what was considered an 'intui tion-driven' peasantry, and to take into account the findings of natural scienc e, were generally recognized, especially by the Anthroposophic School founded by S TEINER . There was an interest in integrating scientific findings into the broader perspective on what it m eans to be human. This interest, and especially its adoption on 139 large holdings located mainly in middle and eastern Germany, led to an extension of bio-dynamic farming on several thousands of hectares before the Second World War.

Directly after the ‘Agricultural Course’, interested farmers and researchers grouped together in the ‘Versuchsring’ (Associati on for Experimentation), to ex amine and further develop S TEINER 's guidelines. Many of the principles of bio-dynamic agriculture came from this source and are still valid today (K ÖNIG 1994). These early investigations we re mostly based on empirical observa- tions of single or very few cases, and often coul d not satisfy scientific or biometrical criteria (G ERBER 1994).

The typical organization, still partially existing today, of the advisory work for bio-dynamic farming developed quite early. Experienced practiti oners gave up their own farm work to advise others, or took over adviso ry tasks after retiring.

In 1941, bio-dynamic farming was prohibited by the Nazi regime, leading to its near complete breakdown. Its restructuring and expansion after the war was much slower than at the time of its creation. In Western Germany, it faced very diffe rent and more unfavourable conditions, and in Eastern Germany it was more or less impractical.

The association of people farming bio-dynami cally took the name ‘Forschungsring fur biolo- gisch-dynamischen Landbau e. V.’ (Research Asso ciation for Bio-dynamic Agriculture), and in 1954 the administration of its trade mark was tr ansferred to the Demeter-Bund e. V. In 1950, the Institute for Bio-dynamic Research was founded a nd today remains the only research institution within the framework of the federa tions for eco-farming in Germany.

From the beginning, bio-dynamic farmers were faced with the problem of operating within their own self-imposed restrictions, while at the same time establishing a position in the market. It was necessary for economic survival to find a distinct market for their products and to ensure that the consumer recognized that this food was produced by special methods. This led to the introduction of the trademark Demeter in 1927. Because thei r special quality was not obvious from the ap- pearance or a comparative analysis of the produc ts, the production method itself became the crite- rion for determining whether food was produced according to the trade mark regulations (S CHAUMANN , 1995). It became necessary, therefore, to provide guidelines for production as well as controls for compliance with them.

The first guidelines for producing Demeter-food were published in 1956.

Since then, similar bio-dynamic farming guidelines have been introduced all over the world. The principle of producing according to guidelines a nd submitting to controls for compliance with them was later adopted by all ot her eco-farming groups and today al so constitutes the basis for the European Union's regulations on eco-f arming, to which we shall return later.

The most striking features diffe rentiating bio-dynamic farming from other eco-farming systems are the application of bio-dynami c preparations and the consideration of cosmic rhythms. The production, application and effect s of bio dynamic preparations have been described and dis- cussed at length (S TEINER 1924; S ATTLER & VON W ISTINGHAUSEN 1985; D EWES 1994; G ERBER 1994).

3.2 Second phase (1970-1988): first expan sion as a reaction to ecological problems The slow expansion of bio-dynamic farming after the Second World War and its in itial adherence to anthroposophical principles might lead one to assume that only farmers interested in anthropo- sophy were its adopters. In 1960, about 3200 ha, a nd in 1970 about 3920 ha, were farmed accord- ing to the bio-dynamic guidelines (B RUGGER 1990).

140 From the 1970s onwards, things changed, however. The negative consequences of industrialized farming became increasingly visible, and the em erging ‘ecological consciousness'’did not leave agriculture itself untou ched. Recognizing that modern agriculture was a major source of pollu- tion, some farmers decided that the situation had become critical. The ensuing review of farm practices was, in turn, followed by an increasing number of farm conversions.

At that time, protection of the environment was the most widespread reason given by farmers for the conversion of their farms (F ISCHER 1982). In many cases, the deci sion to convert the farm was reinforced by animal health problems and, c onsequently, high veterinary costs. Quite often the conversion was preceded by a key event (G RASSINGER 1984). Sickness in the family played an outstanding role, but visits to farms on which conversion had been completed are also men- tioned as a key event. Other reas ons have been the desire to lower costs and to gain autonomy through the reduction of purchased i nputs, as well as problems with crop rotation or soil fertility (B RUGGER 1990). For many, conversion was made easier by the fact th at some pioneers, mainly inspired by Chris- tian religious motives (Z IECHAUS -H ARTELT 1991), founded the Bioland Federation. Its origin was the concern of a Swiss, Hans M ÜLLER (1894-1969), for ensuring the survival and autonomy of small farm holdings. Towards this end, he aimed at economically viable farms that were not de- pendent on purchased inputs. The crucial issue for him was maintaining soil fertility through careful treatment and intensive use of farmyard manure. From this emerged the bioorganic farm- ing system. With the Bioland Federation, an alte rnative to bio-dynamic farming came into exis- tence, which was less demanding to practice and, in the eyes of many, less ideologically charged.

From then onwards, both types of farming, as well as the whole eco-farming movement ex- panded. The number of farms and the area cultivat ed increased greatly and many additional asso- ciations of eco-farming de veloped (Figs. 8.1 and 8.2).

141 All federations of eco-farming have compliance with some minimum standards in common, laid down in production guidelines. In this second phase, these are the basic\ guidelines of the IFOAM (International Federation of Orga nic Agriculture Movement). Due to the special marketing situa- tion for their products, farmers converting to eco-farming are more or less required to become members of one of the federations of eco-farming.

3.3 Third phase (since 1989): second expansion through government promotion programmes At the onset of this phase in 1989, AGOL wa s founded as the central organization for eco- farming in Germany. It coordinates and executes political lobbying for eco-farming, works out general guidelines valid for all member federations , and tries to elaborate common strategies for consolidation and expansion of eco-farming in Germany.

Due to generally declining incomes in agricultu re during this phase, eco-farming has gained in- terest as an economic alternative to conventiona l farming. Now, economic considerations are of- ten the main reason for converting (Z INK 1986). Reasonable subsidies for eco-farming through the EU programme for agricultural extensification mu st be seen as a decisive factor in its eco- nomic attractiveness. The EU's main motive has been the reduction of agricultural surplus pro- duction. One of the variants of the programme accepts the conversion according to guidelines (hereafter referred to as EU regulations) for eco-farming. This promotional programme was espe- cially attractive to farmers in disadvantaged lo cations, because they already applied extensive farming methods, and thus participation in the programme did not require severe changes from them (D ABBERT & BRAUN 1993). Especially in the five new German States, with many substan- dard farm sites, the programme often offered agri culturists a way out of the difficulties created by German unification. Within the framework of the extensification programme, a much larger area 142 has been converted to eco-farming in the East than in the West, though the West has a much lar- ger land surface (H AMM 1994).

Two problems of the extensifica tion programme merit mention:

• The programme intends to reduce total food production. Therefore it subsidizes the pro- duction of ecologically produced food. This has disturbed the market for eco-products by creating an excess supply. Consequently, producer prices have been pushed down; • The farms which were converted before 1989 have suffered especially from this pro- gramme. They could not participate in the programme but encounter subsidized competi- tion in the market.

In the framework of the EU agra rian reform, the extensification programme is being replaced by national programmes promoting a ll farms practising eco-farming. Table 8.1 shows clearly that only a minority of farms participating in the extensification pro- gramme chose the eco-option, eith er by becoming members of a federation or being controlled by EU regulations for eco-farming. The regulation of 1993 clearly defines which farms can be counted as part of the eco-farming system. Ta ble 8.1 is based on this definition. In 1994, only 1.6% of Germany's agricultural land and 1.0% of all German farms fell under the official EU definition of eco-farming.

In addition to eco-farming gaining official reco gnition in this phase through the EU regulation and extensification programme, advisory work in eco-farming also received increasing govern- mental support. External pressure on the eco-far ming system influences its organization, its self- definition and its knowledge system. This external pressure comes from increasing supply in con- strained marketing channels wi th corresponding price-cuts; incr easing quality requirements from processors and consumers; in creasing conversions to eco-farm ing for economic reasons; the growing specialization of eco-farms ; and subsidized competition as a result of the EU extensifica- tion programme.

143 There is, in general, a tendency for eco-farming principles to become weaker. Indications of this are found in the discussi ons within the eco-farming system. Th e important issues being debated, for example, are concerned with gaining access to conventional food marketing channels and im- portant customers such as canteens. Other disc ussions concern attaining more income through better prices or subsidies (H ERMANSTORFER 1994), and establishing less strict guidelines for processing, although the requirements for `health f ood' (In German: Vollwertkost. Literal transla- tion: full value food) have, so far, not been affected (K OERBER et al. 1993).

4 Assessment of the diffusion of eco-farming based on diffusion theory According to A LBRECHT (1994) and others, successful diffusi on occurs in waves with successive phases (see Fig. 8.3). The first phase, called `the i nnovator as intruder', starts with the innovator perceiving a problem, either thr ough seeing a decline in conditions or through becoming aware of new, superior options. Being the first to adopt th e new solution to a problem, he normally runs a risk by not being quite sure whet her the innovation will lead to success. As a rule, adopting an innovation leads to a certain isol ation from the rest of the community. Innovators are laughed at or even rejected. This can be seen as a psyc hological defence mechanism which protects people from having to take the new option seriously. Very seldom does this rejection lead to an abortion of the innovation. Generally, the innovator needs to profit from the new solution and would suffer if it failed.

In the second ‘critical phase’, if it proved succ essful for the innovator, the innovation is adopted by other members of the community who are in similar circumstances. If this second group is successful, it proves that the innovation will work and is acceptable for all those for whom it is relevant. Further adopters will follo w, as the risk of adoption is seen to be lower now. The theory assumes that the process will continue autonomously without external support after a critical number of adopters have successfully adopted. At the village leve l, this ratio is thought to be about 10-20 % of the potential adopters.

The third phase is now initiated, the ‘transition to a self-carrying process’, the innovation be- comes something of a norm. In the fourth and final phase, the ‘fading out of the wave’, further adoption slows down.

If we consider the phases of the diffusion of eco-farming described so far, we can draw the fol- lowing conclusions:

144 1. The expansion of eco-farming seems to be a typical diffusion process. As eco-farming ex- panded, it went through the typical first and sec ond phases: some pioneers generated and intro- duced it as a result of their sp ecial awareness of ecological pr oblems. Conventional farmers and the whole `agricultural scene react with strong rejection and discrimina tion. After it becomes ob- vious that it works in practice, it is adopted mo re and more, even by formerly sceptical col- leagues.

2. The expansion of eco-farming is at the same time a totally atypical diffusion process. Nor- mally, innovations are introduced as achievements of technical progress and therefore are com- patible to general norms of th e society. They are developed by science and are introduced into practice by extension work. The main obstacle to adoption is a lack of experience and knowledge, not incompatibility. Eco-farming was not develope d by established science and afterwards intro- duced into practice. On the contrary, it was first developed by practitioners, and only at a rather late stage did science show interest in it. As previously shown, eco-farming is based on an under- standing of science which goes beyond the general consensus in the scientific community and so- ciety.

These may be some of the reasons why eco-farming, more than 70 years after its beginning and despite its undoubted advantages, has a very modest diffusion rate covering only 1.6% of the total agricultural area. The speed of diffusion is dependent to a great extent on the features of the inno- vation. The features of eco-farming are rather unfavourable for quick diffusion (see also Somers, this volume). Compatibility with existing norms (A LBRECHT 1994) is a feature of eco-farming of special importance. It is critical for the succe ss of farm conversions that the population accept the system and that consumers are wi lling to buy eco-products at higher prices. The introduction of the innovation in this ca se not only consists of a change in total farm organization, but also de- pends on its acceptance by at least pa rt of society. Eco-farming is not an innovation at farm level only but ultimately an innovation for society as a whole.

Many of the methods of eco-farmin g, are not directly visible - such as the application of bio- dynamic preparations or measurable - such as food quality. In general, the workload is higher, the decisions depend on highly complex relations, and the conversion process is accompanied by ini- tial and drastic declines in yiel ds before the desired balance is established. According to AGÖL guidelines, farmers are not permitted to convert in part or on a small scale. These features make adoption of the innovation highly unfavourable. Hence eco-farming is not easily divisible.

While the creation of financial incentives by the EU and national governments could be seen as a favourable condition for further diffusion, it has al so created the problems mentioned earlier.

The information system has played an important part in the diffusion of eco-farming in phases 2 and 3. In addition to the mass medi a (television, radio and the press) professional journals, tech- nical newspapers and magazines, as well as personal contacts have played major roles (A LBRECHT 1994). Personal contacts have been decisive in the convers ion to eco-farming (G RASSINGER 1984), while for consumers it has been a mi xture of personal and media influence.

In general, eco-farming has generated much more public discussion than it merits, given the per- centage of farmers actua lly involved in it.

Summing up so far, we observe that eco-farming is in the ‘critica l phase’ of diffusion and not yet in a self-carrying process. Comparable exampl es of eco-farming's diffusion processes are not known to the authors. For us, it is quite difficult to see the future role eco-farming will play in ag- riculture in Germany and Europe. The federations of eco-farming aim to cover 10% of the agri- cultural area by the year 2000 (H ANSEN 1991). H AMM (1994) predicts 6-7% over the same pe- riod.

145 5 Examples of knowledge and communication systems supporting eco-farming The conditions which brought abou t the development of eco-farming went hand in hand with the creation and adaptation of special knowledge systems and communication strategies among farmers, as well as between farmers and consumer s. Some typical examples of this are provided in the following.

5.1 Advisory work Farmers who want to convert to ec o-farming need a lot of advice (B ENECKE et al. 1988). As a consequence of developing outside the normal channels of agricultural policy in phase 1 and 2 of its diffusion, eco-farming did not receive advisory or financial support from government agen- cies. Hence, farmer-organized extension and advisory work has always been of great importance within the federations. This ‘collegial extension’ has taken three forms:

• experienced practitioners fulfilled extension tasks; • personal, informal interaction among farmers; • regular meetings for exchange of experience among farmers from the same region.

The last two points are still important elements of advisory work in eco-farming. Group extension (exchange of experience) occurs mainly within the biodynamic and the Bioland federations, with closed regional groups and regula r meetings but each with a different organizational set-up. For Bioland, the regional groups are an important part of their federation structure. Group extension has advantages in making individual knowledge accessible to others and in enhancing co- operation among farmers on all types of tasks a nd problems. This approach is limited by the group's restricted internal knowledge, unequal com position, group size, a lack of feedback about errors, and by overloaded group leaders (L ULEY 1996).

In the third phase of expansion, eco-farming receive d official recognition as a farming system of merit, along with support for advisory work. The organization of extension in eco-farming and the percentage of financial support from governme nt in the different Federal States of Germany are shown in Table 8.2.

Three distinct forms of extension organisation exist in eco-farming:

• Federation extension: advisory work through a dvisers of the federation (partly govern- ment subsidized); • Extension-circles: associations of producers which employ advisers to assist its members (usually the government contributes part of the financing); • Official extension: advisers employed by govern ment or Ministry of Agriculture charged with extension tasks in eco-farming. 5.2 Information services Information about eco-farming has, for a long time, only been available to farmers and consumers inside the eco-farming system. Journals, magazine s and newsletters of the federations had an im- portant role to play. In phase 1 and 2, one inde pendently edited journal, ‘Garten organisch, or- ganischer Landbau’, contributed much. In phase 3, however, it changed ownership and changed its profile towards home gardens. Meanwhile, the SOL (Foundation of Ecology and Farming) 146 was founded and now edits the journal Ecolog y and Farming (Ökologie and Landbau) and has two book series about eco-farming. The journal tries to present scientific, practical and political topics of eco-farming, independent of the federa tions. Recently, basic books have also appeared and are developing into important sources of information for practitioners (S ATTLER & W ISTING- HAUSEN 1985; NEUERBURG & PADEL 1992; SIEBENEICHER 1993).

In general, the discussion of topics and issues of eco-farming has continually increased in phase 2 and 3, in the professional press as well as in all public media. 5.3 Education The economic success of an ecological farm is, to a high degree, dependent on the qualifications of the farm manager (S CHLÜTER 1985). Vocational education in agriculture is mainly carried out by government agencies, and since there has so far been no special educational programme for eco-farming, the necessary knowledge and skills are still, for the most part, acquired through self- instruction. All federations offer one week introd uctory courses. The only courses of a longer du- ration are available from the Forschungsring fur biol. dyn. Witschaftsweise, which offer a 4-week 147 course and a study year of more intensive educational programmes. Inside the bio-dynamic movement specific bio-dynamic apprenticeships ar e also offered. At some vocational agricultural schools there is an indication that eco-far ming is becoming part of the curriculum (B LIEFERNICHT 1994). In Landshut, Bavaria, there is now a technical high school offering master and technician courses in eco-farming.

Primarily due to the initiative and interest of st udents, all agricultural faculties at German univer- sities (and university colleges) now have a st udy programme in eco-farming. The University Kas- sel / Witzenhausen has been at the forefront, o ffering eco-farming as a specialization in its post- graduate studies. It has also been trying to use participatory working methods and to make stu- dents more active in planning their own study progress. There is also an attempt to take special features of eco-farming into considera tion when making didactic arrangements. 5.4 Associations between producers and consumers The necessity of marketing outside conventional channels, has led to strong efforts by producers to ‘capture’ consumers and to affiliate them w ith the farms. Equally, consumers have developed an interest in eco-farming for health or enviro nmental reasons. The following modalities for mar- keting have emerged.

Direct marketing For many farms, direct marketing is important for earning income. Having consumers come to the farm offers the possibility of informing them on-site about the problems of agriculture. Eco- farming was a leading pioneer in direct marke ting, nowadays also increasingly practised by con- ventional farmers.

Consumer/producer associations These associations were more important in th e beginning when shops and purchase opportunities for eco-food were scarce. In thes e consumer/producer associations , the consumer agreed to buy certain amounts of products th roughout the growing season.

Product networks These networks aim to achieve a sufficient inco me for producers based on justice and security. A group of producers, processors, tr aders, and consumers get together and contract for certain quan- tities and prices. An example of this is the ‘Märkische Wirtschaftsverbund’ in Brandenburg.

Country communities This form of union between consumers and producers developed mostly in anthroposophical cir- cles. Departing from the idea that each individua l has the right to a piece of land, in these com- munities the consumers as a group own the farm land. Looking at the available agricultural land in Germany, each citizen would get a quarter of a hectare of land. A 50 ha farm would be owned by an association of about 200 people. They would install a farmer to run the business as a trust for them. The farmer also has the right to propose the farm successor. In this way it is possible, but not obligatory, to hand the farm over to a fa mily member. Because the farm cannot be sold when it belongs to an associa tion, it is withdrawn from land sp eculation. The classic example of this model is the Dottenfelder Hof, described by B AUER (1994). Other similar models are re- viewed by G ENGENBACH and L IMBACHER (1985).

148 Aktion Kulturland This is a foundation based in Hamburg which buys land, mainly in Northern Germany, to take it out of speculation. It then gives th e land, in trust, to farmers, groups of farmers working together, or to country communities, to be run as explained above.

Financing The high capital requirements and low profit rates in agriculture often make it difficult to invest.

The GLS-Bank, working on anthropos ophical principles, offers its customers the possibility of financing eco-farming projects dir ectly, either by direct project financing or through the agricul- tural fund where interest is paid in kind, in the form of eco-products.

5.5 Producer associations Many producer associations were started during the time when the EU extensification program led to a strong increase in produ cts offered by eco-farming. Producer associations are defined in the ‘Marktstrukturgesetz’, which is the legal ba sis for government support of such associations.

They are working towards a common market with the advantage of more homogeneous quality in larger quantities. This makes it possible to satisfy the needs of large customers who would then find it easier to in troduce new groups of produ cts into the bio-products market. Very often this also leads to closer co-opera tion with processing firms.

5.6 Science In the field of science, there are two opposite positions towards eco-farming. On the one hand, many investigations point out its superiority with regard to environmental conservation. On the other, there is much scepticism ab out a system which restricts its range of options and uses tech- nical progress only selectively.

It has mainly been the interest and pressure of students which has led to the establishment of posts for professors or coordina tors of eco-farming in the agricultural or horticultural faculties.

All of these faculties now have experimental farm s, or at least experimental fields, which are ecologically run. However, once ec o-farming is integrated into conventional science establish- ment, it will be affected by the same problems that affect mainstream natural science. Two prob- lem areas are cited:

eco-farming research produces large quantities of highly specialized and detailed investigations.

However, no instruments or procedures have been developed so far to bring them together into a global and holistic view. This phenomenon can be observed in th e documentation of the Third Scientific Congress on Eco farming, edited by D EWES and S CHMITT (1995).

The relevance of research in eco-f arming must increasingly be assessed with respect to its use in practice. Another question is how to comm unicate important results to practitioners.

While research in eco-farming formerly worked mainly by comparing systems (ecological versus conventional), recent research is more concerned with optimizing the eco-farming system itself.

Figure 8.4 gives a final overview of the levels a nd forms of communication inside the different elements of the knowledge system of eco-farming. 149 6 Conclusions The conclusions are formulated in the form of statements about the future development of eco- farming. 6.1 Eco-farming offers a perspective for a future sustainable agricultu\ re A further aggravation of problems can be expected in conventional agriculture. It may be through the environmental problems it causes, or in the fi eld of agricultural policy, or through market and structural problems. As solutions are explore d, eco-farming, being the most sustainable farming 150 system available, will gain importance in society, science, and policy making. This will create a further expansion of eco-farming, but al so endanger the eco-farming movement.

6.2 The knowledge system of eco-farming is threatened by increasing external pressures Until the end of the 1980s, eco-farming existed in a niche governed by its own laws. Nowadays, with its growing importance, eco-farming is incr easingly exposed to social aspirations, political interference, scientific research and a more competitive market.

These outside influences bring into question mo re and more the governing principles of the movement. These principles, which have been succe ssful so far, are also being discussed among the members and federations of eco-farming. Indications of this are:

• conversions to eco-farming are now ma inly motivated by economic concerns; • this leads to a new tendency of pushing the guidelines to thei r very limits. Eco-farming is only perceived as a system with certain restrictions which must be respected, but which can also be used for maximum economic profit. This attitude contradicts the idea of the farm as an organism and of system integration; • the enhanced specialization of farms; the processing of eco-farming products 6.3 Eco-farming will only remain an alternative for action if it defends its knowledge system If the development pointed out in statement 2 continues, eco-farming and In tegrated Farming will become increasingly similar and finally merge. Integrated farming allows pesticide and mineral fertilizer use, at reduced or minimal levels. By this, eco-farming would lose its attractiveness as an alternative for action and lose its importance as well.

To prevent this happening, an intense discussion should take place inside eco-farming to deter- mine its characteristic objectives and aims. If ec o-farming is to remain a perspective for future agriculture, these objectives and aims should then be presented professionally and aggressively to the public in order to counteract the strong extern al pressures. More work in public relations, marketing and political lobbying is necessary to strengthen the position of eco-farming. The Fed- erations and AGOL, therefore, should co-operate more closely. Increased efforts should also be made in the field of consumer information.

6.4 Eco-farming will only be sustainable if its knowledge system is further developed Eco-farming has emerged from practice. Its de velopment has created and maintained some dog- matic positions which cannot be supported by either science or practical experience. The rigid application of these practices disregards the necessary adaptation to locations and situations. Two examples are given.

Tilling and mixing of the topso il only, is recommended by B IOLAND , but by not ploughing, soil structure and fertility can sometimes be negative ly affected, and, in addition, leads to weed prob- lems.

The widespread use of composting solid farm ma nure in bio-dynamic farming leads to a high loss in potassium and organic matter (M AYER 1995).

151 Eco-farming should allow the freedom to question all established principles, and to have the lib- erty to adjust them to special conditions and ne w experiences. Otherwise, the system will some day die from mental sclerosis.

6.5 The knowledge system of eco-farming offers an ethical model for action Eco-farming offers alternatives for action, and at the same time indicates the weaknesses of other knowledge systems. Eco-farming is based on ethical maxims for action from an enlarged episte- mology. As a result, the handli ng of scientific and technological prog ress by applying self- imposed restrictions can be seen as re sponsible behaviour, in the sense of J ONAS (1979). Conse- quently, eco-farming offers a model to other disciplines for solv ing problems in society and sci- ence.

References ALBRECHT , H. (1994). Die Verbreitung von Neuerungen - Der Diffusionsprozeß. In: Beratung als Le- benshilfe, ed. V H OFFMANN . pp. 21-22. Weikersheim: Verlag Josef Margraf.

B ACH , M. (1987). Die potentielle Nitratbelastung des Sickerwassers durch die Landbewirtschaftung in der BRD. Göttinger Bodenkundliche Berichte, p. 93. Bauer, D. (1994). Landwirtschaftsgemein- schaft Dottenfelder Hof. Ein Modell fur die Zukunft. In: Ökologie and Landbau, 89, 28-31.

B ENECKE , J., K IESEWETTER , B. & URBAUER , H. (eds.) (1988). Bauern stellen um. Alternative Konzepte, p. 62. Karlsruhe: C. E Müller Verlag.

B LIEFERNICHT , K. (1994). Ökologischer Landbau in der Berufsschule. In: Lebendige Erde, 3, 212.

B RUGGER , (1990). Landbau - Alternativ and Konventionell. Bonn: AID-Heft 1070. B URDICK , B. (ed.) (1994). Klimaänderung and Landbau - Die Agrarwirtschaft als Täter and Opfer. Al- ternative Konzepte, p. 85, Ka rlsruhe: C. E Müller Verlag. D ABBERT , S. & BRAUN , J. (1993). Auswirkungen des EG-Extensivierungsprogramms auf die Umstel- lung auf Ökologischen Landbau in Baden-Württemberg. In: Agrarwirtschaft, 42(2), 90-99.

D EWES , T. (1994). Die Wirkung der biologisch-dynamischen Präparate. In Ökologischer Landbau - Perspektive für die Zukunft!, ed. J. MAYER . Bad Dürkheim: Sonderausgabe Nr. 58 Stiftung Ökolo- gie and Landbau.

D EWES , T & SCHMITT , L. (eds.). (1995) Beiträge zur 3. Wissenschaftstagung zu m Ökologischen Land- bau vom 21. bis 23. Februar 1995 an der Christian- Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel. p. 7. Gießen:

Wissenschaftlicher Fachverlag. D IERCKS , R. (1993). Alternativen im Landbau. Stuttgart: Ulmer Verlag.

F ISCHER , R. (1982). Der andere Landbau. Hundert Bio- Bauern and Gärtner berichten über ihre Be- weggründe, Arbeitsweisen and Erfahrungen. Zü rich: Verlag Buchhandlung Madlinger-Schwab.

G ENGENBACH , H. & LIMBACHER , M. (eds.) (1985). Kooperation oder Konkurs? Stuttgart: Verlag Freies Geistesleben.

G ERBER , A. (1994). Einfluss einer Flac henspritzung des biologisch-dy namischen Baldrianpräparates (507) auf das Wachstum von Sommerweizen and Winterroggen, unter besonderer Berücksichti- gung der P-Versorgung. Thesis, Institute for Pl ant Nutrition, University of Hohenheim. G RASSINGER , P (1984). Psychologische Aspekte der Betr iebsumstellung auf Ökologischen Landbau.

Thesis, Institute for Psychol ogy, University of Tübingen.

H AMM , U. (1994). Perspektiven des Ök ologischen Landbaus aus marktwirts chaftlicher Sicht. In Öko- logischer Landbau - Perspektive für die Zukunft!, ed. J. Mayer. Bad Dürkheim: Sonderausgabe Nr.58 Stiftung Ökol ogie and Landbau.

H ANSEN , H. (1991). 20 Jahre Bioland - Bioland ins Jahr 2000. In: Bioland, 2, 3. H ERMANSTORFER , U. (1994). Wie weiter mit der Landwirtschaft? In Rundbrief Dreigliederung des So- zialen Organismus. Stuttgart: Netzwerk Dreigliederung. J ONAS , H. (1979). Das Prinzip Verantwortung. Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation.

Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.

152 16 KLETT , M. (1994). Bewusstseinsgeschichtliche Aspekte zur Entwicklung des biologisch-dynamischen Landbaus im 20. Jahrhundert. In: Lebendige Erde, 5, 338.

K OERBER , K.W, MÄNNLE , TH. & LEITZMANN , C. (1993). Vollwert-Ernährung. Heidelberg: KF Haug Ver- lag.

K ÖNIG , U.J. (1994). 70 Jahre biologis ch-dynamische Forschung. In: Lebendige Erde, 5,327.

K ÖPCKE , U. (1994). Nährstoffkreisl auf and Nährstoffmanagement unter dem Aspekt des Betriebsor- ganismus. In ‚Ökologischer Landbau - Perspektive für die Zukunft!, ed. J. M AYER et al. Bad Dürkheim: Sonderausgabe Nr. 58 Stiftung Ökologie and Landbau.

L ULEY , H. (1995). Beratungsringe im Ökologischen Landbau - Arbeits weise and Verbreitung. In Beitrdge zur 3. Wissenschaftstagung zum Ök ologischen Landbau vom 21. bis 23. Februar 1995 an der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, ed. T. D EWES & L. SCHMITT . Gießen: Wissenschaft- licher Fachverlag, vol. 7, pp. 29-32.

L ULEY , H. (1996). Information, Beratung and fachlic he Weiterbildung in Zusammenschlüssen Ökolo- gisch wirtschaftender Erzeuger. Weikersheim: Margraf Verlag.

M AYER , J. (1995). Erfassung von Bilanzen and Versorgungs grad für die Nährstoffe Kalium and Phos- phor in einem biologisch-dynamisch wirtschaftenden Be trieb. Thesis. Institute for Plant Nutrition, University of Hohenheim.

M ENGEL , K. (1991). Ernährung and Stoffwechsel der Pf lanze. p. 10. Jena: Verlag Gustav Fischer.

N EUERBURG , W & PADEL , S. (1992). Organisch-biologischer Landbau in der Praxis. München: BLV Verlag.

R AT DER SACHVERSTÄNDIGEN FÜR UMWELTFRAGEN , (1985). Umweltprobleme der Landwirtschaft. p.

337. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag.

R OGERS , E.M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. Th ird edition. New York: Free Press. S ATTLER , F & VON WISTINGHAUSEN , E. (1985). Der landwirtschaftliche Betrieb. Biologisch-Dynamisch.

Stuttgart: Ulmer Verlag.

S CHAUMANN , W. (1977). Der Biologisch-Dynamische Lan dbau. In Ökologischer Landbau - eine euro- päische Aufgabe, ed. Stift ung Ökologie and Landbau. Alternativ e Konzepte 21. Karlsruhe: Verlag CE Müller.

S CHAUMANN , W. (1995). Der wissenschaftliche and prak tische Entwicklungsweg des Ökologischen Landbaus and seine Zukunftsaspekte. In Beitr äge zur 3. Wissenschaftstagung zum Ökologischen Landbau vom 21. bis 23. Februar 1995 an der Chri stian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, ed. T D E- WES & L. SCHMITT . p. 7. Gießen: Wissenschaftlicher Fachverlag.

S CHELLER , E. (1993). Die Stickstoff Versorgung der Pf lanzen aus dem Stickstoff-Stoffwechsel des Bodens. Weikersheim: Verlag Josef Margraf. S CHLÜTER , C. (1985). Arbeits- and betriebswi rtschaftliche Verhältnisse in Betrieben des alternatives Landbaus. Agrar- and Umweltforschung Baden-Wür ttemberg Bd. 10. Stuttgart: Ulmer Verlag.

S IEBENEICHER , G.E. (ed.) (1993). Handbuch für den biol ogischen Landbau. Augsburg: Naturbuch Verlag.

S TEINER , R. (1924). Geisteswissenschaftliche Grundl agen zum Gedeihen der Landwirtschaft, Dor- nach 1979: R. Steiner Verlag.

Z IECHAUS -H ARTELT , C. (1991). Bioland - ein Verband entwickelt sich. In: Bioland, 2, 13-14.

Z INK , F (1986). Naturel et Agroalimentaire en Republique Federale d'Allemagne. PhD, Paris-Grignon:

Institut National Agronomique.

153 Universität Hohenheim 430 Fachgebiet:

Landwirtschaftliche Kommunikations- und Beratungslehre KIM-16 January 2006 Mamusha Lemma Farmer innovation in Africa 1 1 Introduction In response to the pitfalls of th e transfer of technology model, atte ntion is being directed to tech- nologies generated by farmers and strengthening their capacities to develop and adapt technolo- gies. Several authors and NGOs have shown that st rengthening farmers’ capacities to experiment and solve their own problems is key to sustainable agricultural development. However, this has remained marginal to mainstream research a nd development programs which continued with the TOT approach. Two projects - ISWC and PFI- had been working to build on the potentials of farmer innovators and their i nnovations and institutionalize the farmer innovation approach with- in national agricultural research and extension systems in Africa. The ISWC approach involves training researchers and extension workers in pa rticipatory approaches, identifying farmer inno- vators and their innovations, netw orking between farmer innovators, development agents and re- searchers to develop and validate improved tech niques and systems of land husbandry and disse- minating ideas and methods through farmer-to-fa rmer exchange. The ISWC program takes far- mers and their innovations as the starting point for development and promotes partnership be- tween researchers, extension workers and farmers in joint efforts to improve local and introduced land husbandry practices in Africa.

2 Re-visiting the concept of innovation and innovator The terms ‘innovation’ and ‘innovator’ are not new. R OGERS (1995) describes innovators as those individuals who are the quickest to adopt new ideas. They are venturesome and have high interest in new ideas and more cosmopolite social relati onships. They are resource-rich, educated and risk-taking. To the contrary, th e farmer innovation literature (C HAMBERS et al. 1989; C RITCHLEY et al. 1999; R EIJ and W ATERS -B AYER 2001) characterizes ‘innovators’ not as adopters of new ideas but as developers of new techniques and production systems. Farmer innovators are not progressive or model farmers who adopt extensi on recommendations, but develop or try out new ideas spontaneously without these having been directly recommended by extension workers or outside experts (G EBREMICHAEL 1999). They are resourceful and de velop innovations that fit well to their own specific situations. More importantly, they are typical of their peers and are primarily driven by particular problems to innovate and find solutions to these problems. Thus, they use lo- cally available resources creatively, and experime nt with and adapt new ideas to improve their own practices rather than adopt ing introduced technologies as they are recommended by exten- sion workers. In general, a farmer innovation is defined as some thing new that has been started within the life time of a farmer. It is not something that is inherited from parents or grand parents (G EBRE- MICHAEL 1999). L EEUWIS (2004,12) defines an innovation more pragmatically, in terms of its 1 Partly taken from: R EIJ , C. and W ATERS -B AYER , A. (Eds.), 2001: Farmer Innovation in Africa: A source of inspiration for agricultural developmen t. London: Earthscan Publications. Summarized and complemented by own observ ations by Mamusha Lemma.

154 successful application as ‘a new way of doing things’ or even ‘doing new things ’, but it can only be considered an innovation if it actually wo rks in everyday practice. Along this line, G EBRE- MICHAEL (2001,176) observed that for something to be considered an innovation, it is not only its newness that matters but also its compliance with value systems: ‘ Any innovation that does not fit into community values is not easily accepted or integrated as a common practice and the innova- tor also has acceptance problems ’. Thus, anything new which does not comply with community values may not be considered an innovation and may not spread quickly and spontaneously in a community. 3 Introducing some remarkable farmer innovators and their innovations 3.1 Ayelech Fikre: an outstanding woma n farmer in the Amhara region, Ethiopia A LEMAYEHU , Million Ayelech Fikre is a 63-year-old widow who lives in Ankober district in Northern Shewa Zone of the Amhara region. Over 35 years ago when her father died, she inherited from him about 1ha of farmland situated in a weyna dega (medium hi ghland) zone on a hillside over 2200m above sea level. She has two oxen, one cow, one donkey and three sheep.

Construction of stone bunds After her father’s death, Ayelech took over respon sibility for managing the farm. It was only then that she began to notice the damage done to th e farmland by heavy rainstorms. One day she saw how the flood from the hillside washed away the so il and, with it, the seed she had just sown. She also observed that small gullies were forming on the land. It was then that she started thinking about what measures she could take to prevent this damage. She came up with the ideas of im- proving the cut-off drain that her father had prev iously dug into the slope above the farm and constructing stone bunds on the cropland itself. Then she set to work, together with her son, to implement these ideas on the ground, tackling fi rst the cut-off drain by widening and deepening it, and then starting to build stone bunds.

She and her son worked on this gradually over th e years, whenever they could find some time in between all their other wo rk. They started at the lower bounda ry of the farm and worked their way up the slope. Before piling up the stones for each bund, they dug a foundation trench about a meter deep and a meter wide in order to make the bund very stable.

After some years, Ayelech felt that the work wa s going too slowly. It demanded a great deal of time and energy, and too few people were doing th e work. Therefore, in order to improve her land more quickly, she asked her neighbours to assist her. In line with the local tradition of labour cooperation known as debo, men came to work on her farm. She worked throughout the day to- gether with the men designing and supervising in making the stone bunds along the contours.

Now all of her farmland has been treated with stone bunds, which vary greatly in size. Instead of stretching continuously acro ss the slope from one edge of the farm to the other, the bunds are in a staggered arrangement. This was done intentionally to facilitate ploughing by oxen. The oxen can move from one level to the next in a zigzag ma nner, passing through an interruption in one level of bunds that lies above a continuou s piece of bund at the next level.

155 Harvesting of rainwater Ayelech produces coffee on a small plot in her backyard. Since there is no source of water nearby, she could not irrigate her coffee plants. Sh e considered how she might solve this problem and eventually decided to try collecting run-o ff from her upslope farmland during the rains and diverting it to her coffee plot. She dug temporary ditches below two stone bunds in order to col- lect run-off from the areas between the terraces a nd to guide it into the coffee plot. However, af- ter a particularly heavy rainfall one day, she saw that her coffee plot \ was flooded with run-off full of sediment. This made her realise that, desp ite the improved cut-off drain and the stone bunds, some soil was still being washed away by the rain, especially during its onset.

She then dug a trench between the coffee rows in order to harvest more run-off and, with it, her fertile soil coming from above. Moreover, she dug two pits to st ore the rainwater. After each trench has been filled, she diverts the run-off to the artificial waterway which eventually joins a natural waterway. When the run-off becomes clean (after the sediment load had decreased ), she diverts it to the two pits. She continues this proce ss until both pits are filled with water. Then she seals the pits. They are impermeable, so the water is retained for a long time. She uses the water collected in the two pits mainly for watering the coffee during the dry periods. In this way, she managed to obtain a better yield than farmers in the area who are growing coffee on irrigated land. Although she has tried many ways of harvesting the rainwater, she is still not satisfied and is al- ways seeking new ideas. In her words: ‘Wuha binoregn noro yemalabeklew sew chewuna nafta bicha new’ (Amharic); this means, ‘ If I had had water, I could have grown anything except hu- man beings, salt and diesel ’.

3.2 Gebregziabher Gebrehiot, a farmer i nnovator in the Tigray region, Ethiopia L EMMA , Mamusha Gebregziabher Gebrehiot is a 27-year-old man w ho lives in Hagre Selam wereda in Central Ti- gray. He farms at about 2800m elevation with av erage annual rainfall of about 750mm, falling between June and August. He is married and has two young children. He grows barley, wheat and teff on a quarter ha of farmland. Putting hillside flooding into use Gebregziabher participated in the food-for-work a fforestation program of the Bureau of Agricul- ture and Natural Resources (B oANR) in 1993. The hillsides ar e treated with stone bunds and planted with different species of trees, incl uding eucalyptus. Before 1993, growing eucalyptus trees was not very common in the area. Learning from the afforestation program, Gebregziabher became eager to plant eucalyptus on his own land. He took one eucalyptus seedling and planted it in his backyard to see how it would grow. He observed that, even though it was grazed by goats and seemed at one point to have disappeared, it started to come out in the second rainy season. He thus learned that eucalyptus trees can grow well in his area. In the next year, he brought 15 seed- lings and planted them around his house. Again in the following year, he planted 120 seedlings.

He also collected grass species and planted them in rows. The grass strips stabilised the planting structure for the trees in his backyard.

Gebregziabher has access to some very stony land within a short walk from his home. He used to farm it but found that it was not very productive and hardly worth any effort. Observing the sur- vival rate of the eucalyptus trees around his house, he decided to plant eucalyptus trees on this 156 unproductive piece of land. In 1997 he removed the stones from the land and constructed stone- walls around it, topped with thorny branches to wa rd off goats. He also constructed stone-faced trenches and stone terraces using his own labour. He collected grass species and planted them in strips to hold the soil. His wife also uses the gr ass to make woven plates for domestic use and for sale. It can also be used for th atching roofs. He dug pits in his backyard and produced compost so that he could fertilise the trees. He is currently experimentin g with tree spacing.

Gebregziabher observed that he co uld not water his trees, as there is no source of water in the area. He considered how he could solved this pr oblem. Above his enclosed area, there is a road crossing a steep hillside. The tunnel underneath the road channels a heavy run-off down the hill during the rainy season. The flood formed a gully leading from the edge of the road and passing alongside his enclosed land. Gebreg ziabher built check dams across the gully and dug diversion canals to lead the run-off into his farm through entry gates under the stonewalls. One of the check dams is at the lower end of the land and the ot her is at the outlet of the tunnel coming from un- derneath the road. The canals at th is point lead to the right and to the left to divert the water both to the enclosed land planted with eucalyptus tr ees, and to his farmland on the other side of the gully. Inside the enclosure, Gebregziabher dug a wide trench to serve as a reservoir. Pond con- struction has a long tradition in the area, but he ma de the reservoir in a different way than usual.

In the enclosed area, Gebregziabher has plante d eucalyptus trees, sesbania, acacia and prickly pear cactus (Opuntia ficus indica ) and allowed various naturally regenerating tree and grass spe- cies to grow.

When Gebregziabher started constructing the wa lls for the enclosed area, many people wondered what he would do with it. Some ridiculed his effort s, but others appreciated it. Still others were initially opposed to his idea of plan ting trees in his backyard, rather than in the field. He faced re- sistance from his neighbours on ground that he will be used as an example by the development agents to force other farmers to do the same thing 2.

The DAs from the BoANR who were working in the area also wondered a bout his initiative and asked him what he was trying to do. When they understood his objectives, they encouraged him to continue with his innovation and they supported him with advi ce. When the DAs heard of his intention to construct check dams at the outle t of the tunnel immediately below the road and above his land, they helped him mobilise an add itional four people to do the construction work under his supervision. The BoANR paid these people in wheat for their labour and time. He con- structed the diversion canals to the right and left of the gully using only his own labour. The Bo- ANR also gave him some tree seedlings. To prev ent goats from damaging his trees, the local ad- ministration allowed him to cut branches of thorny trees from protected areas to put on top of the stonewalls surrounding his land.

After having observed what Gebregziabher ha s accomplished, the neighbours now appear to ap- preciate his innovation. Some of them have started to try out so me of his ideas themselves. Other farmers also came from other areas to see his innovation. It has wide community significance and can be spread easily, as only locally available resources are needed for it. Gebregziabher has made an advantage out of the gully through his farm caused by drainage from the road. He is creative in using local resour ces in a more productive way. The flood was simply widening the 2 On the other hand, G EBREMICHAEL (2001,176) observed that local innovations are used by community members to express resistance to external technologies introduced by extension workers: ‘When the technique of graded fanya juu terraces with artificial waterway\ s was being promoted by extension in northern Showa, the community pointed to the innovation of one local farmer (who had developed a combination of traditional ditches and level bunds) to demonstrate the better quality of local techniques in conserving the soil and producing a better crop yield’. 157 gully formation and eroding the area. He is very resourceful in changing the stony land and run- off into productive resources. He has become a gr eat pride for his community. Other farmers who have similar conditions and probl ems are inspired and can easily adapt his innovation to their conditions. Older farmer innovators from other ar eas who visited him during a travelling seminar for innovators expressed great satis faction that a man so young is taking such a keen interest in making the land more productive. 3.3 Mawcha Gebre Medhin, a woman farmer challenging local norms in the Tigray region, Ethiopia L EMMA , Mamusha Mawcha Gebre Medhin is a 38-year-old female-household head and innovator in Adwa wereda, central zone of Tigray. She served as a Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) singer during the civil war. Her work gave her the opportunity to move out of her area and observe the conditions of women and agricultu ral practices in other areas of the region.

Maintaining biodiversity through hillside management Like most other farmers in her area, Mawcha su ffered from frequent flooding and deposition of silt and stones on her fields and homestead from a steep hillside that used to be farmed above her home. A gully had formed in the field below her homestead. In 1986, using her own labour, she started to treat the steep hillside above her farm land by constructing terraces along the hillside to control the run-off. Moreover, she enclosed the hillside to allow natural regeneration of indige- nous trees and grasses. The hillsi de is now forested and the terrace edges have a grass cover.

The organic matter on and in the soil has allowed much water to infiltrate, providing moisture for her farmland. Mawcha harvests fuel wood for home use and sale from the enclosed hillside, where she practises controlled grazing and cut-and-carry feeding. Her biological techniques of soil and water conservation (SWC) have increased th e availability of feed for her animals. She also constructed check dams to rehabilitate a widening gully at the edge of her farmland. She has tried different ways of enhanc ing soil fertility, such as mulching and compost making. She prac- tises crop rotation and ploughs her land frequent ly in order to reduce weed infestation.

Source of motivation and community perception When her husband was taken to southern Ethiopia in a resettlement programme, she remained behind on her own. However, her life was not so easy. She was not on good terms with her hus- band’s relatives. She felt that they were trying to push her away, so that they could take the land and the house. She faced this resistance in many ways. Once, when she was absent, her house was looted. Driven by lack of male labour, sh e decided to plough her land herself. When she started to do this, she received technical advi ce from some farmers in the neighbourhood. Fur- thermore, the problems of flooding and gully fo rmation on her land stimulated her to develop physical and biological innovations in SWC.

Mawcha recalled that she was very tense when she first started ploughing. When she saw some- one coming by, she used to hide. However, after some time, she developed confidence, especially because some male farmers encouraged and assisted her. Initially, some people in the community were very upset by her practice; they said she was crazy and asked what would happen as a con- sequence. A few people regarded her as ‘ someone who wishes evil upon the community ’. How- ever, over time, the attitude of the community has become more positive. This change is reflected in the statement: ‘ Sinsikbish neber ahun gin sakshibin’ (Amharic). This means that ‘ we were laughing at you when you were ploughing, ridiculing your practice ’. However, seeing that she is 158 successful, has gained her livelihood and has become a good farmer, they have realised that her success insults them for the wrong views they had about her practices. Spread of her innovations The neighbours now appear to appr eciate her practices and she has become a source of pride in the community. The impacts of her practices are very visible. She used to produce very little, but now she produces enough for the whole ye ar, as illustrated in his remarks: ‘I do not need to buy grain or work in food-for-work programs ’. She exchanges branches of trees from her enclosed area for straw to be used as animal feed. Sometim es she sells trees in order to hire male labour.

Mawcha is eager to share information and her experience with other farmers in her community.

She has formed a group of women household heads and encouraged them to plough their land by themselves. Subsequently, four women tried to em ulate her practice, but most of the women lack oxen for traction. She has a good relationship a nd cooperates well with her closest neighbour, also a woman. The latter has now enclosed her h illside, too. These two women are the only indi- viduals in the community who ha ve taken this initiative. The neighbour has a pair of oxen. She said that she cannot make good use of the sowing period because she cannot plough herself. She plans to learn ploughing from Mawcha. Mawcha is now renting in land from men farmer s, which is unusual arrangement. Her main rea- son for doing this is to obtain straw for her anim als. She explained that these men are not share- cropping with other men who own oxen, as they fi nd that she ploughs better. She feels that she excels over men farmers in her community and is proud to be regarded as a good farmer. Maw- cha’s success with her SWC practices has given her impulse to plan new activities, including in- troducing bee fodder in the hillside fo r bee keeping and poultry production. 4 An initial analysis of farmer innovators and their innovations REIJ , Chris and W ATERS -B AYER , Ann Every farmer must innovate to some degree be cause of diverse agro-ecological conditions, but some farmers are known in the community as bei ng particularly innovative. What triggers these farmers to develop new ideas or try out something new, while others operating under similar con- ditions do not? Is it because they are particularly rich or particularly poor in productive re- sources? Are most of the outstanding innovators old or young, educated or illiterate, men or women? Do innovations by women differ from those by men? What is the potential of local in- novations to be adopted or ad apted by other farmers? It is clear that any gene ralization is full of pitfalls on account of the considerable socio-economic and agro-ecological differences within and between countries in Africa. Here we discuss some of the characteristics of the farmer innovators who have been identified thus far through the ISWC and PFI programs. The results may say more about improvements that could be made in the me- thodology of the farmer innovator approach than about the traits of innovators.

What do the identified i nnovators have in common?

Most of them are men. About three-quarters of the identifi ed innovators are men. However, there are conceptual and methodological bi ases in the identification and analysis of farmer innovations.

The lower percentage of female innovators iden tified is a question of how innovators are identi- fied and by whom, and what is considered to be an innovation. Although women often do a large share of the farm work, it is usually the men who are the household heads and represent the fam- ily in public, and are therefore most likely to take credit for any changes made on their farms. In 159 those countries where women were involved in the identification process, it generally proved eas- ier to find female innovators. Also, where the focus of the search was not limited to SWC in a narrow sense but included livestock husbandry, gardening and processing of farm products, a higher number of female innovators were docum ented. Many women innovate in collecting and sowing selected grasses, protecting the spontaneous growth of tree seedlings and conserving local plant biodiversity for medicinal, cosmetic or other purposes. These less spectacular innovations are likely to be overlooked in the identification and analysis of farmer innovations in most pro- gram countries.

Many of them are strong personalities. The successful innovators who have been identified tend to be strong personalities capable of withstandi ng considerable social pressure. Some of them have faced hostile treatment because members of th eir community felt that they were not respect- ing cultural traditions. However, those who were identified were mostly successful people al- ready known to outsiders or individuals practising very conspicuous innovations. It was more dif- ficult to discover those farmers who are making sm all and less visible but nevertheless important improvements in their farms, and perhaps do not even regard themselves as innovators.

Most of them are relatively old and experienced. The improvements in the innovators’ farms were due to the long-term eff ects of many incremental changes over the years. Those who have come to harvest the fruits of their experimentat ion and to be recognised as successful innovators were therefore older than average. What has been recorded is the sum of a series of innovations or the maturity of a gradua l process of developing innova tions over several decades. Most of the widely recognised innovators are relatively rich. This may be because they are older an d have had time to develop their farm over time . It is enlightening to look at the history of these wealthier innovators. Many started as relatively poor people, but their investment of time and labour in improving their land allowed them gradually to expand and diversify their produc- tion and to improve their yields. Exposure to other areas stimulated innovation. Many innovators have been exposed to other ar- eas, usually through labour migration, military servic e or refugees. They picked up ideas while in other parts of the country or abroad. However, many of the wo men innovators did not have the same opportunities for travel as did the men excep t in situations of unrest and war, when people move to other areas as fighters or refugees and observe different farming techniques. Creativity and formal education are not correlated. Some of the most remarkable and communi- cative innovators identified through the ISWC and PFI programs are virtually illiterate. This does not mean, however, that education has no role in increasing farmers’ creativity and propensity to innovate. Innovative farmers tend to develop integrated farm systems. It has proved difficult to classify innovators according to the type of innovation or even to separate out sp ecific innovations, as many are interconnected and mutually reinforcin g. Extremely innovative farmers have developed highly integrated farming systems. Motivation and source of inspiration for innovation Farmer innovators frequently recoun t that they were driven by problems and the need to find so- lutions to these problems. Population pressure on a limited natural resource base appears to be an important incentive for innova ting and investing in agricultural di versification and intensification.

Where do farmer innovators get their ideas? It is of ten difficult to obtain reliable answers to this question because both the interviewers and the interviews may have various definitions of inno- vation and the farmers also have their pride. It is not unusual for farmers, like others in a society, to believe (or want others to be lieve) that they were ‘the first’. Thus, generally speaking, farmer 160 innovators are primary driven by the need to find solutions to their pressing problems, but their innovation process has been influenced by various sources of ideas over time.

The suitability of innovations for easy dissemination It is often assumed that innovations developed by farmers would be low cost and more acceptable to smallholders than innovations developed by sc ientists and transferred to farmers through ex- tension systems. Though this appears to be ge nerally acceptable, any generalisation on the easy dissemination of innovations by farmers would be flawed. There are good examples of simple, low cost innovations that spread quickly and fa irly spontaneously. In some cases, if the innova- tor’s land is close to a major travel route, a recognisable innovation can spread without any spe- cial efforts by the innovator or any one else to make the idea known. However, some of the more spectacular innovations by farmers or farming communities are not simple to learn or to do, are not low cost and are not likely to speared easi ly and spontaneously. Besides access to labour and other resources, the spread of innovations is infl uenced by a number of factors, including the costs and benefits of the innovation as percei ved by the farmers, and whether the farmers are aware of the innovation. On the whol e, the spread of local innovations to other smallholders who might find them useful will often depend on the deliberate efforts made by farmer innovators, de- velopment projects, NGOs and the extension serv ices to make these innovations more widely known. There is a stronger need to build better linkages between these various actors in agricul- tural development, as well as linkages with ma ss communication media as channels for dissemi- nating information about local innovation. 5 Forging partnerships for innovation in land husbandry The ISWC program employed various measures to stimulate and support joint experimentation between farmers, development agents and scientists. The focus is on farmer-led experimentation, farmers being the key players in setting research agendas based on their priorities. Thus, to pre- vent the risk that scientists defined problems and imposed them on farmers (researchers-led ex- perimentation), gaining a common understanding of concepts, training in PRA/PTD, identifying and understanding farmers’ innovations and informal experiments, organising exchange visits and building up rapport between farmers, extensionist s and scientists have been key to the entire process of the program. These necessary preconditi ons have given farmers, development agents and researchers confidence and trust to work together on mutually agreed problems. Scientists have a role in:

1. proposing elements for testing which the farmers might like to include, 2. advising farmers on how to design simple expe riments so that both farmers and scientists have a firmer basis for evaluating the results, and 3. explaining reasons for the farmer s’ findings and thus helping farmers to understand better some of the principles and less visible factor s influencing the outcome of their experiments (R EIJ and W ATERS -B AYER 2001b).

The actual process of setting jo int research agenda differed from country to country, but key processes remained common: series of (training) workshops, exchange visits and setting priorities for joint experimentation. Successf ul partnerships emerge when farmers, development agents and scientists see themselves as movi ng in the same direction, working for similar interests and shar- ing the same meanings about the issues at hand. Training workshops and exchange visits played a major role in building up an appreciation of the important role of farmers, development agents and scientists and the confidence and assertiveness of farmers to argue for their interests and pri- 161 9 orities. Workshops enabled scientists to apprecia te the capacities of farmers to analyse and pre- sent their priorities. Scientists had become very excited about exchanging ideas with farmers about experimental designs, parameters to observe and measurement tools (T CHAWA et al. 2001).

Consensus on common priorities for joint experi mentation cannot be successfully reached with- out building trust and the confiden ce of farmers to formulate their interests and insist on giving them priority over scientists’ research interests.

In some cases, joint experiments focused on scien tific validation of local innovations. In other cases, the process of experimentation was designe d to allow the farmers to assess the innovations and/or to investigate farmers’ and scientists’ ideas to improve them further with the aim of strengthening local capacities to test and asse ss new ideas. Farmers were encouraged to learn about experimentation by analysing th eir own experiences and mistakes (R EIJ and W ATERS - B AYER 2001b,16). In Cameroon, research teams were formed consisting of farmer innovators, scientists, and development agents and conducted joint experimentations on night paddock ma- nuring system (T CHAWA et al. 2001). At PTD planning workshops, various tasks were identified\ and the roles to be played by each of the research parties were defined. In the process of the joint experimentation, scientists had become aware that they have been conducting research ‘in a quite different environment for quite different purposes from those of the farmers’ (T CHAWA et al.

2001,224). Development agents helped farmer experi menters to prepare a format for keeping re- cords, based on the agreement reached by all resear ch partners about indicators, means and meth- ods of measurement and means of recording data. And scientists helped make the process of joint experimentation more efficient. 6 References CHAMBERS , R., PACEY , A. and THRUPP , L. A., 1989: Farmer First: Farm er innovation and agricultural research. London: IT Publications. C RITCHLEY , W. et al., (Eds.), 1999: Promoting Farmer Innovation: Harnessing local environmental knowledge in East Africa. Regional Land Mana gement Unit (RELMA) Workshop Report Series 2, Nairobi.

L EEUWIS , C., 2004:Communication for Rural Innovation. Rethinking Agricultural Extension, 3 rd ed.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 412 p.

A LEMAYEHU , Million, 2001: Ayelech Fikre: an outstanding woman farmer in Amhara Region, Ethiopia.

In: Reij, C. and Waters-Bayer, A. (Eds.), Farmer Innovation in Africa: A source of inspiration for agricultural development. London: Earthscan Publications. R EIJ , C. and W ATERS -B AYER , A. (Eds.), 2001a: An initial analysis of farmer innovators and their inno- vations. In: Reij, C. and Waters-Bayer, A. (Eds.) , 2001: Farmer Innovation in Africa: A source of inspiration for agricultural developm ent. London: Earthscan Publications.

R EIJ , C. and W ATERS -B AYER , A. (Eds.), 2001b: Entering resear ch and development in land hus- bandry through farmer innovation. In: R EIJ , C. and W ATERS -B AYER , A. (Eds.), 2001: Farmer Inno- vation in Africa: A source of inspiration for ag ricultural development. London: Earthscan Publica- tions. R OGERS , E. M., 1995: Diffusion of Innovations, 4 th edition. The Free Press, New York.

T CHAWA , P. et al., 2001 : Participatory Technology De velopemnt on soil fertility improvemnt in Cam- eroon. In: Reij, C. and Waters-Bayer, A. (Eds.), 2001: Farmer Innovation in Africa: A source of in- spiration for agricultural developmen t. London: Earthscan Publications. G EBREMICHAEL , Yohannes, 1999: The use, maintenance and deve lopment of soil and water conser- vation measures by small-scale farming households in different agro-clim atic zones of northern Shoa and southern Wollo, Ethiopia. Center fo r Development and Environment, University of Berne. G EBREMICHAEL , Yohannes, 2001: Community asse ssment of local innovations in northern Ethiopia.

In: R EIJ , C. and W ATERS -B AYER , A. (Eds.), Farmer Innovation in Af rica: A source of inspiration for agricultural development. London: Earthscan Publications. 162 Universität Hohenheim 430 Fachgebiet:

Landwirtschaftliche Kommunikations- und Beratungslehre KIM-17 January 2011 Hoffmann As Hegel once examined students 1 Franz Kugler, art historian and biographer of Fr ederick the Great, attended lectures with Hegel and captured the philosopher on lithography. By Heinrich Dilly Figure 1 : Subdued Hegel at the lectern: Did words fail him when reading about Aesthetics?

Nowadays, auditoriums are supposed to be overcrowded. Also pictures, found on the internet even under such abstract term s as University or Lecture, show prominent photos, which acknowledge the term “mass university” as dis tinction and the universities’ misery as a productive permanent state. On some of these abundant online picture pages, the reader can find a lithography reproduction showing Georg Wilh elm Friedrich Hegel. His students also 1 Source: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 19.01.2011 1 163 2 seem to be up close to him. Three of them are standing remarkably close to the lectern. A fourth one, casually having taken a seat right next to the philo sopher, is writing while the lecturer is scrolling th rough a booklet, contemplating and remaining silent.

The group portrait was created by Franz Kugler in 1828, then a 20 year o\ ld literature student.

Already one decade after, he was a well-known art historian in Europe and after two further years, he and Adolph Menzel were the best conn oisseurs of the history of Frederick the Great.

In 1843, Kugler became an officer in the Prussi an Ministry of Education. Legend has it that student Kugler had portrayed Hegel naturally, tagged it strikingl y alike with Hegel’s signature and then lithographed him. He drew the philoso pher so accurately that all of Hegel’s friends and opponents immediately remember the cont emporary testimonials about his lecturing style.

Hegel usually read from his notes, but often lost the plot and then endlessly searched his notes for the additions with the corresponding updates. Furthermore, in over 40 academic years he never learned to speak High German. Neverthele ss, Polish students particularly loved to follow his Swabian speeches. In the second half of the 1920s his lectures where so sought- after that the philosopher personally had to hand out entry tickets several times, while in a few auditoriums further Arthur Schopenhauer was dreaming of having more than 3 listeners.

Kugler’s lithography was only described once as lite rally a graphic transfer of a professorial attitude. It was suggested to call the lithography ‘Hegel at the awarding of the attestation’ rather than ‘Hegel during lecture’. Four years ago, Dan Karlholm, an ar t and science historian from Stockholm, researched the theme of Hegel’ s lectures in 1828. From 6 lecture themes and the constellation of an ‘art historian-to-be, sketching an art philosopher’ he concluded the following: the student must have drawn him during the Aesthetics ’ lecture. While drawing he must have realised that art phi losophers, art historians and art connoisseur s stay silent in aesthetically important moments. Those, to whom not hing great is unknown, mute upon discovering true art.

But the Swedish art historian shou ld have delivered an explanation why he ignored the Berlin students on Kugler’s lithography, si nce they are the ones who bring the interpretation back to the universities’ reality. Why do they stand so neatly dressed and with immaculately styled hair in front of the poorly groomed philosophe r? Why do they not look up to him in full anticipation, but instead seem to have gotten into mischief? Why are there three students in front of their lecturer and why is one single, obviously short-sighted, fellow student seated next to him? What are these notes about on the lectern? Why does the left student hold a worn-out quill in his right hand? Why is there a top hat on the professor’s table? And finally:

why is Hegel scrolling through a booklet and not through his manuscript? Does Kugler’s picture really belong into the context of the Humboldt university reform, because it is being 164 shown often in the absence of other pictures? Or does it finally, however, show the long- forgotten attestation awarding scene at the beginning and end of each semester?

No, it cannot be the latter! The atte station forms of the Berlin University were rather large – slightly higher and slimmer than A4 format. On Kugler’s drawing, such an official form, a so- called registration form, cannot be discovered. Recognisable is though that the three fellow students look alike each other much more than necessary, they are reproduced as types rather than individuals. Therefore, the question arising is whether there are comparable con- stellations among the countless pictures of teachers and students.

As a matter of fact: yes! Even reproductions of some mediev al book illustrations show three or four students with the lect urer set apart from their fellow students. Yes, around 1500 there is a whole series of woodcar vings showing the students and the lecturer in the following constellation. Among these illustrations there is a scene of four, presumably originated in England and repeated by various woodcarvers on the continent from 1480 to 1520 (see Figure 2 and also presentation KIM-08 University).

Figure 2:

Professions and branches or typical accomplishments of certain “planets” belong to the favourite themes of pre-modern woodcarvings, in Germany e. g. from the artist only known as “Hausbuchmeiser”. Our picture, originated in England, but copied many times on the continent, combines a scene of university lecturing with a primary school situation: The teacher holds a birch in his hand as disciplinary medium of the Poisonous Pedagogy (or Black Pedagogy in Germany).

3 This woodcarving shows a teacher frontally and three students sitting at his feet, grouped in exactly the same way as Kugler did his fellow students. Even the hand position of the left student of the woodcarving corres ponds with the one of the very left student of Kugler’s picture. Only the hand of the right student is missing. Even the distances between the three 165 4 match each other. However, the remarkable di fference is that the wood-carved students of 1500 are vividly discussing whilst those of Kugl er’s lithography seem embarrassed and muted and a fourth is suspiciously busy writing. Kugler must ha ve known the woodcarving, which was the cover picture of a small lecture book for Latin language of 1496. His lithography updates a picture type of the time of 1500 remini scent of a paradox teacher-student-relation- ship.

In the shape of the teacher with a birch, the ma n of the late medieval times is seated on his throne looking down to the happily discus sing students. His birch only indicates his profession, not his doing and especi ally not what he leaves. In contrast to him, the university teacher of the Biedermeier time seems to actua lly read and search for something in his attribute - a booklet -, which th e three students certainly do not calmly expect. To make clear to what the students are waiti ng for, Kugler has also matched attributes to them. He gave the first student a quill at hand, but no paper. The second fellow student he assigned the middle-class top hat to. With this and with the gowns, he conveys that the centuries of particular student clothing are over since the Karlsbad Resolutions and that it is opportune to dress especially civil for certain occasions. He provided the third student with a slightly eloquent moustache and the fourth, slightly olde r fellow student with pen and paper – indeed not from spy services for intransparent Swab ians, but for the protocol of the dispute.

Because this is the situation on Kugler’s picture! Hegel is the chair\ man of a so-called Disputatio de quodlibet, one of the four types of me dieval thesis defence. It allows the chairman to pick the examining theme at random using a knife or quill from a book the candidate presents to him. The candidate then develops his theses as the proponent. Then, two or more fellow students – the opponents – counter his arguments. The chairman listens and therewith confirms an ancient academic experien ce: the fiercest critics of the students are the students themselves. But only when they do actu ally talk. Kugler’s figures do not. They apparently expect a question which solely requires knowledge. Knowingly, they have therefore attached thr ee answers to the front of the lect ern, where the chairman cannot see them. For both, examiner and students, these ch eat slips are equally shameful, since they reveal that three modern humans are exhibite d in a medieval way. In medieval times, no participant was worried a bout the birch and talked freely. Howe ver, this is only visible on the woodcarving and abolished by th e composition of the lithography.

In contra to this interpretati on of the lithography, is that so far, no written confirmation has been discovered proving that Hegel actually wo uld have used this examining method. All of his reviews and the protocols of public grad uations are archived and published; however, none of the protocols of internal examinations preceding the graduations and the promotion to candidates of the Philosophical Fa culty of Berlin are available. In addition, it is also yet unknown whether Hegel offered test and practice of such thesis defences.\ 166 5 But it is public knowledge that in Berlin the method of defence always was heavily contro- versial since the foundation of the Universi ty. Schleiermacher was against the pure knowledge defenses, Fichte spoke out against the use of Latin language and defenses in general. For the faculties though, it was more important to confine, if not abolish the purchasablility of the doctor title and especially the doctorate’s conferral in absence. They and the ministry finally agreed upon an examination compromise which also contained a pure knowledge exam, as Kugler’s picture shows in a careful caricature.

Hence, a figurative and stylistic rest remains! But not a rest that would raise the approximate and unperilous thoughts of conceptu al art and that would levy the lithography to a witness of a mutual “Iconic Turn”. It also would not suit as illustrated proof for th e eloquent silence of the aesthetician and art scientists in the ri ght moment, because Kugler himself documented that he did not understand Hegel’s thoughts. Therefore, now K ugler’s fellow students make sure to search professionally for the number of received copies of this lithography and realise:

there are only three! The num ber can be referred to the three unknown students who might have stood in front of Hegel li ke this or in a similar way.

As long as no further copies are discovered, thos e three in the Goethe Museum in Düsseldorf, in Frankfurt’s Goethe House and in the German Literature Archive in Marbach am Neckar, also because of the extent and format, can be interpreted as a special variety of the multiple friendship guestbook. Additionally, Kugler has s hown in the way of the guestbook that he expects a lot of graphical knowledge. He also expects silence over the almost perfectly falsified signature and leaves open whether th e three neatly dressed fellow students knew how to overcome such an embarrassing procedure with cheat notes or whether the carelessly groomed Hegel drove this method of examination to medieval heights.

Therefore, this carefully drawn, seemingly so typical portrait of Hegel, which is even used on the letterhead of the International Hegel Soci ety for several years, is picture proof of a philosophy and university exam being used ina ppropriately. Once more, it may be said that the four students derogate the positive image of the university. Together with 20 year old Kugler, they are the ones, who pr ovide a critical image of the then incomplete university and examination reforms according to Humboldt.

Heinrich Dilly taught art history at the Martin Luther University in Halle-Wittenberg until his retirement. 167 17. 6. 1996, Schloss Thurnau v .l. n. r.: Volker Hoffmann, Ev erett Rogers, Hartmut Albrecht View publication statsView publication stats 168