N. de Roo, T. Amede, E. Elias, C. Almekinders, C. Leeuwis
{"title":"Diffusion of agricultural knowledge in Southern Ethiopia: finding the real opinion leaders through network analysis","authors":"N. de Roo, T. Amede, E. Elias, C. Almekinders, C. Leeuwis","doi":"10.1080/1389224X.2021.1987282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Purpose Agricultural extension services in poor countries often identify opinion leaders based on criteria such as wealth and social status. We explore the effectiveness of this top-down approach by analysing the role of so-called model and nodal farmers in the diffusion of malt barley in a highland community in Ethiopia. Research approach We use a retrospective case study design where we combine quantitative network analysis with qualitative data. Findings Nodal farmers played a more central role in knowledge diffusion of the technology than model farmers. While model farmers were wealthier and better connected to the local authorities, nodal farmers were socio-economically more similar to their fellow farmers. Nodal and model farmers, as well as farmers closely connected to them, had a significantly higher adoption index than the rest. Practical implications The diffusion of knowledge is an important condition for the adoption of modern agricultural technologies, but it is not enough, particularly when access to external inputs is limited. Moreover, relying on assumed opinion leaders has its limitations and may even reinforce existing inequalities. Theoretical implications This paper has shown the complementarity of network approaches. We propose network approaches such as social network analysis to identify community brokers who emerge from bottom-up or clan-based, political, knowledge networks that mediate access to agricultural technologies. Originality Our combined research approach differs from the mainstream of studies in this field that employ either ethnographic fieldwork or (spatial-)econometric methods. We aim to create a bridge between the often separated worlds of (technical) agronomic research, (qualitative) rural sociology, and (quantitative) econometric analysis.","PeriodicalId":46772,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Education & Extension","volume":"29 1","pages":"99 - 115"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Agricultural Education & Extension","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2021.1987282","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Abstract
ABSTRACT Purpose Agricultural extension services in poor countries often identify opinion leaders based on criteria such as wealth and social status. We explore the effectiveness of this top-down approach by analysing the role of so-called model and nodal farmers in the diffusion of malt barley in a highland community in Ethiopia. Research approach We use a retrospective case study design where we combine quantitative network analysis with qualitative data. Findings Nodal farmers played a more central role in knowledge diffusion of the technology than model farmers. While model farmers were wealthier and better connected to the local authorities, nodal farmers were socio-economically more similar to their fellow farmers. Nodal and model farmers, as well as farmers closely connected to them, had a significantly higher adoption index than the rest. Practical implications The diffusion of knowledge is an important condition for the adoption of modern agricultural technologies, but it is not enough, particularly when access to external inputs is limited. Moreover, relying on assumed opinion leaders has its limitations and may even reinforce existing inequalities. Theoretical implications This paper has shown the complementarity of network approaches. We propose network approaches such as social network analysis to identify community brokers who emerge from bottom-up or clan-based, political, knowledge networks that mediate access to agricultural technologies. Originality Our combined research approach differs from the mainstream of studies in this field that employ either ethnographic fieldwork or (spatial-)econometric methods. We aim to create a bridge between the often separated worlds of (technical) agronomic research, (qualitative) rural sociology, and (quantitative) econometric analysis.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Agricultural Education & Extension is published to inform experts who do or use research on agricultural education and extension about research conducted in this field worldwide. Information about this research is needed to improve policies, strategies, methods and practices for agricultural education and extension. The Journal of Agricultural Education & Extension accepts authorative and well-referenced scientific articles within the field of agricultural education and extension after a double-blind peer review process. Agricultural education and extension faces profound change, and therefore its core area of attention is moving towards communication, competence development and performance improvement for a wide variety of fields and audiences, most of which can be studied from a multi-disciplinary perspective, including: -Communication for Development- Competence Management and Development- Corporate Social Responsibility and Human Resource Development- Design and Implementation of Competence–based Education- Environmental and Natural Resource Management- Entrepreneurship and Learning- Facilitating Multiple-Stakeholder Processes- Health and Society- Innovation of Agricultural-Technical Education- Innovation Systems and Learning- Integrated Rural Development- Interdisciplinary and Social Learning- Learning, Conflict and Decision Making- Poverty Reduction- Performance Improvement- Sustainable Agricultural Production