96
occur when farmers engage with new technologies (Glover et al. 2016). In other
words, that what is supposedly adopted may actually have changed and become
contextually adapted. Such critiques are valid and indeed render the concept of
‘adoption’ to be rather ambiguous.
In this chapter, we do not focus on the issue of how to precisely define or measure adoption, nor on the processes of adaptation that are likely to be involved.
Instead, we focus on theories and modes of thinking that have been used to explain
and understand why people do or do not ‘adopt’ a novel practice. This regardless of
how sizable, durable or adaptive such changes may be. Such theoretical explanations include two interrelated dimensions: (a) factors or variables that are seen to
influence whether people adopt or not and (b) the kinds of dynamic processes that
are seen to be at work in shaping such factors. In relation to these, we will argue that
adoption theories and technology uptake models have tended to regard adoption as
a largely individual process and that they have thereby overlooked critically important interdependencies in the process of adoption. Subsequently, we complement
individualist models for explaining adoption with sociological variables and then
work towards an interactional perspective on the adoption process. Eventually, we
will briefly highlight relevant conceptual and practical implications of our perspective with regard to some topical issues in development intervention, notably the idea
of ‘scaling’ and the wish to support adoption and scaling with the help of information and communication technology for agriculture (ICT4Ag).
4.2 Adoption Seen as an Individual Argumentative Process
4.2.1 Everett Rogers’ Seminal Work
In 1962, Everett Rogers made a synthesis of more than 500 studies in his famous
book ‘diffusion of innovations’ in which adoption is a central theme. At this point
in time, adoption is regarded as a process of individual decision-making, even
though it is recognised that individuals are part of a broader system (Rogers 1962).
Rogers argues that adoption (or rejection) of an innovation arises from a process in
which individuals go through several stages (see Table 4.1). The process is essentially seen as a cognitive process in which various sources of information may play
an important role. In line with this, provision of particular information was seen as
a key activity in supporting individuals in the process of arriving at an adoption or
rejection decision (Van den Ban 1963; Van den Ban and Hawkins 1996).
According to Rogers, the way an adoption process evolves is further shaped by
the antecedents of the individual involved (his or her values, status, cosmopoliteness, etc.), his or her perception of the situation and the perceived characteristics of
the innovation. This includes how individuals view the relative advantage of the
innovation, the extent to which the innovation is regarded as compatible with existing practices and the perceived complexity of using the innovation in the context at
C. Leeuwis and N. Aarts
occur when farmers engage with new technologies (Glover et al. 2016). In other
words, that what is supposedly adopted may actually have changed and become
contextually adapted. Such critiques are valid and indeed render the concept of
‘adoption’ to be rather ambiguous.
In this chapter, we do not focus on the issue of how to precisely define or measure adoption, nor on the processes of adaptation that are likely to be involved.
Instead, we focus on theories and modes of thinking that have been used to explain
and understand why people do or do not ‘adopt’ a novel practice. This regardless of
how sizable, durable or adaptive such changes may be. Such theoretical explanations include two interrelated dimensions: (a) factors or variables that are seen to
influence whether people adopt or not and (b) the kinds of dynamic processes that
are seen to be at work in shaping such factors. In relation to these, we will argue that
adoption theories and technology uptake models have tended to regard adoption as
a largely individual process and that they have thereby overlooked critically important interdependencies in the process of adoption. Subsequently, we complement
individualist models for explaining adoption with sociological variables and then
work towards an interactional perspective on the adoption process. Eventually, we
will briefly highlight relevant conceptual and practical implications of our perspective with regard to some topical issues in development intervention, notably the idea
of ‘scaling’ and the wish to support adoption and scaling with the help of information and communication technology for agriculture (ICT4Ag).
4.2 Adoption Seen as an Individual Argumentative Process
4.2.1 Everett Rogers’ Seminal Work
In 1962, Everett Rogers made a synthesis of more than 500 studies in his famous
book ‘diffusion of innovations’ in which adoption is a central theme. At this point
in time, adoption is regarded as a process of individual decision-making, even
though it is recognised that individuals are part of a broader system (Rogers 1962).
Rogers argues that adoption (or rejection) of an innovation arises from a process in
which individuals go through several stages (see Table 4.1). The process is essentially seen as a cognitive process in which various sources of information may play
an important role. In line with this, provision of particular information was seen as
a key activity in supporting individuals in the process of arriving at an adoption or
rejection decision (Van den Ban 1963; Van den Ban and Hawkins 1996).
According to Rogers, the way an adoption process evolves is further shaped by
the antecedents of the individual involved (his or her values, status, cosmopoliteness, etc.), his or her perception of the situation and the perceived characteristics of
the innovation. This includes how individuals view the relative advantage of the
innovation, the extent to which the innovation is regarded as compatible with existing practices and the perceived complexity of using the innovation in the context at
C. Leeuwis and N. Aarts