102
Responsibility In the context of social relationships, people may well consider
whether indeed they are and/or should be responsible for addressing the issue at
hand. There are many issues in agriculture where such considerations play a role. In
the management of pest and diseases, for example, farmers may refuse to adopt
certain pest control practices because they regard it as a government responsibility
to organise spraying gangs (Dormon 2006). Similarly, farmers may not want to
adapt their farming in a manner that saves the environment because they find that
others should take their responsibility first.
Social pressure While the dominant social-psychological models typically include
a variable related to social influence, the issue of power and enforcement is not very
explicit. From a relational perspective, it is important to acknowledge that some
people may be seen to have power over others and can impose sanctions or provide
rewards to ensure that others behave in a particular way. For example, female farmers may be discouraged from adopting a cash crop because their husbands forbid it
and threaten them to reduce their access to land. Alternatively, people may adopt a
new variety purely because they expect to face negative consequences from their
community leaders if they refuse. Thus, social pressure is a form of social influence
that involves dynamics of power, which make it meaningfully different from how
individuals perceive the wishes and norms of relevant others (as considered in
social-psychological models).
Trade-offs The observation that adoption involves multiple practices and activities
further clarifies that adoption may be considered vis-a-vis a range of goals and aspirations. Clearly, people aim at realising a range of goals in life (including in farming). Hereby, different activities and behaviours may serve different goals, but it is
also clear that one and the same behaviour may have implications for different values and aspirations. Buying a tractor for ploughing may be economically attractive
but may also damage relations with neighbours and/or farm labourers who were
involved in ploughing before the arrival of mechanical ploughing. While socialpsychological models involve value-based evaluation of a specific behaviour, it is
less clear and explicit that adoption normally involves many behaviours and multiple values at the same time, leading to the likelihood of trade-offs, that is, situations
where adoption works out positively for some goals and negatively for others,
resulting in the need to make choices and accept certain trade-offs. Different types
of goals and aspirations may play a role in the consideration of trade-offs, including
economic goals (e.g. high profit or stable cash flow), technical goals (e.g. high milk
yield or low water run-off), cultural goals (e.g. showing respect for life), relational
goals (e.g. maintaining good relations with neighbours), emotional goals (e.g. safeguarding peace of mind) or ethical aspirations (e.g. ensuring fair and equitable outcomes). The balancing and weighing of multiple perceived outcomes and goal
orientations deserve to be made more explicit in models to explain adoption.
Identity It is important to consider that the salient identity that people have or take
on when considering something may differ according to the relational setting.
C. Leeuwis and N. Aarts
Responsibility In the context of social relationships, people may well consider
whether indeed they are and/or should be responsible for addressing the issue at
hand. There are many issues in agriculture where such considerations play a role. In
the management of pest and diseases, for example, farmers may refuse to adopt
certain pest control practices because they regard it as a government responsibility
to organise spraying gangs (Dormon 2006). Similarly, farmers may not want to
adapt their farming in a manner that saves the environment because they find that
others should take their responsibility first.
Social pressure While the dominant social-psychological models typically include
a variable related to social influence, the issue of power and enforcement is not very
explicit. From a relational perspective, it is important to acknowledge that some
people may be seen to have power over others and can impose sanctions or provide
rewards to ensure that others behave in a particular way. For example, female farmers may be discouraged from adopting a cash crop because their husbands forbid it
and threaten them to reduce their access to land. Alternatively, people may adopt a
new variety purely because they expect to face negative consequences from their
community leaders if they refuse. Thus, social pressure is a form of social influence
that involves dynamics of power, which make it meaningfully different from how
individuals perceive the wishes and norms of relevant others (as considered in
social-psychological models).
Trade-offs The observation that adoption involves multiple practices and activities
further clarifies that adoption may be considered vis-a-vis a range of goals and aspirations. Clearly, people aim at realising a range of goals in life (including in farming). Hereby, different activities and behaviours may serve different goals, but it is
also clear that one and the same behaviour may have implications for different values and aspirations. Buying a tractor for ploughing may be economically attractive
but may also damage relations with neighbours and/or farm labourers who were
involved in ploughing before the arrival of mechanical ploughing. While socialpsychological models involve value-based evaluation of a specific behaviour, it is
less clear and explicit that adoption normally involves many behaviours and multiple values at the same time, leading to the likelihood of trade-offs, that is, situations
where adoption works out positively for some goals and negatively for others,
resulting in the need to make choices and accept certain trade-offs. Different types
of goals and aspirations may play a role in the consideration of trade-offs, including
economic goals (e.g. high profit or stable cash flow), technical goals (e.g. high milk
yield or low water run-off), cultural goals (e.g. showing respect for life), relational
goals (e.g. maintaining good relations with neighbours), emotional goals (e.g. safeguarding peace of mind) or ethical aspirations (e.g. ensuring fair and equitable outcomes). The balancing and weighing of multiple perceived outcomes and goal
orientations deserve to be made more explicit in models to explain adoption.
Identity It is important to consider that the salient identity that people have or take
on when considering something may differ according to the relational setting.
C. Leeuwis and N. Aarts