105
farmers. Similarly, such cultural belongings and identities may relate to what people
feel responsible for and what not.
Thus, in a setting where multiple people interact and depend on each other, institutions can be seen to orient actors’ ways of thinking, that is, their beliefs, experienced influence or pressure, aspirations, trust, risk perceptions, abilities,
responsibilities, etc. This should not be interpreted in a deterministic manner as
actors can have considerable agency and space for manoeuvre (Long 1990; Giddens
1984) to interpret what rules and arrangements apply to the situation at hand.
Figure 4.2 captures what we have discussed so far:
Figure 4.2 provides what one could call a ‘sociologically enhanced’ overview of
the reasons that people may have for adopting or rejecting an innovation (consisting
of a package of behaviours A, B, C). When compared with Fig. 4.1, it includes a
range of additional relational variables and considerations that have to do with how
other people are looked at: whether they exert power and pressure, whether they can
be trusted to (be willing and able to) perform complementary behaviours and/or
whether proposed responsibilities and identities are meaningful to the situation. The
figure also captures the role of salient identities and institutions as well as the role
of time; it makes clear that previous behaviours and experiences play a role and that
the adoption of a set of new practices generates responses in the agro-ecological and
social world that are being interpreted, leading to changes in people’s ‘mindset’. For
example, growing a new variety may go along with a variety of experiences which
are likely to influence peoples’ reasoning with regard to future activities: Did it
grow well?, Was it resistant to diseases?, How much effort was needed?, Was I able
to sell the crop against a good price?, Did my family members like the taste?, etc.
Once behaviours associated with an innovation have been adopted (and often
adapted), they are likely to become a routine or habit, that is, a regular practice that
is no longer actively deliberated every time it is enacted. This is why the concept of
‘intention’ has been omitted from Fig. 4.2; while behaviours may continue to be
rationalised ex-post (e.g. when asked about in an interview setting), it is not accurate to assume that everything people do is preceded by careful deliberation.
However, at some point in time, routines may become subject to active reflection
again, for example, when a relatively stable situation is disrupted and/or when
longer- term negative consequences become visible.
4.5 An Interactional View
Whereas Fig. 4.2 still gravitates towards an individualist perspective as it includes
only one relatively isolated ‘mindset’, Fig. 4.3 is an attempt to correct that to
some degree.
While Fig. 4.3 refers to the same parameters as Fig. 4.2, it highlights that adoption occurs in an interactional context where several people (in reality more than
two) depend on each other in their performance. This interaction evokes salient
identities of participants and is oriented by the formal and informal institutions that
4 Rethinking Adoption and Diffusion as a Collective Social Process…
farmers. Similarly, such cultural belongings and identities may relate to what people
feel responsible for and what not.
Thus, in a setting where multiple people interact and depend on each other, institutions can be seen to orient actors’ ways of thinking, that is, their beliefs, experienced influence or pressure, aspirations, trust, risk perceptions, abilities,
responsibilities, etc. This should not be interpreted in a deterministic manner as
actors can have considerable agency and space for manoeuvre (Long 1990; Giddens
1984) to interpret what rules and arrangements apply to the situation at hand.
Figure 4.2 captures what we have discussed so far:
Figure 4.2 provides what one could call a ‘sociologically enhanced’ overview of
the reasons that people may have for adopting or rejecting an innovation (consisting
of a package of behaviours A, B, C). When compared with Fig. 4.1, it includes a
range of additional relational variables and considerations that have to do with how
other people are looked at: whether they exert power and pressure, whether they can
be trusted to (be willing and able to) perform complementary behaviours and/or
whether proposed responsibilities and identities are meaningful to the situation. The
figure also captures the role of salient identities and institutions as well as the role
of time; it makes clear that previous behaviours and experiences play a role and that
the adoption of a set of new practices generates responses in the agro-ecological and
social world that are being interpreted, leading to changes in people’s ‘mindset’. For
example, growing a new variety may go along with a variety of experiences which
are likely to influence peoples’ reasoning with regard to future activities: Did it
grow well?, Was it resistant to diseases?, How much effort was needed?, Was I able
to sell the crop against a good price?, Did my family members like the taste?, etc.
Once behaviours associated with an innovation have been adopted (and often
adapted), they are likely to become a routine or habit, that is, a regular practice that
is no longer actively deliberated every time it is enacted. This is why the concept of
‘intention’ has been omitted from Fig. 4.2; while behaviours may continue to be
rationalised ex-post (e.g. when asked about in an interview setting), it is not accurate to assume that everything people do is preceded by careful deliberation.
However, at some point in time, routines may become subject to active reflection
again, for example, when a relatively stable situation is disrupted and/or when
longer- term negative consequences become visible.
4.5 An Interactional View
Whereas Fig. 4.2 still gravitates towards an individualist perspective as it includes
only one relatively isolated ‘mindset’, Fig. 4.3 is an attempt to correct that to
some degree.
While Fig. 4.3 refers to the same parameters as Fig. 4.2, it highlights that adoption occurs in an interactional context where several people (in reality more than
two) depend on each other in their performance. This interaction evokes salient
identities of participants and is oriented by the formal and informal institutions that
4 Rethinking Adoption and Diffusion as a Collective Social Process…