111
extension (Van den Ban and Hawkins 1996). Typically, agricultural extension handbooks and extension professionals identify strongly with the idea that individuals
need to be provided with relevant information that guides them through the adoption
process, that is, provision of information about problems, solutions, pros and cons
associated with alternative options, etc. geared largely towards changing people’s
beliefs and attitudes (see Table 4.2) in favour of specific behaviours. Classically,
such information was communicated through a mix of mass media and interpersonal media. While the media may have changed, it is interesting to note that ICT
applications in agricultural extension may still tend towards provision of similar
kinds of information to farmers. Recent inventories of ICT4Ag indicate that extension organisations use virtual platforms to enhance organisational processes through
better registration of farmers, recording of activities and internal reporting and also
to provide farmers with up-to-date weather and market information (Munthali et al.
2018). When it comes to technical advice that is explicitly geared towards influencing adoption, we see that ICTs are frequently used to provide information about
‘best practices’ through, e.g. repositories, voice messages, text messages, video
clips and alerts. While the channel and speed through which information is provided
may have meaningfully changed, such information arguably is still directed at individual farmers and contains similar messages as in traditional extension regarding
the existence of problems and solutions and the pros and cons of different courses
of action.
If indeed ICT4Ag continues to be geared towards influencing beliefs, attitudes
and individual adoption decisions, it is likely to fall short in similar ways as preexisting forms of decision support in that these do not directly address interdependencies between people and practices. Thus, it is worthwhile to think about what
ICT4Ag might have to offer in terms of supporting processes of collective decisionmaking on farmer-level agricultural issues. Phrased differently, how may ICT4Ag
help to anticipate influential interactional processes, and be used to shape the more
relational variables in our ‘reasons for (non)adoption’ model, including social pressure, power, trust, responsibility, salient identity and institutions?
To explore this further, it may help to think of an important farmer-level issue in
which interdependencies among farmers tend to play an important role: the prevention and control of pests and diseases. There exist numerous plant diseases whereby
the efficacy of control measures on one farm depends on what other farmers in the
vicinity do. If farmers in the immediate environment do not take sufficient preventive or curative measures (e.g. disinfect tools, prevent water run-off, remove and
burn diseased plants, apply spraying at the right time, install insect traps, buy clean
planting materials, etc.), it becomes almost futile for a farmer to invest in disease
control on his or her own, since the field will continue to become infected by the
disease. In such cases, diseases can be seen as a ‘public bad’, while effective disease
control strategies can be regarded as a ‘public good’ that is only created if sufficient
farmers contribute to it (Cieslik et al. 2018; Leeuwis et al. 2018). In these kinds of
situations, it is clearly insufficient to only provide individuals with technical advise
on how to prevent and control the disease; even if farmers come to belief that such
measures are likely to be effective and develop a positive attitude towards them,
4 Rethinking Adoption and Diffusion as a Collective Social Process…
extension (Van den Ban and Hawkins 1996). Typically, agricultural extension handbooks and extension professionals identify strongly with the idea that individuals
need to be provided with relevant information that guides them through the adoption
process, that is, provision of information about problems, solutions, pros and cons
associated with alternative options, etc. geared largely towards changing people’s
beliefs and attitudes (see Table 4.2) in favour of specific behaviours. Classically,
such information was communicated through a mix of mass media and interpersonal media. While the media may have changed, it is interesting to note that ICT
applications in agricultural extension may still tend towards provision of similar
kinds of information to farmers. Recent inventories of ICT4Ag indicate that extension organisations use virtual platforms to enhance organisational processes through
better registration of farmers, recording of activities and internal reporting and also
to provide farmers with up-to-date weather and market information (Munthali et al.
2018). When it comes to technical advice that is explicitly geared towards influencing adoption, we see that ICTs are frequently used to provide information about
‘best practices’ through, e.g. repositories, voice messages, text messages, video
clips and alerts. While the channel and speed through which information is provided
may have meaningfully changed, such information arguably is still directed at individual farmers and contains similar messages as in traditional extension regarding
the existence of problems and solutions and the pros and cons of different courses
of action.
If indeed ICT4Ag continues to be geared towards influencing beliefs, attitudes
and individual adoption decisions, it is likely to fall short in similar ways as preexisting forms of decision support in that these do not directly address interdependencies between people and practices. Thus, it is worthwhile to think about what
ICT4Ag might have to offer in terms of supporting processes of collective decisionmaking on farmer-level agricultural issues. Phrased differently, how may ICT4Ag
help to anticipate influential interactional processes, and be used to shape the more
relational variables in our ‘reasons for (non)adoption’ model, including social pressure, power, trust, responsibility, salient identity and institutions?
To explore this further, it may help to think of an important farmer-level issue in
which interdependencies among farmers tend to play an important role: the prevention and control of pests and diseases. There exist numerous plant diseases whereby
the efficacy of control measures on one farm depends on what other farmers in the
vicinity do. If farmers in the immediate environment do not take sufficient preventive or curative measures (e.g. disinfect tools, prevent water run-off, remove and
burn diseased plants, apply spraying at the right time, install insect traps, buy clean
planting materials, etc.), it becomes almost futile for a farmer to invest in disease
control on his or her own, since the field will continue to become infected by the
disease. In such cases, diseases can be seen as a ‘public bad’, while effective disease
control strategies can be regarded as a ‘public good’ that is only created if sufficient
farmers contribute to it (Cieslik et al. 2018; Leeuwis et al. 2018). In these kinds of
situations, it is clearly insufficient to only provide individuals with technical advise
on how to prevent and control the disease; even if farmers come to belief that such
measures are likely to be effective and develop a positive attitude towards them,
4 Rethinking Adoption and Diffusion as a Collective Social Process…