113
collective identity formation, design of institutions, maintenance of trust and the
effective use of power and sanctioning systems in a community of actors. Thus, our
‘interactional’ and ‘sociologically enhanced’ understanding of ‘reasons for (non)
adoption’ helps us to imagine different kinds of ICT4Ag applications than those that
just provide regular extension services through a different medium.
4.7 Concluding Remarks
While recent critiques of the notion of adoption emphasise the shortcomings of the
technocentric and binary thinking that is often implied, this chapter has focussed on
the limitations in dominant thinking about the process side of adoption and has
broadened the scope by providing an interactional perspective. For a long time,
adoption has been portrayed as a largely individual process that could be understood
and influenced with the help of social-psychological models. We have argued that
this kind of thinking ignores the existence and importance of vertical, horizontal,
intra-individual and time-related interdependencies between practices, leading to
the conclusion that in many instances, adoption must be regarded as a collective
rather than an individual process. We have indicated how interdependencies may
enter into an individual’s reasoning about adoption in various ways and have translated this into several additional variables that need to be considered when the aim
is to explain adoption and behaviour change or the lack of it. Consideration of these
variables has led us to develop an ‘interactional’ and ‘sociologically enhanced’
model for understanding ‘reasons for (non)adoption’. Subsequently, we have
explored the practical implications of this mode of thinking by linking them to topical issues such as ‘scaling’ and the use ‘ICT4Ag’ in stimulating adoption. This
exploration reveals that we can sharpen our thinking about scaling considerably by
realising that scaling always involves an assemblage of different interdependent
practices across a network of stakeholders in time and space, which necessitates
critical thinking about points of leverage and issues of responsibility. Similarly, our
exploration of the role that ICT4AG may play in the management of agricultural
diseases has revealed that the enhanced model for understanding reasons for (non)
adoption solicits the design of novel kinds of ICT applications and services that may
support the creation of conducive conditions for collective action. Thus, moving
beyond individualist conceptualisations of adoption not only represents a theoretical advance but also helps us to re-imagine and re-orient the kinds of interventions
needed to shape adoption processes in support of realising a desired future.
Acknowledgements This research was undertaken as part of, and funded by, the CGIAR
Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas (RTB) and supported by CGIAR Trust Fund
contributors as well as by NWO and Wageningen University.
4 Rethinking Adoption and Diffusion as a Collective Social Process…
collective identity formation, design of institutions, maintenance of trust and the
effective use of power and sanctioning systems in a community of actors. Thus, our
‘interactional’ and ‘sociologically enhanced’ understanding of ‘reasons for (non)
adoption’ helps us to imagine different kinds of ICT4Ag applications than those that
just provide regular extension services through a different medium.
4.7 Concluding Remarks
While recent critiques of the notion of adoption emphasise the shortcomings of the
technocentric and binary thinking that is often implied, this chapter has focussed on
the limitations in dominant thinking about the process side of adoption and has
broadened the scope by providing an interactional perspective. For a long time,
adoption has been portrayed as a largely individual process that could be understood
and influenced with the help of social-psychological models. We have argued that
this kind of thinking ignores the existence and importance of vertical, horizontal,
intra-individual and time-related interdependencies between practices, leading to
the conclusion that in many instances, adoption must be regarded as a collective
rather than an individual process. We have indicated how interdependencies may
enter into an individual’s reasoning about adoption in various ways and have translated this into several additional variables that need to be considered when the aim
is to explain adoption and behaviour change or the lack of it. Consideration of these
variables has led us to develop an ‘interactional’ and ‘sociologically enhanced’
model for understanding ‘reasons for (non)adoption’. Subsequently, we have
explored the practical implications of this mode of thinking by linking them to topical issues such as ‘scaling’ and the use ‘ICT4Ag’ in stimulating adoption. This
exploration reveals that we can sharpen our thinking about scaling considerably by
realising that scaling always involves an assemblage of different interdependent
practices across a network of stakeholders in time and space, which necessitates
critical thinking about points of leverage and issues of responsibility. Similarly, our
exploration of the role that ICT4AG may play in the management of agricultural
diseases has revealed that the enhanced model for understanding reasons for (non)
adoption solicits the design of novel kinds of ICT applications and services that may
support the creation of conducive conditions for collective action. Thus, moving
beyond individualist conceptualisations of adoption not only represents a theoretical advance but also helps us to re-imagine and re-orient the kinds of interventions
needed to shape adoption processes in support of realising a desired future.
Acknowledgements This research was undertaken as part of, and funded by, the CGIAR
Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas (RTB) and supported by CGIAR Trust Fund
contributors as well as by NWO and Wageningen University.
4 Rethinking Adoption and Diffusion as a Collective Social Process…