260
S. Rogga
approaches unnoticed. On the contrary, depending on the goal(s) of the research
project, these paths might be used alternatively or even in combination, as they may
generate synergies. Any given measure along these paths should be continuously
evaluated according to its impact and (if necessary) readjusted accordingly.
1. The actor-centric approach (or persuasive transfer approach) involves measures
that address KALU directly and integrate them into communication and learning
processes. Institutionalised agricultural advisory services have followed this
approach for decades, addressing farmers to communicate information, produce
knowledge and enhance skills (Labarthe et al. 2013). By pursuing this path,
research projects seek to improve individuals’ knowledge base on which they
base their decisions. Depending on the knowledge base of the targeted KALUs,
the communicative goal may vary between raising awareness for a hitherto
neglected issue (e.g. effects of land sealing), concrete policy options or even
hands-on training via “how-to-do SLM” manuals. If considered as a two-way
communication setting, research projects may also benefit from feedback. This
transfer option, however, requires exact knowledge of the setting of target groups
in the investigated field and presupposes stakeholder analysis methods. Since
persuasion is a relatively “soft tool” for initiating change, activities in this direction should be persistent and repetitive in order to have an effect. Assessing the
effectiveness of persuasive methods is equally challenging.
2. Another transfer approach can be described as an indirect form of the persuasion
of KALU. In the prototype approach, transfer measures aim to establish technological, procedural or institutional innovations in the form of pilot projects.
This approach picks up the diffusion of innovations theory by Rogers (1995)
and the Multi-Level Perspective framework (Geels 2002) by designing innovations in niche contexts first that, eventually, diffuse into a broader context. The
niche innovation is nurtured by specific actors at the micro scale that have been
withdrawn from the influences of market and regulation.
Besides being particularly feasible for projects that focus on techno-societal innovations, this transfer path is increasingly applied to social innovations, too. It is
worthwhile cooperating with businesses in this case, since they have a genuine
interest in driving innovations that invoke marketing potential. However, cooperation with economic partners also harbours a number of risks for research projects
(e.g. confidentiality of results vs. scientific publications).
Projects that apply the prototype approach may benefit from the cognitive
phenomenon that artefacts (such as prototypes) suggest visible and tangible
progress, and convey the feeling of being able to “get a grip” on the problems
that are being investigated across research groups (Ukowitz 2012, p. 303f.). This
effect seems to be magnified for haptic interactions that users may experience
when testing a prototype or tool. Also, it inhibits positive effects on the visibility
and legitimacy of research on the ground, and often corresponds to the stereotype
of the scientist as an inventor (ibid.).
The adoption potential of a new technique for tillage, for example, that has
been designed and tested in a project context is greater if test sites show the
S. Rogga
approaches unnoticed. On the contrary, depending on the goal(s) of the research
project, these paths might be used alternatively or even in combination, as they may
generate synergies. Any given measure along these paths should be continuously
evaluated according to its impact and (if necessary) readjusted accordingly.
1. The actor-centric approach (or persuasive transfer approach) involves measures
that address KALU directly and integrate them into communication and learning
processes. Institutionalised agricultural advisory services have followed this
approach for decades, addressing farmers to communicate information, produce
knowledge and enhance skills (Labarthe et al. 2013). By pursuing this path,
research projects seek to improve individuals’ knowledge base on which they
base their decisions. Depending on the knowledge base of the targeted KALUs,
the communicative goal may vary between raising awareness for a hitherto
neglected issue (e.g. effects of land sealing), concrete policy options or even
hands-on training via “how-to-do SLM” manuals. If considered as a two-way
communication setting, research projects may also benefit from feedback. This
transfer option, however, requires exact knowledge of the setting of target groups
in the investigated field and presupposes stakeholder analysis methods. Since
persuasion is a relatively “soft tool” for initiating change, activities in this direction should be persistent and repetitive in order to have an effect. Assessing the
effectiveness of persuasive methods is equally challenging.
2. Another transfer approach can be described as an indirect form of the persuasion
of KALU. In the prototype approach, transfer measures aim to establish technological, procedural or institutional innovations in the form of pilot projects.
This approach picks up the diffusion of innovations theory by Rogers (1995)
and the Multi-Level Perspective framework (Geels 2002) by designing innovations in niche contexts first that, eventually, diffuse into a broader context. The
niche innovation is nurtured by specific actors at the micro scale that have been
withdrawn from the influences of market and regulation.
Besides being particularly feasible for projects that focus on techno-societal innovations, this transfer path is increasingly applied to social innovations, too. It is
worthwhile cooperating with businesses in this case, since they have a genuine
interest in driving innovations that invoke marketing potential. However, cooperation with economic partners also harbours a number of risks for research projects
(e.g. confidentiality of results vs. scientific publications).
Projects that apply the prototype approach may benefit from the cognitive
phenomenon that artefacts (such as prototypes) suggest visible and tangible
progress, and convey the feeling of being able to “get a grip” on the problems
that are being investigated across research groups (Ukowitz 2012, p. 303f.). This
effect seems to be magnified for haptic interactions that users may experience
when testing a prototype or tool. Also, it inhibits positive effects on the visibility
and legitimacy of research on the ground, and often corresponds to the stereotype
of the scientist as an inventor (ibid.).
The adoption potential of a new technique for tillage, for example, that has
been designed and tested in a project context is greater if test sites show the