Technology Transfer Preferences of Researchers and Producers in Sustainable Agriculture

Introduction

The adoption of new management and production practices is often the key to maintaining a profitable agricultural operation. Therefore, the identification of new management and production practices through agricultural research should be a valuable resource for agricultural producers. Although this information is available to all farmers, most are reluctant to adopt new production practices directly from research sources.

Several models of technology transfer exist (Climent, Palmer, & Ruiz, 1995; Foster, Norton & Brough, 1995; Lanyon, 1994). The technology transfer model, a traditional "top-down" approach, moves from research and development, through Extension personnel, to the producer. As a result of academic and research training, researchers often have a different perspective than agricultural producers. This difference may influence the methods used for technology transfer.

Brashear, Hollis, and Wheeler (2000) noted that swine producers do not rely on university specialists as a primary information source. King and Rollins (1999) observed that although university specialists were considered a trustworthy source of information, they were one of the least used. Are university specialists using an effective method of information transfer?

Part of the land-grant mission is to disseminate research information. The method used to transfer technical research to producers may influence whether a producer accesses, and uses, this information.

The purpose of the study described here was to identify the methods of technology transfer used by research professionals and to compare these with the methods preferred by agricultural producers in sustainable agriculture. Specific objectives were to:

• Compare information transfer methods utilized by principal investigators versus agricultural producers in sustainable agriculture;

• Compare the perceived effectiveness of technology transfer methods described by agricultural producers and principal investigators in sustainable agriculture; and

• Identify the preferred methods for technology transfer as identified by agricultural producers and principal investigators in sustainable agriculture.

Methods

The sample for this qualitative study was selected from sustainable agriculture projects funded by the Western Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (WSARE) Program. The WSARE region includes 13 states and four island protectorates. Projects were screened based on the identification of a good sustainable agricultural practice and the stage of technology transfer. Using discipline, location, and complexity as criteria, six projects were selected to cover a broad range of production and management technologies.

The selected projects involved organic production in California, the use of nitrogen-fixing trees in Hawaii, soil quality in Oregon, the use of non-neuroactive insecticides in Washington, late-calving in Wyoming, and composting in Utah. The projects covered a range of new technologies, from those that could be implemented fairly easily into an existing operation (composting), to those that required a major shift in the entire operation (late calving).

In-person interviews were conducted with the principal investigator(s) and producers who adopted the technology. One person interviewed all of the investigators and producers to eliminate variation. Eighteen sustainable agriculture professionals reviewed the interview questions to ensure validity. All interviews were tape recorded.

Four of the six projects had more than one principal investigator: group interviews were held in these areas. A total of 14 principal investigators were interviewed. The interviews lasted from 3 hours to 2 days, depending upon time constraints of the researchers and the amount of information shared.

Principal investigators were asked:

• Methods used for information transfer;

• Effectiveness of information transfer methods used; and

• Possible alternative methods of information transfer.

The principal investigators were asked to line up three to seven producers who had adopted the sustainable practice. The producers may or may not have been associated with the project administered by the principal investigator.

A total of 24 producers were interviewed, typically on their farm, to examine information sources used by the producers. Interviews with the agricultural producers took from one to four hours.

Producers were asked:

• Principal source(s) of new information (e.g., magazines, peers, agencies);

• Preferred methods of information transfer for self and peers; and

• Alternative methods of information transfer.

Results

Generally, principal investigators relied on the technology transfer model, a "top-down" approach, for educating farmers. Principal investigators cited workshops, in conjunction with field days, as the primary method of information transfer, followed by periodicals and handouts (newsletters, articles, or handbooks). Principal investigators ranked direct contact with university research personnel, the Internet, and books as last in importance for relaying information to the producer.

Geographic location influenced how producers acquired information about new practices (Table 1). Producers from Hawaii listed talking with professionals and peers first, followed by reading about the practice in publications (magazines, newsletters, newspapers, and books). Workshops and field days were seen as places where groups of producers could gather together and share ideas. The Internet and professional organizations were cited last.

Producers from California named others in the business as the most influential form of information. Extension personnel and university researchers were cited next, with trade publications also playing an important role in technology transfer. Workshops in conjunction with field days followed in significance. The Internet was the least used source of information.

Wyoming ranchers live in somewhat isolated conditions. Many were introduced to ideas through trade publications, and when they wanted more detailed information they mentioned agricultural professionals (i.e., Extension and university research personnel) as a primary source of information. The Internet was a source of information mentioned more so than in other geographic areas. Associations with peers, along with attendance at workshops, were also cited as sources of information.

Oregon producers felt that demonstration farms, field days, and workshops were valuable sources of information for dealing with reduced tillage techniques. Peer associations were critical components of field days and workshops. University personnel, and industry field representatives were cited first as information sources, then trade publications, followed by the Internet.

Field representatives and horticultural professionals were the most important source of information for orchardists in Washington. Demonstration projects, coupled with the association of peers during field day events, were also highly valued by the producers. Workshops, trade publications, and the Internet were cited last in significance for technology transfer for these producers.

The practice of composting in Utah did not require big changes in the management practices used by the producer. Consequently, issues related to technology transfer were somewhat different than those requiring drastic changes in management practices. Producers involved in on-farm composting became aware of the practice through trade publications. Next they sought specific information through university and Extension personnel, peers, field days, conferences presented through public and private organizations, and current literature.

Paradoxically, when principal investigators were asked about the effectiveness of the methods used in the information transfer process, field days or workshops were listed as the most helpful method, although they did not necessarily use these methods. Networking with other farmers was seen as a large part of the field day or demonstration project encounter. A number of principal investigators felt that it was more effective if the producer was exposed to a new practice before attending a workshop or field day. They also believed it was more helpful if a fellow producer shared his experiences involving the new practice. Several principal investigators cited the County Extension Service as a vital link between research and the producer in supporting the information transfer process.

Similarly, producers were asked to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs in which they had been involved. Producers consistently referred to workshops as "good to a point," time consuming, often held at inopportune times, and redundant, although many went to workshops as a way to meet peers involved with the new practice. Field days, when held on a producer's farm rather than an experimental plot, were viewed as good places to gain information from both the demonstration itself and from other producers in attendance. Agricultural producers were much more receptive to new innovations when put in plain words by peers rather than by research specialists. When considered part of the management team, consultants and/or field representatives were a trusted source of information.

Principal investigators were asked to suggest preferred methods for transferring information to producers. Again, field days were noted first, but with inclusion of a follow-up procedure to help answer any questions. The principal investigators felt that these follow-ups could include personal visits and/or written material that producers could review when questions arose. The researchers advocated the use of grower panels and cooperating producers, along with a strong interpersonal relationship linking researchers and producers. Finally, participation with Extension, targeted newsletters, and association with the Young Farmer organizations, 4-H, and FFA were cited.

Producers were asked to suggest preferred methods of technology transfer. Opportunities to spread information by word-of-mouth, or talk to others in the business (their peers), were first on the list of preferences. Cooperative interaction between researchers and producers on demonstration farms was a frequently cited method of information dissemination. "Trade secrets" were not generally an issue even when producers were competing in the same geographic market. All but one agricultural producer was eager to share experiences. The least important methods were bulletins or newsletters distributed through Extension.

Discussion

Individuals go through stages of discovery when presented with innovative information. Different methods of technology transfer facilitate these different stages of learning. One principal investigator identified the stages and associated sources of information that producers utilize as they learn about a new practice:

• Initial awareness through trade journals or peers;

• Information gathering by attending field days or conferences; and

• Assessment by contacting someone actively engaged in the practice (peers), or university personnel.

Other principal investigators apparently understood the same concept, but were not specific in identifying it.

Trade publications were identified by both researchers and producers as a good way to introduce a new technology to the producers, but limited in detailed information.

The Internet was used the most by producers in remote locations. Internet usage, and its importance as a source of information, may increase as advances are made and more producers use computers.

In general, field days and workshops were considered by principal investigators to be one of the best methods for transferring information to the producers. Yet producers tended to think that they (especially workshops) were redundant and held at inopportune times. Many producers said that they carefully chose which field days or workshops to attend. One of the primary benefits of attending the workshops was the interaction with the other producers. This supports the findings of Visser (1998), that farmers receive the greatest satisfaction when they are able to share experiences with peers in group interaction.

Demonstrations located on a producer's farm were most favored by producers, followed by field days in which producers conducted some of the presentations. Although there was great respect for university studies, concerns were often expressed that the small plots and conditions associated with research farms were not indicative of what they might encounter on their own farm. When the practice was tried on a producer's farm, they tended to believe what they saw.

Principal investigators found that on-farm demonstration projects were difficult to implement and monitor for research purposes. Often the researcher has limited control: the producer may decide to plant a different crop than originally planned or alter the proposed management procedure. Successful on-farm trial demonstrations are the result of a coordinated effort between researchers and producers. Research studies conducted on a strategically located producer's farm seemed to have the attention of all the neighbors and were highly effective in transferring information.

Before a new technology was adopted, almost all of the producers contacted someone else (even if located across the country) who was using the technology before they made the decision to adopt the new practice. This was especially true for those technologies that were costly or required a major shift in the farming/ranching operation.

This extreme need to see the new practice in operation, or talk to someone who is using it, indicates that one of the most effective ways to speed up the technology transfer process is to use producers in demonstrations and field days. This is especially true for those technologies that are costly, complex, or require a major shift in the operation.

The qualitative study described here examined the technology transfer preferences of early adopters of sustainable agricultural practices, which may or may not represent the preferences of all producers. This study does, however, support the findings of other studies (Barao, 1992; Brashear, Hollis, & Wheeler, 2000; Stephenson, 2003).

Acknowledgment

Funding for this study was provided by the Western Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program.

References

Barao, S. (1992). Behavioral aspects of technology adoption. Journal of Extension [On-line], 30(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1992summer/a4.html

Brashear, G.L., Hollis, G., & Wheeler, M.B. (2000). Information transfer in the Illinois swine industry: How producers are informed of new technologies. Journal of Extension [On-line], 38(1). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2000february/rb4.html

Climent, J.B., Palmer, C., & Ruiz, S. (1995). Omissions relevant to the contextual domains of technology transfer models. Journal of Technology Transfer 20(1), 93-103.

Foster, J., Norton, G., & Brough, E. (1995). The role of problem specification workshops in Extension: an IPM example. Journal of Extension [On-line], 33(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1995august/a1.html

King, R.N., & Rollins, T.J. (1999). An evaluation of an agricultural innovation: Justification for participatory assistance. Journal of Extension [On-line], 37(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999august/rb2.html

Lanyon, L.E. (1994). Participatory assistance: An alternative to transfer of technology for promoting change on farms. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 9(3), 136-142.

Stephenson, G. (2003). The somewhat flawed theoretical foundation of the Extension service. Journal of Extension [On-line], 41(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2003august/a1.shtml

Visser, I., Cawley, S., & Roling, N. (1998). Co-learning approach to extension: Soil nitrogen workshops in Austrailia. European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 5(3), 179-191.