Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T09:28:36.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Focus on: “Improving Agricultural Practices Among African Smallholders” – The Contribution of Adoption and Diffusion of Innovation Research to Agricultural Development in Africa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 May 2014

Extract

Farmers, agricultural scientists and politicians have become very aware of the need to increase agricultural productivity in Africa. While there has been a recognition of diverse factors that can contribute to increased productivity, a great deal of emphasis has been placed on the need to change farm technology. Although the traditional farming system might have satisfied the needs of peasant society, it has not been able to supply the needs of present day Africa. In most African countries, food production has fallen behind demand (Food and Agricultural Organization, 1974). Thus, there has been a great deal of effort to change the farming practices of the peasants through the introduction of new and/or improved farm technology.

Numerous recommendations have emerged from agricultural research stations, universities and international research institutes in Africa, but the majority of African farming continue to rely on their traditional farming practices. It is therefore not surprising that the Association for the Advancement of Agricultural Sciences in Africa (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1975: iii) has concluded: “The lag between knowledge and practice is usually long, but in some parts of Africa it has seemed to be infinite. The value of research findings, however great, remains potential only until they are transmitted to him who will use them in production practices.” As a result of the failure to improve the farmers practices of African peasants, most African countries continue to spend a substantial amount of their earnings on importation of food (Monu, forthcoming).

This paper takes the view that the non-adoption of recommended farm practices in Africa is attributable in part to the strategy adopted in the introduction of farm practices and the research results which have legitimized this strategy. The objective of this paper, therefore, is to review the strategy commonly practiced in Africa and the research associated with it to point out their shortcomings. In addition, the paper suggests an alternative strategy and research approach.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © African Studies Association 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alao, J. A. (1971) “Community Structure and Modernization of Agriculture: An Analysis of Factors Influencing the Adoption of Farm Practices Among Nigerian Farmers.” Ph.D. Thesis. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Ascroft, J. N., Roling, N., Kariuku, J., and Chege, F.. (1973) “Extension and the Forgotten Farmer: First Report of a Field Experiment.” Afdelingen Voor Social Wetenschappen and de Landbouwhogeschool. Wagenigen: Holland.Google Scholar
Bowden, E. (1970) “A Comparison of Predictions from Static and Dynamic Models of Farm Innovation.” Rural Sociology 35 (7): 253–60.Google Scholar
Brown, L. A. (1975) “The Market and Infrastructure Context of Adoption: A Spatial Perspective of the Diffusion of Innovation.” Economic Geography 51 (7): 185216.Google Scholar
Brown, L. A., Malecki, E. J., and Spector, A. N.. (1976) “Adopter Categories in a Spatial Context: Alternative Explanations for an Empirical Regularity.” Rural Sociology 41 (Spring): 99118.Google Scholar
Brown, L. A. and Cox, K. R.. (1971) “Empirical Regularities in the Diffusion of Innovation.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 61 (9): 551–59.Google Scholar
Brown, L. R. (1970) Seeds of Change: The Green Revolution and Development in the 1970s. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Clark, R. C. and Akinbode, I.. (1968) “Factors Associated with Adoption of Three Farm Practices in the Western State of Nigeria.” Research Bulletin No. 1, Faculty of Agriculture. University of Ife: Ile-Ife, Nigeria.Google Scholar
Coughenour, C. M. (no date) “Some General Problems in Diffusion from the Perspective of Theory and Social Action,” in North Central Rural Sociology Committee, Diffusion Research Needs. North Central Regional Research Bulletin 186. Columbia, Missouri: University of Missouri.Google Scholar
D'Silva, B. C. and Raza, M. R.. (1980) “Integrated Rural Development in Nigeria: The Funtua Project.” Food Policy 5 (11): 282–97.Google Scholar
Ekpere, J. A. (1974) “A Comparative Study of Job Performance Under Two Approaches to Agricultural Extension Organization.” Research Paper No. 61, Land Tenure Center. Madison: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Food and Agricultural Organization. (1974) “Population, Food Supply and Agricultural Development.” Conference Background Paper E/Conf. 60/CSP/25. Rome.Google Scholar
Fleigel, F. C. and Kivlin, J. E.. (1966) “Attributes of Innovations as Factors in Diffusion.” American Journal of Sociology 72 (11): 235–48.Google Scholar
Gatjart, B. (1971) “Rural Development and Sociological Concepts: A Critique.” Rural Sociology 36 (3): 3241.Google Scholar
Garst, R. D. (1974) “Innovation Diffusion Among the Gusii of Kenya.” Economic Geography 50 (10): 300312.Google Scholar
Huizinga, B. (1979) “The Guided Change Project: An Experiment in Small Farmer Development Administration Amongst the Hausa of Nigeria.” Preliminary Draft. Institute for Agricultural Research. Zaria, Nigeria: Ahmadu Bello University.Google Scholar
Katz, E. M., Levin, L., and Hamilton, H.. (1963) “Traditions of Research on the Diffusion of Innovation.” American Sociological Review 28 (4): 237–52.Google Scholar
Mbithi, P. M. (1971) “Social Differentiation and Agricultural Development in East Africa.” Ph.D. Thesis. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Monu, E. D. (1980) “Acceptance of Appropriate Technology Among Peasant Farmers of Nigeria.” A paper presented for the Fifth World Congress for Rural Sociology, August 7-12. Mexico City, Mexico.Google Scholar
Monu, E. D. (1981) “Agricultural Extension Services and the Issue of Equity in Agricultural Development.” The Rural Sociologist 1 (9): 281–88.Google Scholar
Monu, E. D.. (1982) “The Diffusion of Innovation Model in Action: The Funtua Agricultural Development Project, Kaduna State, Nigeria.” A paper prepared for the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Canadian Association of African Studies, May 10-14. University of Toronto, Toronto.Google Scholar
Monu, E. D.. (Forthcoming) “Population Growth and Food Production in West Africa” in Ubogu, R. E., Adamu, G. and Gogue, T. A. C. (eds.), Development Planning Priorities: Strategies for ECOWAS. Lagos: West African Economic Association.Google Scholar
Norman, D. W., Hayward, J. A. and Hallam, H. R.. (1974) “An Assessment of Cotton Growing Recommendations as Applied by Nigerian Farmers.” Cotton Growing Review 51 (4): 266–80.Google Scholar
Opare, K. D. (1977) “The Role of Agricultural Extension in the Adoption of Innovations by Cocoa Growers in Ghana.” Rural Sociology 42 (Spring): 7282.Google Scholar
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1975) Report of the Second General Conference, Association for the Advancement of Agricultural Sciences in Africa. March 24-28. Dakar, Senegal.Google Scholar
Rogers, E. M., and Shoemaker, F. F.. (1971) Communication of Innovations: A Cross Cultural Approach. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, E. M., Ascroft, J. R., and Roling, N. G.. (1970) “Diffusion of Innovation in Brazil, Nigeria and India.” Diffusion of Innovation Research Report 24, Department of Communications, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Rogers, E. M. and Svenning, L.. (1969) Modernization Among Peasants. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Roling, N. G., Ascroft, J., and Chege, F.. (1976) “Innovations and the Issue of Equity in Rural Development.” Communication Research 3: 155–70.Google Scholar