Theory of Adoption
Written by John Noonan
Co-founder & Executive Director -College of Extension
This article explores some of the theory behind what drives farmers to innovate and the complex mechanism behind decision making.
First I want explore the term adoption. Adoption refers to how much a famer uses a certain practice or technology. An example that comes to mind is within the livestock system, where a producer may use Artificial Insemination (AI) for breeding rams and the traditional natural mating for the rest of his flock, in this case we would say they have adopted AI to the percentage applicable, for example they have adopted AI 20% if they are AI’ing 20%. Another livestock producer such as a Stud Ram Breeder may fully utilise AI techniques so he would be considered 100% AI or 100% adoption.
When an innovation is adopted across a region or area, such as No-till across the Esperance Port Zone, another term is used, that term is ‘diffusion’. If every farmer in an area is practicing minimum tillage then we say there has been 100% diffusion, if only 50% of farmers are using min till, then it would be described as 50% diffusion. Sometimes people see adoption and diffusion as the same thing, but it’s a good idea to call adoption with respect to individuals and how much they have utilised a practice or technology, and diffusion is across a group of farmers.
How adoption and diffusion occurs is not as simple as described by some theoretical approaches. The decision to adopt is often very complex, with factors associated with the practice or technologies and also the personal attributes of individuals who chose to adopt, not-adopt, mis or mal-adopt (use the technology not in the way it was intended), and finally dis-adopt and move onto something new.
Most of us have seen the diagram below, which depicts the notion of early adopters of an innovation through those that are last to adopt an innovation, or laggards. Discussions among the EZI committee have confirmed that thisisn't straight forward either as one party in a farm business may be an innovator in some areas such as cropping but a laggard on livestock technologies, another party in the same business may have a reversed perspective on the same innovations.
Figure 1: The now superseded Roger’s theoretical adopter categories.
The diagram in Figure 1 is the basis of Roger’s Theory of Adoption of Innovations, first described in the 1950s and early 1960. This framework evolved from earlier adoption and diffusion work in the United States last century based on the “Acceptance and Diffusion of Hybrid Corn Seed in Two Iowa Communities from the 1930s and 40s; a lot has changed since then! For example, back then information was hard to come by; today, often there is too much information! The contemporary context for the Theory of Innovations, or lack thereof, in general, is it is no longer applicable. As are the associated characterisations of Innovators to Laggards (Figure 1).
We now have better, differing and newer insights into decision makers behaviours, firstly in a broad setting, secondly and more specifically, for farmers, than we have had in the past.
Roger’s theory and its current relevance is discussed in some detail and brought into a 2020s perspective by McFadden and others in discussing the uptake of Precision Agriculture Adoption Rates on US Farms; highlighting the challenges and misconceptions associated with the usage of the Roger’s thinking.
So, many experienced extension practitioners who work with farmers lament the persistent use of the Rogers theory and the overly simplistic use of associated terms, such as the use of ‘innovators’ and the almost now derogatory term ‘laggards’ (Figure 1.).
Kevin Goss, a well known West Australian agriculture leader (CLIMA, Murray Darling Basin Commission, WA Commissioner for Soil Conservation), highlighted many of the challenges of the validity of Roger’s Theory of Innovation model some forty years ago. Yet it’s use has persevered well into the 2000’s, this remains the same in some instances in recent conversations have had with senior policy people across Australia and New Zealand, as well as my observations of well intentioned, but I think ill informed, so called ‘futurists’.
Fifteen years ago, David Pannell and others from across Australia, in Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders describe Roger’s model as having a ‘’kernel of truth”, that is to say it’s a reasonable, but simplistic starting point, they presented the idea of someone in the Roger’s model as an early adopter of one technology or practice and a laggard towards another.
Much of the work undertaken to characterise adoption and diffusion has been through a pure economic point of view, with a focus on the individual and the ‘economic’ characteristics of the business in which the decision maker operates, with little, if no attention to the environmental social, psychological and societal factors around the individual farmer, family or business and community.
Farmer decision making is complex and not straight forward
Farmer decision making is usually undertaken when there are many factors to be taken into account, which can be presented as a multidimensional matrix(see Figure 2). Simplistically and in the first instance, it can be demonstrated in three dimensions, but can include time and other dimensions (creativity, imagination and innovation), and increasingly mental health is a factor we need to take into account. There are long term strategic things to think about when making tactical and day to day decisions, and vice versa.
Adapted from Boehlje and Eidman (1984) - Farm Management
The complexity of the factors in the matrix above is further muddied by how humans actually make decisions. The ‘head, heart and gut’ (Figure 3) concept developed for the Grain and Graze program provides insights into the factors, other than economics (the head bit), which drive farmer decisions, these are the important human factors – the heart and gut. As a result of thousands of years of evolution, humans are prone to relying on gut instincts, rules of thumb, or as they are less commonly known – heuristics. ‘
Image Courtesy of Alice Long, AgCommunicators
The ‘gut’ provides an ability to make rapid decision, as to some extent does the heart, however, the head usually requires more time and more effort to contribute to decision making processes. I will discuss these factors in an upcoming newsletter article.
With the above in mind, one current day approach to adoption of new innovations is the crossing of a ‘Chasm’. The Chasm was first substantively described in the 1990s by Moore and provides an alternative view that of Rogers Theory of Adoption of Innovation (Early adopters to laggards) in the first instance in a wider marketing context than agriculture, such as the use of computers. Figure 4 show how the chasm is applied in the context of the Roger’s theory and there being a little first chasm and then a big scary chasm from the innovators and early adopters.
Figure 4. Moore’s Chasm.
While there are some similarities to Roger’s theory in the Chasm depiction, Moore goes on to highlight that elements of the Chasm are composed of a bundle of sometimes related, sometime unrelated, sometimes interrelated factors, these are often difficult to unravel in nature through a complex association of technical and non-technical socio-economic and or psychosocial factors (Figure 5). Moore describes those who are early to adopt as ‘visionaries’, not innovators, and those who choose not to adopt early as being ‘pragmatic’. So there are two groups – the visionaries and the pragmatists. Does this sounds familiar and logical?
Figure 5. Chasm Elements
I think most EZI group members fall more into the visonary category. When thinking about who to attract as new members of EZI and retain them, this discussion may prove to be helpful in thinking about why a farmer would choose to be a member, and the elements of the chasm need to be taken into consideration. Less than about 5% of farmers are visionaries and the vast majority are pragmatists, so there must be a convincing set of factors to adopt a new practice or technology for those who are more pragmatic in their approach. And, let’s forget about early innovators and laggards!
Next time, I will explore how the heart and gut are at the forefront of decision making, and how the head gets to do the heavy lifting when there is enough time and good quality information available to do so.
