Technology And Social Change In Rural Areas

A Festschrift For Eugene A. Wilkening

Gene F Summers

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• eBook ISBN: 9781000314113
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

The possibility of nuclear war, the failure of the Green Revolution, the capabilities of genetic engineering, and other actual and potential effects of technological innovations have created demands for a more humane application of technology. Addressing this issue, Technology and Social Change in Rural Areas is a clear assessment of the current state of affairs. The book begins with a discussion of the changing paradigms of technology adoption and diffusion, the dynamics of public resistance, and the question of social responsibility in an age of synthetic biology. In subsequent sections, the contributors assess the revolutionary effect of technology on agriculture worldwide and conclude that radically new public policies are essential; expose the transformations of rural life and communities that result from the localized effects of technology and its use as a weapon in world-system politics; and critically examine the appropriate technology movement. The essays are presented to honor Professor Eugene A. Wilkening for his many pioneering and lasting contributions to the study of technology and rural social change. The book includes an intellectual biography of Professor Wilkening written by his long-time colleague and friend, William H. Sewell.

Part 1
Adoption and Diffusion

Chapter 1
The Diffusion-Adoption Process in Agriculture: Changes in Technology and Changing Paradigms

Frederick C. Fliegel and J.C. van Es

Introduction

The great technological and organizational transformation of United States agriculture during the middle third of the twentieth century is reflected in a unique way in the research efforts of rural sociologists. Starting in the late 1930s, rural sociologists’ research on the diffusion and adoption of agricultural technology grew rapidly for several decades, reached its zenith around 1960, and has declined substantially since that date. During this period, research focused on the process of introducing new technology at the farm level. As the agricultural transformation took its course, the urgency of promoting rapid introduction of new technology to American agriculture largely disappeared, and the interest in diffusion research waned likewise.

In the second half of the 1970s, there has been a minor resurgence of interest in the diffusion and adoption research. However, as we will note later, the focus of this research has changed substantially from earlier preoccupations. The concern with technology currently is less with the process of diffusion and adoption of new technology at the farm level, than it is with ways in which one can deal with the consequences of the widespread adoption of that technology. While the earlier interest was in matters like the adoption of 2,4D weed spray, the concern currently is with programs that might succeed in dealing with the environmental consequences of the use of chemicals in agriculture.

The diffusion-adoption research tradition not only shows remarkable synchronization with the technological transformation of U.S. agriculture, it also strongly mirrors the intellectual traditions current within sociology during the period of inception and subsequent growth of the diffusion research tradition. The nature of the diffusion research tradition cannot be understood without an appreciation of its intellectual foundation: problem statement, research approach, and methodological strategy were dictated almost entirely by a contemporary intellectual tradition which defined sociological phenomena at the micro level, and explained behavior in terms of individual acts. Briefly stated, the diffusion/adoption research tradition viewed the farmer as actor, in a farm and local community situation, responding to stimuli concerning what were unquestioningly viewed as improvements in agricultural technology. The research tradition cannot be appreciated without acknowledging its debt to theoreticians like Ogbum, and without appreciating the tremendous intellectual ferment created by the methodological breakthroughs attributable to such pioneers as Stuart Chapin, Likert, and Guttman. As the behaviorist approach grew in strength, so did diffusion research. When this paradigm or combination of paradigms was challenged by alternative approaches to sociological inquiry, the support for diffusion-adoption research within the discipline also declined precipitously.

The discussion in this chapter is intended to provide an overview of the various efforts rural sociologists have made to focus on agricultural technology, first as a dependent variable in the context of identifying antecedents of adoption or nonadoption, and later as an independent variable, with emphasis on consequences. The early work is described as generally reflecting a concern with measurement: at what level of abstraction should agricultural technology be specified in order to generalize about the antecedents of adoption behavior? Can meaningful types of technology be identified to gain insight into diffusion processes? As the interest in antecedents of adoption faded for a variety of reasons, interest in differentiating agricultural technology into component types declined as well. But questions about consequences of agricultural technology gained in salience, and a research focus on certain kinds of technology (e.g. agricultural chemicals) has gained new prominence. The latter focus is relatively new, not yet well defined, and by and large does not build on earlier efforts to disaggregate agricultural technology into component types. The current focus on some kinds of technology rather than others appears opportunistic, stemming from concern with particular consequences rather than a concern with the broader diffusion-adoption process or technological change processes. As one might expect, a fair amount of both technical and conceptual confusion has been the result, and the chapter ends with suggestions for bringing some order to future research activities to reduce that confusion.

Diffusion-adoption research: The first generation

It is inevitably somewhat arbitrary to identify the origins of a particular body of work and thought. In the present case we are inclined to be pragmatic, if somewhat arbitrary, and designate the studies done at Iowa State University around 1940 as the starting point for a large volume of research on the diffusion of agricultural innovations. The original focus was on a single innovation, hybrid com (Ryan and Gross, 1943), and it is relevant to note that the work was done in a state where agriculture is quite important, and the research concerned a major agricultural commodity, com. Later on, the linkage between technological change in agriculture and individual profit came to be treated as a basic and often unstated assumption of diffusion research.

Research on diffusion of innovations was dominated, at least in the early years, by North American rural sociologists, and particularly those in the Midwest. Commercial agriculture is singularly important in the Midwest, it involves relatively large numbers of farm operators, and it is supported by a highly developed research and service infrastructure. The development of commercially viable com hybrids was by no means a short-term endeavor but by 1940 some considerable success had already been achieved in realizing the great potential of the new varieties in farmers’ fields. At the same time, as the new technology became available, concern arose about the willingness of farmers to adopt such innovations expeditiously. Policy makers, and also commercial interests, were frustrated in their efforts to quickly introduce new technology among the farm population. Questions arose about farmers’ willingness to change, and ways in which the infrastructure might be altered or manipulated to expedite the adoption of new technology at the farm level. It is fair to say that the early research on the diffusion of hybrid com and its adoption by farmers was noticed and emulated because of the very considerable economic potential of the innovation itself for a major crop and thus for the profitability of the industry. The stage was set for a concern with technological change as an agent of economic growth.

If the economic potential of hybrid com is a hallmark of the early Iowa State research on diffusion, one must also recognize the sociological sophistication involved in the early studies. From a vantage point some 40 years after the work was done it is easy to see the outlines of what later became known as the “diffusion model” in that early work. That is, the characteristics of the farmer as actor, in a certain situation, with identifiable linkages to particular institutions and agencies, form the core of the work, and the several variables were analyzed singly and jointly to shed light on the individual adoption decision. The issue of profitability as a factor in that decision was more or less taken for granted. This assumption becomes important from the same 40-years-later time perspective, when some of the more controversial consequences of technological change in agriculture have become visible.

Concern about generalizing from the work on diffusion of hybrid corn is quite evident in the Iowa State studies. Such concern was expressed in a variety of ways. First, questions about the antecedents of adopting hybrid corn were put to different samples of farmers (e.g. Ryan, 1948), to determine whether the same patterns were evident. Second, a study of the antecedents of a different innovation was undertaken (Gross, 1949), and this was later expanded to an analysis involving ten innovations (Gross and Taves, 1952). In other words, a very direct effort was made to compare the correlates of adoption of one innovation with the correlates of adoption of a range of other innovations. And third, the distinguishing characteristics of hybrid corn itself were listed and discussed (e.g. Ryan and Gross, 1950), and similar efforts were made to specify the distinctive features of other innovations under study. In short, the foundation was laid for sorting out types of innovations from the larger and rather amorphous category, improved agricultural technology.

Indexes of adoption of innovations came into widespread use as the research interest in the diffusion process itself diffused to other research settings and individuals. Merging a variety of innovations into a single list, and computing individual farmers’ adoption scores with reference to that list, was a direct response to the desire to generalize from one adoption situation to the next. In line with both policy preoccupation with the rapid diffusion of existing new technology, and the individual-actor emphasis of the theoretical orientation, the research focus in the 1950s and 1960s was on the general question: why do farmers adopt or not adopt agricultural innovations? Explicit interest in the distinguishing characteristics of particular innovations, and efforts to discern types of agricultural technology, were not vigorously pursued. Instead, diffusion researchers devoted considerable effort to describing the universe of improved technology and measuring an abstract and variable propensity among farmers to adopt that technology. Research interest shifted from at least an incipient concern with the nature of technology and efforts to specify particular types of technology, toward an interest in measuring a socio-psychological posture toward improved technology as a whole.

Concern about types of technology was not entirely submerged in the general effort to construct reliable and valid, multi-item adoption indexes. One example of the continuing effort to specify types of technology is the distinction between improvements and innovations (Wilkening, 1954). In retrospect, the effort to distinguish between improvements (modifications of existing technology) and innovations (departures from existing technology) can be viewed as part of the wider concern with delimiting the universe of improved technology. The distinction between improvements and innovations was intended as a means to arrive at better measures of the abstract socio-psychological dimension, a variable propensity among individual farmers to accept that which is new. The analytic emphasis was on sorting out the antecedents of adoption, with subsequent comparison of those antecedents most useful in explaining variability in the several measures of the dependent, adoption variable.

The distinctive characteristics of particular innovations also continued to attract at least passing attention during the 1950s, and somewhat more systematic attention in the 1960s. Both Lionberger (1960), and Rogers (1962), in their compendia of research on diffusion of innovations, paid attention to distinctive characteristics of innovations which were presumed to be influential in diffusion. As already noted, the emphasis on characteristics of innovations was directed toward explaining diffusion and individual adoption from a socio-psychological perspective. It was thus logical to attempt to specify characteristics of the innovation stimulus which could be expected to trigger the desired adoption response. Other criteria for defining the characteristics of technology are the consequences of the adoption of technology, or the nature of technology as such, but the emphasis of the 1960s was on the innovation as stimulus. Perhaps the most likely characteristic of agricultural innovations to be singled out was the fact that some innovations could be tried out on a small scale, before full adoption, while others could not. Divisibility for trial was expected to contribute positively to eventual adoption by permitting the farmer to gain experience with the innovation, while minimizing any risk inherent in trying something new. Trial on a small scale was viewed as a logical step in the individual learning process which culminated in adoption. A decade later, when farmers’ ability to adopt innovations came to be questioned (Galjart, 1971), the same characteristic, divisibility, came to be viewed from a structural perspective under the heading of what economists call “scale neutrality.” From the latter perspective, an infinitely divisible innovation could at least be tried by the individual farmer regardless of that farmer’s scale of operations. Full adoption might well pose capital requirements beyond the farmer’s means, however, and the presumed learning experience might not lead to adoption in the face of a structural constraint.

Efforts to specify relevant characteristics, or attributes, of agricultural innovations can be summarized by the early work of Kivlin (1960), and some of the studies that grew out of that work (e.g. Fliegel and Kivlin, 1966). The basic approach was a measurement approach, attempting to address the practical problem that antecedents of adoption of a given innovation were demonstrably imperfect in predicting the adoption of other innovations. Rather than, or in addition to, further specification and test of antecedents of adoption, defined as a readiness to accept the novel, it was argued that the degree to which a range of innovations possessed certain characteristics needed to be specified. Specification of novelty thus gave way to specification of a range of presumably salient characteristics. Innovations might be ranked, for example, on the degree to which they could be tried on a small scale before full adoption. Similarly, innovations could be ranked on their cost to the farmer, their potential for increasing returns, and so on. Such a procedure was intended to produce specialized adoption indexes, involving innovations having certain characteristics in common. With specialized indexes in hand, antecedents of adoption of particular types of innovation could be explored, with later comparison across the several types of innovations.

The work on characteristics of innovations can be viewed as a logical extention of earlier work, in which the characteristics of hybrid corn and other innovations were discussed as possibly influencing the diffusion process in distinct ways. The early studies could do no more than suggest possibilities for systematic tests, however. Specialized indexes, such as those mentioned above, represent an advance in differentiating agricultural technology into potentially meaningful types. Willingness to adopt certain innovations, and thus diffusion rates, were hypothesized to be determined in part by systematic differences among innovations. All of that work was primarily directed toward improved specification of the measure of adoption. Classifications were developed empirically, without much attention given to developing a classification of technology related to a theoretically grounded definition of technology. Nor was there serious questioning of the ends to be served by adoption; individual benefit was largely taken for granted. The substantially socio-psychological approach to explaining the diffusion process remained basically the same throughout the period described to this point, and the measurement issues involved were pursued but only partially resolved.

Failure to resolve the measurement issues was at least partially due to a decline in research interest in the diffusion process, discussed in the next section. Following that discussion we describe a partial revival of interest, but from a different perspective, in diffusion phenomena, and in types of agricultural technology.

A decline in adoption research: Some reasons for it

Though we have not made a tabulation of trends in budget and personnel allocations to research on diffusion phenomena we are confident that there has been a decline since the mid-1960s among students of agriculture. Research on diffusion of other than agricultural innovations flourished (see Rogers with Shoemaker, 1971), but that extension of the research tradition is not of direct concern here. Several reasons for a decline in interest among rural sociologists are presented below. They are intended as candidates for consideration rather than as the definitive explanation of a phenomenon.

Farm-level adoption is no longer viewed as problematic in the industrial nations of the world. Agricultural production has in fact been radically transformed by the substantial absorption of a host of mechanical, chemical, and genetic as well as corresponding managerial innovations. The displacement of a substantial amount of farm labor has been an important (and probably initially unanticipated) part of that transformation, as has the gradual increase in s...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Eugene A. Wilkening: A Biographical Note
• Record of Achievements
• Introduction
• Part 1 Adoption and Diffusion
• Part 2 Technology and the Structure of Agriculture
• Part 3 Technology and Rural Life
• Part 4 The Appropriate Technology Movement
• Index
• Contributors