Abstract
This paper deals with communication patterns and conflict in agricultural extension. A strong assumption is that, extension could be expected to enhance agricultural and rural development, but an appropriate communication pattern and conflict in extension remains unsolved. Therefore, the objectives of this paper are three-folds, namely (a) to identify the social processes among actors in implementation of social engineering-based extension and social learning-based extension, (b) to map the communication patterns in agricultural extension, and (iii) to analyze the conflicting functions in agricultural extension. This study uses a Comparative Case Studies Method by focusing on social engineering and social learning in agricultural extension, using a Purposive Sampling Technique. The sample consists of government oficial (including extension officer), prívate sector, researcher and farmer groups. The results show that (i) social process among actors in agricultural extension based on social engineering is more project-oriented (dissociative), while social process in social learning-based extension tends to be cooperation-oriented due to the same interest in achieving goal of programs, especially skill and knowledge improvement (associative), (ii) communication in social engineering-based extension is a linier pattern (top down), while communication in social learning-based extension is using a convergent (participatory) pattern, (iii) conflict in agricultural extension based on social engineering is generally latent (hidden) and will eventually explode and impede extension, impacting group unsolidarity, while in extension based on social learning, conflict generally are on the surface (manifest), and the accommodation is one way to solve. A major implication of these findings is the stepping up of agricultural extension (based on social learning process) which becomes a push factor towards independency group in finding new innovation. The research suggests that social learning-based extension should be developed as a potential way to sustain an important role of extension in agricultural and rural development.
Highlights
Agricultural extension systems world-wide are going through necessary renewal processes and it is sti ll an open question what role the public sector are going to play regarding extension in the future (Haug, 1999) including extension's role in advancing both development and women's empowerment (Rivera & Corning, 1990)
The results show that (i) social process among actors in agricultural extension based on social engineering is more project-oriented, while social process in social learning-based extension tends to be cooperation-oriented due to the same interest in achieving goal of programs, especially skill and knowledge improvement, (ii) communication in social engineering-based extension is a linier pattern, while communication in social learning-based extension is using a convergent pattern, (iii) conflict in agricultural extension based on social engineering is generally latent and will eventually explode and impede extension, impacting group unsolidarity, while in extension based on social learning, conflict generally are on the surface, and the accommodation is one way to solve
The research suggests that social learning-based extension should be developed as a potential way to sustain an important role of extension in agricultural and rural development
Summary
Agricultural extension systems world-wide are going through necessary renewal processes and it is sti ll an open question what role the public sector are going to play regarding extension in the future (Haug, 1999) including extension's role in advancing both development and women's empowerment (Rivera & Corning, 1990). The presence of farmers impressed as object development only, executing the instructed things, causing a very high dependency of farmers to the extension officer This is a probable reason why Ozor and Cynthia (2011) stated that, a change in the extension service agenda to accommodate the challenges currently posed by climate change by adopting new roles identified in the study and the need for increased research and innovation for sustainable adaptation to climate change. Vol 9, No 5; 2013 line with Arsyad’s findings (2010) that, the higher the frequency of getting information of technology/agriculture extension, non-agriculture jobs information and price information for input-output in agriculture, the higher the crops production (agricultural income) as well as non-agriculture income will be gained, the more total household income will have, which contributes to poverty alleviation This implies that stepping up agricultural and non-agricultural extension services, could significantly reduce rural/agriculture poverty (Arsyad & Kawamura, 2010). It can enhance the rural livelihood economy and has changed the way in which the majority of the rural agrarian communities view their farming enterprise (Mapila et al, 2010) as one of socio-economic development goals
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
