IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v11y2022i12p536-d980347.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Inquiry into Bhutanese Agriculture Research–Practice Gaps Using Rogers Innovation Adoption Attributes and Mode 2 Knowledge Production Features

Author

Listed:
  • Kinley Dorji

    (School of Environmental and Rural Science, Faculty of Science, Agriculture, Business and Law, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia)

  • Judith Miller

    (School of Education, Faculty of Humanities, Arts, Social Sciences and Education, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia)

  • Shubiao Wu

    (School of Environmental and Rural Science, Faculty of Science, Agriculture, Business and Law, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia)

Abstract

Investigation into the relevance and utility of bridging gaps between knowledge and practice is necessary to justify such endeavors to public funding agencies. This study investigated the underlying causes of the research–practice gap in the Bhutanese context with the aim to realign the relevance of agricultural research and to enhance practice using Rogers innovation attributes on features of Mode 2 knowledge production features. Out of 233 articles published by three agricultural journal publishers, only 110 articles that met our criteria were included in this study. Principal component analysis (PCA) for 23 variables yielded five variables that contributed 90% of the total variation. The first two dimensions contained 39.34% of the total dataset inertia, which was significantly greater than the reference value (17.19%) obtained by simulating 959 data tables of equivalent size based on a normal distribution. Further, cluster analysis differentiated the observations into three distinct clusters that significantly differed in their variable descriptive values. The innovation attributes ‘complexity’ and ‘compatibility’ received the highest score, while ‘observability’ had the lowest score. Under innovation diffusion elements, ‘time’ and ‘social system’ aspects were the least considered, thus affecting the innovation adoption. The ‘context of application’ of innovation had the highest score (65%), whereas ‘diffusion’ of the knowledge under transdisciplinarity received the lowest score. Both the diversity of ‘discipline’ and ‘organization’ inclusion under heterogeneity received the lowest score. Informal communication and social dimension received the lowest score among the Mode 2 knowledge production variables. Bhutan followed conventional, linear, and unidirectional approaches to research and extension diffusion systems, by which research institutions innovate, and extension workers bring innovation to potential adopters. Bhutanese research policy and strategy must consider reframing relevant agriculture innovation systems to keep abreast of modern technology development.

Suggested Citation

  • Kinley Dorji & Judith Miller & Shubiao Wu, 2022. "An Inquiry into Bhutanese Agriculture Research–Practice Gaps Using Rogers Innovation Adoption Attributes and Mode 2 Knowledge Production Features," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:11:y:2022:i:12:p:536-:d:980347
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/11/12/536/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/11/12/536/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van der Hel, Sandra, 2016. "New science for global sustainability? The institutionalisation of knowledge co-production in Future Earth," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 165-175.
    2. Rhys Andrews & Gene A. Brewer, 2013. "Social Capital, Management Capacity and Public Service Performance," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 19-42, January.
    3. Ostlund, Lyman E, 1974. "Perceived Innovation Attributes as Predictors of Innovativeness," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 1(2), pages 23-29, Se.
    4. Brinkerhoff, Derick W. & Goldsmith, Arthur A., 1992. "Promoting the sustainability of development institutions: A framework for strategy," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 369-383, March.
    5. Hamed Taherdoost, 2018. "A review of technology acceptance and adoption models and theories," Post-Print hal-03741843, HAL.
    6. Batz, Franz-J. & Janssen, Willem & Peters, Kurt J., 2003. "Predicting technology adoption to improve research priority--setting," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 151-164, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Quevedo Cascante, Mónica & Acosta García, Nicolás & Fold, Niels, 2022. "The role of external forces in the adoption of aquaculture innovations: An ex-ante case study of fish farming in Colombia's southern Amazonian region," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    2. Hallberg-Sramek, Isabella & Nordström, Eva-Maria & Priebe, Janina & Reimerson, Elsa & Mårald, Erland & Nordin, Annika, 2023. "Combining scientific and local knowledge improves evaluating future scenarios of forest ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    3. Anita Gärling & John Thøgersen, 2001. "Marketing of electric vehicles," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(1), pages 53-65, January.
    4. Antonio J. Castro & Cristina Quintas-Soriano & Jodi Brandt & Carla L. Atkinson & Colden V. Baxter & Morey Burnham & Benis N. Egoh & Marina García-Llorente & Jason P. Julian & Berta Martín-López & Feli, 2018. "Applying Place-Based Social-Ecological Research to Address Water Scarcity: Insights for Future Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, May.
    5. Powen Fang & Yaochuan Tsai & Hsinhsin Chang, 2013. "Relationship Performance on Self-Service Technology: Relationship Maintenance and Perceived Relationship Investment," Diversity, Technology, and Innovation for Operational Competitiveness: Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Technology Innovation and Industrial Management,, ToKnowPress.
    6. Ozaki, Ritsuko & Sevastyanova, Katerina, 2011. "Going hybrid: An analysis of consumer purchase motivations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2217-2227, May.
    7. Luciana Aparecida Barbieri da Rosa & Clandia Maffini Gomes & Waleska Campos & Carolina Rodrigues & Tais Pentiado Godoy & Jordana Marques Kneipp, 2022. "Influencing Factors of The Innovation Power in the Adoption of Sustainability Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-15, October.
    8. Karim, Sitara & Naz, Farah & Naeem, Muhammad Abubakr & Vigne, Samuel A., 2022. "Is FinTech providing effective solutions to Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in ASEAN countries?," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 335-344.
    9. Zhang Zhen & Zahid Yousaf & Magdalena Radulescu & Muhammad Yasir, 2021. "Nexus of Digital Organizational Culture, Capabilities, Organizational Readiness, and Innovation: Investigation of SMEs Operating in the Digital Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, January.
    10. Bonaiuto, M. & Mosca, O. & Milani, A. & Ariccio, S. & Dessi, F. & Fornara, F., 2024. "Beliefs about technological and contextual features drive biofuels’ social acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 189(PA).
    11. O. Oyediran & A. Omoshule & Sanjay Misra & Rytis Maskeliūnas & Robertas Damaševičius, 2019. "Attitude of mobile telecommunication subscribers towards sim card registration in Lagos State, Southwestern Nigeria," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 10(4), pages 783-791, August.
    12. Nketiah, Emmanuel & Song, Huaming & Obuobi, Bright & Adu-Gyamfi, Gibbson & Adjei, Mavis & Cudjoe, Dan, 2022. "Citizens' willingness to pay for local anaerobic digestion energy: The influence of altruistic value and knowledge," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    13. Shaosheng Jin & Bashiru Mansaray & Xin Jin & Haoyang Li, 2020. "Farmers’ preferences for attributes of rice varieties in Sierra Leone," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(5), pages 1185-1197, October.
    14. Koiry, Subrata & Huang, Wei, 2023. "Do ecological protection approaches affect total factor productivity change of cropland production in Sweden?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    15. Mohammadbashir Sedighi & Hamideh Parsaeiyan & Yashar Araghi, 2021. "An Empirical Study of Intention to Continue Using of Digital Ride-hailing Platforms," The Review of Socionetwork Strategies, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 489-515, November.
    16. Le Thanh Tiep & Ngo Quang Huan & Tran Thi Thuy Hong, 2020. "The Impact of Renewable Energy on Sustainable Economic Growth in Vietnam," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 10(6), pages 359-369.
    17. Hasan, Rajibul & Shams, Riad & Rahman, Mizan, 2021. "Consumer trust and perceived risk for voice-controlled artificial intelligence: The case of Siri," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 591-597.
    18. Chi-Yo Huang & Hui-Ya Wang & Chia-Lee Yang & Steven J. H. Shiau, 2020. "A Derivation of Factors Influencing the Diffusion and Adoption of an Open Source Learning Platform," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-27, September.
    19. Wilfred Kassangoye & Robert Rugimbana, 2013. "Internet adoption and usage patterns among Students in selected South African Universities," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 5(6), pages 376-384.
    20. Astebro, Thomas B. & Dahlin, Kristina B., 2005. "Opportunity knocks," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1404-1418, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:11:y:2022:i:12:p:536-:d:980347. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.