IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/mth/jas888/v12y2024i1p38-56.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Students’ Perceptions of the Role of Various Players in Agricultural Technologies and Innovations Development

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Ayisi-Nyarko
  • Fallys Masambuka-kanchewa
  • Bernard Obaa

Abstract

Technologies and innovations have revolutionized the agricultural industry throughout time; as more technologies and innovations keep gaining prominence in the agricultural industry, there is an increasing divergence of views on their origin, creators, and meaning among scholars across the scientific fields. Students in agricultural programs emerge from different fields in the agricultural disciplines; as a result, they have different exposure and experience with different technologies and innovations. Their varied backgrounds influence how they define, explain, and conceptualize technologies and innovations in agriculture, giving rise to varied perceptions of who should be recognized and who should not. The present study sought to explore agricultural students' perceptions of technologies and innovations and the role of farmers and extension agents in their development. The study adopted a qualitative content analysis approach by analyzing the views expressed by seventeen students from two different universities. The results showed that agricultural students have varied perceptions of what technologies and innovations represent in agriculture. Most of the students perceived technology as equipment and tools, and innovation as improved techniques and as a discovery of new methods. They also had conflicting views on the role played by the farmers, extension agents, and researchers in technology and innovation development. While the majority viewed farmers as adaptors of technologies and innovations, none viewed extension agents as contributors to technologies and innovation development rather than as disseminators. Our findings suggest a lack of knowledge in the collective role played by farmers, extension agents, and scientists in technology and innovation development. The repercussion of this is that it may contribute towards limited inclusion of diverse perspectives in technology and innovation creation and dissemination, which may affect sustainable agricultural development.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Ayisi-Nyarko & Fallys Masambuka-kanchewa & Bernard Obaa, 2024. "Students’ Perceptions of the Role of Various Players in Agricultural Technologies and Innovations Development," Journal of Agricultural Studies, Macrothink Institute, vol. 12(1), pages 38-56, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:mth:jas888:v:12:y:2024:i:1:p:38-56
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/jas/article/download/21458/16637
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/jas/article/view/21458
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Nightingale, 2014. "What is technology? Six definitions and two pathologies," SPRU Working Paper Series 2014-19, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    2. Läpple, Doris & Renwick, Alan & Thorne, Fiona, 2015. "Measuring and understanding the drivers of agricultural innovation: Evidence from Ireland," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-8.
    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. Cameira, Maria do Rosário & Rodrigo, Isabel & Garção, Andreia & Neves, Manuela & Ferreira, Antónia & Paredes, Paula, 2024. "Linking participatory approach and rapid appraisal methods to select potential innovations in collective irrigation systems," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 299(C).
    2. Hu, Yue & Liu, Chang & Peng, Jiangang, 2021. "Financial inclusion and agricultural total factor productivity growth in China," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 68-82.
    3. L. Toma & A. P. Barnes & L.-A. Sutherland & S. Thomson & F. Burnett & K. Mathews, 2018. "Impact of information transfer on farmers’ uptake of innovative crop technologies: a structural equation model applied to survey data," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 864-881, August.
    4. Efthymios Rodias & Remigio Berruto & Patrizia Busato & Dionysis Bochtis & Claus Grøn Sørensen & Kun Zhou, 2017. "Energy Savings from Optimised In-Field Route Planning for Agricultural Machinery," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-13, October.
    5. Balaine, Lorraine & Dillon, Emma J. & Läpple, Doris & Lynch, John, 2020. "Can technology help achieve sustainable intensification? Evidence from milk recording on Irish dairy farms," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    6. Artiom Volkov & Tomas Balezentis & Mangirdas Morkunas & Dalia Streimikiene, 2019. "In a Search for Equity: Do Direct Payments under the Common Agricultural Policy Induce Convergence in the European Union?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-15, June.
    7. Daxini, Amar & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary & Buckley, Cathal & Barnes, Andrew P., 2018. "Factors influencing farmers' intentions to adopt nutrient management planning: accounting for heterogeneity," 166th Seminar, August 30-31, 2018, Galway, West of Ireland 276183, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Veronika Hannus & Johannes Sauer, 2021. "Understanding Farmers’ Intention to Use a Sustainability Standard: The Role of Economic Rewards, Knowledge, and Ease of Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-21, September.
    9. Yari Vecchio & Giulio Paolo Agnusdei & Pier Paolo Miglietta & Fabian Capitanio, 2020. "Adoption of Precision Farming Tools: The Case of Italian Farmers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-16, January.
    10. Birhanu, Mulugeta Yitayih & Girma, Anteneh & Puskur, Ranjitha, 2017. "Determinants of success and intensity of livestock feed technologies use in Ethiopia: Evidence from a positive deviance perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 15-25.
    11. Yaqub, Ohid, 2017. "Testing regimes in clinical trials: Evidence from four polio vaccine trajectories," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 475-484.
    12. Claudio Liberati & Concetta Cardillo & Antonella Di Fonzo, 2021. "Sustainability and competitiveness in farms: An evidence of Lazio region agriculture through FADN data analysis," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 23(3), pages 1-22.
    13. Niedermayr, Andreas & Kapfer, Martin & Kantelhardt, Jochen, 2016. "Using Econometric Models To Analyse The Spatial Distribution Of Oil Pumpkin Cultivation In Austria," 56th Annual Conference, Bonn, Germany, September 28-30, 2016 244886, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    14. Can, E. & Shrestha, S. & Wilson, P. & Barnes, A. & Ramsden, S., 2015. "Pr - Uptake Of Agricultural Innovations In Scottish Beef Farms: A Review Of Concepts, Challenges And Scientific Approaches," 20th Congress, Quebec, Canada, 2015 345767, International Farm Management Association.
    15. Ohid Yaqub, 2018. "Variation in the dynamics and performance of industrial innovation: what can we learn from vaccines and HIV vaccines?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(1), pages 173-187.
    16. Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Ollikainen, Markku, 2019. "Drivers of Participation in Gypsum Treatment of Fields as an Innovation for Water Protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 382-393.
    17. Bjerke, Lina & Johansson, Sara, 2022. "Innovation in agriculture: An analysis of Swedish agricultural and non-agricultural firms," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    18. Vecchio, Yari & Di Pasquale, Jorgelina & Del Giudice, Teresa & Pauselli, Gregorio & Masi, Margherita & Adinolfi, Felice, 2022. "Precision farming: what do Italian farmers really think? An application of the Q methodology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    19. Iordanis Parikoglou & Grigorios Emvalomatis & Doris Läpple & Fiona Thorne & Michael Wallace, 2024. "The contribution of innovation to farm-level productivity," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 62(2), pages 239-255, October.
    20. Catalina Fernández Rosso & Franco Bilotto & Andrea Lauric & Gerónimo A. De Leo & Carlos Torres Carbonell & Mauricio A. Arroqui & Claus G. Sørensen & Claudio F. Machado, 2021. "An innovation path in Argentinean cow–calf operations: Insights from participatory farm system modelling," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(4), pages 488-502, August.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:mth:jas888:v:12:y:2024:i:1:p:38-56. 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: Technical Support Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/jas .

    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.