Authors
Jennifer Sherman, Department of Sociology, Washington State University, Richland; and
David H. Gent, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Abstract
Impact and relevance are valued by both plant pathologists and the supporters
of research and extension. Impact has been characterized as the “So what?” of
research results, and in applied research in agriculture typically involves some
change in human behavior. This might involve, for instance, avoidance of broad
spectrum pesticides, use of economic thresholds, or adoption of a new cultural
practice in disease management. Changes in human behavior often are slow and
difficult, even when the potential benefits of change seem clear. Research and
extension personnel working with farmers have discussed for decades the apparent
slow pace of adoption of integrated pest management (IPM) and other
less-pesticide-intensive management practices. The reasons why change is slow
are numerous, but one aspect that warrants consideration is how changes in farm
practices are communicated to farmers. Effectively communicating changes in pest
management practices at the farm level requires a system of research and
extension management that differs from that to which most biological scientists
are accustomed. What is the motivation for farmers to deviate from historical
practices? How persuasive are concepts of environmental sustainability,
integrated pest management, risk management, and economic gain in communicating
the needs for change? In addressing these questions, it is useful to understand
some of the basic determinants of farmers' decision processes and motivations to
adopt practices. This article discusses these issues.
