The conventional transfer-of-technology models are the top-down and feedback models. In the top-down model (Figure 2), technology transfer is a one-way process where technologies developed by scientists are passed on to extension services to be transferred to users. The weakness of this model is that it does not involve farmers in identifying the constraints and adapting the research to local conditions. This model has failed in areas where the farming system is complex.
The feedback model (Figure 3) is an attempt to overcome the weaknesses of the top-down model. In this model the response of users to the new technology is gathered. However, this feedback is considered to be weak as the users remain passive recipients of technology and the feedback function solely rests with the extension service (Stoop, 1988).
Figure 2 The top-down technology transfer model
An improved version of this model is the modified feedback technology model (Figure 4), in which importance is given to identification of farmer target groups in the recommendation domain.
The farmer-back-to-farmer model (Figure 5, based on Rhoades and Booth, 1982) is designed to improve two-way communication. In this model, farmers and extension personnel are actively involved in the research process. It is based on the assumption that
Figure 3 The feedback technology transfer model
Figure 4 The modified feedback technology transfer model
FSR/E = farming systems research/extension research must begin and end with the farmer. The model involves diagnosis to define problems; interdisciplinary team research to develop potential solutions; on-farm and experiment station testing and adaptation of proposed solutions to farmer's conditions, and farmer evaluation and adaptation of the technology and monitoring of its adoption (Stoop, 1988). The degree of farmer participation and integration between on-station and on-farm research is high in this model compared with the modified feedback model.
Based on these models several alternative systems have been developed and implemented for integrated research-extension-producer interactions. Figure 6 shows increasingly unified research and extension systems (based on Stoop, 1988).
Figure 5 'Farmer-back-to-farmer' technology generation and transfer system
Figure 6 Increasingly integrated research (R)-extension (E)-producer (P) interactions (from Stoop, 1988, based on R. Devred, pers. comm.)
|
Research (R) Extension (E) Producer (P) |
|
|
|
Conventional systems fragmented commodity and/or discipline |
|
|
Unified research system extension system fragmented by commodity |
|
|
Superimposed research, pre-extension and extension systems |
|
|
Unified Research-Extension system |
|
|
Triangular system of collaboration with institutions committed to individual and specific functions |
|
|
Integration of functions |
In the traditional system, research and extension programmes are fragmented and barriers exist between various institutions with research and extension functions (Figure 6a). For achieving better integration, the research function is unified (Figure 6b), while further integration is achieved by having a unified extension system together with a pre-extension unit acting as liaison between research and extension (Figure 6c). Complete integration between research and extension is achieved by having one institution for both research and extension (Figure 6d). A high degree of integration is promoted by facilitating two-way communication when the research and extension functions are performed by separate agencies (Figure 6e). Research-extension systems that are completely unified (Figure 6f) are typical of the USA (the land-grant university system) and the Netherlands.
