F. Landini, J. Turner, K. Davis, Helen Percy, J. van Niekerk
{"title":"国际推广主体目标比较与类型学构建","authors":"F. Landini, J. Turner, K. Davis, Helen Percy, J. van Niekerk","doi":"10.1080/1389224X.2021.1936091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Purpose To analyse and compare the extension objectives of individual extension agents across nine countries. Design/methodology/approach Extension agents from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Paraguay, and South Africa were surveyed using convenience sampling (n = 2707). A typology of extension agents with different profiles of objectives was built using data from five of the countries. Findings The most frequent individual extension objectives were to increase farmers’ knowledge through training, and productive modernisation of farms. Four types of extension agents were identified: the socially-engaged extension agent; the agricultural production and business expert; the trainer of subsistence farmers, and the pro-poor practitioner. Practical implications Researchers can use these results to analyse specific institutional settings, and extension institutions to reflect on the type of extension agent that best fit their institutional goals and to select practitioners accordingly. Theoretical implications Productive modernisation persists as a fundamental individual extension objective in many countries. Individual extension objectives are not stand-alone preferences but clusters of interrelated priorities, which do not necessarily coincide with those of extension institutions or national policies. Practitioners’ agency plays a key role in realising (or not) a fit between extension service offerings and demand for extension services, and contributes to a wider repertoire of advisory styles in extension systems than implied by extension institutional objectives. Originality/value This research adds to the literature by examining individual extension agents, rather than the institutional extension objectives, and providing a typology of agents with different profiles of objectives.","PeriodicalId":46772,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Education & Extension","volume":"28 1","pages":"415 - 437"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/1389224X.2021.1936091","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"International comparison of extension agent objectives and construction of a typology\",\"authors\":\"F. Landini, J. Turner, K. Davis, Helen Percy, J. van Niekerk\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1389224X.2021.1936091\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Purpose To analyse and compare the extension objectives of individual extension agents across nine countries. Design/methodology/approach Extension agents from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Paraguay, and South Africa were surveyed using convenience sampling (n = 2707). A typology of extension agents with different profiles of objectives was built using data from five of the countries. Findings The most frequent individual extension objectives were to increase farmers’ knowledge through training, and productive modernisation of farms. Four types of extension agents were identified: the socially-engaged extension agent; the agricultural production and business expert; the trainer of subsistence farmers, and the pro-poor practitioner. Practical implications Researchers can use these results to analyse specific institutional settings, and extension institutions to reflect on the type of extension agent that best fit their institutional goals and to select practitioners accordingly. Theoretical implications Productive modernisation persists as a fundamental individual extension objective in many countries. Individual extension objectives are not stand-alone preferences but clusters of interrelated priorities, which do not necessarily coincide with those of extension institutions or national policies. Practitioners’ agency plays a key role in realising (or not) a fit between extension service offerings and demand for extension services, and contributes to a wider repertoire of advisory styles in extension systems than implied by extension institutional objectives. Originality/value This research adds to the literature by examining individual extension agents, rather than the institutional extension objectives, and providing a typology of agents with different profiles of objectives.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46772,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Agricultural Education & Extension\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"415 - 437\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/1389224X.2021.1936091\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Agricultural Education & Extension\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2021.1936091\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Agricultural Education & Extension","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2021.1936091","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
International comparison of extension agent objectives and construction of a typology
ABSTRACT Purpose To analyse and compare the extension objectives of individual extension agents across nine countries. Design/methodology/approach Extension agents from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Paraguay, and South Africa were surveyed using convenience sampling (n = 2707). A typology of extension agents with different profiles of objectives was built using data from five of the countries. Findings The most frequent individual extension objectives were to increase farmers’ knowledge through training, and productive modernisation of farms. Four types of extension agents were identified: the socially-engaged extension agent; the agricultural production and business expert; the trainer of subsistence farmers, and the pro-poor practitioner. Practical implications Researchers can use these results to analyse specific institutional settings, and extension institutions to reflect on the type of extension agent that best fit their institutional goals and to select practitioners accordingly. Theoretical implications Productive modernisation persists as a fundamental individual extension objective in many countries. Individual extension objectives are not stand-alone preferences but clusters of interrelated priorities, which do not necessarily coincide with those of extension institutions or national policies. Practitioners’ agency plays a key role in realising (or not) a fit between extension service offerings and demand for extension services, and contributes to a wider repertoire of advisory styles in extension systems than implied by extension institutional objectives. Originality/value This research adds to the literature by examining individual extension agents, rather than the institutional extension objectives, and providing a typology of agents with different profiles of objectives.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Agricultural Education & Extension is published to inform experts who do or use research on agricultural education and extension about research conducted in this field worldwide. Information about this research is needed to improve policies, strategies, methods and practices for agricultural education and extension. The Journal of Agricultural Education & Extension accepts authorative and well-referenced scientific articles within the field of agricultural education and extension after a double-blind peer review process. Agricultural education and extension faces profound change, and therefore its core area of attention is moving towards communication, competence development and performance improvement for a wide variety of fields and audiences, most of which can be studied from a multi-disciplinary perspective, including: -Communication for Development- Competence Management and Development- Corporate Social Responsibility and Human Resource Development- Design and Implementation of Competence–based Education- Environmental and Natural Resource Management- Entrepreneurship and Learning- Facilitating Multiple-Stakeholder Processes- Health and Society- Innovation of Agricultural-Technical Education- Innovation Systems and Learning- Integrated Rural Development- Interdisciplinary and Social Learning- Learning, Conflict and Decision Making- Poverty Reduction- Performance Improvement- Sustainable Agricultural Production