Advertisement

Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science

, Volume 50, Issue 4, pp 684–703 | Cite as

Types of Rural Extensionists’ Expectations of Psychology and Their Implications on Psychologists’ Practice

  • Fernando LandiniEmail author
Regular Article
  • 138 Downloads

Abstract

Psychology has great potential for contributing to rural development, particularly through supporting rural extension (RE). In this paper, the types of expectations extensionists have of psychology are identified, as well as possible ways of integrating psychosocial knowledge into the RE context. Rural extensionists from 12 Latin American countries were surveyed (n = 654). Of them, 89.4 % considered psychology could contribute to rural extension and commented on how this would be possible. Expectations were categorised and the nine mentioned by more than 20 % of them were utilized to conduct a two-steps cluster analysis. Three types of extensionists’ expectations were identified: one wherein working with extensionists was highlighted; another characterised by a focus on working with farmers; and a third featuring a traditional, diffusionist extension approach, which views farmers as objects of psychologists’ interventions. With the first type, psychologists should not neglect working with farmers and with the second, with extensionists. With the third type, reflecting on the expectations themselves and their underlying assumptions seems essential.

Keywords

Rural extension Rural advisory services Latin America Farmers Rural psychology Technologies 

References

  1. Acunzo, M., Pafumi, M., Torres, C., & Tirol, M. (2014). Communication for rural development. Rome: Food and Agriculture Oganization of the United Nations (FAO).Google Scholar
  2. Álvarez, S. (2001). Pobreza autogestionada. Encrucijadas, 14(2), 32–43.Google Scholar
  3. American Psychological Association (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from http://apa.org/ethics/code/principles.pdf.
  4. Anyaegbunam, C., Mefalopulos, P., & Moetsabi, T. (2004). Participatory rural communication appraisal. Starting with the people, a handbook. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  5. Belder, P., Rohrbach, D., Twomlow, S., & Senzanje, A. (2007). Can drip irrigation improve the livelihoods of smallholders? Lessons learned from Zimbabwe. Bulawayo: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.Google Scholar
  6. Bouwen, R., & Taillieu, T. (2004). Multi-party collaboration as social learning for interdependence: developing relational knowing for sustainable natural resource management. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 14(3), 137–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cazorla, A., De los Ríos, I., & Salvo, M. (2013). Working with people (WWP) in rural development projects: a proposal from social learning. Cuadernos de Desarrollo Rural, 10(70), 131–157.Google Scholar
  8. Chambers, R. (1983). Rural development. Putting the last first. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  9. Choocharoen, C., Neef, A., Preechapanya, P., & Hoffmann, V. (2014). Agrosilvopastoral systems in Northern Thailand and Northern Laos: minority peoples’ knowledge versus government policy. Land, 3(2), 414–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chowdhury, A., Hambly Odame, H., & Leeuwis, C. (2014). Transforming the roles of a public extension agency to strengthen innovation: Lessons from the National Agricultural Extension Project in Bangladesh. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 20(1), 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christoplos, I. (2010). Movilizing the potencial of rural and agricultural extension. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  12. Dirven, M. (2003). Entre el ideario y la realidad: capital social y desarrollo agrícola, algunos apuntes para la reflexión. In R. Atria, M. Siles, I. Arriagada, L. Robison, & S. Whiteford (Eds.), Capital social y reducción de la pobreza en América Latina y el Caribe: en busca de un nuevo paradigma (pp. 397–446). Santiago: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean.Google Scholar
  13. Freire, P. (1973). ¿Extensión o comunicación? La concientización en el medio rural. Siglo XXI: Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
  14. Gazzoli, P. (2012). Comunidades de prática enquanto viabilizadoras de projetos comuns em ambientes turbulentos: uma abordagem crítica. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 16(6), 806–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (2012). Marco estratégico a largo plazo (20112016). Lindau. Retrieved from http://www.g-fras.org/en/knowledge/documents/category/16-strategic-and-management-documents.html?download=128:gfras-marco-estrategico.
  16. Hutchison, A., Johnston, L., & Breckon, J. (2011). Grounded theory-based research within exercise psychology: a critical review. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 8(3), 247–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kim, H., MacDonald, R., & Andersen, D. (2013). Simulation and managerial decision making: a double-loop learning framework. Public Administration Review, 73(2), 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klerkx, L., Aarts, N., & Leeuwis, C. (2010). Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: the interactions between innovation networks and their environment. Agricultural Systems, 103, 390–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Landini, F. (2011) Racionalidad económica campesina. Mundo Agrario, 12(23). Retrieved from http://www.scielo.org.ar/pdf/magr/v12n23/v12n23a14.pdf.
  20. Landini, F. (Ed.). (2015a). Hacia una psicología rural latinoamericana. Latin American Council of Social Sciences (CLACSO): Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
  21. Landini, F. (2015b). Different Argentine rural extensionists’ mindsets and their practical implications. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 21(3), 219–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Landini, F. (2015c). Contributions of community psychology to rural advisory services: an analysis of Latin American rural extensionists’ point of view. American Journal of Community Psychology, 55(3), 359–368.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Landini, F. (2016). Concepción de extensión rural en 10 países latinoamericanos. Andamios, 24(47), 47–68.Google Scholar
  24. Landini, F., & Bianqui, V. (2013). Reflecting on practice. Farming Matters, 29(3), 34–36.Google Scholar
  25. Landini, F., & Bianqui, V. (2014). Socio-demographic profile of different samples of Latin American rural extensionists. Ciencia Rural, 44(3), 575–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Landini, F. & Riet, L. (2015). Extensión rural en Uruguay: problemas y enfoques vistos por sus extensionistas. Mundo Agrario, 16(32). Retrieved from http://www.mundoagrario.unlp.edu.ar/article/view/MAv16n32a09/6862.
  27. Landini, F., Murtagh, M., & Lacanna, M. (2009). Aportes y reflexiones desde la psicología al trabajo de extensión con pequeños productores. Formosa: National Institute for Agrarian Technology.Google Scholar
  28. Landini, F., Benítez, M., & Murtagh, S. (2010). Revisión de los trabajos realizados por la psicología sobre pequeños productores agropecuarios. Anuario de Investigaciones, 17(1), 221–229.Google Scholar
  29. Landini, F., Bianqui, V., & Crespi, M. (2013a). Evaluación de las creencias sobre extensión rural de los extensionistas paraguayos. Psiencia, 5(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Landini, F., Bianqui, V., & Russo, M. (2013b). Evaluación de un proceso de capacitación para extensionistas rurales implementado en Paraguay. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, 51(sup1), s009–s030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Landini, F., Leeuwis, C., Long, N., & Murtagh, S. (2014a). Towards a psychology of rural development processes and interventions. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 24(6), 534–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Landini, F., Long, N., Leeuwis, C., & Murtagh, S. (2014b). Theoretical guidelines for a psychology of rural development processes and interventions. Cuadernos de Desarrollo Rural, 11(74), 125–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leeuwis, C. (2004). Communication for rural innovation. Rethinking agricultural extension. Oxford: Blackwell Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leeuwis, C., & Aarts, N. (2011). Rethinking communication in innovation processes: creating space for change in complex systems. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 17(1), 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leeuwis, C., & Pyburn, R. (Eds.). (2002). Wheelbarrows full of frogs. Social learning in rural resource management. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  36. Leite, J., & Dimensteinm, M. (Eds.). (2013). Psicologia e contextos rurais. Natal: Federal Univesity of Rio Grande do Norte.Google Scholar
  37. Leite, J., Silva, L., Oliveira, R., & Stipp, M. (2012). Thoughts regarding researchers utilizing grounded theory. Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP, 46(3), 765–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Long, N. (2001). Development sociology. Actor perspectives. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marchesan, E., & Senseman, S. (2010). Brazilian university technology transfer to rural areas. Ciência Rural, 40(10), 2243–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Montero, M., & Winkler, M. (2014). Iberian and Latin American ethics in community psychology: the contradiction between facts and academician’s perception. Journal of Community Psychology, 42(8), 997–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moschitz, H., Roep, D., Brunori, G., & Tisenkopfs, T. (2015). Learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture: processes of co-evolution, joint reflection and facilitation. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 21(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Murtagh, S., & Landini, F. (2011). Producción científica de la psicología vinculada a pequeños productores agropecuarios con énfasis en el ámbito del desarrollo rural. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 45(2), 293–304.Google Scholar
  43. Ortiz, R. (2009). Evolución de los servicios de extensión en Nicaragua. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  44. Ortiz, R., Mejía, F., Ceville, X., Preissing, J., Boerger, V., Solórzano, N., Meyrat, M., Marín, X., & Morrás, E. (2011a). Buenas prácticas en el manejo de extensión en América Central. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  45. Ortiz, R., Rivera, O., Cifuentes, I., & Morrás, E. (2011b). Estudio de sistematización de buenas prácticas de extensión en Guatemala. Guatemala: FAO.Google Scholar
  46. Pérez, M., & Clavijo, N. (2012). Experiencias y enfoques de procesos participativos de innovación en agricultura. El caso de la corporación PBA en Colombia. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  47. Preissing, J., Ardila, S., Buitrón, J., & Fernández, C. (2014). Nuevas inversiones en extensión para la agricultura familiar. In S. Salcedo & L. Guzmán (Eds.), Agricultura familiar en América Latina y el Caribe: recomendaciones de política (pp. 215–232). Santiago, Chile: FAO.Google Scholar
  48. Qamar, K. (2011). Introducing demand-driven extension approach in a traditional region: a case study from Pakistan. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  49. Rivera, W., & Alex, G. (Eds.). (2004). Demand- driven approaches to agriculture extension. Case studies of international initiatives. Washington: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  50. Rogers, E. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. Nueva York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  51. Sæther, B. (2010). Agricultural extension services and rural innovation in inner Scandinavia. Norwegian Journal of Geography, 64(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
  52. Sánchez Quintanar, C. (Ed.). (2009). Psicología en ambiente rural. Mexico: Plaza y Valdés.Google Scholar
  53. Schaller, N. (2006). Extensión rural: ¿hacia dónde vamos? ¿hacia dónde ir? El Colorado: National Institute for Agrarian Technology.Google Scholar
  54. Sulaiman, R., & Davis, K. (2012). The “New Extensionist”: roles, strategies, and capacities to strengthen extension and advisory services. Lindau: Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services.Google Scholar
  55. Tagg, J. (2010). The learning-paradigm campus: from single- to double-loop learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 123(3), 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Trigo, E., Mateo, N., & Falconi, C. (2013). Agricultural innovation in Latin America and the Caribbean: Institutional scenarios and mechanisms. Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
  57. Zuin, L., Zuin, P., & Manrique, M. (2011). The dialogic communication as a determinant for the teaching-learning processes that occur in rural training: a case study in a public extension located in São Paulo, Brazil. Ciência Rural, 41(5), 917–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Council of Technological and Scientific Research (CONICET)University of La Cuenca del Plata / University of MorónPosadasArgentina

Personalised recommendations