The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension

Competence for Rural Innovation and Transformation

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raee20

Factors contributing to rural extension agents’

support for a transfer of technology (ToT)
approach: a multiple linear regression analysis

Fernando Landini & Santiago Conti

To cite this article: Fernando Landini & Santiago Conti (2022): Factors contributing to
rural extension agents’ support for a transfer of technology (ToT) approach: a multiple
linear regression analysis, The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, DOI:
10.1080/1389224X.2022.2120027

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2022.2120027

Published online: 08 Sep 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 14

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=raee20
THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION
https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2022.2120027

Factors contributing to rural extension agents’ support for a

transfer of technology (ToT) approach: a multiple linear
regression analysis
a,b
Fernando Landini and Santiago Contib,c
a
Research Institute, University of La Cuenca del Plata, Posadas, Argentina; bConsejo Nacional de
Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina; cUniversidad Nacional de Río
Negro (UNRN) – Instituto de Investigaciones en Diversidad Cultural y Procesos de Cambio (IIDYPCA-
CONICET/UNRN), Bariloche, Argentina

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Purpose: This article aims at identifying the individual factors and Received 24 December 2021
socio-demographic variables contributing to extension agents’ Accepted 24 August 2022
support for a ToT extension approach.
KEYWORDS
Design/Methodology/Approach: A multiple linear regression Rural extension; transfer of
analysis was conducted using samples of extension agents from technologies; modernization
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Nigeria. theory; green revolution;
Findings: The main factors explaining the support to a ToT self-critical attitude;
extension approach are: the tendency to blame farmers, reflection on practice
understanding extension as a participatory process of dialogue
and inter-institutional coordination, prioritizing the modernization
of farmers’ production, and supporting conventional modern
agriculture. The main factors reducing the support for a ToT
approach are having a self-critical attitude, prioritizing the
creation and strengthening of farmer organizations, having a
university degree, and being an experienced extension agent.
Practical Implications: The results are useful for institutions
interested in changing the profile of their extension personnel
and in moving away from a ToT extension approach.
Theoretical Implications: Extension agents supporting a ToT
approach assume that they know what is best for farmers
without really acknowledging them as experienced individuals
with self-determination and rationale of their own. The
development of a self-critical attitude, resulting from field
experience and reflection on practice seems to play a key role in
questioning the assumptions of the ToT extension approach.
Originality/Value: This is the first study to analyze the factors
contributing to extension agents’ support for a ToT approach
conducted using a multiple linear regression.

Introduction
Rural extension and innovation processes can be conceptualized and addressed in
different ways. Davis and Sulaiman (2016) consider these different approaches as

CONTACT Fernando Landini landini_fer@hotmail.com University of La Cuenca del Plata, Posadas, Argentina,
Sgto. Barrufaldi 2364, Posadas 3300, Argentina
© 2022 Wageningen University
2 F. LANDINI AND S. CONTI

‘philosophies’ or ‘paradigms’, since they express relatively consistent sets of underlying

beliefs, values and assumptions. In terms of the Theory of Action, extension and inno-
vation approaches can be understood as underlying sets of values and action rules that
practitioners use to organize their practices in specific spheres of reality (Argyris
1991), in this case, development and innovation interventions.
The ‘transfer of technology’ (ToT) approach, also known as ‘diffusion of innovations
theory’ (Koutsouris 2018), is the one that has generated most controversies and debates,
possibly because it was the first one and has become the most influential. The ToT
approach is clearly depicted in the classic book ‘Diffusion of Innovations’ by Everett
Rogers (1962), and is framed within the paradigm of the modernization theory. Modern-
ization theory, born in the post-Second World War context, argues that the ‘Third
World’ or the ‘underdeveloped’ countries should leave behind their ‘traditional’
culture and adopt ‘modern’ productive and cultural patterns so as to be considered
‘developed’ societies (Koutsouris 2018; Méndez-Sastoque 2020), following the example
of the Western ‘developed’ countries, mostly the United States. In this process, the
trust on the (unlimited) potential of the scientific and technological knowledge and its
adoption played a key role. Importantly, modernization theory legitimizes the interven-
tion of Western ‘developed’ countries in those considered ‘underdeveloped’ to spread
‘modern’ knowledge and culture, as a way of bringing about ‘development’ (Álvarez
2001).
The ToT approach in agriculture understands innovation as a linear and uni-
directional communication process in which innovations are developed by agricultural
experts (researchers), transmitted or transferred by extension agents, and adopted by
farmers (Blum, Cofini, and Sulaiman 2020; Koutsouris 2018; Méndez-Sastoque 2020).
In this line, ToT tends to neglect farmers’ local knowledge and aims to replace it with
scientific agricultural knowledge (mostly linked to the Green Revolution principles)
and induce changes in the (supposedly) farmers’ passive attitudes and traditional pro-
ductive practices (Garat and Barrionuevo 2020; Méndez-Sastoque 2020).
In addition, according to different authors, the ToT approach is also characterized by
an excessive trust on the benefits of modern science. Likewise, there is no acknowledg-
ment of its negative indirect effects (Sarandón 2021) or of the limited flexibility to
adapt technologies to the diversity of environmental and socio-productive contexts
(Nunes, da Silva, and de Sá 2020). There is also no recognition of the tendency to con-
sider farmers as passive objects of the intervention of external experts rather than as
social actors with values, interests and priorities of their own (Garat and Barrionuevo
2020; Méndez-Sastoque 2020). Despite these arguments, several authors also highlighted
benefits and positive impacts of the ToT approach, particularly the transfer of multiple
valuable technologies to farmers, which led to increases in food production and pro-
ductivity (Koutsouris 2018).
In line with these criticisms, rural extension and innovation specialists have high-
lighted the importance of rethinking the ToT extension practices in two different
(though complementary) lines. On the one hand, some scholars have stressed the need
for interactive horizontal communication processes between farmers and extension
agents, in which farmers’ context, demands, priorities and worldviews are acknowledged
and valued, and participatory methodologies and information exchange replace persua-
sive strategies (Blum, Cofini, and Sulaiman 2020; Garat and Barrionuevo 2020; Méndez-
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 3

Sastoque 2020; Nunes, da Silva, and de Sá 2020). On the other hand, numerous authors
have criticized the simplistic manner in which the ToT model understands innovation
processes, since innovations are not usually the result of technology transfer processes
but the outcome of collaborative networks of actors (such as agricultural researches,
extension agents, farmers and other relevant stakeholders) that share and exchange infor-
mation, experiences, priorities and values (Ingram et al. 2020; Koutsouris 2018; Suther-
land and Marchand 2021).
In the context of these debates, some authors have stressed the need for expanding
from the traditional ToT approach, keeping its strengths but adding new strategies,
methodologies and approaches with the objective of addressing its limitations (e.g.
Adamsone-Fiskovica and Grivins 2021; Bisseleua et al. 2018; Blum, Cofini, and Sulaiman
2020). In contrast, other authors have recommended leaving it behind, in view of its mul-
tiple shortcomings (Garat and Barrionuevo 2020; Koutsouris 2018; Méndez-Sastoque
2020). However, beyond this discussion, there is certain agreement that the ToT
approach is still predominant (or at least strong) in rural extension and agricultural
development in different institutions and most countries (Bourne, de Bruyn, and Prior
2021; Kamara, Van Hulst, and Dorward 2021; Koutsouris 2018; Sarandón 2021). This
situation can also be perceived in multiple academic papers on rural extension and inno-
vation processes that assume the principles of the ToT approach without any questioning
or proper discussion (e.g. de Freitas et al. 2021; de Roo et al. 2021; Olorunfemi, Olorun-
femi, and Oladele 2020; Pannell and Zilberman 2020; Takahashi, Muraoka, and Otsuka
2020).
The persistence of traditional ToT practices in rural extension and innovation is
somehow of concern, because of the multiple shortcomings of the approach (Glover
et al. 2019; Norton and Alwang 2020). Changes in extension practices require reorgan-
ization of extension institutions and support from their authorities (Al-Rimawi, Alla-
hyari, and Al-rusheidat 2017; Blum, Cofini, and Sulaiman 2020; Kamara, Van Hulst,
and Dorward 2021), extension agents with competences to implement alternative strat-
egies (Faure et al. 2013), and practitioners’ willingness and commitment to work differ-
ently – which implies a subjective change – (Adamsone-Fiskovica and Grivins 2021;
Kamara, Van Hulst, and Dorward 2021; Höckert and Ljung 2013). In general, the aca-
demic literature seems to have given particular attention to the reform of extension insti-
tutions and to extension agents’ education and training. However, the identities,
assumptions and rationale extension agents use to guide their field practices have
drawn much less attention, possibly because of the methodological problem to assess
the degree to which extension agents support a ToT approach.
Recently, Landini and colleagues developed and validated in Argentina, Brazil, Chile,
Mexico and Nigeria a Likert-type scale to assess beliefs about extension and innovation
(BExIn scale), which encompasses five dimensions, one of them labeled ‘Transfer of
Technology’ (Landini and Beramendi 2019; Landini, Beramendi, and Rojas-Andrade
2021). Importantly, this scale allows researchers to quantify the degree to which individ-
ual extension agents agree to the underlying beliefs and assumptions of the ToT
approach. Thus, drawing upon the possibilities generated by the development of the
BExIn scale and the importance of the extension agents’ beliefs in the persistence (or
transformation) of traditional ToT practices, in this article we aim at analyzing the
4 F. LANDINI AND S. CONTI

factors that contribute to or reduce extension agents’ support for a ToT extension
approach.

Methodology
This article is part of a larger study aimed at describing and understanding extension agents’
methodologies and approaches in different countries and regions. In previous articles, we
analyzed the methodologies and different aspects of the extension approaches used by exten-
sion agents who work in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria
and South Africa, including the description of their degree of support for a ToT extension
approach in five countries (Landini, Beramendi, and Rojas-Andrade 2021). Moreover, in
the specific case of Argentina (Landini 2022), we also analyzed differences between
groups (e.g. does gender or institution of belonging influence the degree of support for a
ToT approach?), and conducted correlations between variables (does age or years of experi-
ence influence the degree of support for a ToT approach?). However, this strategy evidenced
methodological limitations, because by running tests using only specific pairs of variables
(and only in a specific country), we were not able to control the influence of variables not
considered in the analysis. For instance, in a previous article, using between-group compari-
sons, we found less support for a ToT extension approach from women than from men
(Landini 2022). Nonetheless, it is possible that such result could be explained by variables
statistically related to gender in the sample (e.g. education level or years of extension experi-
ence) rather than gender per se, or even by country of origin. To overcome these limitations,
in this article, we study the factors contributing to extension agents’ support for a ToT
approach by conducting a multiple linear regression analysis (a more complex and potent
statistical analysis) using samples from five countries. This test allows us to model the
relationship between a set of independent variables and a dependent one (in this case, the
degree of support for ToT extension approach) so as to identify the independent variables
explaining or predicting the dependent one, and their degree of contribution. Rather than
analyzing the correlation between each independent variable and the dependent one, mul-
tiple linear regression quantifies the relative importance of the studied variables by control-
ling the influence of the remaining ones (Rubinfeld 2011).

Participants
Extension agents from different countries participated in the study. The specific countries
where the samples were taken were included out of convenience, in particular, the possi-
bility to have access to the samples due to local support. In this article, only countries
with more than 100 respondents who completed the BExtInv scale are included: Argen-
tina (n = 606), Brazil (n = 279), Chile (n = 195), Mexico (n = 1592), and Nigeria (n = 115)
(the sample size of the remaining countries is below 50, including these countries would
increase the unbalance among the samples, and make between-country comparison
unreliable). The mean age of respondents ranged between 41.6 (Mexico) and 47.3
years (Brazil), and the percentage of women ranged between 23 per cent (Mexico) and
43 per cent (Chile). Finally, most respondents had a university degree, ranging
between 69.1 per cent in Chile and 98.2 per cent in Nigeria.
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 5

Instrument
The survey included multiple questions, but not all of them were considered potential
predictors of the support for a ToT extension approach. Those relevant to this study
are: sociodemographic questions (age, gender, country, experience as extension agents,
educational level, and university degree), prioritized extension objectives, preferred pro-
duction approach (agroecology versus conventional modern agriculture) and beliefs
about extension and innovation (assessed using the BExIn scale).
Respondents were presented with a list of ten extension objectives and had to select
the three they prioritized (Landini et al. 2022). Three of the ten objectives were con-
sidered potential predictors of a ToT extension approach: ‘Productive modernization
aimed at increasing productivity and profitability’, ‘Creation and strengthening of
farmer organizations’ and ‘Protection and management of natural resources’. The first
was considered a potential predictor because it expresses a core aim of the ToT approach,
the second, because it expresses an alternative way of framing rural extension, and the
third, because it is linked to the principles of the Green Revolution (intrinsically
linked to the ToT approach). The personal production approach was assessed using a
five-point Likert-type scale, with 1 corresponding to agroecology and 5, to conventional
modern agriculture. It was also considered a potential predictor for the same reason as
the third extension objective was.
The BExIn scale was validated in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, and Nigeria by con-
ducting an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis using the same samples as those
used in this article (Landini and Beramendi 2019; Landini, Beramendi, and Rojas-
Andrade 2021). The scale encompasses five dimensions of the extension agents’ beliefs
about extension and innovation: ‘Dialogue and horizontal coordination’, ‘Transfer of
technologies (ToT)’, ‘Blame on farmers’, ‘Participatory, farmer-led extension’, and
‘Self-critical attitude’. The BExIn scale contains 26 statements or items, assessed using
a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging between 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly
agree). The most relevant dimension to this study is ‘Transfer of technologies’, which
assesses the respondents’ degree of agreement with a ToT extension approach. It contains
six of the 26 items. These items are (the complete item list is available in Landini and
Beramendi [2019] in English and Spanish, and in Landini, Beramendi, and Rojas-
Andrade [2021] in Portuguese):

– The transfer of technologies is rural extension’s main task.

– The knowledge provided by universities and research institutes offers the best answers
to everyday productive problems.
– Rural extensionists work towards farmers adopting new technologies.
– In order to be innovative, farmers have to adopt new technologies developed by
experts.
– While the role of researchers is to generate innovations, the role of farmers is to adopt
them.
– Research and scientific advancements are the central components of every innovation
process.
6 F. LANDINI AND S. CONTI

The dimension ‘dialogue and horizontal coordination’ refers to the degree to which
extension and innovation are understood as horizontal, bi-directional, and interactive
communication processes, in contrast to ToT processes. The dimension ‘blame on
farmers’ assesses the respondents’ tendency to blame farmers for the problems they
face (e.g. production problems and degradation of national resources), because these pro-
blems are understood as consequences of the farmers’ unwillingness to adopt modern
technologies or recommended production practices. The dimension ‘participatory,
farmer-led extension’ attempts to quantify to what extent practitioners understand exten-
sion and innovation as a participatory process that should be driven by farmers’ demands
and interests, considering producers as leading actors rather than passive receivers.
Finally, the dimension ‘self-critical attitude’ does not evaluate a specific extension
approach, but the respondents’ tendency to critically question their own assumptions,
premises and beliefs about extension and innovation.
The scoring of each dimension is the mean of all the items included in that dimension.
In the case of the Self-critical attitude dimension, results are inverted for a proper
interpretation (if not inverted, they express lack of self-critical attitude).

Procedure
Respondents were invited to participate via email using SurveyMonkey platform. In
Argentina, Chile, Brazil and Nigeria, support was obtained from local institutions. In
Argentina and Chile, extension agents worked for national public extension institutions,
the ‘Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria’ – National Institute for Agricultural
Technology – and the ‘Subsecretaría de Agricultura Familiar’ – Undersecretary of Family
Farming – in Argentina, and the ‘Instituto de Desarrollo Agropecuario’ – Institute of
Agricultural Development – in Chile. In Brazil, respondents worked mostly for the
public extension institutions of the states of Amazonas, Santa Catarina and Pernambuco.
In Nigeria, respondents were contacted with the support of the Nigerian Forum for Agri-
cultural Extension and Advisory Services and worked for different institutions, with a rel-
evant presence of university academic personnel. Finally, in Mexico, characterized by a
non-centralized outsourced extension system, respondents were contacted using the
public database list of the Mexican System of Rural Extension (SER Mexicano for its
acronym in Spanish). The specific institutions were selected for two main reasons:
their importance in the respective countries, and the existence of relationships with insti-
tutional authorities to obtain support or the public availability of contacts (in the case of
Mexico).

Data analysis
Descriptive results across countries
The descriptive results of the different variables considered in this study are presented per
country in a table in the Results section, and standard statistic tests are used to compare
the results among countries. Importantly, according to the research objective, this infor-
mation is presented simply to contextualize the regression analysis and, therefore, will
not be subjected to analysis or discussion.
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 7

Table 1. List of candidate predictor variables.

Sociodemographic variables
1 – Age (quantitative, measured in years)
2 – Gender (dichotomous, man = 0, woman = 1)
3 – Country (Argentina = 0)
4 – Experience as extension agents (categorical, three response levels, less experienced = 0)
5 – Educational level (categorical, three response levels, university degree = 0)
Extension objectives and production orientation
6 – Extension objective ‘Productive modernization aimed at increasing productivity and profitability’ (dichotomous, not
prioritized = 0)
7 – Extension objective: ‘Creation and strengthening of farmer organizations’ (dichotomous, not prioritized = 0)
8 – Extension objective: ‘Protection and management of natural resources’ (dichotomous, not prioritized = 0)
9 – Production orientation (categorical, three response levels, agroecology = 0, neutral = 1, conventional = 2)
Dimensions of the BExIn scale (ToT excluded)
10 – Dialogue and horizontal coordination’ (quantitative, ranging between 1 and 5)
11 – ‘Blame on farmers’ (quantitative, ranging between 1 and 5)
12 – Participatory, farmer-led extension’ (quantitative, ranging between 1 and 5)
13 – ‘Self-critical attitude’ (quantitative, ranging between 1 and 5)

Variables included in the regression model

The variables included in the regression model were selected considering their theoretical
potential to explain the degree of support for a ToT extension approach as well as their
availability in our dataset. The list of selected variables is presented in Table 1. Impor-
tantly, the variable ‘experience as extension agents’ was treated as categorical, because
of its possible non-linear relationship with the dependent variable. To this end, cases
were divided into three categories: less experienced (4 years or less), somewhat experi-
enced (5–12 years) and very experienced (13 years or more). In addition, the educational
level was classified into three categories: no university degree, university degree, and
postgraduate degree (Masteŕs or PhD), as well as the variable productive orientation
(agroecological tendency, neutral position and conventional agriculture). Finally,
responses of the variable university career were considered unreliable because some
were inconsistent and the professions were heterogeneously named across countries;
therefore, this variable was excluded from the analysis.

Development of the model and parameter calculation

R software was used to calculate the parameters of the model, with the support of RStudio
interface. Initially, 13 candidate predictor variables were selected, as mentioned above.
The model was built using a stepwise procedure (forward and backward) based on p
values using the function ols_step_both_p (R olsrr package). Cut-off p values for sequen-
tial addition to and removal from the model were established at 0.05. Since the objective
of this article was to identify variables explaining extension agents’ support for a ToT
extension approach rather than predicting that support, the final model was chosen
based strictly on the statistical significance of the variables included in the model
instead of analysing goodness of fit indicators.

Assumptions, unusual observations and other potential problems

Checking the assumptions of any statistical hypothesis tests and other potential problems
is fundamental to avoid type I and II errors (Osborne and Waters 2002). Experts do not
8 F. LANDINI AND S. CONTI

always agree on the assumptions and potential problems that require checking when con-
ducting multiple linear regression. Following different authors (Faraway 2009; Osborne
and Waters 2002; Williams, Grajales, and Kurkiewicz 2013), we indicate the assumptions
and potential problems that we checked as part of our study and the strategies used to do
that.
– The dependent variable is a linear function of the parameters and the errors of the
model are independent. Both assumptions were analysed using the Tukey-Anscombe
plot (residuals against the fitted values)
– Errors are normally distributed. Normality of error was explored using quantile-
quantile plots (QQ plots) of the residues and Kolmogorov–Smirnov test of normality.
– The variance of errors is constant (homoscedasticity). It was assessed using the
Breusch Pagan Test for Heteroscedasticity (Breusch and Pagan 1979).
– There is no multicollinearity in the data. This was assessed using the variance
inflation factor (VIF). VIF values below 10 are usually considered satisfactory (Chatterjee
and Price 1991).
– Unusual observations (outliers, leverage points and influential observations). They
were explored using the Cook’s distance (Williams, Grajales, and Kurkiewicz 2013).
Threshold values for graphics are usually calculated by dividing 4 by the sample size
(4/n), but it can be problematic when samples are large. Other authors have also
suggested 1 as a cut-off value. In particular, Kutner et al. (2005) do not find values
below 0.2 as overly influential.

Table 2. Descriptive results of the variables included in the regression model per country.
Variables Argentina Brazil Chile Mexico Nigeria
a b b c
ToT extension approach 2.99 3.28 3.29 3.71 3.79c F(4.2782) =
122**
a b a a a
Mean age 43.61 47.25 42.31 41.58 44.21 F(4.2781) =
16.1**
Gender (women) 34.5%a 21.9%b 43%a 23%b 36.6%a χ²(4) = 63.7**
Experience Less experienced 18.1%a 21.1%ab 30.9%b 4.0%c 1.8%c χ²(8) = 236**
Somewhat 39.6%a 37.6%a 43.6%a 33.6%a 39.1%a
experienced
Very experienced 37.8%a 55.6%b 35.4%a 23.8%c 38.3%a
Educational level No university degree 65.9%a 57.8%a 62.3%a 79.0%b 14.2%c χ²(8) = 555**
University degree 65.9%a 57.8%a 62.3%a 79.0%b 14.2%c
Postgraduate degree 15.9%a 21.1%a 6.8%b 17.0%a 84.1%c
Extension Productive 31.7%a 42.1%bc 32.8%ac 45.1%b 59.3%b χ²(4) = 48**
objectives modernization
Farmer organizations 56.3% a
40.6% b
17.2% c
19.5% c
15.1% c
χ²(4) = 308**
Natural resources 27%ab 29.1%ab 33.9%b 22.5%a 7%c χ²(4) = 31.3**
Production Agroecology 60.9%a 55.6%a 60.6%a 55.3%a 11.6%b χ²(8) = 162**
orientation Neutral 25.1%a 22.2%ab 23.3%ab 18.0%b 16.3%ab
Conventional 13.9%a 22.2%bc 16.1%ac 26.7%b 72.1%d
Dialogue and horizontal coordination 4.34a 4.35a 4.35a 4.41a 4.33a F(4.2782) =
2.49*
Blame on farmers 3.17a 3.49b 3.58b 3.62b 3.49b F(4.2782) =
42.3**
Participatory, farmer-led extension 3.91a 4.05ab 3.90a 4.17b 4.01ab F(4.2782) =
18.38**
Self-critical attitude 4.00a 3.86ab 3.79bc 3.72bc 3.65c F(4.2782) =
21.4**
Notes: * = p < .05, ** = p < .01. Letters in superscripts express homogeneous subsets whose percentage does not differ
between them, considering a p < .05 (see superscripts per row).
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 9

Results
Descriptive results of the variables included in the regression model
Table 2 presents the descriptive results of the variables included in the regression model
per country, and the results of the different tests used to compare samples among
countries.

Presentation and description of the regression model

A multiple linear regression was calculated to identify the factors affecting the respondent
extension agents’ degree of support for a ToT approach. The results, presented in Table 3,
suggest a model including the 13 candidate variables.
The model was tested and showed satisfactory results (F(19,2537) = 129,4, p< 0.0001),
with an R2 of 0.492 (Adjusted R2: 0.488). This implies that the predictor variables
explained 49.2 per cent of the variance of the degree to which extension agents
support a ToT approach. The parameter estimates of the model are presented in Table 4.
The results show that all predictor variables have a statistically significant impact
on the degree of support for a ToT extension approach (dependent variable). Beta
values inform how much an increase of 1 unit in the predictor variable increases
or decreases the dependent variable. In the case of nominal variables, beta values
express the difference in contrast to a variable value used as reference (informed in
Table 1 as 0). Importantly, since beta values are measured in different units, they
cannot be compared directly. In contrast, standardized beta displays adjusted values
that express the size effect of the predictor variable in supporting a ToT approach,
and thus can be used to compare among them. However, since standardized beta
values are built using standard deviations, they cannot be properly calculated in the
case of categorical variables.
In the case of the variable country, Argentina was used as reference, so one-to-one
comparisons between the remaining countries were not included in Table 4. This infor-
mation is provided in Table 5.

Table 3. Summary of the stepwise selection process of the variables.

R- Adjusted R- Mallows’s
Step Variables Square Square Cp AIC RMSE
1 Blame on farmers 0.269 0.269 1253 5727 0.675
2 Country 0.349 0.348 812 5411 0.638
3 Participatory, farmer-led extension’ 0.409 0.408 484 5144 0.608
4 Objective ‘Productive modernization’ 0.421 0.419 338 4686 0.596
5 Self-critical attitude 0.440 0.438 242 4600 0.587
6 Dialogue and horizontal coordination’ 0.459 0.457 149 4513 0.577
7 Objective: ‘Creation and strengthening of farmer 0.469 0.467 98.6 4464 0.571
organizations’
8 Production orientation 0.477 0.475 60.4 4429 0.567
9 Educational level 0.485 0.482 36.8 4356 0.565
10 Experience 0.487 0.484 28.5 4349 0.564
11 Age 0.490 0.486 16 4335 0.562
12 Objective: ‘Protection of natural resources’ 0.491 0.487 11.8 4331 0.562
13 Gender 0.492 0.488 8 4324 0.561
AIC: Akaike Information Criterion; RMSE: Root Mean Square Error.
10 F. LANDINI AND S. CONTI

Table 4. Regression model: Variables contributing to the support for a ToT approach.
Standard Standardized
Model Beta error beta T p
(Intercept) 0.961 0.127 – 7.55 <0.001
Blame on farmers 0.283 0.017 0.272 16.56 < 0.001
Country (Argentina = 0)
Brazil 0.092 – – 2.13 0.033
Chile 0.056 – – 1.12 0.264
Mexico 0.363 – – 11.61 < 0.001
Nigeria 0.535 – – 7.44 < 0.001
Participatory, farmer-led extension’ 0.165 0.020 0.150 8.05 < 0.001
Objective ‘Productive modernization’ 0.176 – – 7.34 < 0.001
Self-critical attitude −0.190 0.018 −0.160 −10.31 < 0.001
Dialogue and horizontal coordination’ 0.271 0.026 0.201 10.54 < 0.001
Objective: ‘Creation and strengthening of farmer −0.191 – – −7.10 < 0.001
organizations’
Production orientation (agroecology = 0)
Neutral 0.043 – – 1.47 0.100
Conventional 0.164 – – 5.67 < 0.001
Educational level (university degree = 0)
No university degree 0.181 – – 4.67 < 0.001
Postgraduate degree −0.080 – – −2.58 0.010
Experience (less experienced = 0)
Somewhat experienced −0.106 – – −3.64 < 0.001
Very experienced −0.180 – – −4.80 < 0.001
Age 0.004 0.001 0.066 3.50 < 0.001
Objective: ‘Protection of natural resources’ −0.065 – – −2.43 0.015
Gender (woman) −0.055 – – −2.118 0.034

Evaluation of assumptions and other potential problems

The assumptions and other potential problems of multiple linear regression were
checked. The analysis of the Tukey-Anscombe plot (residuals against the fitted values)
showed no reasons to reject the hypothesis that the dependent variable is a linear func-
tion of the parameters and that the errors of the model are independent. Regarding dis-
tribution of the errors, the QQ plot suggested a reasonably normal distribution of
residues, in line with the results of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test of normality (D =
0.023, p = 0.124)
The results of the Breusch Pagan Test suggest not to reject the null hypothesis of
homoscedasticity (χ2 = 3.49, p = 0.062). However, as the p value was close to 0.05, the
homoscedasticity of errors was also checked using the Tukey-Anscombe plot, which
showed no clear evidence to reject the assumption. In addition, since all VIF values
were below 2.5, we confirm no multicollinearity problem. Finally, the existence of
highly influential observations was analysed using the Cook’s distance. Since no case
reached 0.008, no adjustments or remedial measures were required.

Table 5. Beta values of the comparison between countries.

Country Beta values
Argentina Baseline −0.092* −0.056 −0.363* −0.535*
Brazil 0.092* Baseline −0.036 −0.271* −0.443*
Chile 0.056 −0.036 Baseline −0.307* −0.479*
Mexico 0.363* 0.271* 0.307* Baseline −0.172*
Nigeria 0.535* 0.443* 0.479* 0.172* Baseline
*<0.05.
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 11

Discussion
Variables explaining the support for a toT extension approach
This research identified 13 variables that explain 49.2% of the variance of the extension
agents’ support for a ToT extension approach. Four of them are dimensions of the BExIn
scale (other than the ‘Transfer of technology’ dimension). The tendency to blame farmers
for their problems because they are considered passive or resistant to innovation proved
to be the most influential one. This result is in line with the ToT extension approach’s
negative characterization of non-adopters as ‘laggards’ (Koutsouris 2018), instead of as
farmers with different priorities or who do not find the transferred technology relevant
to their situation. This is also consistent with the core assumptions of the modernization
theory, particularly the ideas that scientific knowledge is universal and unrestrictedly
useful, and that peasants’ traditional farming practices are backward and need to be
abandoned and replaced by ‘modern science’ (Otero and Selis 2016). Importantly, this
evidences that the support for a ToT extension approach is based on the idea that tra-
ditional farming practices not only can be improved but also are obsolete and inefficient
(with the negative connotation involved in these words), and suggests a unilateral and
biased understanding of why farmers often do not adopt the technologies recommended
by extension agents.
Other two dimensions of the BExIn scale evidenced contribution to the extension
agents’ support for a ToT approach: the tendency to understand extension as (1) a par-
ticipatory, demand-driven process, (2) characterized by dialogue and horizontal coordi-
nation among different stakeholders. In this case, results were unexpected, since both
dimensions seem to contradict (rather than support) the unidirectional communication
process characteristic of the ToT extension approach. Indeed, multiple authors describe
the ToT not only as different from participatory extension and from approaches based on
horizontal interactive communication and inter-institutional coordination, but also as
opposing and contradictory (Adamsone-Fiskovica and Grivins 2021; Cooreman et al.
2021; Koutsouris 2018; Méndez-Sastoque 2020; Papaspyrou and Koutsouris 2018).
However, it is important to note that other authors do not necessarily present these
approaches as contradictory, but with potential for complementarity (or at least with pos-
sibilities of coexistence). For instance, Papaspyrou and Koutsouris (2018) found that
Greek extension agents tend to combine participatory approaches with traditional ToT
practices, and Landini (2015) reported that in Argentina the support to participatory
practices does not allow us to differentiate extension agents supporting a ToT extension
approach from those rejecting it. In the same line, Bourne, de Bruyn, and Prior (2021)
highlight that the concept of participation is polysemous and can refer to a very ample
spectrum of practices, from merely informing farmers to empowering them; thus, it
may be difficult to associate the concept with a specific extension approach.
Likewise, it has also been argued that the traditional ToT can be combined with hori-
zontal, interactive and multi-stakeholder extension practices. For instance, Adamsone-
Fiskovica and Grivins (2021) argued that demonstration of methods and results can
include both transfer of scientific knowledge and facilitation of horizontal learning
and networking, and Sutherland and Marchand (2021) claimed that demonstration
farms permit to support the application of scientific findings as well as to co-design
tools and innovations. Additionally, Bisseleua et al. (2018) pointed out that multi-
12 F. LANDINI AND S. CONTI

stakeholder platforms tend to promote knowledge exchange and co-creation, but also to
encourage soft processes of technology transfer.
Additionally, there are evidences in the literature of other ways to associate extension
approaches that have opposing underlying epistemologies. For instance, several studies
show that participatory extension tools are sometimes used strategically to increase the
effectiveness of technology transfer (Knook et al. 2018; Norton and Alwang 2020; Taka-
hashi, Todo, and Degefa 2015). In the same line, Landini (2016) evidenced that in Argen-
tina, extension agents may strive to establish a good interpersonal relationship with
farmer beneficiaries as a strategy to persuade them to adopt new technologies (Landini
2016). There are also other cases in which, while extension agents argue in favor of par-
ticipatory, interactive or inter-institutional extension approaches, they end up imple-
menting traditional ToT practices (Kamara, Van Hulst, and Dorward 2021; Norton
and Alwang 2020), even without properly acknowledging it, possibly based on their
underlying in-use beliefs and assumptions. Ingram et al. (2020) described this as a sort
of ‘wishful thinking’, which does not become real practice. Finally, in Sierra Leone,
Kamara, Van Hulst, and Dorward (2021) found that extension agents, while adhering
to traditional ToT approaches, also have very positive attitudes towards participation,
co-innovation and joint collaboration among multiple stakeholders. These authors high-
lighted that the alternative extension approaches generated great enthusiasm in the
extension agents.
Interestingly, all these literature records show that what appears to be contradictory in
terms of extension approaches, and their assumptions and epistemological basis, can be
mixed in practice as alternative tools for increasing the effectiveness of extension actions
or used in different contexts. In this line, the idea of enthusiasm of the extension agents
with the different approaches (Kamara, Van Hulst, and Dorward 2021) can help us to
explain the positive statistical relationship found between the support for a ToT
approach, and the support for a participatory farmer-led extension and for dialogue
and horizontal coordination among different stakeholders in extension practice: the
higher the enthusiasm, the higher the support for all extension approaches. Thus, the
relationship between the variables would be explained by the underlying enthusiasm
rather than any intrinsic connection between the approaches themselves.
The only dimension of the BExIn scale that reduces the support for a ToT extension
approach is extension agents’ self-critical attitude, i.e. the greater the self-critical attitude,
the lower the support for a ToT extension approach. This key result is consistent with the
importance given by Papaspyrou and Koutsouris (2018) to the extension agents’ critical
acknowledgement of their own personal educational philosophies, and with previous
findings by Landini and Brites (2018), who showed that group reflection on practice
as part of a series of training workshops diminished participant extension agents’
support for a ToT approach. Interestingly, what a self-critical attitude does is to allow
people to keep distance and to question their own practices, certainties and assumptions
(Landini and Brites 2018), exactly the opposite of the ToT approach. Indeed, a ToT
approach is based on the certainty that the best agricultural practices are known by
experts, and that the role of extension agents should be to persuade farmers to adopt
them. In this context, developing a good interpersonal relationship with farmers and
understanding farmers’ preferences, priorities and points of view do not seem to be
regarded as valuable factors that help generate a real mutual understanding, but only
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 13

as persuasion strategies. These reflections helped us identify the key subjective basis of a
ToT extension approach: the personal certainty that one’s own expert knowledge as an
extension agent and the associated technologies are always useful and better than
those currently employed by farmers. In contrast, a self-critical attitude (which
reduces the support for a ToT extension approach) questions such certainty. Indeed, a
self-critical attitude helps extension agents understand that what is better in a given situ-
ation will always depend on the farmers’ objectives, preferences, values and context,
leading to the acknowledgment of farmers as subjects and not as objects of extension
actions, i.e. to the acknowledgment of farmers’ otherness.
Other factors besides the dimensions of the BExIn scale also proved to have a sizable,
statistically significant impact on the extension agents’ support for a ToT extension
approach. Differences between countries were particularly relevant when the remaining
variables were controlled. Importantly, the influence of the variable country should not
be confused with the differences in the mean support for a ToT in each country. The
descriptive results presented in Table 2 show that the ToT approach was most strongly
supported by extension agents from Mexico and Nigeria, followed by those from Brazil
and Chile. In contrast, respondents from Argentina had the lowest support values.
However, the descriptive differences among countries do not necessarily express the
influence of the variable country itself, because they may be (partially or totally)
explained by uneven distributions of other variables. This problem, which cannot be
properly analyzed by comparing pairs of variables as we did in Table 2, can be solved
using a linear regression analysis. Specifically, the regression analysis shows that the vari-
able country influences the support for a ToT extension approach, and that its degree of
influence, according to Table 5, is strongest in Nigeria, followed by Mexico and then by
Argentina, Chile and Brazil (differences between the latter three countries are small, and
only statistically significant between Argentina and Brazil).
In brief, the differences in the variable support for a ToT extension approach
among the five countries may be explained by the summary of both the uneven dis-
tribution of influential variables and the influence of the variable country itself (when
the remaining variables are controlled in the regression model). Explaining the specific
influence of the variable country in each case is beyond the objective of this article.
However, its influence evidences the incidence of country-dependent contextual
factors (cultural, educational, institutional or political) and shows the need to
include additional explanatory variables in future research. Importantly, country-
dependent influential factors (such as history, policy and culture) may only contribute
to the understanding of the portion of variance explained by the variable country
instead of the variance not explained by the model.
This study also showed that the prioritization of ‘productive modernization’ as an
extension objective also increases the extension agents’ support for a ToT approach,
which is totally in line with the modernization theory, the ideological basis of that exten-
sion model (Koutsouris 2018; Méndez-Sastoque 2020). Indeed, if the objective of an
extension agent is to ‘modernize’ farmers, the technologies to be recommended are
assumed to be already known by extension agents, an assumption that neglects the
importance of coordinating objectives and priorities with farmers (Höckert and Ljung
2013) and leads to shape extension practices as a ToT process. In contrast, the prioritiza-
tion of the creation and strengthening of farmer organizations as an extension objective
14 F. LANDINI AND S. CONTI

proved to reduce the respondents’ support for a ToT approach. This reduced support
may be due to the shift in focus from technologies to social organization, and to the
expression of a different extension philosophy focused on adult education and aimed
at farmer empowerment (e.g. Davis and Sulaiman 2016).
Regarding the two variables related to environmental and productive orientation, the
results showed that prioritizing the protection of natural resources slightly diminished
the support for the ToT extension approach, and that having a conventional (modern)
production approach (in contrast to a neutral or an agroecological one) had an opposite
strong impact. These findings are in line with theory, because conventional modern agri-
culture (expression of principles of the Green Revolution), is framed within the modern-
ization theory (Sarandón 2021), the main support of the ToT approach, and because
agroecology values different types of knowledge and postulates that technologies
should not be transferred but co-created (Utter et al. 2021). Thus, it is expected that
those who do not support conventional agriculture or prioritize the conservation of
natural resources are less supportive of a ToT perspective. Interestingly, the results
show that what reduces the ToT approach is not having an agroecological orientation,
but simply not supporting conventional agriculture, since there are no statistical differ-
ences between having a neutral and an agroecological production approach.
Regarding the sociodemographic variables, this research allowed us to distinguish the
opposite effect of experience as extension agent and age; this is difficult, since both vari-
ables have a strong positive correlation. In a research conducted in Paraguay, Landini,
Bianqui, and Crespi (2013) concluded that the support for a ToT approach was inversely
correlated to both variables, whereas in a more recent study, Landini (2022) suggested
that this was only valid for the case of experience. In the present regression study,
results show that extension agents’ experience strongly contributes to a reduction in
the support for a ToT approach, perhaps because it leads to the acknowledgement of
the limitations of one’s knowledge and the farmers as independent, self-determined indi-
viduals (Landini 2021), and that age has a slight opposite effect. Interestingly, it is appar-
ent that experience has a much stronger impact than age on the support for a ToT
approach. Importantly, these results are very difficult to compare with qualitative
studies, because our research found opposite effects of experience and age, two variables
that are usually addressed together in that type of research (e.g. Papaspyrou and Kout-
souris 2018).
Regarding educational level, the results evidence that the higher the educational level,
the lesser the understanding of rural extension as transfer of technologies, although the
most important difference is between those who have and do not have a university
degree. This result may be explained by the contribution of education to a more
complex understanding of reality, which in turn questions the certainty on the superior-
ity of conventional modern agriculture and the trust on the unrestricted usefulness of
scientific knowledge. However, it contradicts the argument that the ToT extension prac-
tices derive from the structure and characteristics of university education (Papaspyrou
and Koutsouris 2018).
Finally, in line with previous studies (Landini, Bianqui, and Crespi 2013), this research
suggests that women are less supportive of a ToT extension approach. However, this
finding should be taken with extreme caution, since its impact is minimal and could
be expressing the incidence of variables not included in the model, such as university
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 15

career, taking into account that academic studies are usually not evenly distributed
between men and women.

Contributions to current knowledge and practice

In terms of theory, this research helps to understand the cognitive basis of a ToT exten-
sion approach by suggesting that, at a subjective level, it is based on the personal certainty
that experts (researchers or extension agents) know the specific technologies and agricul-
tural practices that are best for farmers, with no need to understand or engage with their
priorities, objectives and points of view, an assumption not far from arrogance. This cer-
tainty couples with the understating of farmers as objects of extension work, and not as
subjects who possess self-determination linked to their own rationale, and with the lack
of openness to recognize the limitations of one’s own point of view. In addition, this con-
ceptualization also helps to understand why blaming farmers is characteristic of a ToT
approach, and why a self-critical attitude reduces the support for this extension model
by questioning the simplistic assumptions upon which it is built.
This research also shows that understanding rural extension as a participatory,
demand-driven process or as a horizontal process of dialogue and inter-institutional
coordination does not necessarily contradict the fact of supporting a ToT extension
approach, although this may sound strange. This unexpected result seems to be
suggesting the existence of a very important difference between adopting alternative
extension approaches in an instrumental or strategic way, or as a consequence of ques-
tioning the assumptions (even the worldview) that underlie the ToT approach. This is
important, because it would imply that arguing to support a specific alternative extension
model, and even using it as a methodological tool, would not necessarily mean that the
underlying assumptions of the ToT model have been questioned; therefore, there would
be a need for developing research strategies to distinguish when an alternative extension
approach is supported and used in an instrumental way, or as a result of a change in the
assumptions (the worldview) guiding extension work. Interestingly, this research also
suggests that extension agents tend to draw on different extension approaches as tools
based on their enthusiasm to reach extension objectives, without acknowledging the pro-
found differences in the epistemology and premises that lie in their basis.
This research also confirmed the existence of an interesting connection between the
ToT extension approach and the Green Revolution principles. In this line, not supporting
conventional modern agriculture (the model derived from the principles of the Green
Revolution) proved to reduce the support for a ToT extension model. However, no stat-
istical difference was found between those who support agroecology and those who have
a neutral position; this result shows the need to explore the issue in further studies, since
the support for agroecology was initially expected to have a strong inverse correlation
with the ToT approach (Sarandón 2021).
Additionally, the use of the regression methodology also allowed us to distinguish the
opposite influence of age and years of experience in the support of a ToT extension
approach. Experience proved to be stronger in reducing the support of the ToT as an
extension strategy than age in increasing it: while 13 years of experience reduced the
ToT dimension of the BExIn by 0.180 points, 13 additional years of age increased it
only by 0.052.
16 F. LANDINI AND S. CONTI

In the context of the current discussion about the need for moving away (and even
leaving behind) the ToT extension approach (e.g. Blum, Cofini, and Sulaiman 2020;
Davis and Sulaiman 2014; Koutsouris 2018; Méndez-Sastoque 2020), this research ident-
ified four key factors that reduce extension agents’ support of a ToT approach: self-criti-
cal attitude, prioritization of the ‘creation and strengthening of farmer organizations’ as
extension objective, university education and experience. These findings may be useful
for institutions interested in changing the profile of their extension personnel and in
moving away from a ToT approach to develop different action strategies.
In this line, the results highlight the importance of selecting extension agents with uni-
versity degree and previous field experience. However, the most important question is
how to work with practitioners already working in the institutions. In this sense,
different authors have pointed out the potential of implementing training strategies
focused on the reflection on practice (Gorman 2019; Landini and Brites 2018). As
already mentioned, reflection on practice allows extension agents to question their
daily activities and underlying assumptions (Landini and Brites 2018), and, therefore,
their certainties regarding key topics such as the practical usefulness of scientific knowl-
edge, the value of farmer experience, and the reasons underlying farmers’ decision
making. Thus, training methodologies based on reflection on practice could be used to
contribute to the development of a self-critical attitude, to question the tendency to
blame farmers for non-adoption, and to profit from practical experience. Interestingly,
training events with extension agents with different levels of experience could help
those less experienced to benefit from the experiential learning of those with more
years on the job.
Finally, the prioritization of the ‘creation and strengthening of farmer organizations’
as extension objective also proved to have potential to reduce the support for a ToT
extension approach. In this line, extension institutions could rethink their policy and
consider the inclusion of the creation and strengthening of farmer organizations as a
way of helping practitioners to reconsider their role in the context of activities not cen-
tered in agricultural technologies.
Regarding education institutions aiming to change the profile of their graduates, they
may also rethink their policy and increase the instances of practice with farmers coupled
with activities of reflection on experience (e.g. Da Ros 2012), and incorporate academic
literature on extension philosophies and their assumptions followed by reflective group
activities that allow students to identify and acknowledge their own underlying beliefs.

Conclusions
The ToT extension approach and the need for moving away from it have generated
intense academic debates. To date, only a few studies have analyzed variables associated
with a ToT approach using a quantitative research methodology and, to the best of our
knowledge, this is the first study to identify the variables that influence the degree of
support for a ToT extension approach using a multiple linear regression, which
allowed us to quantify the specific incidence of each one by controlling the rest. In
addition, this study has also helped to make visible the determinants of a ToT approach
related to the extension agents’ agency, in contrast to the predominantly institutional
analysis found in the academic literature.
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 17

Thirteen predictor variables of support for a ToT extension approach were ident-
ified, assessed and discussed. In particular, the tendency to blame farmers for the pro-
blems they face; the understanding of extension as a participatory, farmer-led process
of dialogue; and inter-institutional coordination, prioritizing the modernization of
farmers’ production, and supporting conventional modern agriculture, proved to
increase the support for a ToT extension model. In turn, having a self-critical attitude,
prioritizing the creation and strengthening of farmer organizations, having a university
degree, being an experienced extension agent, and being woman evidenced the oppo-
site. In addition, important differences among countries were identified, and the vari-
able country also proved influential in the regression analysis. These results
contributed to the understanding of the cognitive basis for the ToT extension
approach, showing that extension agents supporting a ToT extension approach tend
to be absolutely certain that experts know what is best for farmers without perceiving
the need for and the crucial importance of understanding the farmers’ priorities,
objectives and points of view (i.e. without acknowledging in practice that farmers
are subjects with agency and a rationale of their own). Results also showed that exten-
sion agents tend to draw on different extension approaches as tools based on their
enthusiasm, without necessarily acknowledging the assumptions and the underlying
epistemology.
Different contributions to practice and institutional policy derive from this study. In
extension institutions, selecting extension agents with university degree and with pre-
vious field experience, implementing training strategies based on reflection on practice,
and expanding the extension objectives to include creation and strengthening of
farmer organizations seem to be important strategies to reduce the extension person-
nel support for a ToT extension approach. In the case of educational institutions,
increasing the instances of practice with farmers, discussing academic literature on
extension philosophies and their assumptions, and implementing reflection on practice
activities are also expected to reduce the students’ and graduates’ support for a ToT
extension.
Regarding the limitations, this research included one African and four Latin American
countries. Since the research found that the support for a ToT extension approach varies
among countries, it is possible that the results are biased toward factors and processes
that are characteristic of Latin America, or that the relative weight of the explaining vari-
ables would vary if samples of other countries were analysed. Future research may
compare these results with those of other countries and regions.
In addition, the obtained results depend on the specific set of variables included in the
regression equation. Thus, the addition of explanatory variables not considered in this
research could affect the results. In particular, variables such as university career, type
of farmer supported by extension agents, socio-productive and territorial context, type
of institution where respondents work (public or private) and other aspects of the insti-
tutional context could prove relevant in future investigations. Even more, the inclusion of
personality variables could be particularly interesting. In contrast, we do not see potential
in exploring new country-dependent variables to explain the extension agents’ degree of
support for a ToT model, given they have been already considered in the equation when
introducing the variable country. Finally, it is important to highlight that the explanatory
variables included in the regression equation only explained 49.2% of the support for a
18 F. LANDINI AND S. CONTI

ToT extension approach. This implies that there is still much to explain, and that further
research is required.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This work was financed by the University of La Cuenca del Plata and supported by the Global
Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS) Grant number (132/19).

Notes on contributors
Dr. Fernando Landini is a professor at the University of La Cuenca del Plata, and a researcher of
the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), Argentina. He holds a Ph.D.
in Psychology and a Master’s degree in Rural development. He studies rural extension and agri-
cultural innovation processes from a psychosocial perspective.
Dr. Santiago Conti a researcher of the National Scientific and Technical Research Council
(CONICET – Argentina) and a professor at the National University of Río Negro (UNRN). He
holds a Ph.D. in Psychology. He studies rural development processes and social intervention prac-
tices from a psychosocial perspective.

ORCID
Fernando Landini http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5322-2921

References
Adamsone-Fiskovica, A., and M. Grivins. 2021. “Knowledge Production and Communication in
On-Farm Demonstrations: Putting Farmer Participatory Research and Extension Into
Practice.” The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. doi:10.1080/1389224X.2021.
1953551.
Al-Rimawi, A., M. Allahyari, and J. Al-rusheidat. 2017. “Assessing Extension Agent Training
Needs, Barriers and Training Methods in Jordan.” Journal of Agricultural Science and
Technology 19 (5): 1019–1029. https://jast.modares.ac.ir/article-23-8942-en.pdf.
Álvarez, S. 2001. “Pobreza Autogestionada.” Encrucijadas 14: 32–43.
Argyris, C. 1991. “Teaching Smart People How to Learn.” Reflections / Sigma Theta Tau 4 (2): 4–
15. https://hbr.org/1991/05/teaching-smart-people-how-to-learn.
Bisseleua, D., L. Idrissou, P. Olurotimi, A. Ogunniyi, D. Mignouna, and S. Bamire. 2018. “Multi-
stakeholder Process Strengthens Agricultural Innovations and Sustainable Livelihoods of
Farmers in Southern Nigeria.” The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 24 (1):
29–49. doi:10.1080/1389224X.2017.1392992.
Blum, M., F. Cofini, and V. Sulaiman. 2020. Agricultural Extension in Transition Worldwide.
Policies and Strategies for Reform. Rome: FAO/ONU. doi:10.4060/ca8199en
Bourne, M., L. de Bruyn, and J. Prior. 2021. “Participatory Versus Traditional Agricultural
Advisory Models for Training Farmers in Conservation Agriculture: A Comparative Analysis
from Kenya.” The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 27 (2): 153–174. doi:10.
1080/1389224X.2020.1828113.
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 19

Breusch, T., and A. Pagan. 1979. “A Simple Test for Heteroscedasticity and Random Coefficient
Variation.” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 47 (5): 1287–1294. doi:10.2307/
1911963.
Chatterjee, S., and B. Price. 1991. Regression Analysis by Example. New York: Wiley.
Cooreman, H., L. Debruyne, J. Vandenabeele, and F. Marchand. 2021. “Power to the Facilitated
Agricultural Dialogue: An Analysis of On-Farm Demonstrations as Transformative Learning
Spaces.” The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 27 (5): 699–719. doi:10.1080/
1389224X.2021.1969958.
Da Ros, C. 2012. ““A Contribuição das Visitas de Campo no Ensino das Ciências Agrárias na
UFRRJ.” Revista Ciência em Extensão 8 (1): 107–122. https://ojs.unesp.br/index.php/revista_
proex/article/view/524/636.
Davis, K., and R. Sulaiman. 2014. “The New Extensionist: Roles and Capacities to Strengthen
Extension and Advisory Services.” Journal of International Agricultural and Extension
Education 21 (3): 6–18. doi:10.5191/jiaee.2014.21301.
Davis, K., and R. Sulaiman. 2016. Overview of Extension Philosophies and Methods. Note 0.
Lausanne: GFRAS. https://www.g-fras.org/en/download.html?download=544:gfras-ggp-note-
0-overview-of-extension-philosophies-and-methods.
de Freitas, C., F. de Figueiredo Silva, M. Braga, and M. de Carvalho Reis Neves. 2021. “Rural
Extension and Technical Efficiency in the Brazilian Agricultural Sector.” International Food
and Agribusiness Management Review 24 (2): 215–232. doi:10.22434/IFAMR2020.0094.
de Roo, N., T. Amede, E. Elias, C. Almekinders, and C. Leeuwis. 2021. “Diffusion of Agricultural
Knowledge in Southern Ethiopia: Finding the Real Opinion Leaders Through Network
Analysis.” The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. doi:10.1080/1389224X.2021.
1987282.
Faraway, J. 2009. Linear Models with R. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Faure, G., E. Penot, J. Rakotondravelo, H. Ramahatoraka, P. Dugué, and A. Toillier. 2013. “Which
Advisory System to Support Innovation in Conservation Agriculture? The Case of Madagascar’s
Lake Alaotra.” The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 19 (3): 257–270. doi:10.
1080/1389224X.2013.782169.
Garat, J., and A. Barrionuevo. 2020. “Formación Universitaria en Extensión: Cuatro Desafíos en
Tiempos de ‘la Doble Vía’.” Revista Masquedós 5 (5): 1–10. http://ojs.extension.unicen.edu.
ar/index.php/masquedos/article/view/76.
Glover, D., J. Sumberg, G. Ton, J. Andersson, and L. Badstue. 2019. “Rethinking Technological
Change in Smallholder Agriculture.” Outlook on Agriculture 48 (3): 169–180. doi:10.1177/
0030727019864978.
Gorman, M. 2019. “Becoming an Agricultural Advisor–the Rationale, the Plan and the
Implementation of a Model of Reflective Practice in Extension Higher Education.” The
Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 25 (2): 179–191. doi:10.1080/1389224X.2018.
1559742.
Höckert, J., and M. Ljung. 2013. “Advisory Encounters Towards a Sustainable Farm Development.
Interaction Between Systems and Shared Lifeworlds.” The Journal of Agricultural Education and
Extension 19 (3): 291–309. doi:10.1080/1389224X.2013.782178.
Ingram, J., P. Gaskell, J. Mills, and J. Dwyer. 2020. “How Do We Enact Co-Innovation with
Stakeholders in Agricultural Research Projects? Managing the Complex Interplay Between
Contextual and Facilitation Processes.” Journal of Rural Studies 78: 65–77. doi:10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2020.06.003.
Kamara, L., F. Van Hulst, and P. Dorward. 2021. “Using Improved Understanding of Research and
Extension Professionals’ Attitudes and Beliefs to Inform Design of AIS Approaches.” The
Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 27 (2): 175–192. doi:10.1080/1389224X.2020.
1828114.
Knook, J., V. Eory, M. Brander, and D. Moran. 2018. “Evaluation of Farmer Participatory
Extension Programmes.” The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 24 (4): 309–
325. doi:10.1080/1389224X.2018.1466717.
20 F. LANDINI AND S. CONTI

Koutsouris, A. 2018. “Role of Extension in Agricultural Technology Transfer: A Critical Review.”

In From Agriscience to Agribusiness. Theories, Policies and Practices in Technology Transfer and
Commercialization, edited by N. Kalaitzandonakes, E. Carayannis, E. Grigoroudis, and S.
Rozakis, 337–359. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-67958-7_16
Kutner, M., C. Nachtsheim, J. Neter, and W. Li. 2005. Applied Linear Statistical Models. New York:
McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Landini, F. 2015. “Different Argentine Rural Extensionists’ Mindsets and Their Practical
Implications.” The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 21 (3): 219–234. doi:10.
1080/1389224X.2014.927375.
Landini, F. 2016. “Unfolding the Knowledge and Power Dynamics of the ‘Farmers–Rural
Extensionists’ Interface in North-Eastern Argentina.” The Journal of Agricultural Education
and Extension 22 (5): 399–413. doi:10.1080/1389224X.2016.1227050.
Landini, F. 2021. “Cambios en la Comprensión del Propio Rol de Extensionista a Partir de la
Experiencia: Un Estudio Latinoamericano.” Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural 59 (2):
e224267. doi:10.1590/1806-9479.2021.224267.
Landini, F. 2022. “Creencias de Extensionistas Argentinos sobre Extensión e Innovación Rural.”
Perfiles Latinoamericanos 30 (59). doi:10.18504/pl3059-004-2022.
Landini, F., and M. Beramendi. 2019. “Construction and Validation of a Psychometric Scale to
Assess Extension Agents’ Beliefs About Extension and Innovation.” Journal of Agricultural
Education and Extension 25 (5): 381–399. doi:10.1080/1389224X.2019.1643748.
Landini, F., M. Beramendi, and R. Rojas-Andrade. 2021. “Transcultural Validation of a Scale
in English, Portuguese and Spanish to Assess Rural Extension Agents’ Beliefs About
Extension and Innovation.” Journal of Rural Studies 86: 518–526. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.
2021.07.012.
Landini, F., V. Bianqui, and M. Crespi. 2013. “Evaluación de las Creencias sobre Extensión Rural de
los Extensionistas Paraguayos.” Psiencia 5 (1): 3–14. https://ri.conicet.gov.ar/handle/11336/1393.
Landini, F., and W. Brites. 2018. “Evaluation and Impact of a Reflective Training Process for Rural
Extension Agents.” The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 24 (5): 457–472. doi:10.
1080/1389224X.2018.1500922.
Landini, F., J. Turner, K. Davis, H. Percy, and J. van Niekerk. 2022. “International Comparison of
Extension Agent Objectives and Construction of a Typology.” Journal of Agricultural Education
and Extension 28 (4): 415–437. doi:10.1080/1389224X.2021.1936091.
Méndez-Sastoque, M. 2020. “Hacia una Extensión Rural Fundada en el Diálogo Sinérgico de
Saberes: Campesinos y Extensionistas Construyendo Juntos.” Redes. Revista do
Desenvolvimento Regional 25 (1): 189–210. doi:10.17058/redes.v25i1.14684.
Norton, G., and J. Alwang. 2020. “Changes in Agricultural Extension and Implications for Farmer
Adoption of New Practices.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 42 (1): 8–20. doi:10.1002/
aepp.13008.
Nunes, E., V. da Silva, and V. de Sá. 2020. “Assistência Técnica e Extensão Rural (ATER):
Formação e Conhecimentos para a Agricultura Familiar do Rio Grande do Norte.” Redes.
Revista do Desenvolvimento Regional 25 (2): 857–881. doi:10.17058/redes.v25i2.14174.
Olorunfemi, T., R. Olorunfemi, and O. Oladele. 2020. “Determinants of the Involvement of
Extension Agents in Disseminating Climate Smart Agricultural Initiatives: Implication for
Scaling Up.” Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences 19 (4): 285–292. doi:10.
1016/j.jssas.2019.03.003.
Osborne, J., and E. Waters. 2002. “Four Assumptions of Multiple Regression That Researchers
Should Always Test.” Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation 8 (2): 1–5. doi:10.7275/
r222-hv23.
Otero, J., and D. Selis. 2016. “La Revista ‘Extensión en las Américas’. Influencia de los EEUU en los
Servicios de Extensión Rural Latinoamericanos.” Extensão Rural 23 (1): 42–57. doi:10.5902/
2318179617359.
Pannell, D., and D. Zilberman. 2020. “Understanding Adoption of Innovations and Behavior
Change to Improve Agricultural Policy.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 42 (1): 3–
7. doi:10.1002/aepp.13013.
 THE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION AND EXTENSION 21

Papaspyrou, S., and A. Koutsouris. 2018. “The Educational Philosophy of Greek Extensionists vis-
à-vis Contemporary Extension Thinking: A Critical Appraisal.” The Journal of Agricultural
Education and Extension 24 (4): 345–360. doi:10.1080/1389224X.2018.1465440.
Rogers, E. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
Rubinfeld, D. 2011. “Reference Guide on Multiple Regression.” In Reference Manual on
Scientific Evidence, Edited by the National Research Council, 303–358. Washington: The
National Academies Press.
Sarandón, S. 2021. “Agroecología: Una Revolución del Pensamiento en las Ciencias Agrarias.”
Ciencia, Tecnología y Política 4 (6): e055. doi:10.24215/26183188e055.
Sutherland, L., and F. Marchand. 2021. “On-Farm Demonstration: Enabling Peer-To-Peer
Learning.” The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 27 (5): 573–590. doi:10.1080/
1389224X.2021.1959716.
Takahashi, K., R. Muraoka, and K. Otsuka. 2020. “Technology Adoption, Impact, and Extension in
Developing Countries’ Agriculture: A Review of the Recent Literature.” Agricultural Economics
51 (1): 31–45. doi:10.1111/agec.12539.
Takahashi, R., Y. Todo, and T. Degefa. 2015. “The Effects of a Participatory Approach on the
Adoption of Agricultural Technology: Focusing on the Social Network Structure in Rural
Ethiopia.” Studies in Agricultural Economics 117: 50–56. doi:10.7896/j.1504.
Utter, A., A. White, V. E. Méndez, and K. Morris. 2021. “Co-creation of Knowledge in
Agroecology.” Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 9 (1): 26. doi:10.1525/elementa.2021.
00026.
Williams, M., C. Grajales, and D. Kurkiewicz. 2013. “Assumptions of Multiple Regression:
Correcting Two Misconceptions.” Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation 18 (11): 1–
12. doi:10.7275/55hn-wk47.