Decision-processes of adopters and non-adopters of an innovation

There have been some concerns about the low uptake of new technologies by farmers. One of the ways of addressing this issue is by understanding the perspectives of different groups of decision makers, particularly non-adopters. There were four groups of non-adopters: discontinued, wait-and-see, constrained and would never adopt. These groups have not been previously studied in farm management research. The main objective of this research was, therefore, to explore the cognitive structures of the adopters and non-adopters of an innovation. In order to achieve the above objective, personal construct theory and the repertory grid technique with its computer software programme, the RepGrid, was used to elicit and analyse the interview data for a non-random sample of 25 dairy farmers in the Canterbury region. This research was exploratory in nature and focused on farmers who have used or not used heifer synchronisation. The results of the study show the importance of farmers' personal construct systems in their decisions to adopt or not to adopt an innovation. The adopters and non-adopters used different constructs in their decisions to adopt or not adopt. Furthermore, the four groups of non-adopters also construed and behaved in different ways. Within each group of decision makers individuals generally construed and behaved similarly to each other. It was also found that farmers would not accept any information or an innovation which did not fall within their own conceptual construct framework or outside the range of convenience of their cognitive structures. In other words, farmers operate both as heterogenous and homogenous groups for a particular innovation. First, the adopters and non-adopters have used different constructs and behaved differently from each other; that is, they have used contrasting constructs in their decision. Second, the individuals within each group of adopters and non-adopters have used one to three shared constructs and behave in similar ways; that is, they have used consensus constructs in their decision. Third, three groups of non-adopters (discontinued, wait-and-see and constrained) have used one shared construct and behave differently from each other; that is, they have used conflicting constructs in their decision. Fourth, within each of the four groups of non-adopters, there are both shared and different constructs but, within a group, farmers still behave in similar ways; that is, they have used corresponding constructs to reach the same decision. These groups of decision makers are dynamic in nature which is illustrated by the types of constructs. Some individuals might change if they have permeable constructs or construe in a loose manner. Other individuals might not change or remain in the group if they have impermeable constructs or construe in a tight fashion. These findings have wider implications for farm management research and extension. They are important in terms of understanding farmers' circumstances, particularly the different groups of non-adopters. The findings are also useful for extension in trying to develop some policies and strategies for increasing the uptake of new technologies by farmers. In other words, exploring the personal constructs of the adopters and the various groups of non-adopters provides useful guidelines to the development of effective technology transfer programmes in order to increase the uptake of these new technologies by farmers.