IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v11y2022i12p536-d980347.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Inquiry into Bhutanese Agriculture Research–Practice Gaps Using Rogers Innovation Adoption Attributes and Mode 2 Knowledge Production Features

Author

Listed:
  • Kinley Dorji

    (School of Environmental and Rural Science, Faculty of Science, Agriculture, Business and Law, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia)

  • Judith Miller

    (School of Education, Faculty of Humanities, Arts, Social Sciences and Education, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia)

  • Shubiao Wu

    (School of Environmental and Rural Science, Faculty of Science, Agriculture, Business and Law, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia)

Abstract

Investigation into the relevance and utility of bridging gaps between knowledge and practice is necessary to justify such endeavors to public funding agencies. This study investigated the underlying causes of the research–practice gap in the Bhutanese context with the aim to realign the relevance of agricultural research and to enhance practice using Rogers innovation attributes on features of Mode 2 knowledge production features. Out of 233 articles published by three agricultural journal publishers, only 110 articles that met our criteria were included in this study. Principal component analysis (PCA) for 23 variables yielded five variables that contributed 90% of the total variation. The first two dimensions contained 39.34% of the total dataset inertia, which was significantly greater than the reference value (17.19%) obtained by simulating 959 data tables of equivalent size based on a normal distribution. Further, cluster analysis differentiated the observations into three distinct clusters that significantly differed in their variable descriptive values. The innovation attributes ‘complexity’ and ‘compatibility’ received the highest score, while ‘observability’ had the lowest score. Under innovation diffusion elements, ‘time’ and ‘social system’ aspects were the least considered, thus affecting the innovation adoption. The ‘context of application’ of innovation had the highest score (65%), whereas ‘diffusion’ of the knowledge under transdisciplinarity received the lowest score. Both the diversity of ‘discipline’ and ‘organization’ inclusion under heterogeneity received the lowest score. Informal communication and social dimension received the lowest score among the Mode 2 knowledge production variables. Bhutan followed conventional, linear, and unidirectional approaches to research and extension diffusion systems, by which research institutions innovate, and extension workers bring innovation to potential adopters. Bhutanese research policy and strategy must consider reframing relevant agriculture innovation systems to keep abreast of modern technology development.

Suggested Citation

  • Kinley Dorji & Judith Miller & Shubiao Wu, 2022. "An Inquiry into Bhutanese Agriculture Research–Practice Gaps Using Rogers Innovation Adoption Attributes and Mode 2 Knowledge Production Features," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:11:y:2022:i:12:p:536-:d:980347
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/11/12/536/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/11/12/536/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van der Hel, Sandra, 2016. "New science for global sustainability? The institutionalisation of knowledge co-production in Future Earth," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 165-175.
    2. Rhys Andrews & Gene A. Brewer, 2013. "Social Capital, Management Capacity and Public Service Performance," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 19-42, January.
    3. Ostlund, Lyman E, 1974. "Perceived Innovation Attributes as Predictors of Innovativeness," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 1(2), pages 23-29, Se.
    4. Brinkerhoff, Derick W. & Goldsmith, Arthur A., 1992. "Promoting the sustainability of development institutions: A framework for strategy," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 369-383, March.
    5. Hamed Taherdoost, 2018. "A review of technology acceptance and adoption models and theories," Post-Print hal-03741843, HAL.
    6. Batz, Franz-J. & Janssen, Willem & Peters, Kurt J., 2003. "Predicting technology adoption to improve research priority--setting," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 151-164, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anita Gärling & John Thøgersen, 2001. "Marketing of electric vehicles," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(1), pages 53-65, January.
    2. Antonio J. Castro & Cristina Quintas-Soriano & Jodi Brandt & Carla L. Atkinson & Colden V. Baxter & Morey Burnham & Benis N. Egoh & Marina García-Llorente & Jason P. Julian & Berta Martín-López & Feli, 2018. "Applying Place-Based Social-Ecological Research to Address Water Scarcity: Insights for Future Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, May.
    3. Ozaki, Ritsuko & Sevastyanova, Katerina, 2011. "Going hybrid: An analysis of consumer purchase motivations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2217-2227, May.
    4. Bonaiuto, M. & Mosca, O. & Milani, A. & Ariccio, S. & Dessi, F. & Fornara, F., 2024. "Beliefs about technological and contextual features drive biofuels’ social acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 189(PA).
    5. O. Oyediran & A. Omoshule & Sanjay Misra & Rytis Maskeliūnas & Robertas Damaševičius, 2019. "Attitude of mobile telecommunication subscribers towards sim card registration in Lagos State, Southwestern Nigeria," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 10(4), pages 783-791, August.
    6. Mohammadbashir Sedighi & Hamideh Parsaeiyan & Yashar Araghi, 2021. "An Empirical Study of Intention to Continue Using of Digital Ride-hailing Platforms," The Review of Socionetwork Strategies, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 489-515, November.
    7. Le Thanh Tiep & Ngo Quang Huan & Tran Thi Thuy Hong, 2020. "The Impact of Renewable Energy on Sustainable Economic Growth in Vietnam," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 10(6), pages 359-369.
    8. Sujata Seshadrinathan & Shalini Chandra, 2025. "Trusting the trustless blockchain for its adoption in accounting: theorizing the mediating role of technology-organization-environment framework," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 11(1), pages 1-39, December.
    9. Johan Jansson, 2011. "Consumer eco‐innovation adoption: assessing attitudinal factors and perceived product characteristics," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 192-210, March.
    10. Amare, Dagninet & Darr, Dietrich, 2024. "Holistic analysis of factors influencing the adoption of agroforestry to foster forest sector based climate solutions," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    11. Prithvi Roy & Badrinarayan Srirangam Ramaprasad & Manan Chakraborty & Nandan Prabhu & Shreelatha Rao, 2024. "Customer Acceptance of Use of Artificial Intelligence in Hospitality Services: An Indian Hospitality Sector Perspective," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 25(3), pages 832-851, June.
    12. Vélez-Ramírez, Alberto & Rivera-Castañeda, Patricia & Muñoz-Pizza, Dalia M., 2022. "Institutional capacity determinants in a global south city: the case of a wastewater utility in Zacatecas, Mexico," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    13. Maksym Gaiduk & Ralf Seepold & Natividad Martínez Madrid & Juan Antonio Ortega, 2021. "Digital Health and Care Study on Elderly Monitoring," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-18, December.
    14. Alejandro Esguerra & Sandra van der Hel, 2021. "Participatory Designs and Epistemic Authority in Knowledge Platforms for Sustainability," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 21(1), pages 130-151, Winter.
    15. Pal, Debajyoti & Zhang, Xiangmin & Siyal, Saeed, 2021. "Prohibitive factors to the acceptance of Internet of Things (IoT) technology in society: A smart-home context using a resistive modelling approach," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    16. Evelyne Gbénou-Sissinto & Ygué P. Adegbola & Gauthier Biaou & Roch C. Zossou, 2018. "Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for New Storage Technologies for Maize in Northern and Central Benin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, August.
    17. Nast, Carolin & Llopis, Oscar & Yankova, Dima & D'Este, Pablo, 2025. "Sourcing insights elsewhere: The positive influence of academic engagement on scientific impact," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    18. Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2018. "Õåüà ãüûǶ¤Ã³Ï¼Š Æœ ǶŠå ¯Èƒ½Ã ªâ¾Ƒ然à ¨Ç¤¾Ä¼Šã‚’Å°†Æ ¥Ä¸–Ä»£Ã «Å¼•Ã Ƕ™Ã à Ÿã‚ à «," Working Papers SDES-2018-3, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Jul 2018.
    19. Laurens K. Hessels & Stefan P.L. De Jong & Stijn Brouwer, 2018. "Collaboration between Heterogeneous Practitioners in Sustainability Research: A Comparative Analysis of Three Transdisciplinary Programmes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-16, December.
    20. Chen, Long & Huang, Jiahui & Jing, Peng & Wang, Bichen & Yu, Xiaozhou & Zha, Ye & Jiang, Chengxi, 2023. "Changing or unchanging Chinese attitudes toward ride-hailing? A social media analytics perspective from 2018 to 2021," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:11:y:2022:i:12:p:536-:d:980347. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.