Open Access
Subscription Access
Adopter Categorization of Extension Professionals Vis-A-Vis Agri-Expert Systems and Factors Influencing the Adoption
This communication focuses on adoption stages of extension professionals in terms of extent of use of expert systems and factors influencing the extent of adoption of such systems by them, with special reference to agri-expert systems 'KAU-Fertulator' and 'e-Crop doctor' developed by Kerala Agricultural University. A survey was conducted among three targeted segments of Kerala extension professionals with a total of 100 respondents who were actively involved in the field of agriculture, to evaluate questions about the adoption stage of respondents in using agri-expert systems and factors influencing the extent of adoption. Results showed that, extension professionals categorization based on the stage of agri-expert system adoption process. Based on the stage of adoption, respondents were categorized into different adopter categories, which led to comparison with Roger's adopter categorization. Also, innovation proneness was positively and significantly related with extent of adoption expert system among all three categories of respondents. Based on the results, it is imperative to boost the adoption of agri-expert systems by streamlining the basic expert system applications for ease of use.
Keywords
Adoption Stages, Agri-Expert System, Extension Professionals.
User
Font Size
Information
- Waterman, D. A., A Guide to Expert Systems, Pearson Education, Delhi, 2004, p. 419.
- Plant, R. E. and Stone, N. D., Knowledge-Based Systems in Agriculture, McGraw-Hill, NY, USA, 1991, p. 364.
- Chetsumon, S., Attitudes of extension agents towards expert systems as decision support tools in Thailand. Ph D thesis, Lincoln University, Thailand, 2005.
- Rogers, E., Categorizing the adopters of agricultural practices. Rural Sociol., 1958, 23, 345–354.
- Ortt, J. and Schoormans, J. P. L., The pattern of development and diffusion of breakthrough communication technologies. Eur. J. Innov. Manage., 2004, 7(4), 292.
Abstract Views: 466
PDF Views: 116