From Extension to Communication for Innovation 221propaganda, and if they are this cannot be regarded as ‘extension’. As Röling and
Kuiper (1994) point out, it is impossible to avoid normative elements in a definition
of extension if one’s purpose is not only to study extension as a societal phenomenon,
but also to inform extension practitioners on how they can do better. From a purely
descriptive point of view, the definition of extension would be something like:
Extension is everything that people who think of themselves as extensionists do as part
of their professional practice.A book written on the basis of such a definition of extension could reveal very
interesting activities and phenomena, but as soon as one wants to draw lessons for
a wider audience one needs to assume certain criteria as to what it is, and is not,
that extension aspires to, and how.
Extension as communication for innovation
The two ‘intervention’ definitions of extension still start largely from the premise
that extension derives from a semi-state institution that is concerned with the
public interest or public policy. This situation is rapidly changing in view of the
emergence of private and NGO-based extension and communicative intervention.
In addition, we need various changes in the definition of extension if we are to take
the challenges seriously. These include a need to:
- Shift away from a focus on individual behaviour change which has character-
ized most of the definitions so far, and incorporate the idea that extension is
about fostering new patterns of coordination. - Move away from the idea that extension works mainly on the basis of pre-
defined directions, policies and innovations, and emphasize its generative
dimensions. - Indicate that changes usually have a dual (material-technical and social-
organizational) component. - Transcend the idea that extension is mainly concerned with decision making,
and emphasize the importance of social learning and negotiation in extension
processes. - Define extension as a two-way or multiple-way process, in which several parties
can be expected to contribute relevant insights, and which may have action
implications for all parties (not only farmers, but also researchers, extension-
ists, policy makers, agricultural industries etc.) involved in the process.
In view of such significant needs for redefinition (see also Sulaiman and Hall,
2002), some senior authors in the field of extension have chosen to completely
abandon the notion of ‘extension’ altogether (e.g. Röling and Wagemakers, 1998;
Van Woerkum et al, 1999; Ison and Russell, 2000). They feel that the word ‘exten-
sion’ has misleading connotations, and that it is practically impossible to stretch
the meaning of the concept as necessary. In line with this, Van Woerkum and