Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Interpersonal communication and the adoption of innovations among strawberry growers in the lower Fraser… Alleyne, Egbert Patrick 1968

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1968_A4 A44.pdf [ 16.35MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0102268.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0102268-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0102268-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0102268-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0102268-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0102268-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0102268-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0102268-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0102268.ris

Full Text

INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION AND THE ADOPTION OF INNOVATIONS AMONG STRAWBERRY GROWERS IN THE LOWER FRASER VALLEY by E. PATRICK ALLEYNE D.I.C.T.A., Imperial College of Tr o p i c a l Agriculture, Trinidad, W.I., 1955 M.Sc, Cornell University, U.S.A., i 9 6 0 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE i n A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard. THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1968 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I ag ree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r ag ree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y pu rpo se s may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n -t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f ft G-R/ C4A TUX^ The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumb ia Vancouve r 8 , Canada Date i i ABSTRACT This study i s the second i n a s e r i e s of r u r a l s o c i o l o g i c a l s tudies r e l e v a n t to the adoption of innovations by farmers i n the Lower Fraser V a l l e y of B r i t i s h Columbia. The adoption per-formance of strawberry growers, as measured by an adoption score computed f o r each respondent, was used f o r c l a s s i f y i n g the i n d i v i d u a l s i n t o adopter c a t e g o r i e s . This c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was then used as the b a s i s f o r f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s of: (1) the r e l a t i o n s h i p between adoption and socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , (2) the r e l a t i o n s h i p between e t h n i c i t y and adoption, (3) the d i f f e r e n t i a l use of i n f o r m a t i o n sources, [k) the i n n o v a t i o n response s t a t e , (5) reasons f o r delay i n the adoption process and f o r r e j e c t i o n . The l e v e l of adoption, as i n d i c a t e d by f o u r adopter c a t e g o r i e s , c o r r e l a t e d p o s i t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , s i z e of farm, acreage i n strawberry, gross income from a g r i c u l t u r e , strawberry, and from other a g r i c u l t u r a l enter-, p r i s e s ; the amount of farm labour employed f o r h a r v e s t i n g , and estimated farm value. Age was n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with adop-t i o n . There was no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h a number of other v a r i a b l e s s t u d i e d . Extension contact was the most important s i n g l e v a r i a b l e which showed a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n with adoption. The r e l a t i o n s h i p was strongest f o r personal contact with the D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t . A r e l a t i v e l y high l e v e l of p r a c t i c e adoption i s i n d i c a t e d i i i by an average of ^ .12 adoptions from the t o t a l of 6 innovations s t u d i e d . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i n n o v a t i o n accounted f o r almost one-half of the reasons f o r delay, and about o n e - t h i r d f o r r e j -e c t i o n . S i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s , r e l e v a n t to the p a r t i c u l a r c i r -cumstances of the respondents, were the reasons given most f r e q u e n t l y , e s p e c i a l l y among the e a r l y adopters. Ethnic groupings i n c l u d e d Menonites, Japanese and "Other" respondents. D i f f e r e n c e s were s i g n i f i c a n t f o r 16 socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , besides d i f f e r e n t i a l l e v e l s of extension con- • t a c t . Japanese, who were the most experienced growers, were c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the lowest l e v e l s of adoption performance and extension contact. Menonite growers were the l e a s t educated and were intermediate i n p r a c t i c e adoption. Information sources were c l a s s i f i e d i n t o two categories and personal sources were the most f r e q u e n t l y used by a l l adopter categories i n both. When c l a s s i f i e d by O r i g i n , Govern-ment sources were second i n importance, f o l l o w e d by Commercial and Farm Organi z a t i o n . When c l a s s i f i e d by the Nature of the A c t i v i t y , on the other hand, the order of importance was i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l , i n s t r u c t i o n a l group and mass media. The study i n c l u d e d an a n a l y s i s of the patterns of i n t e r -personal communication among the growers, both i n t h e i r search f o r advice and i n in f o r m a l v i s i t i n g on a f r i e n d s h i p b a s i s . Opinion l e a d e r s , i d e n t i f i e d by so dome t r i e procedures, were mostly e a r l y adopters. Sociometric choices extended predomin-a n t l y t o growers i n higher adopter c a t e g o r i e s , or to others i v at the same l e v e l of adoption. There were no dyadic r e l a t i o n -ships extending from Japanese respondents to other ethnic groups. S e l e c t i o n by other ethnic groups among themselves a l s o d i d not exceed 30 per cent i n any in s t a n c e . The d i s t r i b u t i o n of s o c i o -metric choices e i t h e r by adopter category or ethnic o r i g i n were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . I n t e r p e r s o n a l communication among growers was al s o l a r g e l y confined to growers i n the community network. Opinion l e a d e r s h i p was p o s i t i v e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h high socio-economic s t a t u s , i n c l u d i n g high s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and the a b i l i t y to keep informed on aspects of t h e i r commercial e n t e r p r i s e from sources c l o s e to the o r i g i n of new i n f o r m a t i o n . TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Abstract i i L i s t of Tables x L i s t of Figures x v i i i Acknowledgment xix CHAPTER •I. INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose of the Study 2 The Setting - The Lower Fraser Valley 3 The Strawberry Industry 8 A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension 13 I I . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 16 The Adoption Process and Adopter Categories 17 Sources of Information 29 Interpersonal Communication i n the Di f f u s i o n Process 32 L o c a l i t y Group and Cu l t u r a l Influences 37 Extension Contact 40 I I I . PROCEDURE 42 Hypotheses 42 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms 43 The Innovations 44 The Sample • 49 Data C o l l e c t i o n 51 Data Analysis 53 v i PAGE IV. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE 5 4 Personal C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 5 4 Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 64 Extension Contact 69 E t h n i c Influences 8 0 V. ADOPTER CATEGORIES AND THE ADOPTION OF INNOVATIONS... 8 5 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Respondents i n t o Adopter Categories 8 ? R e l a t i o n s h i p between Adopter Category and Socio-economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 8 8 Adoption and non-Adoption of the Innovations...... I l l Progress toward adoption of the Innovations.... I l l The i n n o v a t i o n response s t a t e of the respondents 1 1 5 Reasons f o r delay i n the adoption process 1 2 2 Reasons f o r r e j e c t i o n of the innovations 1 3 0 V I . SOURCES OF INFORMATION 1 3 7 The Use of Information Sources C l a s s i f i e d by O r i g i n 1 3 7 The Use of Information Sources C l a s s i f i e d by the Nature of the A c t i v i t y 146 The Use of I n d i v i d u a l Sources of Information. 148 V I I . INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION... 1 5 5 The B a s i s of A n a l y s i s 1 5 6 Sociometric Behaviour f o r Advisory Dyads 1 5 8 The Sample 1 5 9 v i i PAGE Adopter Category and Sociometric .Tendency.. 1 5 9 Sociometric Status and Adopter Category...... 1 6 0 Dyadic R e l a t i o n s h i p s i n R e l a t i o n to Adopter Category 1 6 2 Sociometric Patterns and Et h n i c O r i g i n 1 6 4 The C l u s t e r . . . . 1 6 6 Adopter Category and Sociometric Tendency 1 6 6 Sociometric Status and Adopter Category 1 6 ? Dyadic R e l a t i o n s h i p s i n R e l a t i o n ' to Adopter Category.... 1 6 8 ' Sociometric Patterns and Et h n i c O r i g i n 1 6 9 A l l Respondents 1 7 0 . Adopter Category and Sociometric Tendency.. 1 7 0 Sociometric Status and Adopter Category 1 7 1 Dyadic R e l a t i o n s h i p s i n R e l a t i o n to Adopter Category 1 7 4 Sociometric Patterns and E t h n i c O r i g i n 1 7 7 Informal V i s i t i n g and the T o t a l P o t e n t i a l f o r Information Transfer and L e g i t i m a t i o n i n P r a c t i c e Adoption..... 1 7 9 V I I I . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1 9 7 Socio-Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 1 9 7 E t h t l i c Influences 2 0 2 Extension Contact and Adoption 204 Adoption and non-Adoption of the Innovations 2 0 6 Reasons f o r Delay i n the Adoption Process and f o r R e j e c t i o n ; 2 0 8 v i i i PAGE Sources of Information.. 210 I n t e r p e r s o n a l Communication 212 BIBLIOGRAPHY 217 i x PAGE APPENDIX I. The Interview Schedule with Univariate Frequency D i s t r i b u -tions Added f o r Basic Socio-Economic Characteristics and Stages i n the Adoption Process 225 APPENDIX II. Sources of Information 2^9 APPENDIX I I I . Bivari-ate Tables of Socio-Economic Characteristics versus Ethnic Origin 251 APPENDIX IV. Biv a r i a t e Tables of Socio-Economic Characteristics versus Adopter Category..... 260 APPENDIX V. Detailed Analysis of the Innovation Response States 279 APPENDIX VI. Procedure f o r Computing Z Values i n Determining S i g n i f i c a n t Differences Between Two Proportions 282 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. P a r t i a l Correlation Coefficients ; 5 6 I I . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Types of Contact, D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t and Other A g r i c u l t u r a l Agents 6 9 I I I . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Extension Contact Score (Rogers and Havens Scale) 7 4 IV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by an Extended Extension Contact Score, D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t and Other Agents 7 5 V. S t a t i s t i c a l l y S i g n i f i c a n t Chi-square Values f o r Socio-Economic Characteristics Against Ethnic Origin 8 1 VI. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the Respondents into Adopter Categories 8 7 VII. S t a t i s t i c a l l y S i g n i f i c a n t Chi-square Values f o r Socio-Economic Characteristics Against Two and Four Adopter Categories 9 0 V I I I . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents at Each Stage i n the Adoption Process by Innovation 1 1 2 IX. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents at Each Stage i n the Adoption Process by Adopter Category 1 114 X. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Innovation Response State f o r Each Innovation ; 1 1 7 XI. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Innovation Response State and by Adopter Category 1 2 2 XII. Percentage Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reasons f o r Delay i n Proceeding Through the Adoption Process f o r A l l Innovations Combined 124 XI I I . Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reasons f o r Delay i n the Adoption Process by Innovation 1 2 5 x i TABLE PAGE XIV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reasons for Delay i n the Adoption Process . by Adopter Category 1 3 1 XV. Percentage Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reasons f o r Rejection of a l l Innovations 1 3 2 XVI. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reasons for Rejection by Innovation 1 3 3 XVII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Reasons for Rejection by Adopter Category 1 3 5 XVIII. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Sources of Information 1 3 8 XIX. Percentage Distribution.of the Use of Sources of Information by Adopter Category with the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by Origin. 140 XX. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Sources of Information Used at the Awareness Stage f o r Each Innovation with the Sources C l a s s i f i e d by Origin 142 XXI. Z Values f o r the D i f f e r e n t i a l Use of Government Information Sources Between Innovations at the Awareness Stage i n the Adoption Process Relevant to the C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Sources by Origin 143 XXII. Z Values' f o r the D i f f e r e n t i a l Use of Commercial Information Sources Between Innovations at the Awareness Stage i n the Adoption Process Relevant to the C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Sources by Origin.. 143 XXIII. Z Values f o r the D i f f e r e n t i a l Use of Farm Organization Information Sources Between Innovations at the Awareness Stage i n the Adoption Process Relevant to the C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Sources by Origin 1 4 5 XXIV. Z Values f o r the D i f f e r e n t i a l Use of Personal Information Sources Between Innovations at the Awareness Stage i n the Adoption Process Relevant to the C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Sources by Origin and by Nature of the A c t i v i t y . 145 x i i TABLE PAGE XXV. Percentage Distribution of the Use of Sources of Information by Adopter Category with the Sources Classif ied by the Nature of the A c t i v i t y . . . . . 14? XXVI. Percentage Distribution of Sources of Information at the Awareness Stage for Each Innovation with the Sources Classif ied by Nature of the A c t i v i t y . . . . 149 XXVII. Z Values for the Different ial Use of Mass Information Sources Between Innovations at the Awareness Stage i n the Adoption Process Relevant to the Class i f icat ion of Sources by Nature of the Act iv i ty 150 XXVIII. Z Values for the Differential Use of Instructional Group Information Sources Between Innovations at the Awareness Stage i n the Adoption Process Relevant to the Class i f icat ion of Sources by Nature of the Act iv i ty 150 XXIX. Z Values for the Differential Use of Individual Instructional Information Sources Between Innovations at the Awareness Stage i n the Adoption Process Relevant to the Class i f icat ion of Sources by Nature of the Act iv i ty 151 XXX. Percentage Distribution of the Six Most Frequently Used Sources of Information by Adopter Category 152 XXXI. Response of Growers to Naming Another Grower as a Source of Advice 160 XXXII. Sociometric Status of Growers as a Source of Advice by Adopter Category 162 XXXIII. Percentage Distribution of Sociometric Choices Between Respondents by Adopter Category 164 XXXIV. Percentage Distribution of Sociometric Choices Between Respondents by Ethnic Origin 166 XXXV. Percentage Distribution of Ethnic Group by Agricultural Adult Education 252 x t i i TABLE PAGE XXXVI. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Ethnic Group by Educational Level 2 5 2 XXXVII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Ethnic Group by Vocational A g r i c u l t u r a l Education 2 5 2 XXXVIII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Ethnic Group by Educational Level of Wife 2 5 3 XXXIX. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Ethnic Group by Years of Experience i n Strawberry 2 5 3 XL. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Ethnic Group by Years on Present Farm.. 253 XLI. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Ethnic Group by S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n 2 5 4 XLII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Ethnic Group by Size of Farm 2 5 4 XLIII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Ethnic Group by Acreage i n Strawberry 2 5 4 XLIV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Ethnic Group by Acreage i n Other A g r i c u l t u r a l Enterprises 2 5 5 XLV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Ethnic Group by Gross Total A g r i c u l t u r a l Sales 2 5 5 XLVI. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Ethnic Group by Gross Sales from Strawberry 2 5 5 XLVII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Ethnic Group by Gross Sales from Other A g r i c u l t u r a l Enterprises . 2 5 6 XLVIII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Ethnic Group by Tenure..' 2 5 6 XLIX. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Ethnic Group by Extent of Off-Farm Work 2 5 6 L. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Ethnic Group by Estimated Farm Value 2 5 7 LI. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Ethnic Group by Extent of Contact with the D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t Through Telephone 2 5 7 x i v TABLE PAGE LII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Ethnic Group by Extent of Contact with the D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t Through Farm V i s i t s 2 5 7 LIII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Ethnic Group by Extent of Contact with the D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t Through Mail..... : 2 5 8 LIV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Ethnic Group by Extent of Contact with the D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t Through Radio 2 5 8 LV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Ethnic.Group by Extent of Contact with the D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t Through Newspaper A r t i c l e s . . . . . . . 2 5 8 LVI. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Ethnic Group by Attendance at L.M.H.I.A. Short Course ( 1 9 6 6 ) 2 5 9 LVII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Ethnic Group by Attendance at L.M.H.I.A. Short Course ( 1 9 6 7 ) 2 5 9 LVIII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Age Group 2 6 l LIX. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Size of Family.... 2 6 1 LX. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Level of Education 2 6 2 LXI. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Educational Level of Wife 2 6 2 LXII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Agriculture Courses i n High School 2 6 3 LXIII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Agriculture Courses at Vocational School..... 2 6 3 LXIV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by A g r i c u l t u r a l Adult Education 2 6 4 XV TABLE PAGE LXV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents . by Adopter Category and by Attendance:' at the 1 9 6 6 Annual Short Course (L.M.H.I.A.).... 2 6 4 LXVI. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Attendance at the 1 9 6 7 Annual Short Course (L.M.H.I.A.) 2 6 5 LXVII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Attendance at the 1 9 6 6 Annual Short Course i n Washington, U.S.A... 2 6 5 LXVIII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Attendance at the 196 7 > A n n u a l Short Course i n Washington, U.S.A... 2 6 6 LXIX. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Number of Years of Farming Experience 2 6 6 LXX. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Number of Years i n Strawberry. 1 2 6 7 LXXI. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Number of Years on Present Farm 2 6 7 LXXII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Ethnic Origin 2 6 8 LXXIII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n . . . . 2 6 8 LXXIV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of- Respondents by Adopter Category and by Size of Farm 2 6 9 LXXV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Acreage i n Strawberry 2 6 9 LXXVI. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Acreage i n other A g r i c u l t u r a l Enterprises;. .... 2 7 0 LXXVII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Gross Total Sales from Agriculture. 2 7 0 x v i TABLE PAGE LXXVIII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by-Adopter Category and by Gross Sales from Strawberry.' 2 7 1 LXXIX. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Gross Sales from Other A g r i c u l t u r a l Enterprises 2 7 1 LXXX. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Amount of Time Spent i n Off-Farm Work.. • 2 7 2 LXXXI. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Estimated Farm Value 272 LXXXII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Extension Contact with the D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t Through Office V i s i t s 2 7 3 LXXXIII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Extension Contact with the D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t Through Telephone 2 7 3 LXXXIV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Extension Contact with the D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t Through Farm V i s i t s 2 7 4 LXXXV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Extension Contact with the D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t Through Mail .' 2 7 4 LXXXVI. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Extension Contact with the D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t Through Radio Announcements 275 LXXXVII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Extension Contact with the D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t Through Television 2 7 5 LXXXVIII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Extension Contact with the D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t Through Newspaper A r t i c l e s 2 7 6 LXXXIX. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Attendance at Demonstrations, F i e l d Days and Local Meetings. 2 7 6 x v i i TABLE PAGE XG. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Attendance at Meetings of the L.M.H.I.A........... .v 277 XCI. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by Number of Extension Contacts with the D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t 277 XCII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents by Adopter Category and by a l l Extension Contacts 278 XCIII. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents Unaware of the Innovation by Adopter Category and by Innovation. 280 XCIV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents Continuing the Adoption Process by Adopter Category and by' Innovation 280 XCV. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents who had Adopted the Innovation; by Adopter Category and by Innovation 281 XCVI. Percentage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Respondents who had Rejected the Innovation, by Adopter Category and by Innovation 281 ; LIST OF FIGURES x v i i i FIGURES PAGE I. The Distribution, of Sociometric Choices i n the Search f o r Advice........' .... 172 I I . The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Sociometric Choices for Advice i n Relation to Adopter, Category 175 I I I . I l l u s t r a t i o n of the Sociometric Importance of Respondent No.' 9 . . . 176 IV. The D i s t r i b u t i o n of Sociometric Choices Among Growers i n Friendship V i s i t i n g Patterns 181 V. An I l l u s t r a t i o n of the Combined Pot e n t i a l . . for Interpersonal Communication by Sociometric Choices Relevant to Both Advice and Friendship V i s i t i n g Patterns I 8 3 r xix ACKNOWLEDGMENT The writer wishes to express his grateful appreciation to Dr. C. Verner for his continued guidance and supervision throughout the investigation. Thanks are also due to Doctors C. Hornby and G. Winters of the Faculty of Agriculture who served as members of the thesis committee. Mr. A. G. Fowler and Miss G. Starkey of the University of B r i t i s h Columbia Computing Centre gave considerable assistance i n the computer analysis of the data. In p a r t i c u l a r , I am gr a t e f u l to the External Aid Office, Ottawa, fo r awarding me the scholarship and for financing the cost of the f i e l d study. My appreciation i n t h i s regard also extends to the Government of Trinidad and Tobago fo r allowing me the necessary period of study leave. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The continued modernization of the a g r i c u l t u r a l sector of the Canadian economy i s r e f l e c t e d i n increasing c a p i t a l i z a -t i o n and market orientation."'" The pace at which a g r i c u l t u r a l development follows progress i n industry, however, i s governed to some extent by the rate at which the farmer accepts and integrates into his commercial enterprise, the technology released by s c i e n t i f i c advances. The extent to which innovations are adopted by a group of farmers i s , i n the f i r s t instance, a measure of the success of a g r i c u l t u r a l extension with i t s c l i e n t e l e . The adoption of suitable innovations w i l l , i n large measure, determine the progress of the farming enterprise, the increase i n a g r i c u l t u r a l income and the r e l a t i v e improvement i n the socio-economic status of the farm family. Available data indicates that on a national scale, the "modern" farmers i n Canada are but a small propor-ti o n , compared to the large number of "small, uneconomic, low 2 income, low productivity" farm u n i t s . Research has shown that farm practice adoption i s related to a number of socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , c u l t u r a l Helen C. Abel, "The S o c i a l Consequences of the Moderniza-t i o n of Agriculture," Rural Canada i n Transition, Marc-Adelard Tremblay and Walter J . Anderson, editors (Publication No. 6 Ottawa: A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics Research Council of Canada, 1966), P. 1 9 5 . 2 I b i d . , pp. 2 0 5 , 214. 2 influences, and the effectiveness of a g r i c u l t u r a l extension programs. Relative to each s o c i a l system, the successful d i f f u s i o n of innovations i s further dependent upon the e f f e c t i v e u t i l i z a t i o n of interpersonal communication networks and the le g i t i m i z a t i o n process within the existing leadership structure. I t i s necessary, however, for the researcher to continue the analysis of these various aspects of farmer populations, so as to provide the necessary data on which the a g r i c u l t u r a l exten-sion agent can formulate sound programs for the promotion of change. I. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY This study i s intended to investigate a number of d i f -ferent aspects relevant to strawberry growers i n the Lower Fraser Valley of B r i t i s h Columbia. Basic socio-economic data on each respondent included 40 variables which previous studies have indicated as having some measure of significance to adop-t i o n performance. These covered personal data relevant to the l i f e cycle of the i n d i v i d u a l , information on economic character-i s t i c s of the farm enterprise, s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , indices of extension contact between the respondent and the D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t , together with his contact with other a g r i c u l -t u r a l agents. Of p a r t i c u l a r relevance to the study of the adop-t i o n of innovations, responses were e l i c i t e d to determine the extent of adoption or non-adoption, the sources of information used, reasons f o r delay In the adoption process, and for rej e c t i o n . 3 Considerable emphasis i s given to interpersonal com-munication. Sociometric questions were used to obtain further information which provided a basis f o r examing patterns of the interpersonal network. The o v e r a l l potential for informa-t i o n transfer was also considered, both on a general s o c i a l basis and with p a r t i c u l a r reference to the d i f f u s i o n of inno-vations within the s o c i a l system. In addition, the s t r a w b e r r y f a r m e r s i n the a r e a c o m p r i s e a number of d i f f e r e n t ethnic groups. A point of i n t e r e s t , therefore, i s xvhether there i s evidence of s i g n i f i c a n t d i f -ferences i n the variables under inv e s t i g a t i o n , a r i s i n g out of differences i n ethnic background. II. THE SETTING - THE LOWER FRASER VALLEY The Fraser V a l l e y i s physiographically a portion of what i s termed the Lower Coast Area i n B r i t i s h Columbia. I t i s 20 miles wide at the mouth and extends eastward from the S t r a i t of Georgia f o r about 100 miles, converging gradually with the Fraser Canyon at the town of Hope. The area i s bounded by the Coast Mountains on the north, the Cascade Mountains i n the East and the International Boundary (49th P a r a l l e l ) i n the South. The general t e r r a i n of the v a l l e y i s f l a t to undulat-ing with a few h i l l s exceeding 1000 feet i n the v i c i n i t y of Chilliwack and Agassiz; the lowlands range i n elevation from sea l e v e l to 70 feet i n the East. The area i s characterized by a marine climate with dry 4 warm summers and humid m i l d w i n t e r s . Mean January and J u l y temperatures range from 32°F to 37°F and 62°F to 65°F respect-i v e l y ; there i s no marked d i f f e r e n c e i n the range between summer and winter temperatures. The number of f r o s t f r e e days average between 180 to 214, but these long periods tend t o be o f f s e t by cool summers which r e s t r i c t the growing of heat-l o v i n g crops.^ Annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n r e f l e c t s the e f f e c t s of the Coast and Cascade mountains, and increases eastward. This i s shown by the annual r a i n f a l l records of 36.3, 58.6, 62.6 and 64 .4 inches f o r Ladner, Abbotsford, M i s s i o n and Agassiz 4 r e s p e c t i v e l y . Heaviest p r e c i p i t a t i o n i s recorded i n autumn and winter; the summer months tend to be dry with an average r a r e l y exceeding 13 inches during May to September. The lowland s o i l s are predominantly recent s i l t y and clayey f l o o d p l a i n and d e l t a i c d e p o s i t s of the F r a s e r , C h i l l i w a c k , P i t t , Nikomekl and Serpentine r i v e r s . The higher po r t i o n s of the F r a s e r V a l l e y i n the v i c i n i t y of Maple Ridge, M i s s i o n , Abbotsford and Matsqui are occupied by f o r e s t upland ^•iost of the general data on the area i s obtained from: Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, The Lower Coast B u l l e t i n Area - B u l l e t i n  Area No. 3» Queen's P r i n t e r , V i c t o r i a , 3. C , 1962. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , A g r i c u l t u r a l Outlook Conference, 1964, pp. 74-92. 5 s o i l s . While not as f e r t i l e as the a l l u v i a l deposits, they have good potential carrying capacity; they are, however, lim i t e d by droughtiness i n the dry summer period. Large acreages of peat and muck s o i l s also exist, but these vary i n t h e i r s u i t a b i l i t y f o r ag r i c u l t u r e . While the Lower Fraser Valley i s endowed with many favourable factors for agricultural.development, there are certain inherent climatic and physical f a c t o r s which neces-s i t a t e d e f i n i t e management techniques. High water tables and slow percolation, especially during the winter months, r e s u l t i n poor drainage and l i m i t the productivity of large portions of the f e r t i l e lowland s o i l s . During the summer, many of the Gleysolic and higher textured Regosolic s o i l s require supple-mental i r r i g a t i o n . This i s p a r t l y due to the inadequate r a i n -f a l l received during the rainy season, even though the t o t a l annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n i s i n excess of crop requirements. I t i i s estimated that i n 8 out of 10 years, i r r i g a t i o n would bene-f i t most crops.^ A g r i c u l t u r a l Development In 1 8 3 4 , the Hudson Bay Co. established the f i r s t farm i n the Fraser V a l l e y at Fort Langley. Agriculture i n the area received i t s early impetus from the mining camps of the Cariboo gold rush, logging operations and the developing centres of V i c t o r i a , Vancouver and New Westminster. Over a 50 year period, ^Loc. c i t . 6 a g r i c u l t u r e spread to a l l the d i s t r i c t s i n the v a l l e y . Around the t u r n of the century, the o r i g i n a l a g r i c u l t u r a l p a t t e r n based on g r a i n , b u t t e r , root crops and beef changed with greater emphasis on root crops and d a i r y i n g . The h i g h l y d i v e r s i f i e d a g r i c u l t u r e of the v a l l e y ranges from part time subsistence farms through d a i r y i n g , p o u l t r y , forage and g r a i n , potatoes, vegetables, greenhouses, nursery products, seeds, t r e e f r u i t s , f u r breeding, s p e c i a l i z e d hor-t i c u l t u r a l and sm a l l f r u i t , i n c l u d i n g strawberry production. A g r i c u l t u r e i n the area i s v i t a l to the economy of the province; i t s d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n i s l a r g e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the f a c t that there i s more v a r i e t y to the a g r i c u l t u r e of B r i t i s h Columbia 7 compared to any other province i n Canada. S t a t i s t i c a l data,show c l e a r l y the r e l a t i v e importance of a g r i c u l t u r e i n the Fr a s e r V a l l e y to the economy of the province. Of the 2 per cent of the t o t a l land area i n the ' province which can be c l a s s i f i e d as farm land, 2 8 . 9 per cent ( 0 . 6 of the t o t a l land area) i s improved land. Only 1 7 . 2 per cent of the farm land ( 0 . 3 4 per cent of the t o t a l land area) i s cropped, and the Fraser V a l l e y i n 1 9 6 4 was estimated to Q have 3 7 per cent of the t o t a l number of farms. "Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , A g r i c u l t u r a l Outlook Conference, 1 9 6 6 , p. 92. "^Transactions of the F i f t e e n t h B r i t i s h Columbia N a t u r a l  Resources Conference, February 2 6 - 2 8 . 1 9 6 4 . V i c t o r i a . B r i t i s h Columbia, p. 8 3 . o °J. S. A l l i n , "Inventory of A g r i c u l t u r e i n B r i t i s h Columbia," Inventory of the Natural Resources of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 6 4 , p. 142. In 1 9 6 4 , i t was estimated that the v a l l e y accounted f o r 5 5 » 7 per cent of the t o t a l population among 1 0 major regions i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Its farm population was equivalent to 3 6 . 3 per cent of the t o t a l farm population and 3 ' 4 Per cent of the t o t a l p r o v i n c i a l population.^ The i n t e n s i t y and prosperity of farming i n the Fraser Valley derives an .advantage from i t s close location and excel-lent communication f a c i l i t i e s with the large metropolitan area of Vancouver which to some extent guarantees a ready market and high prices. The industry provides employment f o r one out of every f i v e persons i n the area. The metropolitan area i s supplied with a l l i t s f l u i d milk and poultry, and most of i t s eggs, vegetables and small f r u i t from t h i s region." 1" 0 In 1 9 6 1 , 4 9 * 2 per cent of the t o t a l income from agriculture i n the province originated i n the Fraser Valley."'""*' Also, the area accounted f o r more than 6 0 per cent of the t o t a l production of dairying, poultry and fur bearers, the major share of small f r u i t production, and more than 6 0 per cent of s p e c i a l h o r t i -1 2 c u l t u r a l products and vegetables. yLoc. c i t . l°Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of Agriculture, A g r i c u l t u r a l Outlook Conference, 1 9 6 6 , p. 9 4 . -'--'-Transactions of the Fifteenth B r i t i s h Columbia Natural Resources Conference, op., c i t . p. 8 3 . 1 2 J . S. A l l i n , o£. c i t . p. 142. 8 A r i s i n g p o p u l a t i o n , urban sprawl and the i n e v i t a b l e demand f o r land from n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l i n d u s t r y has caused land values t o soar. A l t e r n a t i v e h i g h l y p a i d employment has c o n t r i b -uted to r i s i n g labour c o s t s . Fraser V a l l e y farmers have been for c e d , t h e r e f o r e , to seek means of reducing t h e i r labour input i n farm e n t e r p r i s e . Labour employed i n a g r i c u l t u r e d e c l i n e d from 13*1 per cent of the t o t a l labour f o r c e i n 1941 to l e s s than 4.0 per cent i n 1961. .In a d d i t i o n , the high cost of farm, b u i l d i n g s and equipment, and i n c r e a s i n g f o r e i g n competition i s a c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n t h a t s u r v i v a l i n a g r i c u l t u r e i s only p o s s i b l e with h i g h l e v e l management and the advantageous use of modern technology. I I I . THE STRAWBERRY INDUSTRY The commercial production of s t r a w b e r r i e s i n the Fraser V a l l e y s t a r t e d before the F i r s t World War. I n i t i a l p roduction s t a r t e d i n Burnaby; l a t e r on i t spread to Surrey, and to Haney and M i s s i o n on the north side of the Fraser r i v e r . P r o d u c t i o n up to t h i s time remained l a r g e l y with Japanese growers u n t i l they were evacuated t o the i n t e r i o r during the Second World War. Today's production i s more widespread and i s concentrated 14 on the sou.th side of the Fraser V a l l e y ; there i s a l s o greater -'Ibid., p. 153. 14 I . G. Carne et . a l . , Second Approximation Report, A g r i c u l t u r e i n the Fraser V a l l e y , 1964-198^7 B r i t i s h Columbia. Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , October, 1966, p. 31• 9 ethnic variety among the population of growers, including immigrants from Eastern Europe, Russia, The B r i t i s h I s l e s , Scandinavia and Japan. The major strawberry production areas of the Fraser Valley, i n order of importance are: ( 1 ) Langley ( 2 ) Richmond ( 3 ) Matsqui - including Abbotsford, Clearbrook and Bradner -Mt. Lehman ( 4 ) Sumas and Chilliwack Municipalities - including Yarrow, Sardis, Chilliwack and Rosedale ( 5 ) other areas com-bined - including Delta, Ladner and the area north of the 1 5 Fraser River from Haney to Agassiz. 1 fi Carne has ci t e d some of the major factors which account f o r the d i f f e r e n t i a l importance of strawberry production i n these areas. The Abbotsford-Langley-Aldergrove region contains s o i l types with high f e r t i l i t y and good drainage which make them most suitable for economic production; the need f o r i r r i g a -t i o n , however, i s evident. Heavier texture and high x^ater tables of s o i l s i n the Matsqui P r a i r i e area, l i m i t root develop-ment and the use of wheeled equipment. S o i l l i m i t a t i o n s and urbanization pressure has prevented large scale expansion i n the Surrey area. -'--'British Columbia, Department of Agriculture, H o r t i -c u l t u r a l Branch, 1 9 6 2 Small F r u i t Surrey. - ^ 1 . Carne, "Strawberry Production i n the Fraser Valley (Unpublished, Department of Agriculture, Abbotsford, B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 5 9 ) . (Mimeographed). 1 0 Data on crop acreages I n d i c a t e considerable f l u c t u a t i o n over the years. The acreage increased-from about 1 1 0 0 acres i n 1 9 2 0 t o a peak of 1800 acres i n 1 9 2 2 , before d e c l i n i n g to 17 about 1400 acres i n 1 9 3 2 . The highest acreage ever recorded was 3 . 1 7 0 acres i n 1 9 5 0 ; t h i s d e c l i n e d to 1 , 3 5 0 acres i n 1 9 6 3 * In recent years, the trend i s markedly upward again. While e a r l i e r on, a d e c l i n e i n tonnage accompanied the decrease i n acreage, increased e f f i c i e n c y and higher production was grad-u a l l y being r e f l e c t e d i n the increased tonnage harvested i n s p i t e of the continued d e c l i n e i n acreage between i 9 6 0 - 1 9 6 4 . Considering data f o r 193^ and 1964, while there was a 3 5 * 8 per cent drop i n acreage, the increase i n tonnage was 33*0 Per 18 cent. Extensive crop damage r e s u l t e d from the 1 9 6 4 freeze out, and only 250 acres are reported to have s u r v i v e d . However, r a p i d recovery has occurred and the estimated acreages f o r h a r v e s t i n g i n 1 9 6 6 and 1 9 6 7 i n the Fraser V a l l e y was 1 , 2 5 0 and 1 , 6 5 0 acres respectively."'"^ Data from a 1 9 5 7 survey i n d i c a t e d that the average strawberry acreage per grower was 2.09 acres. Almost one-half (42.4 per cent) of the growers grew l e s s than one acre; 72.9 1 7 I b i d . 1 8 •I. C. Carne et . a l . , O J D . c i t . , pp. 3 1 - 3 2 . 19 A. C. C a r t e r , A Report on the Small F r u i t Industry i n  B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , H o r t i c u l t u r a l Branch, B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 6 6 , p. 2 . 1 1 per cent were growing 2 acres or l e s s . A mere 7 per cent grew 5 acres or more. At the time, most of the growers with 1 - 2 acres were either elderly or r e t i r e d or part-time farmers who sought to supplement th e i r off-farm income. Those with 2 - 5 acres were usually combining strawberries with dairy or poultry enter-prises. Operators with larger acreages were frequently f u l l -time small f r u i t operators who attempted to obtain t h e i r f u l l 2 0 income from small f r u i t , which often included raspberries." Considerable changes have taken place i n the industry i n recent years. Economic conditions have brought t y p i c a l a g r i c u l t u r a l trends to the industry. A reduction i n the number of growers, an increase i n the average size of holding and more intensive c u l t i v a t i o n are today c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of strawberry production. Compared to an average y i e l d of 1-g-tons per acre i n the 1 9 2 0 ' s , today's average exceeds 3 tons 2 1 2 2 per acre. Carter reported an average y i e l d of 6 tons per acre f o r 1 9 6 6 . According to the 1 9 6 1 Census,"2^ small f r u i t production 2 0 I. C. Carne, oj>. c i t . 21 I. C. Carne et. a l . , ojo. c i t . , p. Jl. 2 2A. C. Carter, op_. c i t . , p. 1 . 23 -'Canada, Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Census of  Canada, 1 9 6 1 , B u l l e t i n 5 . 3 - 4 . 12 i n the Fraser Valley ranked t h i r d i n product value among a l l crop combinations, and eighth among a l l crop and live s t o c k products. The Fraser Valley, however, generally accounts f o r 73*3 Per cent of the t o t a l production and about 7 5 * 2 per cent 24 of the t o t a l cash income from a l l small f r u i t i n the province. It i s also the most important strawberry producing area i n the province. Strawberries have, at least i n recent years, been the second most important small f r u i t crop, a f t e r raspberries, OK both at the p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l and i n the Fraser Valley. J Future production estimates f o r the v a l l e y project i n -creases i n thi s crop ahead of raspberries for 1 9 7 5 and 1 9 8 5 by 4 5 and 7 0 per cent respectively. Production i n 1 9 6 5 w a s 4 , 2 0 0 tons valued at 1 . 3 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s ; long term projected increases for 1 9 7 5 and 1 9 8 5 are 9 5 Per cent and 1 7 0 per cent, respectively, more than the 1 9 & 5 f i gures. Production i n 1 9 8 4 i s estimated to value 3 . 4 m i l l i o n dollars. 2"' 7 In Canada, strawberries are produced i n the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario and B r i t i s h Columbia. This province accounts for about one-third of both the t o t a l Canadian production and the processed crop. Approximately the same proportion of 2 i + J . S. A l l i n , O J J . c i t . , p. 142. 25 Jk. C. Carter, o£. c i t . ^Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of Agriculture, A g r i c u l t u r a l Outlook Conference, 1 9 6 7 , pp. 5 2 - 9 7 . 27 I. C. Carne, et. a l . , p. 6 7 . 1 3 r e t a i l frozen packs also originates i n the province. Provin-c i a l producers face competition i n the market f o r fresh f r u i t and processed products, both from Eastern Canada and from the U.S.A. and Mexico. The prices received by strawberry farmers are of major importance i n the o v e r a l l economic s i t u a t i o n . The 1 9 6 6 p r i ce of 1 5 cents per l b . was lower than the price received 20 years 29 e a r l i e r (18-20 cents per l b . ) . 7 IV. AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION The P r o v i n c i a l Department of Agriculture has a consider-able organization within the Fraser Valley. D i s t r i c t O fficers are located at Abbotsford, New Westminster, Cloverdale, Mission and Chilliwack. In addition, the Canada Department of A g r i c u l -ture operates a research s t a t i o n at Agassiz which i s sta f f e d with two h o r t i c u l t u r i s t s and a plant breeder. Advisory work on strawberries i s largely the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of two D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t s stationed at New Westminster and Abbotsford. For o f f i c i a l purposes, the D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t at Abbotsford i s a s p e c i a l i s t i n strawberries and raspberries; he also has the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of administering the c e r t i f i c a t i o n program aimed at disease control. The o f f i c e r at New Westminster i s the s p e c i a l i s t i n blueberries and cranberries; but i s also 28 A g r i c u l t u r a l Outlook Conference, 1966. o£. c i t . , pp. 100-147. 29 ' I . C. Carne et. a l . , ojo. c i t . , p. 3 1 . 14 responsible f o r routine advisory requests on strawberries. This d i v i s i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y has been recognized policy f o r the past 10 years. Extension publications for strawberry growers, there-fore, originate from the Abbotsford o f f i c e . Over the past 7 years, publications on various aspects of strawberry c u l t i v a -t i o n — p e s t and disease control, v a r i e t i e s , weed-control, f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n and other aspects of crop management— have been prepared at this o f f i c e . Research b u l l e t i n s on v a r i e t i e s and on pest and disease control have also been available from the Agassiz research s t a t i o n . Newsletters containing information on production and marketing of various crops, including strawberries, are also sent out by the P a c i f i c Cooperative Union which i s based at Mission. I t i s no doubt reasonable to assume that at one time or another, any of the 22 advisory and s p e c i a l i s t o f f i c e r s stationed i n the Fraser V a l l e y may have had some limi t e d measure of contact with at least some of the growers. This would depend upon the type of mixed farming enterprise or the nature of any s p e c i f i c problem which may have necessitated personal i n v e s t i g a t i o n by one or more s p e c i a l i s t s . The Lower Mainland H o r t i c u l t u r a l Improvement Association The Lower Mainland H o r t i c u l t u r a l Improvement Association was formed i n 1955• Its purpose i s mainly "educational", and i t s objective i s to promote "the permanent improvement of crop 15 y i e l d " by the adoption among h o r t i c u l t u r a l growers of improved practices and crop v a r i e t i e s . The Association aims at co-operation with the Agassiz Research Station and a l l other a g r i c u l t u r a l agencies. A l l residents of the Lower Mainland who are a c t i v e l y engaged i n the production or processing of h o r t i c u l t u r a l crops are e l i g i b l e f o r membership. 3 0 A l l straw-berry growers would, therefore, normally q u a l i f y for member-ship. The t o t a l paid up membership at February, 1967 i s 260.^ Included i n the educational program i s an annual 2-day Short Course at which a number of talks on various aspects of crop production and management are given by experts i n the f i e l d . The published proceedings are made available free to paid-up or active f i n a n c i a l members, but are also available on sale."^ J Lower Mainland H o r t i c u l t u r a l Improvement Association, By-Laws. ^Proceedings of the Lower Mainland H o r t i c u l t u r a l Improve-ment Association, Ninth Annual Growers Short Course, February 15-16, 1967, Abbotsford, B r i t i s h Columbia, pp.•86-94. 3 2 I b i d . CHAPTER I I REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE The a c c eptance o r a d o p t i o n of a new i d e a o r i n n o v a t i o n i s seldom e i t h e r an immediate o c c u r r e n c e o r a u n i t a c t . I n terms o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l , Bohlen- 1" r e f e r s t o the r e l e v a n t c i r -cumstances as "a complex p a t t e r n of men t a l a c t i v i t i e s combined w i t h a c t i o n s t a k e n b e f o r e an i n d i v i d u a l f u l l y a c c e p t s o r adopts a new i d e a " . F o l l o w i n g the now c l a s s i c a l s t u d y by Ryan and Gross w i t h h y b r i d seed c o r n i n 1943» c o n s i d e r a b l e r e s e a r c h has accumulated r e l e v a n t t o t h e d i f f u s i o n and a d o p t i o n of i n n o v a t i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y w i t h i n a g r i c u l t u r a l communities, and 3 Rogers noted almost 300 s t u d i e s s i n c e t h i s i n i t i a l i n v e s t i g a -t i o n . The a d o p t i o n - d i f f u s i o n concept has p r o v i d e d one of the major frameworks w i t h i n which s o c i o l o g i s t s have " c o n c e p t u a l i z e d and s t u d i e d i n s t i g a t e d s o c i a l change". C o n s i d e r a b l e emphasis has been p l a c e d on the i n d i v i d u a l as a d e c i s i o n maker, and he p r o v i d e s t h e b a s i s f o r measurement and comparison, a l t h o u g h r e s e a r c h has examined and attempted t o e x p l a i n a d o p t i o n Joe M. Bohlen, "The A d o p t i o n and D i f f u s i o n of Ideas i n A g r i c u l t u r e , " Our Changing R u r a l S o c i e t y : P e r s p e c t i v e s and  Trends, James H. Copp, e d i t o r , (Ames, Iowa: Iowa S t a t e U n i v e r -s i t y P r e s s , 1964), p. 268. 2 B r y c e Ryan and N e a l C. G r o s s , "The D i f f u s i o n of H y b r i d Seed Corn in-Two Iowa Communities," R u r a l S o c i o l o g y , 8:15-24, March, 1943. ^ E v e r e t t M. Rogers, D i f f u s i o n of I n n o v a t i o n s , (New York: The F r e e P r e s s of Gl e n c o e , 1962), p. 4 . ~ ^ J . M. B o h l e n , cm. c i t . , p. 265. 1 7 behaviour within the focus of c u l t u r a l , economic and other variables. I. THE ADOPTION PROCESS AND ADOPTER CATEGORIES The Adoption Process The d e f i n i t i o n of the adoption process, as previously cited, indicates c l e a r l y a time lag i n the decision-making a c t i v i t y of the i n d i v i d u a l against whom the campaign f o r a change, i n opinion, attitude and action i s directed. Rogers cit e s the suggestion by Wilkening of three major forms of a c t i v i t y involved; - learning, decision and action. In 1955. the Subcommittee f o r the Study of the Dif-fusion of Farm Practices^ published the 5-stage process. Beal 7 and Bohlen' i n a l a t e r paper gave further insight into these stages i n th e i r s i m p l i f i e d i l l u s t r a t i o n of findings from 3 5 research studies over a 20 year period. The f i v e stages are Awareness, Interest, Evaluation, T r i a l and Adoption. -^ E. M. Rogers, op. cit., p. 80. ^Subcommittee f o r the Study of Di f f u s i o n of Farm Practices, How Farm People Accept New Ideas, (Special Report No. 15. A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension Service, Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa, November, 1 9 5 5 ) • 7 , George M. Beal and Joe M. Bohlen, The D i f f u s i o n Process, (Special Report No. 18, A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension Service, Iowa State College, Ames, March, 1 9 5 7 ) . 18 8 Beal et. a l . established the v a l i d i t y of the concept of stages i n the adoption process. In t h e i r f i e l d study, i t was evident that the respondents were aware of having gone through meaningful stages i n t h e i r decision to adopt the innova-t i o n . Rogers^ has emphasized that the 5-stage model i s an arbi t r a r y subdivision f o r conceptual purposes, and i s based on apparent evidence of f i v e main functions being involved -in the adoption process. He suggests that any further subdivision into more or less stages should only be undertaken i f the r e s u l t i s more f r u i t f u l analysis. Concerning the f i v e stage process, he states: u n t i l more evidence i s a v a i l a b l e , - i t seems conceptually clear and p r a c t i c a l l y sound to u t i l i z e the five-stage adoption p r o c e s s 1 0 In general, i t Is the most widely accepted model.used by r u r a l s o c i o l o g i s t s and other s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s In recent times, however, researchers have questioned 1 p s p e c i f i c a l l y the v a l i d i t y of t h i s 5-stage model. Waisanen has proposed the i n c l u s i o n of two additional stages. The f i r s t i s a "generalized i n t e r e s t " stage which caters f o r change Q George M. Beal, Everett M. Rogers and Joe M. Bohlen, " V a l i d i t y of the Concept of Stages i n the Adoption Process", Rural Sociology, 22:166-168, June, 195?. 9 m 7 E . M. Rogers, OJJ^ c i t . , p. .79. Fbid., p. 98. 1 ]'Joe M. Bohlai OP. c i t . , p. 269. 12 F. B. Waisanen, "Change Orientation and the Adoption Process", D. T. Myren, editor ( F i r s t Inter-American Research  Symposium on the Role of Communications i n A g r i c u l t u r a l Develop-ment, Mexico City, Mexico, Octobers 1964), pp. 85-87. 19 orientation i n terms of a general " r e c e p t i v i t y " to innovations. He makes the point that the "evaluation" stage, i n the popular 5-stage model, involves a value p r e d i c t i o n by the i n d i v i d u a l when he lacks personally acquired evidence. As a r e s u l t , i t i s suggested that the evaluation stage should be followed by a " t r i a l evaluation" stage, which permits a re-examination of the "prediction inherent i n the e a r l i e r evaluation", and which i s not based on actual acquired evidence. 13 Campbell J suggests that the t r a d i t i o n a l 5-stage model i s too simple to " f i t " many of the decisions involved i n the adoption of innovations. His paradigm of i n d i v i d u a l decision-making and adoption i s constructed around two dichotomies. These are r a t i o n a l or non-rational, and innovation or problem-oriented decisions, thus providing four "ideal type" processes when we combine the two dimensions i n alternative arrangements. 14 Campbell further questions the t r a d i t i o n a l assumption of r a t i o n a l i t y i n the current d i f f u s i o n model which projects adoption as the "natural r e s u l t " of evaluation, thereby implying r a t i o n a l i t y . He points out that r e j e c t i o n of an innovation may also be the re s u l t of a r a t i o n a l decision, and that the "rations,! t r a d i t i o n a l " model does not allow f o r r a t i o n a l and non-rational behaviour i n terms of both adoption and non-adoption. R. Campbell, "A Suggested Paradigm of the Individual Adoption Process", Rural Sociology 31:458-466, December, 1 9 6 6 . % b i d . , 20 For the purpose of this study, however, the t r a d i t i o n a l 5-stage model provides the basis f o r analysis of the r e s u l t s . These f i v e stages are as follows: 1. Awareness: The i n d i v i d u a l f i r s t learns about a new idea, practice or product; i t i s one of exposure characterised by incomplete information. While often conceded as a "random or nonpurposive occurrence", i t may well be at times the r e s u l t of p o s i t i v e e f f o r t , thereby not being e n t i r e l y accidental. 2. Interest (or Information): The i n d i v i d u a l becomes psychologically involved; he i s favourably disposed and seeks additional information. 3. Evaluation: The stage has also been c a l l e d the "mental t r i a l " stage; the i n d i v i d u a l considers the information and evidence previously obtained i n terms of alternatives relevant to his own present and perhaps future s i t u a t i o n — r e s o u r c e s of land, labour, c a p i t a l and his management a b i l i t y . I f his o v e r a l l decision i s a p o s i t i v e one, he then considers "physical t r i a l " . ^ , T r i a l ; Actual t r i a l of the innovation i s involved. Usually, t r i a l i s on a small scale, and successive t r i a l s may occur, each one characterised by an increase i n the extent of use. This stage provides empirical evidence i n terms of pre-liminary obstacles to f u l l scale adoption. 5. Adoption: A decision i s made to continue the f u l l use of the innovation, and the practice i s , therefore, incorporated as an i n t e g r a l part of the p a r t i c u l a r operation. 2 1 Adopter Categories Researchers have consistently attempted to c l a s s i f y the individuals involved i n the adoption process i n terms of t h e i r r e l a t i v e positions on a continuum relevant to the adop-t i o n of a s p e c i f i c innovation or set of innovations over time. Rogers ^ emphasizes the u t i l i t y of t h i s concept i n terms of com munieating research findings and t h e i r implications to lay audiences and change agents. While there has been considerable v a r i a t i o n i n the terminology used to i d e n t i f y selected subdivisions of i n d i v i d -uals within the s o c i a l system, the categories developed by Rogers"*"^ are the most widely accepted. The major c r i t e r i o n / 17 _ used f o r t h i s purpose i s "innovativeness". His system o f 7 adopter categorization i s based on the fi n d i n g that the adop-t i o n of innovations either follows the normal d i s t r i b u t i o n or 18 clos e l y approximates normality over time. The individuals within the s o c i a l system are partitioned on the basis of their.. earliness to adopt the innovation or set of innovations, which in turn, determines t h e i r r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n about the mean of 19 the normal d i s t r i b u t i o n . The f i v e categories are: 15 E. M. Rogers, "Categorizing the Adopters of A g r i c u l -t u r a l Practices", Rural Sociology. 2 3 : 3 ^ 5 - 3 5 4 , December, 1 9 5 8 . l 6 I b i d . 17 E. M. Rogers, D i f f u s i o n of Innovations, 0 0 . c i t . , p. 1 5 9 1 8 I b i d . , p. 1 6 1 . 1 9 I b i d . , p. 1 6 2 . 2 2 1 . innovators -2 . early adopter 3 . early majority 4 . l a t e majority 5 . laggards the f i r s t 2 . 5 per, cent the next 1 3 • 5 per cent the next 3 4 . 0 per cent the next 3 4 . 0 per cent the f i n a l 1 6 . 0 per cent Comprehensive reviews 2 0 have been made of the personal and s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s most t y p i c a l of these various cate-gories. A few of the major attributes relevant to these cate-2 1 gories, as indicated by Rogers, are as follows: 1. Innovators: Venturesomeness i s an outstanding character-, i s t i c ; they tend to have cosmopolite s o c i a l relationships and access to substantia.1 f i n a n c i a l resources. 2. Early Adopters: They tend to be more integrated i n the l o c a l s o c i a l system; are highly respected and possess the great-est degree of opinion leadership. 3- Early Majority: They are characterized by a noticeable degree of de l i b e r a t i o n and tend to adopt new ideas only just before the average member of the s o c i a l system. They follow, but seldom lead i n the adoption process. 4 . Late Majority: Skepticism i s t h e i r outstanding character-i s t i c . 5. Laggards: They are t r a d i t i o n a l , and are the l a s t to adopt an innovation; they tend to be the most l o c a l i t e , and t h e i r point of reference Is the past. pp. 2 7 6 - 2 8 1 . Ibid., pp. 168-189, See also J . M. Bohlen, op_. c i t 2 1 E. MV!Rogers,'op. c i t . , pp. I68-I89. 2 3 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Adopter Categories The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i n d i v i d u a l farmers relevant to t h e i r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n adopter categories have been continuously 2 2 investigated. Rogers' generalizations indicate that early adopters, compared to l a t e r adopters, are younger i n age and are characterized by higher s o c i a l status, a more favourable finan-c i a l position, more spe c i a l i z e d operations, a d i f f e r e n t type of mental a b i l i t y , the u t i l i z a t i o n of a greater number of d i f f e r e n t information sources which are i n closer contact with the o r i g i n of new ideas, cosmopoliteness and the gree.ter use of more impersonal and cosmopolite sources of information. Bohlen, 23 _ n a m o r e recent review of the ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of innovators and early adopters, also points out that they are characterized by greater emphasis on economic p r o f i t maximiza-t i o n , greater willingness to take r i s k , shorter adoption periods, less concern about the trustworthiness of an information source as d i s t i n c t from the supporting expertise, greater p a r t i c i p a t i o n in secular and Gesellschaft systems as d i s t i n c t from sacred and Gemeinschaft systems, and a higher professional orientation towards farming. Research findings, however, have not been i n t o t a l agree-ment on a l l aspects of socio-economic variables. Havens, f o r E. M. Rogers, on. c i t . , p. 313. 2 3 j . M. Bohler, op_. c i t . , pp. 2 7 9 - 2 8 0 . A. E. Havens, "Increasing the Effectiveness of Predicting Innovativeness", Rural Sociology, 3 0 : 1 5 0 - 1 6 5 , June, 1 9 6 5 . 2k example, examined a number of variables which previous researchers had found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y associated with adoption. Among those not s i g n i f i c a n t i n his analysis were acreage farmed, rent a l status, years i n farming and formal education. Education, a single dimension of s o c i a l status, has been reported as being 26 26 associated with adoption i n many studies. ^  Leuthold found that education of the farm wife was systematically associated with early acceptance of practi c e . I t would seem, however, that i n many instances, age may be the determining factor i n education l e v e l s , as shown by Lionberger. 2 7 Both Coughenour 2^ and Photiadas 2^ have c l e a r l y shown that the impact of formal general education i s largely i n terms of i t s dimensional r e l a t i o n s h i p to socio-economic status, which i s i n f l u e n t i a l i n determining the measure of contact with i n s t i t u t i o n a l sources of information. Very l i t t l e attention has been given to the s p e c i f i c i t y of educational experience and adoption tendency. Verner and M. Rogers, OJJ. c i t . , p. 175« ?6 Frank 0 . Leuthold, Communication and D i f f u s i o n of  Improved Farm Practices i n Two Northern Saskatchewan Farm Com-munities , Canadian Centre f o r Community Studies, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, 1966 , p. 1 2 1 . 27 Herbert F. Lionberger, Low Income Farmers i n Missouri, University of Missouri, College of Agriculture, A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station, Columbia, A p r i l , 1 9 4 8 . AO C. Milton Coughenour, "The Functioning of Farmers' Characteristics i n Relation to Contact with Media and Practice Adoption", Rural Sociology, 25:283-297, June, i 9 6 0 . 29j..D. Photiadas, "Motivation, Contacts and Technological Change", Rural Sociology, 2 7 : 3 1 6 - 3 2 6 , September, 1 9 6 2 . 2 5 M i l l e r d ^ 0 i s o l a t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y , adult education as an indepen-dent v a r i a b l e . They found the highest si g n i f i c a n c e with adult education a c t i v i t y s p e c i f i c a l l y directed at the farmer popula-t i o n . The sum t o t a l of a g r i c u l t u r a l t r a i n i n g — h i g h school, unive r s i t y and adult education—was.more sig n i f i c a n t • t h a n formal education by i t s e l f . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Innovations It would seem that the economic motive, or p r o f i t a b i l i t y , cannot by i t s e l f ensure the adoption of innovations f o r the majority of farmers. According to Bohlen,-^ acceptance of an innovation involves a reorientation of values on the part of the i n d i v i d u a l ; a l t e r a t i o n and s u b s t i t u t i o n of attitudes and b e l i e f s may become necessary. Adoption behaviour has been found to vary with types of practices. Rogers-^2 suggests f i v e major charac-t e r i s t i c s which may be relevant to practice adoption: (1) r e l a t i v e advantage - the degree to which an innovation i s superior to ideas i t supersedes. ( 2 ) compatibility - the degree to which i t i s consistent with exi s t i n g values and past experiences of the adopter. - > uCoolie Verner and Frank W. Mi Herd, Adult Education and  the Adoption of Innovations by Orchardists i n the Okanagan • -Valley of B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., 1966 (Rural S o c i o l o g i c a l Monograph No. 1). 3 1 j. M. Bohlen, ojo. c i t . , p. 272. 3 2E. M. Rogers, ojo. c i t . , pp. 124 -133 . 26 ( 3 ) complexity - r e l a t i v e - d i f f i c u l t y to understand and use. (4) d i v i s i b i l i t y - extent to which the nature of the practice permits t r i a l on a limited basis. ( 5 ) communicability - degree to which re s u l t s can be d i f -fused to others. Between 1 6 and 6 0 per cent of v a r i a t i o n i n adoption has been explained by these various factors either singly or i n combination.-^ F l i e g e l and K i v l i n - ^ l i s t a dditional items i n a more detailed manner, and include mechanical attrac-t i o n , i n i t i a l and continuing cost, saving of time and the saving: of physical discomfort. The Adoption Period The normality of adoption d i s t r i b u t i o n s i s related to an established pattern of adoption behaviour among the i n d i v i d -uals i n the population. The t y p i c a l pattern i s a slow i n i t i a l s t a r t , followed by adoption at an increasing rate u n t i l approx-imately h a l f of the potential adopters have accepted the change, .and f i n a l l y the continuation of acceptance at a decreasing r a t e . 3 5 Within any given practice, however, v a r i a t i o n i n time lag between awareness and adoption i s p a r t l y explained by 3 3 l b i d . , pp. 1 3 5 - 1 3 6 . 34 J Frederick,C. F l i e g e l and Joseph E. K i v l i n , Differenc.es  Among Improved Farm Practices as Related to Rates of Adoption. College of Agriculture, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, 1 9 6 2 ( B u l l e t i n 6 9 1 ) . Herbert F. Lionberger, Adoption of Mew Ideas and Practices, (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, i 9 6 0 ) , p. 3 3 . 27 differences In personal and s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i n d i v i d -ual adopters. 1 Research has, i n general, i s o l a t e d two important periods i n the adoption process continuum; these are awareness-to-t r i a l and t r i a l - t o - a d o p t i o n . According to Rogers, relatively-e a r l i e r adopters have a shorter awareness-to-trial period, hut a longer t r i a l - t o - a d o p t i o n period compared to l a t e r adopters. The longer span i n the l a t t e r period i s apparently explained by a more cautious behaviour as they proceed with adoption i n t r i a l installments, i n view of the inherent r i s k s involved. The d i f f u s i o n period or length of the d i f f u s i o n process, i s part l y a function of the length of the adoption process. Rejection and Discontinuance of Practices Most of the research on the adoption of innovations has been based on a two-way alte r n a t i v e of r a t i o n a l behaviour, as exemplified by adoption, or the non-adoption of the practi c e . 37 As previously discussed, Campbell has questioned this l i m i t e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of r a t i o n a l i t y . Rejection i s the decision not to adopt the innovation. Rejection may be r a t i o n a l or i r r a t i o n a l depending upon the E. M. Rogers, O J J . c i t . , pp. 113-118. Rex R. Campbell, O J J . c i t . 28 38 39 p a r t i c u l a r circumstances. Bohlen, and Rogers and P i t z e r ^ 7 have emphasized the need f o r research on t h i s aspect of adop-t i o n behaviour. Discontinuance i s the decision to cease use of an inno-vation a f t e r previously adopting i t . V/hile the absence of standardized terminology has made comparison betx\reen d i f f e r e n t studies d i f f i c u l t , between 20 to 5 0 per cent discontinuance has 40 been recorded. Incorrect i n i t i a l usage or evaluation of t r i a l 41 re s u l t s may be the causal factor i n discontinuance. 42 Bishop and Coughenour c i t e a p a r t i c u l a r study i n which adoption and discontinuance occurred at about the same rate. Later adopters, including laggards tend to discontinue practices 41 44 at double the rate, or more, reported f o r early adopters. ^' Discontinuance i s not only the r e s u l t of economic reasons. Pot e n t i a l discontinuance i s higher where the a p p l i c a t i o n of the practice requires multiple decisions and where adoption hinges 3 8 J . M. Bohlen, o£. c i t . p. 284. 3 9 E . M. Rogers andE. L. P i t z e r , The Adoption of I r r i g a t i o n by Ohio Farmers, Ohio A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station, Wooster, Ohio, i 9 6 0 (Research B u l l e t i n 8 5 1 ) . ^°E. M. Rogers, o£. c i t . , pp. 89-90. "I 42T ^ F . 0. Leuthold, o£. c i t . , p. 1 1 2 . "R. Bishop and C. M. Coughenour, Discontinuance of Farm  Innovations, Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics and Rural Sociology, Ohio State University, 1 9 6 4 , (Department Series A.E. 3 6 1 ) . --'Ibid., p. 4 . E. M. Rogers, 0 0 . c i t . , p. 9 0 . 2 9 upon complex rel a t i o n s relevant to other farming operations. 46 Verner and Gubbels • investigated the reasons for re j e c t i o n and discontinuance among' dairymen i n terms of both adopter categories and stages i n the adoption process. About two-thirds of the reasons given r e l a t e to ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the innovation; one-third related to s i t u a t i o n a l f a c tors. McMillon ' ci t e s the reasons given f o r rejections among dairy-men i n an Austr a l i a n study; the lack of knowledge about the p a r t i c u l a r innovation i s very evident. II. SOURCES OF INFORMATION In the d i f f u s i o n research t r a d i t i o n , there has been' considerable emphasis on the various sources of information' which may be involved at one time or another i n the dissemina-48 t i o n of information into the c u l t u r a l system. Katz et. a l . have expressed the opinion that there has been excessive ^ C o o l i e Verner and Peter M. Gubbels, The Adoption or  Rejection of Innovations by Dairy Farm Operators i n the Lower  Fraser Valley, A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics Research Council of Canada, 1 9 6 7 . p. 5 6 . ^ M a r t i n B. McMillon, The Sources of Information and  Factors Which Influence Farmers i n Adopting Recommended P*rac- t i c e s i n Two New Zealand Counties, Lincoln College, University of New Zealand, July, I960, (Technical Publication No. 19), p p . 3 1 - 3 6 . 48 E l i h u Katz, Martin L. Levin and Herbert Hamilton, "Traditions of Research on the D i f f u s i o n of Innovations", American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 2 8 : 2 3 7 - 2 5 2 , A p r i l , 1 9 6 3 . . 3 0 4 9 emphasis on channels. The term "channel" i s here used i n the context of t h e i r very comprehensive d e f i n i t i o n of d i f f u s i o n : d i f f u s i o n may be characterized as the (1) acceptance (2) over time ( 3 ) of some s p e c i f i c item—an idea or practice ( 4 ) by individuals, groups or other adopting units, linked (5) to s p e c i f i c channels of communication ( 6 ) to a s o c i a l structure, and ( 7 ) to a given system of values, or culture.-' Research on t h i s aspect of the adoption-diffusion t r a d i t i o n has shown that there are variations between sources, adopter categories, d i f f e r e n t practices and between the farmer populations being studied. In cross c u l t u r a l studies, the a v a i l a b i l i t y or n o n - a v a i l a b i l i t y of al t e r n a t i v e sources i s i t s e l f a variable. Researchers have c l a s s i f i e d information sources i n a variety of ways. Verner and others,-'''" however, have used c l a s s i f i c a t i o n systems which encompass a l l the various sub-t i t l e s observed i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Their most recent presenta-52 t i o n ^ i s a two-way alternative system which allows f o r the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of a source either i n terms of i t s " o r i g i n " — government, commercial, farm organizations or p e r s o n a l — o r the "nature of i t s a c t i v i t y " — p e r s o n a l , mass, i n s t r u c t i o n a l group or i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n . The f i r s t a l ternative corresponds closely to t r a d i t i o n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n models which ^ 9 I b i d . , p. 245. 5 0 r b i d . , p. 240. J C. Verner and P. W. M i l l e r d , op_. c i t . , see also Coolie Verner and Peter M. Gubbels, op_. c i t . -5 2C. Verner and P. M. Gubbels, op. c i t . , pp. 29-39. 31 tend to include mass media, commercial, neighbours and friends and a g r i c u l t u r a l a g e n c i e s . T h e second alternative, however, introduces a new dimension of sop h i s t i c a t i o n by giving con-si d e r a t i o n to the " s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n " relevant to directed behavioural change by the farmer c l i e n t . The two major dimensions to the use of information sources are r e f l e c t e d by source use at various stages i n the adoption process, and between adopter categories. The nature of the s p e c i f i c practice, however, introduces another variable which tends to q u a l i f y research findings relevant to any p a r t i c u l a r study. From a review of numerous studies, Rogers makes the generalizations: impersonal information sources are most important at the awareness stage, and personal sources are most important at the evaluation stage i n the adoption process. Cosmopolite information sources are most important at the awareness stage, and l o c a l i t e information sources are most important at the evaluation stage. In general, personal sources, by means of the interpersonal network, are of especial importance as* progress i s made through evaluation, t r i a l and a d o p t i o n . A t the t r i a l stage, commercial M. Bohlen, op_. c i t . , p. 282. ^ I b i d . , p. 281. ~^E. M. Rogers, op_. c i t . , pp. 99- 1 0 2 . . M. Bohlen, ojo. c i t . t p. 282.* 32 sources may be important, especially where new equipment may necessitate information on procedure.^ L e u t h o l d ^ suggests that the r e l a t i v e importance of various sources beyond t r i a l needs further i n v e s t i g a t i o n . When adopter categories are introduced, the analysis of sources of information becomes more s p e c i f i c , and s i g n i f i -cant differences i n communication behaviour are e s t a b l i s h e d . J ' According to Rogers,^ 0 impersonal and cosmopolite sources are more important for r e l a t i v e l y e a r l i e r adopters. Also, e a r l i e r adopters, besides using more sources, maintain a closer contact with the o r i g i n a l sources of information. In p a r t i c u l a r , r e l a t i v e l y l a t e r adopters place greater reliance on personal 61 sources. I I I . INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION IN THE DIFFUSION PROCESS Unlike the adoption process, the emphasis i n the d i f -f usion process s h i f t s from the behaviour of a single i n d i v i d u a l to a range of individuals within the population being studied. Interest i s i n the d i f f u s i o n of the innovation from the source to the ultimate users i n the s o c i a l system. -5?F. 0. Leuthold, ojo. c i t . , p. 55. 5 8 I b i d . M. Bohlen, ojo. c i t . , p. 282 . ^°E. M. Rogers, ojo. c i t . , p. 1 8 1 . 6 l I b i d . , p. 220 . 6 2 I b i d . , pp. 13-18. 3 3 The r e l a t i v e importance of inter-personal communication in the d i f f u s i o n of information has been placed i n true per-spective by Katz and Lazarsfeld. The_proposal of a "two-step flow of communication" implied networks of people, i n contrast to the a l t e r n a t i v e theory of an atomized society manipulated by the mass media. Their attempt to determine r e l a t i v e degrees of personal influence resulted i n the i s o l a t i o n of "opinion leaders", who apparently belonged to every l e v e l of society and 64 were. very much l i k e the people whom they."inf luence" , It was f e l t that opinion leaders served as an intermediary between the mass media and t h e i r "everyday a s s o c i a t e s . " ^ The concept of opinion leaders demonstrated the existence of "sources of influence which are not inherently relevant to the subject matter at hand".^ These s o c i a l contact networks were of considerable importance i n the d i f f u s i o n of information, 67 even when highly competent, s c i e n t i f i c agencies were involved. -^Elihu Katz and Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Personal Influence: The Part Played by People i n the Flow of Mass Communication, (Glencoe, I l l i n o i s : Free Press, 1 9 5 5 ) . 64 E l i h u Katz, "The Two Step Flow of Communication", Mass Communications, Wilbur Schramm, editor, (Second Edi t i o n , University of I l l i n o i s Press, i 9 6 0 ) , pp. 3 4 6 - 3 5 5 . 6 5 I b i d . , p. 346. ^^Herbert Menzel and E l i h u Katz, "Social Relations and Innovation i n the Medical Profession: The Epidemiology of a Mew Drug", The Public Opinion Quarterly, 19:337-352, Winter 1 9 5 5 - 5 6 , p. 3 3 7 -6 ? I b i d . , p. 3 3 8 . 34 Subsequently, research findings resulted i n the amend-68 ment of the o r i g i n a l model to allow f o r a "multistep" flow of communication. I t was found that possible Interaction among opinion leaders themselves could involve transmission i n more than two steps. Menzel and Katz concluded that the role of sociometric contact extended beyond mere information and i n -fluence f o r a p a r t i c u l a r innovation, to the determination of general response behaviour with reference to outside sources 69 of information and influence. Investigation over a wider population confirmed the importance of networks of "discussion 70 and advisorship" as a c r u c i a l determinant of innovativeness. Coleman et. a l . recognized that the accumulated d i f -f usion curves f o r t h e i r profession and patient oriented res-pondents (doctors) suggested successive stages i n the d i f f u s i o n 73 71 ^ 72 process. Rogers discusses the " i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t " as a major reason f o r the normality of adopter d i s t r i b u t i o n s . Katz, however, points out that the drug study provides empirical support f o r what could only be hypothesized by the c l a s s i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the d i f f u s i o n of hybrid corn. The S-shaped 6 8 I b i d . , p. 343 . 6 9 I b i d . , p. 341. 70 ' James Coleman, E l i h u Katz and Herbert Menzel, "The D i f f u s i o n of an Innovation Among Physicians", Sociometry, 2 0 : 2 5 3 - 2 7 0 , December, 1957 , p. 258 . 71 72 Ibid. , p. 266 . E. M. Rogers, ojo. c i t . , p. 1 5 4 . 73 '-"Elihu Katz, "The S o c i a l I t i n e r a r y of Technical Change: Two Studies on the D i f f u s i o n of Innovations", Human Organiza-t i o n , 20:70-82, Summer, 1961, p. 74 . 35 curve i n the drug study was c l e a r l y the effect of intercommunica-t i o n and differences i n r e c e p t i v i t y among the "integrated" and 74 " i s o l a t e d " groups of doctors. The r e l a t i v e importance of informal personal information sources at various stages i n the adoption process has been 75 previously discussed. Lionberger, i n his comparison of information sources, points out that mass media—radio, t e l e -v i s i o n , and to some extent p e r i o d i c a l s — h a v e an inherent d i s -advantage f o r evaluation and decision. They are not accessible f o r subsequent reference and review, do not lend themselves to two-way communication and cannot re l a t e to the s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l farmer. He states: The next best thing to actual t r i a l on t h e i r own farms i s advice of another farmer who i s known and trusted and who has had the required experience.?° Researchers have attempted to i d e n t i f y d i f f e r e n t "functionaries" i n the d i f f u s i o n process. These d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s have been i d e n t i f i e d i n terms of introduction, communication, advisement.reinforcement and approval ("legitima-tion") of innovations. Varying terminology has been used to i d e n t i f y these opinion leaders; t h e i r major c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s that they take the lead i n influencing others, since they are 74 ' Loc. c i t . -' 75 H. F. Lionberger, Adoption of New Ideas and Practices, op. c i t . ? 6 I b i d . , p. 4 9 . 36 the ones to whom other farmers t u r n f o r i n f o r m a t i o n and advice.'"'' Lionberger and Chang have i n d i c a t e d that overlap may occur i n f u n c t i o n a r y r o l e s ; among the " m u l t i p l e - f u n c t i o n a r i e s " they observed were "communicator-legitimator" and "innovator-l e g i t i m a t o r " . Research has shown that i n f o r m a t i o n seeking among farmers i s by no means random; i t i s p o s s i b l e to d i s c e r n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e network patterns or groups. The degree of exposure to outside i n f l u e n c e s i s a n o t i c e a b l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c 79 of those sought as sources of i n f o r m a t i o n . Lionberger and Campbell d i s t i n g u i s h e d f o u r d i f f e r e n t types of dyads i n the "in f o r m a t i o n seeker-sought"communicative r e l a t i o n s h i p On the b a s i s of a one-way d i r e c t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n flow i n any i s i n g l e dyad, the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s based on whether or not one, both,or some of the members of the dyad re c e i v e i n f o r m a t i o n d i r e c t l y from an outside source. This p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n determines the p o t e n t i a l of the dyad f o r reinforcement, i n d i r e c t ??E. M. Rogers, ojo. c i t . , pp. 2 5 8 - 2 5 9 . erbert F. Lionberger and H. C. Chang, Comparative  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of S p e c i a l F u n c t i o n a r i e s i n the Acceptance of  A g r i c u l t u r a l Innovations i n Two M i s s o u r i Communities, Ozark  and P r a i r i e , U n i v e r s i t y of M i s s o u r i , College of A g r i c u l t u r e , A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment S t a t i o n , Columbia, M i s s o u r i , 1965 , (Research B u l l e t i n 8 8 5 ) . 79 '-'Herbert F. Lionberger and Rex R. Campbell, The P o t e n t i a l  of I n t e r p e r s o n a l Communicative Networks f o r Message Transfer  from Outside Information Sources; A Study of.. Two M i s s o u r i  Communities, U n i v e r s i t y of M i s s o u r i , College of A g r i c u l t u r e , A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment S t a t i o n , Columbia, M i s s o u r i , September, 1 9 6 3 , ( B u l l e t i n 842). 3 7 8 0 transfer or no transfer. 81 Sheppard, i n his study with B r i t i s h grassland farmers, discusses the d i f f i c u l t y of separating information as d i s t i n c t from influence i n the interpersonal farmer contact network. He found that while farmers did not know very much about the a c t i v i t i e s of "most other farmers", they appeared to be better informed about p a r t i c u l a r farmers, especially those i s o l a t e d as "leaders" by sociometric methods. He concluded therefore that a basis f o r influence was established, but that the problem 82 was one of quantitative analysis. IV. LOCALITY GROUP AND CULTURAL INFLUENCES Adoption studies have shown d i s t i n c t , and occasionally s i g n i f i c a n t , differences i n adoption or communication behaviour between d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r a l groups and between d i f f e r e n t l o c a l -i t i e s or neighbourhoods, i n contrast to the usual i n v e s t i g a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l farmer c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Pedersen, 8 3 i n his study of d i s t i n c t Danish and P o l i s h subcultures i n a single region, found evidence which indicated that d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r a l adjust-ments either f a c i l i t a t e d or hindered the introduction and acceptance of new ideas. The Danish group consistently showed 8°Ibid., pp. 1 0 - 1 3 . Q-l D. Sheppard, "The Importance of 'Other Farmers'", Sociologia Ruralis, I I I : 127-141, 1 9 6 3 . 8 2 I b i d . , pp. 1 3 7 - 1 3 9 . ^^Harold A. Pedersen, "Cultural Differences i n the Accep-tance of Recommended Practices", Rural Sociology, 16:37-49, March, 1 9 5 1 . 3 8 a higher l e v e l of performance f o r a l l practices, and adopted recommended practices to a s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater extent. Pedersen concluded that the ethnic groups constituted d i f f e r e n t universes i n terms of reaction to the recommended dairy farm , . . 8 4 practices. Pi K Van den Ban also sought to explain differences i n adoption behaviour i n terms of differences i n "ethnic co-hesiveness" between two groups of C a l v i n i s t i c Dutch and Norwegian - German Lutheran farmers. There were s i g n i f i c a n t differences between township quartiles regardless of i n d i v i d u a l farmer p r e d i c t i o n scores based on the usually accepted major socio-economic v a r i a b l e s . 8 ^ The f i n a l conclusion was that the influence of s o c i a l structures was more important than values d i r e c t l y related to adoption. It would seem that neighbourhood i n t e r a c t i o n r e l a t i o n -ships which lead to the development of mutual expectations and norms, r e s u l t i n a lack of independence relevant to i n d i v i d u a l 88 behaviour. From t h e i r study of adoption i n low, medium and high adoption areas, Marsh and Coleman 8^ found support f o r t h e i r 8 Z*Tbld. • p. 4 5 . P 6 ^A. W. Van den Ban, " L o c a l i t y Group Differences i n the Adoption of New Farm Practices", Rural Sociology. 25:308-320, September, i 9 6 0 . 8 6 I b i d . , p. 3 1 0 . 8 7 I b i d . , p. 3 1 8 . 00 C. Paul Marsh and A. Lee Coleman, "The Relation of Neigh-bourhood of Residence to Adoption of Recommended Farm Practices", Rural Sociology, 1 9 : 3 8 5 - 3 8 9 , December, 1 9 5 4 , p. 3 8 5 . 3 9 hypothesis that adoption i s p a r t l y explained as a function of residence l o c a l i t y , which determines the p a r t i c u l a r " a t t i t u d i n a l -expectation framework". The influence of neighbourhood residence i s also r e f l e c t e d i n patterns of interpersonal communication. Lion-berger 9^ found s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n the extent to which farmers named opinion leaders as sources of information within a p a r t i c u l a r neighbourhood. The effect was not only to l o c a l i z e contacts, but also to provide a conditioning influence i n the evaluation process. Differences i n the types of interpersonal network dyads for sources of information have also been observed between 91 neighbourhoods. S i m i l a r l y there may be d i f f e r e n t values placed upon varying kinds of information sources between neigh-92 93 bourhood and non-neighbourhood farmers. Leuthold observed differences i n communication media contact between t i g h t - k n i t German-Dutch and Ukranian communities. ^He r b e r t P . Lionberger, "Neighbourhoods as a Factor i n the D i f f u s i o n of Farm Information i n a Northeast Missouri Farming Community", Rural Sociology, 1 9 - 3 7 7 - 3 8 4 , December, 1 9 5 4 . 9 1 H. F. Lionberger and R. R. Campbell, ojo. c i t . , p. 13. 9 2Herbert F. Lionberger and C. Milton Coughenour, S o c i a l  Structure and D i f f u s i o n of Farm-Information, University of Missouri, College of Agriculture, A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station, A p r i l , 1 9 5 7 . (Research B u l l e t i n 6 3 1 ) . 93 ' -\F. 0. Leuthold, Communication and D i f f u s i o n of Improved Farm Practices i n Two Northern Saskatohexvan Communities, op. c i t . , p p . 1 6 9 - 1 7 0 . ' 40 V. EXTENSION CONTACT The measurement of extension contact gives considera-t i o n to the "human relationships" between the change agent and 94 95 his c l i e n t . Rogers and Capener used a two-way c l a s s i f i c a -t i o n of personal (or f ace-.to-f ace communication) and impersonal contact. Personal contact includes farm v i s i t s by the agent, v i s i t to the agent's o f f i c e by the farmer, meetings and f i e l d days and telephone conversations. Impersonal contact includes mass media; c i r c u l a r l e t t e r s , publications, mailed announce-ments, b u l l e t i n s and newspaper a r t i c l e s . 96 Photiadas observed that motivational factors, includ-ing s o c i a l status, net worth and money invested i n the enter-p r i s e , influenced the seeking of contact with a g r i c u l t u r a l agents. As stated by Abel, 9'' while a few farmers use every possible way to obtain information, a great many f a i l to make 98 maximum use of the many sources available. Abel et. a l . 94 Everett M. Rogers and Harold R. Capener, The County  Extension Agent and His Constituents, Ohio A g r i c u l t u r a l Exper-iment Station, Wooster, Ohio, June, I960, (Research B u l l e t i n 858), p. 5-9 5 l b i d . , pp. 1 0 - 1 1 . 9^\T. D. Photiadas, op. c i t . 97 'Helen C. Abel, The Exchange of Farming Information, Marketing Service, Economics Di v i s i o n , Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, August, 1 9 5 3 , P« 1 9 * 98 Helen C. Abel, Olaf F. Larson and Elizabeth R. Dickerson, Communication of A g r i c u l t u r a l Information i n a South-Central  Nex<r York County, Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell Univer-s i t y A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station, Ithaca, New York, January, 1 9 5 7 , P. 3 3 -41 found a notable posi t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between adoption rate" and 99 the use of information sources. Verner and Millerd's findings are s i m i l a r to those of Rogers and Capener ,"'"0<"> i n that early adopters tended to make greater use of a g r i c u l t u r a l agencies. 101 Verner and Gubbels, however, found that while the D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r i s t was used to a very small extent by a l l adopter categories, he tended to seek out individuals with a lower adoption score to a greater extent. 99c. Verner and F. W. M i l l e r d , op_. c i t . , p. 44. 1 0 0 E # Rogers and H. R. Capener, O P . c i t . , p. 24. 1 0 1 C . Verner and P. M. Gubbels, op. c i t . , pp. 3 2 , 52, CHAPTER III PROCEDURE The a n a l y t i c a l survey method was used to conduct thi s study of the adoption of innovations "by strawberry growers i n the Fraser V a l l e y . The data were coll e c t e d by personal interviews i n the Summer of 19&7. '^ne detailed procedure used i n data c o l l e c t i o n , and the method of data analysis are discussed i n the sections which follow. I. HYPOTHESES For purposes of s t a t i s t i c a l analysis the following hypotheses were tested using the . 01 and .05 l e v e l s of si g n i f i c a n c e . 1. The adoption of innovations i s not influenced by certai n socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . 2. There i s no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s between farmers of d i f f e r e n t ethnic o r i g i n . 3. There i s no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n by adopter categories between farmers of d i f f e r e n t ethnic o r i g i n . 4. Ethnic o r i g i n does not influence the d i s t r i b u t i o n of sociometric choices i n personal contacts among farmers. ;+3 I I . DEFINITION OF TERMS Even though there has been a noted lack of contact and coordination of research i n the diffusion-adoption t r a d i t i o n , there i s now noticeable agreement i n the l i t e r a t u r e on relevant terminology. The following l i s t of d e f i n i t i o n s include those used most frequently i n t h i s study, and are as c i t e d by Rogers."'" Innovation: an idea perceived as new by the i n d i v i d u a l . Adoption: a decision to continue f u l l use of an innovation. Adoption Process: the mental process through which an i n d i v i d u a l passes from f i r s t hearing about an innovation to f i n a l adoption. Adoption Period: the length of time required f o r an i n d i v i d u a l to pass through the adoption process from awareness to adoption. S o c i a l System: a population of individuals who are f u n c t i o n a l l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d and engaged i n c o l l e c t i v e problem-solving behaviour. Rate of Adoption: the r e l a t i v e speed with which an innovation i s adopted by members of a s o c i a l system. Di f f u s i o n : the process by which an innovation spreads. D i f f u s i o n Process: the spread of a new idea from i t s E. M. Rogers, op_. c i t . , pp. 1 2 - 2 0 , except where page numbers are otherwise indicated. 2 I b i d . , p. 1 3 4 . 44 source of invention or creation to i t s ultimate users or adopters. Innovativeness: the degree to which an i n d i v i d u a l i s r e l a t i v e l y e a r l i e r i n adopting new ideas than the other members of his s o c i a l system. Interaction Effect:-^ the process through which individuals i n a s o c i a l system who have adopted an innova-t i o n influence those who have not yet adopted. Opinion Leaders: those individuals from whom others seek information-. 4 Cosmopoliteness: the degree to which an individual's o r i e n t a t i o n i s external to a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l system. Change Agent: a professional person who attempts to influence adoption decisions i n a d i r e c t i o n that he f e e l s i s desirable. I I I . THE INNOVATIONS The innovations selected f o r study had been recommended to growers over a period of f i v e to seven years. This period was stipulated to ensure that reasonable time had elapsed afte r the introduction of an innovation to permit the growers to make a decision about i t . The innovations studied were as follows: (1) picking carts I b i d . , p. 1 5 4 . Ibid., p. 1 0 2 . 45 P i c k i n g c a r t s are used i n the h a r v e s t i n g o p e r a t i o n f o r the t r a n s f e r of f r u i t from w i t h i n the f i e l d to a point of c o l l e c t i o n . They a l l o w f o r a much l a r g e r q u a n t i t y of f r u i t t o he t r a n s p o r t e d "by any s i n g l e i n d i v i d u a l , thus ensuring a g r e a t e r number of man hours i n the a c t u a l p i c k i n g operation. I n a d d i t i o n , there i s l e s s handling of the f r u i t , and an improved marketable product i s obtained. This method i s almost standard p r a c t i c e among straw-berry growers, i n the United S t a t e s , i t was f i r s t recommended by the l o c a l Department of A g r i c u l t u r e about 7 years ago. (2) matted row as a c u l t u r a l system i n f i e l d layout The " h i l l " and "matted row" systems are the tx*o b a s i c ' types of f i e l d layout f o r strawberry p l a n t s . The h i l l system allows f o r the c u l t i v a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l p l a n t s while matted row r e s u l t s i n continuous bands of f a i r l y dense f o l i a g e . While matted row c u l t i v a t i o n was more, or l e s s always used i n the Richmond and L u l u I s l a n d areas, the h i l l system was t y p i c a l of other areas u n t i l 7 to 8 years ago. Research r e s u l t s have not been conclusive,.^ but there i s evidence that a matted row layout gives higher y i e l d s and tends to compensate f o r weak p l a n t s . While the h i l l system i s g e n e r a l l y e a s i e r to keep weed f r e e and reduces the incidence of r o t t i n g due t o b e t t e r a i r c i r c u l a t i o n , i t a l s o renders -'Canada Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , Research Branch, Experimental Farm, Agass i z , B r i t i s h Columbia, Research Report f  1958-1960, p. 16. 46 the plants more vulnerable to the effects of low temperatures, thereby r e s u l t i n g i n higher losses. A well established 6 matted row usually retards weed establishment. (3) spraying with Captan f o r f r u i t - r o t control The incidence of berry rot i s frequently the major cause f o r concern of the strawberry grower, since a heavy i n f e c t i o n may r e s u l t i n the loss of almost his entire crop. Extensive spraying with Captan has shown an increase i n 50 to 100 per cent of sound f r u i t . Such results necessitate a spray program which commences with the opening of f i r s t blooms and continues with at least four sprays at i n t e r v a l s of 7 to 10 days, through the harvesting season, i f necessary. One p e c u l i a r i t y of this problem which, perhaps, may r e s u l t i n some d i f f i c u l t y i n i t s acceptance by the farmer i s that there i s usually a considerable amount of rotted berries i n the f i e l d i n spite of the comparative success of the spray a p p l i c a t i o n . B e n e f i c i a l results have been reported i n terms of both f r u i t s i z e and post-harvest 7 q u a l i t y . This practice was recommended to growers 7 to 8 years ago. I. C. Came, op. c i t . ?J. A. Freeman, "The Control of Strawberry F r u i t Rot i n Coastal B r i t i s h Columbia", Canadian Plant Disease Survey' 44:96-104, June, 1964; see also J . A.. Freeman, "New Findings i n F r u i t Rot Control i n Strawberries", Proceedings of the  Lower Mainland H o r t i c u l t u r a l Improvement Association, 196*7 op. c i t . , pp. 4-8. 4 7 ( 4 ) c e r t i f i e d , v i r u s - f r e e plants The s e l e c t i o n of strawberry v a r i e t i e s involve r e s i s t -ance to disease, y i e l d , f r u i t quality and winter hardiness. For many years the B r i t i s h Soverign variety, which was i n t r o -duced 2 0 years ago, and the Marshall were the most popular types. Recent introductions include Northwest, S i l e t z , Puget 8 Beauty and Agassiz. Research has shown that v i r u s - f r e e plants possess superior vigour and produce higher yields and 9 ~y:' better f r u i t q u a l i t y . This p a r t i c u l a r practice has,received considerable emphasis i n extension b u l l e t i n s prepared f o r c i r c u l a t i o n by the Department of Agriculture. In a single b u l l e t i n , 1 0 farmers are advised on the use of "approved or c e r t i f i e d " stock with reference, to three d i f f e r e n t possible pests or diseases. Virus-free stocks of a l l l o c a l v a r i e t i e s , except Northwest, have been available to growers i n recent years. ( 5 ) s o i l analysis f o r nematode control A. Daubeny and J . A. Freeman, "Strawberry Variety Performance i n Coastal B r i t i s h Columbia", Fruit' V a r i e t i e s • and H o r t i c u l t u r a l Digest, 1 9 : 7 5 - 7 7 , A p r i l , 1 9 6 5 . 9 j . A. Freeman and F. C. Mellor, "Influences of Latent Viruses on Vigour, Y i e l d and Quality of B r i t i s h Soverign Strawberries", Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 4 2 : 6 0 2 - 6 1 0 , October, 1 9 6 2 . Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of Agriculture, Control of Small F r u i t Pests and Diseases, 1 9 6 7 . 1 1 J . A. Freeman, "Small F r u i t s Research", Paper presented at 1 9 6 7 Outlook Conference on Agriculture, Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 & 7 • 48 Nematode damage to strawberry plants causes a reduc-t i o n of plant vigour. This practice i s especially recom-mended f o r new plantings. Treatment i s supposed to l a s t f o r a period of approximately 3 to 4 years. This recommendation was f i r s t made to growers about 7 years ago, but has received considerably more emphasis during the past 5 years. (6) chemical weed control Carne's study has shoiNm that labour f o r weed control was one of the major expenses to be borne by the strawberry grower. Research by the Department of Agriculture over the past 17 years"^ has made available recommendations f o r chemical weed control. Simazine and Tenoran are the two most widely recommended chemicals at present. Excellent results have been obtained with Simazine, but v a r i e t a l differences i n suscept-14 i b i l i t y to the chemical has been reported f o r Tenoran. Crop damage may also occur depending upon the vigour of the X ^ I . C. Carne, Strawberry Production i n the Fraser Valley", ojo. c i t . 13 •^Canada Department of Agriculture, Experimental Farm, Agassiz, B r i t i s h Columbia, Research Report, 1958-1960, op. c i t . , pp. 1 6 - 1 7 ; see also J . A. Freeman, "Cherical Weed Control i n Strawberries", Proceedings of the Lower Mainland H o r t i c u l t u r a l Improvement Association, 1967 , O P . c i t . pp. 1 8 - 2 0 . - ^ J . A. Freeman, "Use of Simazine f o r Control of Weeds i n Strawberries i n Coastal B r i t i s h Columbia", Canadian Journal  of Plant Science 4 4 : 5 5 5 - 5 6 0 , 1964 . i 49 15 16 established crop. Freeman has indicated that e f f e c t i v e herbicide a p p l i c a t i o n f o r strawberry c u l t i v a t i o n demands an appreciation by the grower of the complex i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p of s o i l type, root establishment and the mode of chemical action. It i s hardly necessary to emphasize, therefore, the importance of most of these practices to the serious straw-17 berry operator. In f a c t , Freeman hasrv-recently made s p e c i f i c mention of four of these practices i n considering improve-ments i n c u l t u r a l f i e l d management. IV. THE SAMPLE The population f o r th i s study consisted of a l l the known strawberry growers i n the Fraser Valley. These were i d e n t i f i e d by a l i s t of growers who had suffered crop damage during the 1964 freeze-out of the strawberry crop, and had applied f o r Government assistance. An e f f o r t was made to bring this l i s t up to date with the assistance of two D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t s stationed i n the Lower Fraser Valley at Abbotsford and New Westminster, and other individuals who were i d e n t i f i e d as being knowledgeable about the growers i n " ^ J . A. Freeman, "Chemical Weed Control i n Strawberries", op. c i t . , p. 1 8 . l 6 I b i d . , p. 2 0 . 17 J . A. Freeman,_I967 Confederation Year Outlook f o r B r i t i s h Columbia Agriculture, Small F r u i t s Panel (Mineographed) 5 0 the area. The f i n a l corrected l i s t of growers numbered 194 and a table of random numbers was used to draw a 5 0 per cent sample. Since t h i s sample t o t a l l e d 97 growers, a sample of 100 was de.cided upon to f a c i l i t a t e the use of percentages i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n . A 20 per cent sample of a l t e r n a t i v e res-pondents was also selected. The geographical d i s t r i b u t i o n of the growers i n the area was such that f o r t y - s i x growers were found i n a small i Pi cluster i n one p a r t i c u l a r l o c a t i o n . Since the study was concerned with sociometric relationships among growers, additional interviews were conducted i n the cluster to include all growers i n that ares.. Twenty-two of the growers resident i n the cluster had been drawn i n the random sample, so i n order to include a l l growers i n the cluster an additional sample of twenty-four interviews were completed f o r a t o t a l of 124 interviews. The additional population of growers located i n the cluster, and not included i n the o r i g i n a l random sample, were not incorporated into the sample used f o r the general analysis of the data but were included i n the analysis of sociometric contacts reported i n Chapter VII. Thus, the main body of the study reports data and analysis from a random sample of the strawberry growers i n the Fraser Valley The area i n Langley i s bounded: 232nd St. on the West/ 256 St. on the East, 60th Avenue on the North and 3 6 t h Avenue on the South. 51 while the analysis of interpersonal contacts includes a l l growers resident i n a s p e c i f i c geographical l o c a t i o n . V. DATA COLLECTION The data f o r this study were collected by personal interviews with the strawberry growers. These interviews were conducted between May and September i n 1 9 6 ? . Because of a r e l a t i v e l y low i n i t i a l price offered this year by the processors, and the introduction of new grading procedures with which many growers were d i s s a t i s f i e d , many of them were to some extent antagonistic. In many instances, therefore, the interviewer was forced to l i s t e n patiently, and with non-commitance, to the anti-government invective before the actual interview could proceed. Tact and patience were often necessary during the interview to redirect the respondent's attention to the s p e c i f i c data being sought. In addition, i t would seem that the farmers of the Lower Fraser Valley are simply t i r e d of being interviewed f o r a g r i c u l -t u r a l surveys, especially since they claim that they are never aware of the r e s u l t s . The average time per interview, without excessive interruptions was approximately t h i r t y minutes. Because of the circumstances mentioned, however, i t was hardly possible to conduct more than three or four interviews on most days. Seven respondents refused to be interviewed. Three of them did not give any s p e c i f i c reason; four claimed that 52 they were not interested since they were ceasing strawberry c u l t i v a t i o n a f t e r the current crop, having been convinced that i t . was uneconomic f o r small scale growers l i k e them-selves. Sixteen other sample choices were not interviewed because they could not be located, had recently r e t i r e d due to age, had ceased growing strawberries, or due to i l l n e s s or death. A l l such sample choices were replaced from the alt e r n a t i v e sample l i s t . A t o t a l of approximately 236 v i s i t s were made during the period of the survey. An interview schedule was designed to record data, relevant to the purpose of the study including the following categories: 1. Personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the growers related to the socio-economic measures found to be relevant to the adoption of innovations i n other research studies. 2 . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s pertaining to the farm enterprise i n general and strawberry growing i n p a r t i c u l a r . 3 . ' Contacts with the A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension Service by the grower and the nature of such contact. 4. Sources of information used by the growers. 5 . Adoption behaviour with respect to the innovations studied so as to determine the stage i n the adoption process and adopter category f o r each respondent. 6 . Personal contacts with others f o r the purpose of securing information or help related to farming matte is, and personal contacts f o r s o c i a l reasons not related to farming. 53 VI. DATA ANALYSIS On completion of the f i e l d interviews and editing of the schedules, the data was keypunched on to IBM cards for processing by the use of the 7040 Computer at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia Computer Center. Standard computer programmes i n operation at t h i s center were used f o r programming the data. Tests of s i g -n i f icance were made primarily at the .05 l e v e l i n the f i r s t instance.; where appropriate, however, the .01 or .001 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e i s indicated. S t a t i s t i c a l procedures used include the following: P a r t i a l Correlation: This test measures the rel a t i o n s h i p between two variables; i t s p a r t i c u l a r advantage i s that i n examining the rel a t i o n s h i p between the p a r t i c u l a r variables, the effects of others are held fixed, thereby eliminating t h e i r interference. Chi-square: This test compares observed and expected frequency values, thereby allowing f o r the determination of whether the observed frequencies are due purely to chance. Differences between Proportions: This test i s used to decide i f the difference between the two proportions i s s i g n i f i c a n t , or whether i t may reasonably be attributed to chance. CHAPTER IV CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE While there i s some measure of agreement on the r e l a t i o n -ship between ce r t a i n socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the adoption of innovations, the general s i t u a t i o n remains i n -determinate. I t i s necessary, therefore, to describe the pa r t i c u l a r population studied here i n order to test the r e l a -tionship of the ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s studied to the. adoption of innovations. The data were analyzed with p a r t i c u l a r reference to i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , exten-sion contact and possible differences a r i s i n g out of the ethnic o r i g i n of the respondents. I. PERSONAL CRARACTERISTICS As i s t y p i c a l of farm populations, the age d i s t r i b u t i o n was skewed toward the upper ages. The median age group was between 45-54 years of age. Only 10 per cent of the res-pondents were below 35 years of age, with one i n d i v i d u a l i n the 20-24 year category. T h i r t y - s i x per cent were above 55 years of age, and as much as 14 per cent were 65 years or more. Since the sample consisted of 100 respondents, the whole numbers are also representative of the frequency percentages, except i f otherwise indicated. 5 5 2 P a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n analysis (Table I) indicates that older respondents had more children ( r = . 2 7 ) , more farming experience ( r = . 3 8 ) and experience i n strawberry production ( r = . 2 8 ) . They were among the e a r l i e s t immigrants (r= -.46), and as would be expected, t h e i r wives had lower lev e l s of formal education (= -.26). Age correlated negatively with adoption, i n d i c a t i n g that the older farmers generally exhibited lower lev e l s of practice adoption. Marital Status Eighty-eight per cent of the respondents were married; 9 were single and 3 were widowed. Number of Children The median category of J-k children included 3 6 per cent of respondents. Approximately the same proportions reported 1-2 children (24.0 per cent) and 5 or more children ( 2 6 . O per cent). Fourteen respondents reported not having any children. There was no' r e l a t i o n s h i p with adoption. In view of the large number of variables involved i n the c o r r e l a t i o n table, an attempt i s made to f a c i l i t a t e examination of the relationships referred to i n the discussion. Heavy l i n e s are used to p a r t i t i o n blocks of closely a l l i e d variables which measure either e s s e n t i a l l y the same character-i s t i c or some aspect of i t ; f o r example Nos. 2 3 - 2 8 are a l l relevant to personal extension contact while Nos. 1 3 - 1 5 are relevant to the si z e of the farm operation. I 56 TABLE 1 PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS 1. Adoption Score 2. Age 3. Number of Children 4. Educational Level 5. Adult Education (Agr.) 6. Adult Education (Gen.) 7. Wife's Education 8. Years of farming 9. Years in strawberry 10. Years on present farm 11. Social Participation 12. Year of immigration 13. Total acreage farmed 14. Acres in strawberry 15. Acres - other agriculture 16. Gross sales - all agr. 17. Gross sales - strawberry 18. Gross sales - all other agr. 19. Tenure 20. Off-farm work 21. Labour employed 22. Farm Value 23. Office Visits - Dis. Hon. .33 -.09 .11 -.08 .27 .12 .05 . 16 .10 .03 . 13 06 .21 .28 .21 . 18 . 10 .22 .09 _ .13 .22 . 11 1.00 24. Office Visits - other agents .27 -.30 .00 .13 .20 .32 .26 .04 .19 -.03 .34 14 .30 .26 .27 .28 .22 .25 -.01 03 .22 .29 .30 1.00 25. Telephone - Dis. Hon. .58 -.06 .24 .13 .36 .23 .31 . 12 .06 .12 .39 - 06 .44 .57 .45 .41 .48 .56 .09 10 .53 .36 .53 .27 1.00 > 26. 27. Telephone - other agents Farm Visits - Dis. Hon. . 15 .51 -.14 .00 -.07 .17 .36 .14 .19 .18 .24 .13 .43 .26 -. 11 . 19 V 2 2 *. 15 .11 .18 .41 .37 04 06 .48 .46 .41 .52 .48 .45 .46 .40 .44 .48 .39 .49 .07 .07 .05 .07 .40 .48 .42 .41 .07 .44 .54 .23 .33 .60 1.00 .22 1.00 28. Farm Visits - other agents .23 -.15 -.01 • 31 .22 .23 .45 -.01 -.08 .18 • 49 04 .57 .49 .56 .55 .50 .44 .19 - 18 .49 .50 .13 • 36 • 36 • 72 .36 1.00 29. Circular letters - Dis. Hort. .45 -.24 -.16 .33 .36 .15 .26 .01 -.04 .17 .55 _ 10 .39 .43 .39 .37 .33 .33 .16 _ 05 .31 .27 .27 .16 .49 .28 .32 .41 1.00 30. Circular letters - Other agents .35 -.05 .12 .20 .26 .10 .31 .19 -.11 .15 .48 03 .46 .36 .48 .47 .39 .45 .10 - 11 .28 .39 .26 .39 .31 .54 .37 .57 .38 1.00 31. Radio - Dis. Hort. .35 -.07 .12 -.10 .27 .22 .11 -.02 -.06 .01 .15 07 -.03 .12 .05 .05 .08 .12 .10 13 .11 -.11 .20 .13 .25 .15 .26 .13 .15 .11 1.00 32. Radio - Other agents .36 . 11 .15 -.14 .06 . 11 -.11 . 10 .04 .04 . 10 - 02 .17 .24 .15 .17 .21 . 15 .00 - 06 .31 .12 .21 .11 .25 .13 .39 .24 .17 .16 .41 1.00 33. Television - Dis. Hort. .08 .08 .23 .13 .14 .03 .03 . 14 .19 .11 .14 13 .12 .17 .27 .13 .13 .26 .09 05 .22 .12 .29 .04 .30 -.02 .32 .08 .21 .20 ' .09 -.05 1.00 34. Television - Other agents .25 -.11 .05 .14 .25 .13 .14 .17 -.02 .14 .39 - 19 .43 .35 .43 .32 .31 . 18 .06 01 .38 .34 .33 .31 .27 .29 .30 .33 .31 .34 .06 -.23 .17 35. Newspapers - Dis. Hort. .40 -.18 .00 .10 .35 .12 .28 .09 -.03 .11 .39 - 06 .37 .41 .34 .31 .21 .27 .21 - 00 .30 .27 .49 .36 .49 .32 .26 .36 .51 .31 .28 .16 . 14 36. Newspapers - Other agents .28 -.16 -.12 .20 .16 .25 .16 -.07 -.14 .01 .40 - 11 • 29 .26 .26 .21 .11- . 14 .15 05 .22 .22 .22 .28 .24 .33 .15 .35 • 50 .32 .03 .21 .03 37. Meetings - L.M.H.I.A. .31 -.19 . 10 .17 .47 .31 .21 . 12 .02 .20 .45 08 .47 .39 .49 .38 .37 .38 .12 _ 11 .36 .40 .29 .23 .34 .27 .42 .43 .40 .36 . .23 .22 .22 38. Local Meetings, F. Days, Dem. .23 -.18 .04 .23 .33 .00 .28 . 10 -.07 .10 .48 - 03 .54 .46 .58 .61 .51 .57 .35 - .26 .48 .52 .32 .31 .33 .32 .41 .49 .40 .48 .02 .08 .22 39. Short Courses (1966) .26 -.01 .16 .08 .70 .26 .15 .19 -.01 .15 .40 17 .39 .36 .44 .33 .36 .32 .11 - .10 .32 .35 .35 .22 .38 .20 .39 .22 .39 .34 .29 .19 .23 40. Short Courses (1967) .36 -.17 .12 .07 .52 .16 .22 .05 -.04 .15 .32 27 .36 .35 .38 .40 .33 .37 .01 - .13 .31 .32 .38 .30 .39 .32 .32 .33 .29 .35 .34 .27 .13 41. Extension Contact (All) .58 -.24 .05 .20 .44 .26 .39 .11 -.07 . 14 .58 - 08 .55 .58 .54 .53 .49 .50 .20 - .04 .52 .46 .50 .40 .67 .50 .54 .59 .73 .58 , .36 .45 .21 42. Extension Contact - Dis. Hort. .64 -.15 .08 .12 :43 .17 .32 . 11 -.01 .08 .48 - 03 .37 .49 .39 .36 .35 .47 .08 .01 .39 .26 .61 .27 .76 .28 .60 .34 .63 .38 .47 .36 .34 43. Personal Contact (All) .51 -.15 .13 .25 .35 .30 .43 .09 -.02 .16 .51 - 04 .61 .63 .59 .57 .57 .57 .13 - .07 .60 .52 .59 .58 .78 .69 .71 .73 .48 .59 .28 .33 .26 44. Impersonal Contact (All) .55 -.15 .05 .20 .39 .24 .28 . 12 -.07 .15 .58 - 09 .50 .52 .49 .46 .39 .39 .19 - .01 .46 .37 .47 .41 .55 .48 .49 .57 .72 .65 .41 .49 .27 45. Personal Contact - Dis. Hort. .58 -.06 .22 .08 .33 .20 .25 . 19 .12 .14 .36 - 07 .45 .56 .46 .41 .44 .53 .10 - .03 .51 .36 .78 .32 .88 .26 .82 .35 .45 .38 ' .29 .34 .37 46. Impersonal Contact - Dis. Hort. .53 -.21 .01 .20 .44 .20 .30 .06 -.02 .15 .51 - 08 .37 .46 .40 .36 .31 .36 .22 .03 .37 .24 .47 .29 .60 .33 .41 .42 .81 .40 .53 .28 .37 1.00 -.16 -.23 1.00 .74 1.00 .29 .33 1.00 .58 NOTE: The underlined coefficients show a high degree of association. A significance test for r was carried out using the null hypothesis of no correlation with a .01 level of significance. The test is based on the assumption that under the null hypothesis of no correlation, the sampling distribution of the correlation coefficient can be approximated closely with a normal curve having the mean 0 and the standard deviation 1/ J n - 1 where n = the sample size. Therefore, the criterion is to reject the null hypothesis if r < -2.58/ J n - 1 or r > 2.58 / J n - 1. 57 Education The median educational l e v e l of the sample was 5-8 years of school completed with 46 per cent of respondents included i n t h i s category. Thirty-one per cent had progressed "beyond this stage with 9-H years of formal education, but did not complete high school. Of the 15 per cent completing at least grade 12, 5 Per cent attended some university, but only 2 received a un i v e r s i t y degree. Seven per cent may be c l a s s i f i e d as functional i l l i t e r a t e s with less than 5 years of schooling. The better educated respondents also had wives with higher educational attainment (r=.39); they were less exper-ienced farmers (r=.29) and par t i c i p a t e d to a greater extent i n voluntary organizations (r=.31). Only a very small per-centage of respondents (7*0 per cent) reported having had vocational t r a i n i n g i n agriculture, agriculture i n high school (5»0 per cent) or agriculture f o r credit at university (2.0 per cent). There was no re l a t i o n s h i p between educational l e v e l and adoption. Education of the Wife Two of the respondents were married females including one widow who indicated that they were responsible f o r the management of the farm operations; t h e i r educational l e v e l i s , therefore, discussed within the previous paragraph. Nine respondents were single, and f i v e respondents claimed not to know the relevant information. 58 The median category of 9-H years included 21 per cent of respondents' wives. Nineteen per cent completed grade school; four individuals had gone on to u n i v e r s i t y , butvnone received a degree. Five per cent can be c l a s s i f i e d as functional i l l i t e r a t e s . In general, excluding the university l e v e l which i s only relevant to a n e g l i g i b l e number of individuals i n the sample, a larger percentage of wives had completed t h e i r education within the categories between grades 5 to 1 3 ; and were, therefore, better educated than t h e i r husbands. Wives with higher le v e l s of formal education were married to better educated operators who had large, higher valued farms with higher gross sales of strawberry and of t o t a l a g r i c u l t u r a l products. The education of the spouse was also p o s i t i v e l y cor-related (r=.48) with the l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n voluntary organizations. There i s no relationship with adoption at the . 01 l e v e l , (Table I ) , but there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n (r=.24) at the .05 l e v e l . A g r i c u l t u r a l Adult Education F i f t y per cent of the respondents reported having taken adult education courses i n agriculture. The percentage i s perhaps somewhat surprising, considering that the Lower Main-land H o r t i c u l t u r a l Improvement Association^ has been conducting Referred to hereafter as L.M.H.I.A. 5 9 annual 2-day short courses, which are of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t to small f r u i t producers, over the past 9 years. The low l e v e l of attendance i s further borne out by the reported attendance f o r 1 9 6 6 and 1 9 6 7 . Forty-one per cent attended i n 1 9 6 6 , with 2 5 per cent attending both days; i n 1 9 6 7 29 per cent attended with only 1 7 per cent attending on both days. Respondents were also questioned concerning t h e i r attend-ance at sim i l a r annual short courses held i n the State of Washington. Ten per cent reported attendance i n 1 9 6 6 and 6 per cent i n 1 9 6 ? . Attendance at a g r i c u l t u r a l adult education courses and other extension a c t i v i t i e s such as meetings of the L.M.H.I.A., f i e l d days and demonstrations was higher among those respond-ents with higher lev e l s of s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n ; they owned larger, higher valued farms with larger acreages i n straw-berry and other a g r i c u l t u r a l enterprises which gave them higher gross income from the sale of farm products. Bigger farm operators, therefore, exhibited a greater tendency to seek information pertaining to successful farming. Among the immigrant population ( 5 4 per cent), the most recent immigrants are more l i k e l y to have attended adult education courses ( r = . 2 7 at the . 0 5 level) i n 1 9 6 7 . There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between a g r i c u l t u r a l adult education courses i n 1 9 6 6 and adoption. Attendance at meetings of the L.M.H.I.A. ( r = . 3 1 ) and attendance at the 6o 1967 2-day short course (r=.36) correlated p o s i t i v e l y with adoption. The relationship between a g r i c u l t u r a l adult educa-t i o n and extension contact i s discussed under the l a t t e r section. Unlike the e a r l i e r study by Verner and M i l l e r d , the present study does not provide a means of measuring the l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n by the respondents at the p a r t i c u l a r educational a c t i v i t y . It i s not possible, therefore, to separate those individuals who are most l i k e l y to have bene-f i t t e d from "active p a r t i c i p a t i o n " i n the i n s t r u c t i o n a l process. A s i g n i f i c a n t relationship at the .05 l e v e l was obtained by the use of the chi-square s t a t i s t i c , on the basis of the hypothesis that attendance at adult education courses i n 1966 -the independent variable - determined the l e v e l of adoption (or adopter category) of the respondent. Analysis with respect to adopter categories i s discussed i n Chapter V. General Adult Education Twenty-nine per cent of respondents reported having attended general adult education courses. A p o s i t i v e cor-r e l a t i o n (r=.27) indicates that respondents who spent a larger proportion of t h e i r time on off-farm jobs were most l i k e l y to have attended non-agricultural adult education courses. C. Verner and F. W. M i l l e r d , OJJ. c i t . 61 Years on Present Farm The median category of 10-19 years on the present farm included the largest number (40 per cent) of the respondents. T h i r t y - s i x per cent reported less than 10 years, while 2 5 per cent reported 20 or more years on the present farm. The long established respondents had the greatest amount of both general farming experience (r=.5l) and experience i n strawberry c u l -t i v a t i o n (r=.45). They operated the larger (r=.38), more highly valued farms ( r = . 3 2 ) , and were more l i k e l y to have d i v e r s i f i e d t h e i r a g r i c u l t u r a l enterprises (r=.40). Such operators spent the least amount of time, i f any, on off-farm jobs ( r = . 3 1 ) . Immigration More than half (54 per cent) of the respondents were immigrants to Canada, with an equal proportion coming from both eastern Europe and the Russian-Ukraine region. The next largest group of immigrants-.(8 per cent) were from Japan. Most.of the immigrants ( 3 1 per cent) migrated before 1945. Farming Experience The respondents were la r g e l y experienced farmers, 66 per cent having been i n agriculture f o r 20 years or more. Only 28 per cent had been grox^ing strawberries f o r such a long period. Older farmers, which also included the e a r l i e s t immigrants, had both more general farming experience and 6 2 s p e c i f i c experience with the strawberry crop. The majority of operators (40 per cent) reported 1 0 - 1 9 years of experience with the crop; 1 3 per cent of the respondents reported less than 1 0 years of a g r i c u l t u r a l experience while as much as 3 2 per cent had the same li m i t e d experience with strawberry c u l t i v a t i o n . Educational l e v e l correlated negatively with both aspects of a g r i c u l t u r a l experience, but was only s i g n i f i c a n t with reference to general farming experience (r=.29). Operators ^ who spent a considerable proportion of t h e i r time i n off-farm jobs were also r e l a t i v e newcomers among strawberry growers (r=.28). S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n 5 Chapin's S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale was used to measure the degree of s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n . While church membership was not, membership i n church-related organizations was included. The median scale score of 5 to 14 included 42 per cent of the respondents, thereby i n d i c a t i n g an o v e r a l l low l e v e l of s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Twenty-five respondents had a score of less than 5 » with 1 6 per cent recording zero; 1 7 per cent scored 2 5 or above. Among the personal characteris-t i c s , s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n showed the highest p o s i t i v e 5P . s . Chapin, S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1 9 3 8 . The scale allows a score of 1 fo r membership i n an organization, 2 f o r attendance, 3 f o r f i n a n c i a l contribution, 4 fo r membership on a committee and 5 f o r holding o f f i c e . 63 c o r r e l a t i o n (r=.42) with adoption. The more highly educated respondents (r=.3 l )^ with better educated wives (r=.48) had higher l e v e l s of s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n . S i g n i f i c a n t but lower po s i t i v e correlations were also obtained with a g r i c u l t u r a l adult education (r=.27) and years on the present farm (r=.28). (See Table I.) The measurement of s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n also i l l u s t r a t e s the d e f i n i t e block pattern of c o r r e l a t i o n significance which i s very evident i n Table I. This no doubt arises from the multiple-aspect measurement of the size of the farming enter-prise (acreage and sales) and of extension contact (personal and impersonal). The consistent i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r a number of these variables i s discussed l a t e r . High levels of s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n were c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of those respondents with large, high valued farms who received bigger gross a g r i c u l t u r a l incomes. A s i m i l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p obtains f o r personal extension contact by telephone and farm v i s i t s , and f o r impersonal extension contact involving mail and newspaper 7 a r t i c l e s , with reference to both the D.H. and other agents. Contact by radio i s not s i g n i f i c a n t , but there i s a posi t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n with the use of t e l e v i s i o n , as a single channel of impersonal contact, with other agents. The r e l a t i o n s h i p A s i m i l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p has been observed by Coolie •Verner and John S. Newberry, J r . , "The Nature of Adult P a r t i c i p a t i o n . " Adult Education. 8:208-222, Summer, 1958; and by C. Verner and P. M. Gubbels, op_. c i t . , p. 11. ^ D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t . 64 with impersonal extension contact i s at a lower l e v e l of sig n i f i c a n c e , compared to personal contact. Findings concerning personal contact, especially by telephone, i l l u s t r a t e s a d i f f e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p to the 8 findings of Verner and Gubbels • among dairy farmers i n the Fraser Valley. The combined measurements of various aspects of extension contact emphasize the consistency of the r e l a -tionship previously mentioned. S o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s p o s i t i v e l y related to adoption, and with attendance at the adult education short courses' held by the L.M.H.I.A. II.' ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS Economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , with s p e c i a l reference to acreage and sales are consistently related to adoption. Farm Operations A large majority of the respondents (80 per cent) reported small f r u i t as t h e i r major farming enterprise. Six per cent reported vegetables as the major operation, while 4 per cent were mainly i n dairying or poultry. Other miscellaneous major enterprises included beef c a t t l e or hogs, potatoes, green-houses and seed production. Secondary enterprises were d i s t r i b u t e d among 54 per cent of the res-pondents with 19 per cent i n d i c a t i n g small f r u i t and 10 per C. Verner and P. M. Gubbels, op_. cit., p. 11. 6 5 cent vegetables. In addition, 7 per cent mentioned beef c a t t l e or hogs, while dairying, poultry and potatoes were each reported by 5 per cent of the respondents. Farm Size Total farm size ranged from less than 3 acres to over 180 acres. The median category ( 5 to less than 1 5 acres) included 3 7 per cent of a l l respondents, with the next l a r g -est group (22 per cent) being i n the 1 5 to less than 3 0 acres category. Nine per cent had farms exceeding 5 0 acres, while 17 operators managed holdings less than 5 acres. Respondents with large farms also had the largest acreages i n strawberry (r=.8l) and i n other a g r i c u l t u r a l enterprises (r= . 9 4 ) . Sixty-four of the 81 operators with a t o t a l acreage of less than 3 0 acres and 7 of the eleven operators with 120 acres or more reported small f r u i t as t h e i r major enterprises. One half of the respondents, includ-ing 4 l of the 64 operators who were predominantly strawberry growers c u l t i v a t e d less than 5 acres of strawberry, with 3 3 per cent reporting less than 3 acres. Thirty-one per cent reported between 5 to 1 5 acres, 12 per cent between 1 6 to 49 acres, and 7 per cent 5 0 or more acres. A l l operators with 3 0 or more acres i n strawberry had farms of at least 5 0 acres. Secondary enterprises were reported by 21 of the 24 operators with more than 3 0 acres, but only by about one half of the 76 operators with less .than 3 0 acres. F i f t e e n res-pondents did not have improved acreage devoted to a g r i c u l t u r a l 6 6 operations besides strawberry c u l t i v a t i o n . Twenty-nine per cent reported less than 5 acres, 3 8 per cent between 1 5 to 2 9 acres and 1 0 per cent 8 0 or more acres. Secondary enter-prises were mostly small f r u i t , dairying, c a t t l e , poultry, vegetables or potatoes. Adoption was p o s i t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to t o t a l farm acreage ( r = . 3 5 ) » acreage i n strawberry ( r = . 5 2 ) , and to acreage i n other a g r i c u l t u r a l enterprises ( r = . 3 3 ) . Large scale operators with larger acreages i n strawberry or other a g r i c u l t u r a l enterprises were therefore much more advanced i n the adoption of improved practices. Gross A g r i c u l t u r a l Income One respondent refused to give information relevant to sales; 3 others reported no sales from agriculture i n 1 9 6 6 . Eighteen per cent of the respondents reported less than $3000 sales from a l l farm products, compared to 3 5 per cent f o r gross income from strawberry only. The median category f o r t o t a l a g r i c u l t u r a l sales was approximately # 5 , 0 0 0 - $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 , compared to $ 3 , 0 0 0 - $ 5 , 0 0 0 f o r strawberry sales only. Gross a g r i c u l t u r a l sales exceeded $ 5 5 » ° 0 0 f o r 1 5 operators, compared t>0 1 0 operators f o r strawberry sales only. More than one quarter ( 2 8 per cent) of the operators did not receive income from the sale of other a g r i c u l t u r a l products i n 1 9 6 6 . Thirty-one per cent received less than $ 5 , 0 0 0 , while 1 0 per cent received more than $ 4 0 , 0 0 0 . As 6 7 seen i n Table I, there i s the expected rela t i o n s h i p between acreage and sales i n a l l respects. Most of the respondents receiving more than $15,000 gross t o t a l sales were predominantly small f r u i t growers, with poultry and vegetables second i n importance. Among those reporting the highest gross incomes from other a g r i c u l t u r a l products, besides strawberry, the major farm enterprises were mainly dairying, poultry and vegetables. A l l gross measurements of a g r i c u l t u r a l income were consistently and p o s i t i v e l y related with adoption. i Tenure Eighty respondents owned t h e i r holdings completely, while 1 3 per cent reported a combination of more than half ownership and r e n t a l . Two respondents reported entire r e n t a l arrangements, while one was a manager. Higher lev e l s of ownership was p o s i t i v e l y related with attendance at s p e c i f i c a g r i c u l t u r a l extension a c t i v i t i e s such as l o c a l meetings, f i e l d days and demonstrations. Labour Employed f o r Harvesting Ten respondents reported that they did not employ labour for harvesting i n 1966; of t h i s number 6 had less than 3 acres i n strawberries and 4 had between 3 - 4 acres. Three of them did not receive any income from strawberries i n 1966 and 6 received less than $3,000. During the interview, i t was .evident that some small operators harvest t h e i r crop using family labour only, or i n combination with the "U-Plck" 6 8 system whereby the "buyer picks the crop himself. Most farmers ( 5 3 per cent) employed 2 5 pickers or l e s s . Each of the 7 operators with 5 0 or more acres i n strawberry employed at least 2 0 0 pickers; two operators with more than 8 0 acres employed more than 600 pickers each. The expected r e l a t i o n s h i p between the employment of labour and the acreage-gross income, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i s evident i n Table I (r ranging between . 7 7 and . 8 8 ) . Farm Value Estimated farm value ranged between less than $5,000 t o more than $ 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 , with the median category of $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 to $ 5 9 , 0 0 0 including 3 6 respondents; the same percentage valued t h e i r farms between $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 to $ 2 9 , 0 0 0 . Three farms were valued at less than $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 , and 14 at more than $ 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 . Farmers i n areas with a considerable pot e n t i a l f o r housing and i n d u s t r i a l development mentioned, i n p a r t i c u l a r , the i n f l a t e d value of farm land i n t h e i r v i c i n i t y . The block pattern of s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s i l l u s t r a t e s the expected consistent re l a t i o n s h i p between farm value and a l l acreage measurements (r ranging between . 8 to . 9 ) . Operators with higher valued farms were resident on the same farms for longer periods ( r = . 3 2 ) and exhibited a higher l e v e l of practice adoption ( r = . 3 2 ) . 6 9 III . EXTENSION CONTACT The reported distr ibution of the use of 7 different sources of information with reference to both the D.H. and other agricultural agents, with whom the respondent may have had contact during 1 9 6 6 , is shown i n Table I I . TABLE II PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TYPES OF CONTACT, DISTRICT HORTICULTURIST AND OTHER AGRICULTURAL AGENTS Dis tr ic t Other Agents Hort iculturist Type of Contact Channel Respondents1 Use of Contact Non-use Use of Contact. Non-use % % % % 1 . V i s i t to office of agent 4 3 5 7 14. 8 6 •Telephone cal ls to agent 6 3 3 7 3 1 6 9 3 . Farm v i s i t s by the agent 5 6 4 4 3 7 6 3 4 . Circular le t ters , bul let ins , pamphlets from the agent 8 2 18 3 8 6 2 5 . Radio announcements by the agent 2 7 7 3 4 3 5 7 6 . Television programs by the agent 1 1 8 9 4 4 5 6 7 . Newspaper ar t ic le by the agent 64 3 6 6 9 3 1 Use of % Contact Non-use /o 8. Attendance at local meetings, f i e l d days, demonstrations sponsored by the Dis tr ic t Hort-i c u l t u r i s t , Dis tr ic t Agriculturist or the ' . L .M.H.I .A . 48 5 2 7 0 The d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r contact item No. 8 i s more general i n that i t also included educational a c t i v i t i e s which may have been sponsored primarily by the L.M.H.I.A. The D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t Personal type contact with the D.H. including o f f i c e v i s i t s , telephone c a l l s and farm v i s i t s , averaged 5 4 Per cent with a high 6 3 per cent f o r telephone contact. There were more users than non-users f o r both telephone ( 6 3 per cent) and farm v i s i t s ( 5 6 per cent), but less f o r v i s i t s to the agent's o f f i c e ( 4 3 per cent). 9 The detailed d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r i n t e n s i t y of use i s given i n Appendix I. For purposes of discussion, the "seldom-occasionally" response range i s considered as low i n t e n s i t y and the "frequently-very frequently" response range as high i n t e n s i t y . Of the 6 3 per cent users of telephone contact, 3 6 reported low i n t e n s i t y use compared to 2 7 per cent at the high l e v e l . For farm v i s i t s , 4 4 per cent indicated low l e v e l use, compared to 1 2 per cent at the high l e v e l . Thirty-three per cent were low l e v e l v i s i t o r s to the o f f i c e of the D.H. compared to the 1 0 per cent at the high l e v e l . There was, therefore, twice as much higher i n t e n s i t y telephone contact, compared to the use of other contact channels. 'The possible responses f o r each i n d i v i d u a l contact channel ranged between "seldom", "occasionally", "frequently" and "very frequently". . . • • 71 The l e v e l of personal contact obtained i n t h i s study-exceeds any other observed i n the l i t e r a t u r e f o r the same 3 channels. The 54 per cent average i s more than twice the c a l -culated average from data reported by Rogers and Capener"1"0 f o r Ohio farmers (25 per cent), Rogers and Havens"'"''' f o r farm 12-housewives (20 per cent), and data by Verner and Gubbels f o r dairymen i n the Fraser Va l l e y of B r i t i s h Columbia (22.3 per cent). ' Impersonal type contact f o r the 4 channels average 46 per cent, with the highest percentage use (82 per cent) f o r mail received and read. There were more users than non-users f o r mail and newspaper a r t i c l e s (64 per cent), but less users f o r radio announcements (27 per cent) and t e l e v i s i o n announce-ments (11 per cent). The i n t e n s i t y of use i s generally lower f o r t h i s type of. contact, except i n the case of mail; 22 per cent were low i n t e n s i t y users, compared to 60 per cent at the high l e v e l . There was 22 per cent high i n t e n s i t y users of newspaper a r t i c l e s , compared to 42 per cent at the low l e v e l . The lowest i n t e n s i t y use was reported f o r radio and t e l e v i s i o n . High i n t e n s i t y users d i d not exceed 4 per cent f o r either 1 0 E . M. Rogers and H. R. Capener, OJD. c i t . , p. 11. ^•4s... M. Rogers and A. E. Havens, Extension Contact of Ohio  Farm Housewives, Ohio A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station, Wooster, Ohio, November, 1961, (Research B u l l e t i n 890), p. 4. 12 C. Verner and P. M. Gubbels, op_. c i t . , p. 22. 72 channel, v/hile 8 and 23 per cent were reported f o r low l e v e l usage of t e l e v i s i o n and radio respectively. The o v e r a l l average f o r impersonal type contact i n t h i s study i s approximately 10 per cent lower compared to the average f o r the three previously c i t e d studies. Except f o r the 13 study by Rogers and Havens, the average i s lower i n each instance. On closer inspection, however, i t i s observed that Verner and Gubbels did not include t e l e v i s i o n i n t h e i r data, and that the Ohio studies used a combined percentage figure f o r "T.V. or radio". Using a s i m i l a r combination f o r t h i s data removes the effect of the low percentage use (11 per cent) of t e l e v i s i o n ; the r e s u l t i n g average of 57 per cent then also 15 exceeds the average f o r Verner and Gubbels' ^ data. While the l e v e l of usage f o r newspaper a r t i c l e s and mail i s higher i n comparison with the other studies, the use of T.V. or radio i s consistently lower. During the interviews, a number of res-pondents claimed not to have time to l i s t e n to the radio, and that they were never aware of the times at which relevant pro-grammes were, being broadcast. Other Agents The average percentage (27 per cent) users of personal ^ E . M. Rogers and A. E. Havens, O J D. c i t . , p. 6. 14 C. Verner and P. M. Gubbels, op_. c i t . , p. 22. 1 5 I b i d . 73 type contact with other a g r i c u l t u r a l agents was about half the number f o r the D.H., with lower figures f o r each i n d i v i d u a l contact channel. Approximately one-third of the respondents reported contact by telephone and farm v i s i t s . This i s to be expected considering that 72 per cent of the respondents indicated having 3 acres or more i n a g r i c u l t u r a l enterprises besides strawberries. Also, many small f r u i t growers are l i k e l y to have contact with agents who have a special respons-i b i l i t y f o r other crops besides strawberries or f o r general extension work. Impersonal type contact was about the same l e v e l , compared to reported data f o r the D.H. The average percentage users f o r a l l channels was 48.5 per cent. Percentages f o r i n d i v i d u a l channel usage were higher f o r radio and T.V., s i m i l a r f o r news-paper a r t i c l e s , but almost three times less f o r mail. Forty-eight per cent of the respondents reported p a r t i c -i p a t i o n i n l o c a l meetings, f i e l d days or demonstrations 16 organized by the D.H., D.A. or L.M.H.I.A. Extension Contact Scales The extension contact scale, established by Rogers and 17 Capener, was used to measure s p e c i f i c a l l y o v e r a l l contact between the respondent and the D.H. for t h i s study, however, the scale i s s l i g h t l y modified since T.V. i s i s o l a t e d from " ^ D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r i s t . 17 'E. M. Rogers and H. Capener, op_. c i t . , p. 14. 7 4 radio; also, there i s no score f o r meetings, f i e l d days and demonstrations — a single item i n the Rogers and Capener scale — since the relevant question i n the interview schedule was not s p e c i f i c to the D.H. only. Eleven per cent of the respondents had no contact what-soever with the D.H. during 1 9 & 6 . Sixteen per cent of the respondents had the median score of 4 contact channels. On the average, each respondent i n the t o t a l sample used 3 ' ^ channel contacts. Considering only those who had contact with the D.H., the average was 3 « 9 (Table I I I ) . TABLE III PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY EXTENSION CONTACT SCORE (Rogers and Havens Scale) -Extension Contact Score Respondents % 0 11 1 7 2 1 6 3 14 4* 16 5 21 6 1 3 7 * 2 Total 100 * Median The percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r an extended type of contact scale which takes into consideration the reported frequency, or i n t e n s i t y , of use of each contact channel i s 75 given i n Table IV. Scoring was on the basis of 1 f o r seldom, 2 f o r occasionally, 3 f o r frequently and 4 f o r very frequently. It i s a combined score f o r a l l 7 channel contacts relevant to both the D.H. and other agents, and has a score range of 0 to 5 6 . TABLE IV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY AN EXTENDED EXTENSION CONTACT SCORE, DISTRICT HORTICULTURIST AND OTHER AGENTS Extension Contact Score Respondents % 0 5 Less than 5 16 5 - 1 0 1 6 11 - 20* 3 8 21 - 40 2 3 More than 40 2 Total 100 * Median Five per cent of the respondents did not have any contact with any agent during 1 9 6 6 . The median score category of 1 1 to 2 0 included 3 8 per cent of the respondents; 2 5 per cent scored above the median. Extension Contact and Adoption As seen i n Table X, personal-type contact i s consistently related to the size of the farm operation and gross a g r i c u l -t u r a l income. There i s a s i m i l a r but less consistent trend 7 6 f o r irapersonal-type contact. In addition, there i s an i n t e r -r e l a t i o n s h i p "between i n d i v i d u a l contact channels within any single type — personal or impersonal — of contact, and between the two types. Bigger farm operators with higher a g r i c u l t u r a l incomes and higher lev e l s of s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , both of which are indicators of socio-economic status, had more frequent personal contact by telephone and farm v i s i t s with the D.H. and with other agents. P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a g r i c u l t u r a l adult education, and the educational l e v e l of the farm wife were s i g n i f i c a n t f o r contact by telephone. I t became evident during the i n t e r -view that i t was not uncommon, i n some instances, f o r the operator's wife to speak to the D.H. on the telephone concern-ing information relevant to the farm enterprise. The data indicates that participants i n a g r i c u l t u r a l adult education were more l i k e l y to seek out the change agent either by t e l e -phone or by v i s i t i n g him i n his o f f i c e to obtain desired inform-ation. The use of a l l three personal contact channels were s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to adoption, with the highest values for telephone (r= . 5 8 ) and farm v i s i t s (r= . 5 1 ) i n r e l a t i o n to the D.H. Educational l e v e l both of the operator and his wife were s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to contact by telephone and farm v i s i t s by other agents. The i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p of i n d i v i d u a l contact channels within a single type indicate c l e a r l y a tendency f o r respond-ents to seek information on a multi-channel basis. Positive 77 s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r - c o r r e l a t i o n s include o f f i c e v i s i t s and t e l e -phone contact with the D.H.' (r=.53), farm v i s i t s and telephone contact with the D.H. (r= . 6 0 ) . A l l three personal-type con-tact channels are s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t e r - c o r r e l a t e d . The trend also extends to contact with other agents as i l l u s t r a t e d by the r e l a t i o n s h i p between telephone contact and farm v i s i t s (r= . 7 2 ) . Large farm operators with high lev e l s of s o c i a l part-i c i p a t i o n and more education used mail contact to a greater extent. The educational l e v e l of the farm wife was s i g n i f i -cant f o r the use of th i s channel relevant to other agents. Participants i n a g r i c u l t u r a l adult education were more l i k e l y to use a l l impersonal contact channels, except t e l e v i s i o n , relevant to the D.H. Multi-channel impersonal contact usage i s evident from the re l a t i o n s h i p between mall and newspaper a r t i c l e s f o r the D.H. (r=.5D.and f o r other agents (r= . 3 2 ) . P a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s indicated a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between adoption and two types of impersonal contact with both the D.H. and other agents. These were mail contact (r=.45; r=.35) and newspaper a r t i c l e s (r=.40; r= , 2 8 ) . Also, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r contact with the D.H. through radio (r=.35). Where the' r e l a t i o n s h i p extends to other agents, the c o r r e l a t i o n value f o r the agent s p e c i f i c to the innovations under consideration i s consistently higher. Multi-channel contact i s also evident from the r e l a t i o n -ship between i n d i v i d u a l channels of d i f f e r e n t types. Combined 7 8 measurements of p e r s o n a l and. i m p e r s o n a l c o n t a c t g i v e s i g n i f i c a n t h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n s r e l e v a n t to the D . H . and o t h e r agents ( r = ^ ? 2 ) , and f o r the D . H . s e p a r a t e l y ( r = . 6 0 ) . I n t h i s s t u d y , the h i g h e s t s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s r e l e v a n t to a d o p t i o n are o b t a i n e d w i t h r e f e r e n c e to e x t e n s i o n c o n t a c t . 'A p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of .94 was o b t a i n e d between a d o p t i o n s c o r e and adopter c a t e g o r y , thus i n d i c a t i n g an e x c e l l e n t d i s t r i b u t i o n of the s cores as used i n the a n a l y s i s . O u t s t a n d i n g s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s at the . 0 1 l e v e l a r e : 1 . E x t e n s i o n c o n t a c t w i t h the D . H . (Rogers and Capener s c a l e ) : . . 0 . 6 4 2 . Extended e x t e n s i o n c o n t a c t s c a l e ; a l l agents : 0 . 5 8 3 . P e r s o n a l c o n t a c t w i t h the D . H . : 0 . 5 8 4. Impersona l c o n t a c t w i t h the D . H . : Q . 5 3 5 . P e r s o n a l c o n t a c t ; D . H . and o t h e r agents : 0 . 5 1 6. Impersona l c o n t a c t ; D . H . and o ther agents : , 0 . 5 5 W h i l e i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o "be c a u t i o u s a g a i n s t c o n c l u d i n g a c a s u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p due t o the ex pos t f a c t o n a t u r e of the c o r r e l a t i o n d e s i g n , the c o n s i s t e n c y of the r e l a t i o n s h i p does emphasize the p o t e n t i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s v a r i a b l e . C o n t a c t w i t h the D . H . by the Rogers and Havens C o n t a c t S c a l e g i v e s the s t r o n g e s t combined r e l a t i o n s h i p . P e r s o n a l c o n t a c t w i t h the change a g e n t , s p e c i f i c to the r e l e v a n t p r a c t i c e s , -"-"Kenneth H . K u r t z , F o u n d a t i o n s of P s y c h o l o g i c a l Research (Boston: A l l y n and B a c o n , I n c . , 1 9 6 5 ) , p . 2 0 9 . 79 however i s most outstanding; t h i s fact becomes more evident when consideration i s given to farm v i s i t s and telephone con-ta c t . These two contact channels indicate the closest pos-s i b l e personal rel a t i o n s h i p between the agent and his c l i e n t e l e , since they occur with great frequency only when the agent-c l i e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p i s better than the average f o r the farm population as a whole. In p a r t i c u l a r , i t i s evident from the interviews that big operators tend to emphasize- subtley that the agent comes to the farm rather than the operator going to his o f f i c e . Detailed b i v a r i a t e or cross break analysis between the use of i n d i v i d u a l personal contact channels and adopter cate-gories support the implications of the p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n analysis. Twenty-two per cent of respondents reported not having any personal contact with the D.H. during 1 9 6 6 . In terms of adopter categories, 17 per cent were i n the laggard or late majority group, 4 per cent were early majority while one i n d i v i d u a l was c l a s s i f i e d i n the innovator-early adopter category. Of the 27 respondents who reported high i n t e n s i t y use of telephone contact, none were laggards, 5 were la t e majority and 11 were i n each of the early majority and innovator-early adopter categories. Of the 12 who reported high i n t e n s i t y farm v i s i t contacts, none were laggards, 1 was l a t e majority, 5 were early majority and 6 were i n the innovator-early 8 0 adopter category. Nine respondents reported high i n t e n s i t y contact by both telephone, and farm visits*, none were laggards, 1 was early majority, 3 were l a t e majority and 5 were i n the innovator-early adopter category. The analysis of impersonal contacts showed a si m i l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p with adoption. There were no early adopter-innovators or early majority respondents among those who reported no impersonal contact xtfith the D.H. This group included 6 (46.2 per cent) of the la t e majority and 7 (53«9 per cent) of the laggard respondents. IV. ETHNIC INFLUENCES In view of the poten t i a l c u l t u r a l influence that ethnic o r i g i n may exert i n the adoption of innovations, the data was further examined using ethnic o r i g i n as a dependent v a r i -able. The sample was divided into three groups f o r t h i s purpose; Menonites ( 3 2 per cent), Japanese ( 2 3 per cent) and the remaining respondents ( 4 5 per cent) c l a s s i f i e d as "Others". The majority of the Japanese respondents ( 6 5 . 2 per cent), and of those c l a s s i f i e d as others ( 5 1 per cent).were Canadian born, compared to only 1 9 . 2 per cent of the Menonites. The chi-square test at the . 0 1 l e v e l was then used with a hypothesis of no s i g n i f i c a n t difference, relevant to a number of socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , between the two groups. The v a r i -ables with which s i g n i f i c a n t differences were observed are shown i n Table V. 81 TABLE V STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT CHI-SQUARE VALUES FOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AGAINST ETHNIC ORIGIN Socio-Economic Ch a r a c t e r i s t i c Chi-square Value (S i g n i f i c a n t at . 0 1 level) A g r i c u l t u r a l adult education 17.0 Education 21.94 Vocational a g r i c u l t u r a l education 18.31 Wife's education 50.0 Years i n Strawberry 36.7 Years on the present farm 76.71 S o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n 22.0 Size of farm 14.0 Acreage i n strawberry 38.7 Acreage i n other a g r i c u l t u r a l enterprises 53•9 Gross t o t a l a g r i c u l t u r a l sales . 39.6 Gross t o t a l sales from strawberry 45.0 Gross t o t a l sales from other a g r i c u l t u r a l enterprises 55.14 Tenure 19.47 Off-farm work 16.04 Farm value 29.28 Telephone contact (D.H.) 28.37 Farm V i s i t s (D.H.) 40.42 Mail Contact with (D.H.) 18.21 Radio contact with (D.H.) 21.97 82 TABLE V STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT CHI-SQUARE VALUES FOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC. CHARACTERISTICS . . AGAINST ETHNIC ORIGIN (continued) Socio-Economi.c C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Chi-square Value. ( S i g n i f i c a n t at ,01 l e v e l ) Newspaper a r t i c l e s (D.H.) 28.04 Attendance at L.M.H.I.A. Short Course (1966) 35.46 Attendance at L.M.H.I.A. Short Course (1967) 37.7 Menonites reported considerably l e s s formal education, compared to other e t h n i c groups. Seventy-three per cent had 8 or l e s s years of s c h o o l i n g , compared to 43.5 per cent f o r Japanese and 4?.l per cent f o r respondents. The ed u c a t i o n a l l e v e l of wives was somewhat s i m i l a r l y d i s t r i b u t e d ; the percentages i n t h i s e d ucational category were 65.4 per cent (Menonites), 21.7 per cent (Japanese) and 35.3 per cent of the others. The apparent higher educational l e v e l of Japanese wives i s misleading s i n c e 26.1 per cent of the Japanese respondents were e i t h e r not married or d i d not i n d i c a t e the educational l e v e l of t h e i r wives. Menonites were a l s o the l e a s t a c t i v e i n terms of s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n . T h i r t y - f i v e per cent of t h i s group-had no score, compared to 13 per cent f o r Japanese and 7.8 per cent f o r others. On the other hand, both Japanese (78.2 per cent) and the other respondents (78.5 per cent) 83 were sim i l a r relevant to the median l e v e l of s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a -t i o n or above, compared to 6l.6 per cent of Menonites. Respondents c l a s s i f i e d as "others" had the larger, higher valued farms, the largest acreages i n strawberry and i n other a g r i c u l t u r a l enterprises; they, therefore, received the most t o t a l income from agr i c u l t u r e . Twice the proportion of Japanese, however, had other a g r i c u l t u r a l enterprises involving between 3 to 15 acres; the same proportion also received more gross sales from these enterprises. Complete farm ownership was also more c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Japanese respondents. Menonites seemed to concentrate more than a l l others on strawberry c u l t i v a t i o n , with twice as many ind i v i d u a l s , compared to other groups, reporting between 0 to 3 acres only, i n other a g r i c u l t u r a l enterprises. This i s perhaps par t l y explained by the fact that a larger proportion also spent more than half t h e i r normal working hours on off-farm jobs, thus not permitting much time f o r the operation on a large scale of d i f f e r e n t a g r i c u l t u r a l enterprises with varied management requirements. Personal contact with the D.H. was lowest among the Japanese population, and highest among those respondents who were neither Menonite or Japanese. More than half the Japanese farmers (57 per cent) compared to 46 per cent of Menonites, and 23 Per cent of the t h i r d group reported no telephone contact. A s i m i l a r pattern was observed f o r farm v i s i t s , 84 with 70 per cent of the Japanese farmers reporting no contact. While 28 per cent Menonites and 23 per cent of the "others" had high l e v e l contact by farm v i s i t s , only 4.4 per cent Japanese farmers f e l l i n thi s category. The chi-square test did not reveal any s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the groups f o r o f f i c e v i s i t s . Japanese respondents also reported the lowest l e v e l of contact by radio; twice as many Menonites, compared to a l l other groups reported radio contact. The t h i r d group indicated a' s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher contact l e v e l by means of newspaper a r t i c l e s . CHAPTER V ADOPTER CATEGORIES AND THE ADOPTION OF INNOVATIONS Analysis of the data with reference to the,adoption of innovations has shown a d i s t r i b u t i o n i n adoption performance which f i t s the normally observed d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r a population of farmers. I t was possible, therefore, to use the c l a s s i c pattern of adopter categories devised by Rogers.^ The con-cept of "innovation response state," as devised by Verner and Gubbels, i s also used f o r further analysis. F i n a l l y , the reasons f o r r e j e c t i o n of the innovations, or f o r delay i n proceeding with adoption are presented i n respect of adopter categories. I. CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS INTO ADOPTER CATEGORIES The adoption score was the basis f o r c l a s s i f y i n g res-pondents into adopter categories. The t o t a l score f o r any respondent i s cumulative i n terms of his reported stage-* i n the adoption process for each practice at the time of the interview. Recorded scores ranged from 1 0 to 3 0 with a mean of 2 5 . 7 0 and a standard deviation of 3 . 9 1 4 . The general l e v e l E.' M. Rogers, D i f f u s i o n of Innovations, op. c i t . p ^C. Verner and P. M. Gubbels, op. c i t . ^The values assigned to d i f f e r e n t stages are 0 f o r not aware, 1 f o r awareness, 2 f o r i n t e r e s t , 3 f o r evaluation, 4 for t r i a l and 5 f o r adoption. For the 6 practices, therefore, the possible t o t a l score f o r a respondent ranged between 0 for unawareness of any of the innovations to 3 0 f o r the adoption of a l l innovations. 86 of adoption by the sample was r e l a t i v e l y high. Ten per cent had a score of 20 or le s s , 31 per cent scored between 21 to 25, 43 per cent 26-4-3, and 17 per cent had the maximum score 4 of 3 0 . Using Rogers' procedure the subdivision of the sample into adopter categories was made on the basis of the mean and standard deviation. The class l i m i t s f o r each category and the respective number of respondents are shown i n Table VI. The innovator -early adopter categories are combined since af t e r separating the f i r s t three categories, a l l other respondents had the maximum score of 3 ° . Categories were d i s t r i b u t e d as follows: (1) Laggards - less than the mean minus one standard deviation (0-21) :12 respondents (2) Late majority - the mean minus one standard deviation to the mean (22-25) :28 respondents (3) Early majority - the mean to the mean plus one standard devia-t i o n "(26-29) •43 respondents (4) Innovator - Early Adopters -greater than the mean plus one standard deviation (more than 29) :17 respondents Total 100 respondents The chi-square test showed that the d i s t r i b u t i o n of respondents within adopter categories approximated the normal curve. Expected frequencies based upon known approximate 4 E. M. Rogers, op_. c i t . , pp. I 6 I - I 6 3 . 8 7 TABLE VI CLASSIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENTS INTO ADOPTER CATEGORIES Number of Respondents i n each Category Adopter Category Early adopter-innovator Class Number of Expected Observed 2 Boundaries Standard (Normal (Sample (n-e) Deviations Frequency Frequency e from the Ctirve) Mean (e) {n} Early majority Late majority 2 9 . 6 2 5 . 7 2 1 . 8 + 1 1 5 . 7 5 3 4 . 1 3 3 4 . 1 3 1 7 4 3 2 8 . 1 0 2 . 3 1 1 . 1 0 - 1 Laggard 1 5 . 7 ; 1 2 . 8 9 Total 1 0 0 4.40 =chi-square value Note: The n u l l hypothesis that the sample frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n approximated the normal curve d i s t r i b u t i o n was tested at the . 0 1 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . The hypothesis was accepted since the calculated chi-square value was below the c r i t i c a l value of 6 . 6 3 5 ( 1 df; . 0 1 l e v e l ) 5 This l e v e l of sign i f i c a n c e indicates "a ( f a i r l y ) good f i t " , — see John E. Freund and Frank J . Williams, Modern Business  S t a t i s t i c s , (Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice H a l l , Inc., 1 9 5 8 ) , p. 2 6 0 . 88 percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n s ^ of observations within the normal curve together with the d i s t r i b u t i o n obtained, were used f o r this t e s t . N I I . RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ADOPTER CATEGORY AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS Since the use of adopter categories f o r c l a s s i f y i n g the individuals i n a farm population relevant to practice adoption i s a standard procedure, the data were analysed further by tes t i n g f o r relationships between socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and adopter categories. Adopter categories can be conceived, within l i m i t s , as being a quantitative variable, with a low value assigned at the laggard end and the highest value at the innovator - early majority extreme. The i n e v i t a b i l i t y of p a r t i t i o n i n g i n d i v i d u a l s within d e f i n i t e class boundaries would seem to make the application of the chi-square test, rather than p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n analy-s i s , more suitable, i n view of i t s a p p l i c a b i l i t y to qu a l i t a -t i v e data. Also, there i s the added advantage that the cross-break table f a c i l i t a t e s examination of relationships between the variables. Values obtained by p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n analysis between adopter categories and the variables studied are indicated where they i l l u s t r a t e the r e l a t i v e strength of a rel a t i o n s h i p . See Kenneth H. Kurtz, ap_. c i t . , p. 99. 89 In order to test for "gross rel a t i o n s h i p s " "between individuals i n the upper and lower levels of adoption perform-ance the four categories previously indicated were combined to obtain two categories. This results i n e s s e n t i a l l y a "low" adoption category — laggards and late, majority — , and a "high" adoption category including early majority and the early adopter-innovator respondents. Tables f o r the chi-square analysis were set up accord-ing to the "percentage computation r u l e , " as indicated by K e r l i n g e r , 7 with a l l percentages computed "from the independent variable to the dependent variable". In t h i s analysis, therefore, the 100 per cent t o t a l for each category of the socio-economic variable — the independent variable — i s d i s t r i b u t e d among respondents i n the two or four adopter categories — the dependent variable. This procedure also f a c i l i t a t e s consider-ably, inspection and analysis of the data i n terms of the hypothesis. Where necessary, conditions f o r the close approximation of the chi-square d i s t r i b u t i o n were ensured by combining c e l l frequencies so that a l l t h e o r e t i c a l frequencies were equal to or greater than 5« There was the further safeguard that the computer prograjume used f o r the analysis., indicated i f the data Q did not f i t the requirements f o r th i s s t a t i s t i c . 'Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research, (New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1 9 6 7 ) , p. 6 2 8 . 8 The b i v a r i a t e tables f o r which s i g n i f i c a n t results were obtained are given i n Appendix IV. 90 TABLE VII STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT CHI-SQUARE VALUES FOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC .CHARACTERISTICS AGAINST TWO AND FOUR ADOPTER CATEGORIES Chl-square valuer Socio-economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Using 2 Adopter Categories Using 4 Adopter Categories Age Number of children Education l e v e l Educational l e v e l of wife A g r i c u l t u r a l courses i n high school A g r i c u l t u r a l courses i n vocational school A g r i c u l t u r a l adult education Attendance at. I.966 short course sponsored by the L.M.H.I.A. Attendance at. 196? shoit course sponsored by the L.M.H.I.A. Attendance at 1966 short course i n the State of Washington, U.S.A. Attendance at 1967 short course i n the State of Washington, U.S.A. Number of years of farming experience Number of years i n strawberry Number of years on present farm Ethnic o r i g i n S o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n Total acreage farmed Acreage i n strawberry Acreage i n other a g r i c u l t u r a l enterprises Gross t o t a l sales from agriculture Gross sales from strawberry Gross sales from other a g r i c u l t u r a l enterprises Amount of time spent i n off-farm work Estimated value of farm V i s i t s to the o f f i c e of the D.H. Telephone c a l l s to the D.H. V i s i t s to the farm by the D.H. Mail from the D.H. •33.29* 1 9 . 7 7 * 9.87* an 24 . 01* • ? 1 - 1 6 » 11.50* 3 2 . 5 4 * 11.67* 22.66* 44.72* • 56.48* 112.51* 18.74* p i s * 68.24*  13.66* 84.59* 107.53* 94.43* 5 1 - 2 7 * 19.36* 22.08* 15.98* 44.24* 29.87* 10.38 30.76* 66.46* 15.^3* 11. 42* 747* 3 7 -   54.00* 42.6.8* 3 3 . 0 1 * 110...51* 104.40  85.76* 3 3 - 7 8 * 74.08* 79.75* 1.94*  9.H* 3 7 - 0 5 * 79.32* 92.22* 143.41* 92.72* Note: The underlined values are s i g n i f i c a n t . The n u l l hypothesis i s that there i s no difference i n the l e v e l of adoption due to the influence of the socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . * S i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l . 9 1 TABLE VII (continued) STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT CHI-SQUARE VALUES FOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AGAINST TWO AND FOUR ADOPTER CATEGORIES Chi-square value Socio-economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Using 2 Using 4 Adopter Adopter Categories Categories Radio announcements by the D.H. 64.58* 5 5 . 4 3 * 16.37* Te l e v i s i o n announcements by the D.H. Newspaper a r t i c l e s by the D.H. 3 4 . 5 6 * 3 7 . 2 3 * Attendance at l o c a l meetings, f i e l d days and demonstrations 36.30* 22..6 2* Attendance at meetings of L.M.H.I.A. 3 6 . 0 5 * Extension contact with the D.H. (Rogers and Havens scale) 104.98* 112.63* Combined extension contact with the D.H....and. other agents 101.90* 4 1 . 1 6 * Note: The underlined values are s i g n i f i c a n t . The n u l l hypothesis i s that there i s no difference i n the l e v e l of adoption due to the influence of the socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . * S i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l . Age The negative relationship indicated by p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n analysis against adoption score (r= - . 3 1 ) and adopter cate-gories (r= - . 3 0 ) i s supported by the data. Eighty per cent of the respondents i n the 20-34 age group were i n the combined high l e v e l adoption category, compared to 6 8 . 5 per cent i n the 35-54 age group and 4 1 . 6 per cent f o r respondents 55 or more years :of age. S i m i l a r l y , 20 per cent of the respondents i n the youngest age group were at the lower end of the adoption scale, compared to 58 .49 per cent of the oldest age group. The 9 2 r e l a t i o n s h i p has greater significance i n terms of four adopter categories than with two categories only. Number of Children A s i g n i f i c a n t difference was obtained f o r four adopter categories only. This i s i l l u s t r a t e d by the f a c t that there i s a n e g l i g i b l e difference between the proportion of respond-ents i n the upper l e v e l adopter categories with 0 - 2 c hildren ( 6 3 . I per cent) compared to those with three or more children ( 5 8 . 1 per cent). In comparison with the larger f a m i l i e s , there were 2 9 • 2 per cent more respondents with 0 - 2 children i n the early majority category, but 1 8 . 9 per cent less i n the early adopter-innovator group. The r e l a t i v e l y low chi-square value, even though s i g n i f i c a n t at the . 0 1 l e v e l , i s perhaps explained by the low, non-significant, but positive, " r " value ( r = . 1 5 ) . The p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n analysis indicates that the younger respondents, who tended to have less children, were higher on the adoption scale. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and number of children ( r = . 2 ? ) indicates that only about 9 per cent of the v a r i a t i o n 9 i n the number of children i s accounted f o r by v a r i a t i o n i n age of the parent. Education The s i g n i f i c a n t chi-square values were approximately the same fo r two and four adopter categories. There were fewer laggards ( 6 . 5 per cent) among respondents with more See K. H. Kurtz, op_. c i t . , p. 2 0 7 . 93 than eight years of schooling, compared to 1? per cent f o r those with eight or l e s s . The difference at the early adopter-innovator l e v e l i s i n favour of the less educated respondents, but i s n e g l i g i b l e ( 4 . 8 per cent). More than-twice the percentage of the more highly educated respondents ( 5 8 . 1 v per cent) compared to the less educated respondents ( 2 6 . 4 per cent), are i n the early majority category. In terms of two adopter categories, the less educated respondents are almost evenly d i s t r i b u t e d at both ends of the adoption scale, compared to 74 per cent of respondents with more than eight years of schooling i n the upper adoption l e v e l . Education of the Wife In comparison with the analysis f o r the education of respondents, the education of the wife had lower chi-square values, but these were s i m i l a r f o r both two and four adopter categories. Among respondents with better educated wives, a smaller percentage ( 6 . 8 per cent) was i n the laggard cate-gory, compared to 15 per cent f o r the other group. The percentage differences were more marked among the upper adopter categories. F i f t y per cent were c l a s s i f i e d as early majority, and 25 per cent as early adopter-innovators, compared to 3 2 . 5 and 15 per cent, respectively, f o r the lower educational l e v e l . For combined categories, the percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n of respondents at upper and lower adoption extremes, within each educational l e v e l , i s almost i d e n t i c a l with the d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r respondents themselves, thus lending 94 support to the " r " value of .39 f o r p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n between the educational l e v e l s of respondents and t h e i r wives. A g r i c u l t u r a l Courses i n High School Since only f i v e respondents reported having attended agriculture courses i n high school, caution i s necessary i n assessing the degree of s i g n i f i c a n c e , as indicated by the chi-square value. None were at either extreme of the adop-t i o n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , but, at the "majority" l e v e l , almost twice the percentage (80 per cent) were c l a s s i f i e d as early majority, compared to those who did not take such courses (41.5 per cent). A g r i c u l t u r a l Courses at Vocational School The chi-square value was only s i g n i f i c a n t f o r four adopter categories. There were no laggards among those who had taken such courses. Among respondents who took courses, the percentage at the early adopter-innovator l e v e l (42 .8 percent) was much larger than the 15 per cent who did not have such courses. A g r i c u l t u r a l Adult Education S t a t i s t i c a l s i gnificance was indicated at the . 05 l e v e l only. The data indicates that attendance at a g r i c u l t u r a l adult education courses i n 1966 made no difference at the laggard l e v e l . Among those who attended, there was a smaller 9 5 percentage i n the la t e majority category, about the same i n the early majority, but 24 per cent i n the early adopter-innovator category, compared to only 1 0 per cent f o r those who did not attend such courses. For combined categories, there was 1 6 per cent more participants among the early majority and early adopter-innovator respondents, than among those who did not attend such courses. Attendance at Short Courses (L.M.H.I.A.) 1 Q The chi-square values are s i g n i f i c a n t at the . 0 1 l e v e l f o r attendance at the annual L.M.H.I.A. Short Courses i n 1 9 6 6 and 1 9 6 7 , which were of s p e c i f i c i n t e r e s t to the strawberry and other small f r u i t farmers. Compared to the rel a t i o n s h i p f o r o v e r a l l attendance at any a g r i c u l t u r a l adult education course, the chi-square values obtained are at least doubled f o r four adopter categories, and the increase i s 5 - 6 times more for gross relationships when tested against two adopter categories. There was a n e g l i g i b l e difference between attendance or non-attendance f o r 1 9 6 6 at the laggard l e v e l , but, there i s a larger percentage of respondents who did not attend i n both lower adopter categories, with the r e s u l t i n g reversed s i t u a t i o n f o r attendance among the higher adopter categories. The percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n at the higher adoption l e v e l , Lower Mainland H o r t i c u l t u r a l Improvement Association. 9 6 increases with an increase i n the number of days attended, but i s more marked at'the early adopter-innovator l e v e l , where the difference i s about 1 0 per cent. The larger chi-square value f o r attendance i n 1 9 6 ? i s i l l u s t r a t e d by the fact that while the .general trend i s the same f o r both years, the apparent r e l a t i o n s h i p with attend-ance i s more outstanding. The percentage of respondents f o r the combined upper adopter categories are 4 - 9 per cent f o r non-attendance, 75 per cent'for attendance on one day and 9 3 per cent f o r attendance on both days. At the early adopter-' innovator l e v e l , the percentage f o r attendance on both days (35«3 P e r cent) i s at least three times more than f o r non-attendance ( 1 1 . 3 Per cent). Years of Farming Experience A s i g n i f i c a n t d i s t r i b u t i o n i s indicated by the c h i -square value f o r four adopter categories only. There i s a s l i g h t l y higher percentage of laggards among respondents with nine or less years of experience. The s i t u a t i o n i s reversed f o r the la t e majority category with almost double the percent-age i n each instance f o r respondents with 1 0 - 1 9 and 2 0 or more years of experience, and with no r e a l difference between these two groups. There are no respondents i n the early adopter-innovator category with nine or less years of experience, although 6 9 . 2 per. cent are c l a s s i f i e d as early majority, compared to a range of 3 8 - 4 2 per cent f o r the more experienced farmers. 9 7 There i s no r e a l difference among the two groups of more experienced farmers i n terms of the percentage d i s -t r i b u t i o n among the adopter categories. P a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n , analysis which has the advantage of c o n t r o l l i n g the influence: of other variables gave an extremely low " r " value of .04 for the rel a t i o n s h i p between t h i s variable and adoption. Number of Years i n Strawberry Growing The data does not indicate a d e f i n i t e continuous trend relevant to th i s variable as indicated by the extremely low p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n value (r= -.02). The percentage of lag-gards ( 1 4 - 1 5 per cent) among growers with 10 or more years of experience i s about twice that for less experienced growers ( 6 - 7 per cent). The early adopter-innovator category includes 5.9 per cent of the respondents among the lea s t experienced growers, compared to 13-27 per cent f o r those with f i v e or more years experience. Growers with less than 1 0 years experience had 5 3 - 6 0 per cent early majority, compared to 36-37 per cent for more experienced farmers. In general, adoption performance i s highest for respondents with 5-9 years of experience. Besides having the largest percentage i n each of the upper adopter categories, the combined percentage ( 8 6 . 6 per cent) i s at least 2 5 per cent more than a l l other groups which range between 5 0 - 6 1 per cent. 9 8 Number of Years on Present Farm The relationship between adoption and t h i s variable i s somewhat s i m i l a r to that found f o r experience with the strawberry crop. The highest combined percentages of low l e v e l adopters are among respondents who were on t h e i r present farms f o r less than f i v e years ( 5 0 per cent) or f o r 1 0 - 1 9 years ( 5 2 per cent). The reversed s i t u a t i o n occurs i n the two other categories with the most favourable d i s t r i b u t i o n i n terms of adoption performance among res-pondents resident on t h e i r farms for 5 - 9 years and for 2 0 or more years. A negative, but inconsistent r e l a t i o n s h i p i s indicated by the fact that respondents who were resident on t h e i r farms f o r less than 1 0 years had the highest percentage of early adopter-innovators ( 2 5 - 27.6 per cent), compared to 7 . 9 per cent for the 1 0 - 1 9 years group, and 1 6 per cent among those resident f o r 2 0 or more years. P a r t i a l cor-r e l a t i o n analysis ( r = . 0 1 ) supports t h i s general r e l a t i o n -ship. Ethnic Origin The general relationship of adoption performance among various ethnic groups as indicated i n Chapter IV i s further highlighted by t h i s analysis. There was a larger percentage of laggards ( 1 7 . 4 per cent) among Japanese respondents, compared to Menonites ( 1 1 . 5 per cent) and to 99 "others" ( 9 . 8 per cent). The difference i s more marked at the other extreme of adoption performance with only 4 . 3 per cent Japanese, compared to 1 9 . 6 per cent for the t h i r d group and 2 3 . 1 per cent f o r Menonites. The s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher o v e r a l l l e v e l of practice adoption among respondents who were neither Japanese or Menonites, i s p a r t i c u l a r l y evident at the early majority l e v e l . F i f t y - t h r e e per cent of th i s group was c l a s s i f i e d at th i s l e v e l , compared to a range of 3 1 - 3 5 per cent f o r Menonites and Japanese. When the upper adopter categories are combined, the general pattern i s clear; the re s u l t i s 3 9 * 1 Per cent Japanese, 5 3 * 9 per cent Menonites and 7 2 . 5 Per cent f o r the t h i r d group. S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n The p o s i t i v e s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p obtained by p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n analysis ( r = . 4 2 ) i s borne out by the data. In general, the percentage of laggards i s inversely related to the l e v e l of s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n . There was 3 7 * 5 Per cent laggards among respondents with a zero score, compared to 5 « 9 per cent f o r a score exceeding 2 4 ; t h i s trend continues at the l a t e majority l e v e l . The p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between adoption and this variable i s p a r t i c u l a r l y marked at the early majority l e v e l with 2 2 . 7 per cent f o r a zero score, compared to 6 4 . 7 per cent for a score of more than 2 4 . The combination of adopter categories further strengthens the re l a t i o n s h i p with an 100 almost fo u r - f o l d change In the percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n . Higher performance adopter categories range between 2 7 . 3 per cent f o r a score of zero to 82.3 Per cent for a score exceeding twenty-four. Total Acreage Farmed A po s i t i v e relationship i s evident between farm size and adoption. There i s an inverse percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n at the laggard and l a t e majority l e v e l of adoption with i n -crease i n t o t a l acreage farmed. Laggards average 35•3 Per cent f o r the 0-4 acres group, compared to 7*7 per cent for respondents with 3 0 - H 9 acres; there are no laggards with farms exceeding 119 acres. In the upper adopter categories, combined percentages range through 29-4 per cent ( 0 -4 acres), 6 l per cent (5-29 acres), 6 9 . 2 per cent ( 30 -119 acres) and 9 0 . 9 per cent f o r respondents with more than 119 acres. Acreage i n Strawberry The re l a t i o n s h i p between acreage i n strawberry and adoption i s s i m i l a r to that indicated for farm s i z e . There i s the t y p i c a l negative or inverse relationship with adop-t i o n at the lower adoption l e v e l s , together with a po s i t i v e relationship f o r upper adopter categories. The l a t t e r re-lation s h i p i s i l l u s t r a t e d by the combined percentage range of 3 0.3 per cent for the 0 - 3 acre group, compared to 8 9.5 per cent f o r respondents with 30 or more acres. 1 0 1 Acreage In Other A g r i c u l t u r a l Enterprises The chi-square values were s i g n i f i c a n t f o r both two and four adopter categories, but were very much smaller than those f o r t o t a l farm size or acreage i n strawberry. The p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t ( r = . 3 3 ) was s i g n i f i c a n t , but i s the smallest f o r a l l acreage measurements. There i s no consistent trend i n the data.. The per-centage of laggards decreases with acreage; 21.4 per cent f o r the 0 - 2 acre group, 1 0 . 3 per cent f o r 3-14 acres and 6 . 1 per cent f o r 1 5 or more acres. A posit i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p i s most evident at the early majority l e v e l between extreme acreage groups; the percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n ranges between 36 per cent f o r 0-14 acres, compared to 57•6 per cent f o r more than 14 acres. Combined percentages at the upper adop-t i o n l e v e l are 6 0 . 8 f o r the 0 - 2 acres and 7 2 . 7 per cent f o r 15 or more acres, with the lowest percentage (48.7 per cent) in the 3-14 acre group. Gross Total Sales from Agriculture There i s some evidence of a r e l a t i o n s h i p between gross t o t a l income from a g r i c u l t u r a l sales and adoption. Except at the early adopter-innovator l e v e l , the sig n i f i c a n c e i s only marked between respondents reporting sales of less than $5000 and those vrith $5000 or more. In general, the percentage of respondents at the lower adoption lev e l s decreases with an increase i n income, ranging from a combined percentage of 1 0 2 6 8 . 6 per cent f o r the lowest income group to between 2 2 - 2 6 per cent f o r those with sales t o t a l l i n g $5000 or more. The reverse trend occurs at the early adopter-innovator l e v e l ; percentages increase continuously with income from 8 . 6 per cent f o r respondents reporting less than $ 5 0 0 0 to 30.4 per cent f o r those with more than $25,000. When per-centages are combined f o r upper adoption categories, 73•8 per cent of the respondents reporting $ 5 - 2 5 . 0 0 0 and 7 8 . 2 per cent of those reporting more than $25,000 were early adopters. On the other hand, the percentage f o r respondents reporting less than $5000 (31.4 per cent) was markedly lower. Gross Sales from Strawberry Gross strawberry sales, which i s s p e c i f i c to the inno-vations under consideration i n this study, shows a more con-s i s t e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p to adoption than does t o t a l gross a g r i c u l t u r a l income. The chi-square values are larger, espec-i a l l y f o r gross relationships i n terms of two adopter cate-gories. There are 25.6 per cent laggards among respondents reporting $3000 or l e s s , and none among those reporting more than $5000. Combined percentages showed that 64.1 per cent of the respondents i n the lowest income group were la t e adopters, compared to only 36.2 per cent f o r those reporting $3000 - 5.000, and 8 per cent among respondents receiving more than $5,000. The p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two varia -bles i s very evident at the upper adoption l e v e l . Early 1 0 3 adopters comprised 35-9 per cent of respondents reporting less than $ 3 , 0 0 0 , 6 3 . 8 percent ( $ 3 0 0 0 - $ 5 0 0 0 ) and 9 2 per cent f o r the more than $5000 income group. Gross Sales from Other A g r i c u l t u r a l Enterprises The lower chi-square values, again seem to emphasize that while there i s a rel a t i o n s h i p between the size of the farm operation and practice adoption, i t s strength and con-sistency decreases when the variable i s not s p e c i f i c to the p a r t i c u l a r innovations under consideration. The p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p indicated by the p a r t i a l cor-r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t ( r = . 4 9 ) i s only c l e a r l y evident at a l l le v e l s of adoption between respondents reporting less than $ 3 0 0 0 and those receiving more than $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 . The middle sales income category ( $ 3 0 0 0 - $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 ) does not always f i t an expected pattern such as would r e s u l t i n a consistent r e l a -tionship, t y p i c a l f o r income and adoption. The percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r laggards decreases with an increase i n sales: 18.4 per cent i n the lowest income group (less than $ 3 0 0 0 ) , 6 . 9 per cent ( $ 3 0 0 0 - $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 ) and 4 . 5 per cent f o r income exceeding $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 . At the early majority l e v e l , the trend i s more limited.with 3 4 . 7 per cent in the lowest income group, compared to 50-52 per cent for the higher income groups. Combined percentages best indicate the expected pattern; f o r example, the d i s t r i b u t i o n at the upper adoption l e v e l ranges between 5 2 per cent i n the less than 104 $ 3 0 0 0 group, 5 8 . 6 per cent i n the middle group and 7 9 . 3 Per cent f o r sales exceeding $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 . Amount of Time Spent i n Off-Farm Work The chi-square value was s i g n i f i c a n t for four adopter categories only. The difference i n adoption performance would seem to be clear only i n terms of those who either did o r did not work off t h e i r farms i n 1 9 6 6 . There x\rere 1 6 . 7 per cent laggards among respondents reporting no off-farm work compared to .7.2 per cent for those who worked one-half or more of t h e i r normal working hours on off-farm jobs. There i s a s l i g h t reversal at the l a t e majority l e v e l . At the upper adoption l e v e l , 51•6 per cent of those reporting no off-farm work are i n the early majority category, compared to 25-32 per cent f o r a l l others reporting off-farm jobs. The percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n again reverses at the early adopter-innovator l e v e l . Combined percentages at the upper adoption l e v e l remove any evidence of a trend, since the percentage of respondents at either extreme i s approximately 6 2 per cent. Estimated Farm Value The r e l a t i o n s h i p with adoption i s s i m i l a r to that indicated f o r the t o t a l acreage farmed. The percentage of respondents at each of the low adoption lev e l s i s higher with the lowest valued farms and decreases with increasing farm value. At each of the upper adoption l e v e l s , the pos i t i v e 105 r e l a t i o n s h i p i s i l l u s t r a t e d ; combined percentages range between 41 per cent (less than $ 3 0 0 0 ) , 7 0 . 7 per cent ( $30 ,000 to less than $ 9 0 , 0 0 0 ) and 7 8 . 9 per cent f o r farms valued at $ 9 0 , 0 0 0 or more. Extension Contact Through Of f i c e V i s i t s S i milar to the p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n analysis f o r various aspects of personal contact, t h i s contact channel had the lowest chi-square value. There i s a marked difference between the high percentages of respondents i n the low adopter cate-gories within the non-contact group and the decline with the increase of contact frequency. There are no laggards i n the high frequency contact group, and only 10 per cent of the l a t e majority compared to 27-32 per cent f o r no contact and low frequency contact groups. The trend i s maintained at the early majority l e v e l , but i s less marked with 45 per cent having no contact and 30 per cent with high frequency contact. The p o s i t i v e associa-t i o n with adoption i s only evident at the early adopter-innovator l e v e l witfah a low 8 .8 per cent reporting no contact and a s i g n i f i c a n t r i s e to 60 per cent with high frequency contact. Extension Contact by Telephone While the trend is- s i m i l a r to that obtained f o r contact by o f f i c e v i s i t s , the decrease i n the percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n s 1 0 6 at the lower adoption l e v e l s , i n association with increased contact frequency, i s more marked i n t h i s instance. The higher p o s i t i v e association with an increase i n the l e v e l of contact i s i l l u s t r a t e d by combined percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n s . At the upper adoption l e v e l , 3 2 . 4 per cent reporting no contact increases by 49 per cent to 81.4 per cent with high frequency contact. In comparison, the increase for the same percentage r e l a t i v e to o f f i c e v i s i t s i s 3 6 per cent. There are no laggards among respondents reporting high frequency contact. Extension Contact by Farm V i s i t s The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the highest chi-square value for a l l personal contact channels i s i l l u s t r a t e d c l e a r l y and r e l a t i v e l y consistently at three of the four adopter category l e v e l s . There are no laggards i n the high frequency contact group; while the o v e r a l l trend i s s i m i l a r , the strength and consistency of the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s very evident from the data (Table LXXXIV), except at the early majority l e v e l . Combined percentages at the lower adoption l e v e l decrease by 64.4 per cent from 72.7 per cent f o r no contact to 8 . 3 per cent for high frequency contact. Comparative percentage differences f o r contact by o f f i c e v i s i t s and telephone are 35•6 per cent and 49 per cent, respectively. At the upper adoption l e v e l where the p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p i s most evident, the percentage increases from 2 7 . 3 per cent f o r no contact to 91-7 per cent f o r high frequency contact. 107 At the early majority adoption l e v e l , the percentage d i s -t r i b u t i o n at the middle or low contact l e v e l does not follow the basic trend. Extension Contact by Mail A p o s i t i v e relationship with extension contact by mail i s apparently confined to use or non-use of the channel. The trend i n percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n s between adopter categories i s s i m i l a r to that obtained f o r personal contact channels, but i t does not extend c l e a r l y through both the low and high frequency contact l e v e l s . Also, the percentage differences are extremely small, except at the early majority adopter category l e v e l . Extension Contact Through Radio Announcements The t y p i c a l trend r e l a t i o n s h i p i s evident, except again at the early majority l e v e l where the percentage of low frequency contact respondents (43 .8 per cent) i s s t i l l higher, compared to the high frequency contact group ( 3 3 « 3 per cent). The reversed trend does not occur u n t i l the early adopter-innovator l e v e l with a range of 8.8 per cent f o r no contact, 1 7 . 9 per cent f o r low frequency contact and 4 6 . 7 per cent f o r high frequency contact. There are no laggards i n the high frequency contact group. 108 E x t e n s i o n C o n t a c t Through T e l e v i s i o n B e c a u s e o f t he s m a l l p e r c e n t a g e o f r e s p o n d e n t s who r e p o r t e d c o n t a c t "by t h i s c h a n n e l , o n l y two c a t e g o r i e s were p o s s i b l e , u s e r s and n o n - u s e r s . The t r e n d i s s i m i l a r t o t h a t o b s e r v e d f o r r a d i o c o n t a c t , w i t h l a r g e r p e r c e n t a g e s o f r e s -ponden ts among n o n - u s e r s a t a l l l e v e l s o f a d o p t i o n be tween l a g g a r d s and e a r l y m a j o r i t y . A p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h a d o p t i o n o n l y becomes e v i d e n t a t t he e a r l y a d o p t e r - i n n o v a t o r l e v e l . The r e l a t i v e l y weaker r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h i s v a r i a b l e i s i l l u s t r a t e d by a v e r y s m a l l c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e , w h i c h i s o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t , r e l a t i v e t o f o u r a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s . E x t e n s i o n C o n t a c t Th rough Newspaper A r t i c l e s The p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p be tween a d o p t i o n and use o f t h i s c o n t a c t c h a n n e l i s o n l y c l e a r l y e v i d e n t a t t h e l e v e l o f t h e ex t reme a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s . The d i f f e r e n c e i n p e r c e n t a g e d i s t r i b u t i o n s i s i n s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e l a t e m a j o r i t y l e v e l , and i s o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t be tween u s e r s and n o n - u s e r s a t t he e a r l y m a j o r i t y l e v e l . A t t e n d a n c e a t L o c a l M e e t i n g s , F i e l d Days and D e m o n s t r a t i o n s E x c e p t f o r the l a g g a r d c a t e g o r y , t h e p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n -s h i p be tween a d o p t i o n and a t t e n d a n c e a t l o c a l m e e t i n g s , f i e l d days and d e m o n s t r a t i o n s i s more c l e a r l y e v i d e n t be tween t h o s e r e p o r t i n g non a t t e n d a n c e and t h o s e r e p o r t i n g more t h a n a s i n g l e a t t e n d a n c e . The r e l a t i o n s h i p i s l e s s c o n s i s t e n t i n te rms o f t h e c o m p a r a t i v e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s , a t 109 various l e v e l s of adoption performance, f o r those reporting a single attendance. • Attendance at Meeting's of'the L.M.H.I.A. . The chi-square value was on l y . s i g n i f i c a n t i n terms of four adopter categories; except at the early adopter-innovator l e v e l , the posit i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p with'adoption i s evident.* . At the lower adoption l e v e l , the percentages decrease with an increase i n attendance; for. example, the percentage of •laggards not attending ( 1 6 . 7 per cent) i s higher than that , fo r a single attendance ( 1 1 . 1 per cent) or f o r attendance at more than one'meeting ( 3 - 2 per cent). • . - • Combined percentages at the upper adoption l e v e l , emphasize the relationship:;, respondents- c l a s s i f i e d as e a r l y majority or e a r l y adopter-innovator were 4.6.6 per cent within the group not attending any meetings,- compared to 6 6 . 7 per pent, for a single attendance and 8 3 . 7 per cent f o r mOre than one attendance. Extension-Contact Scales " The pos i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between extension contact . ' and adoption i s i l l u s t r a t e d by the size of the chi-square value, es p e c i a l l y i n terms of gross relationships f o r two adopter categories. The t y p i c a l percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n s show the greatest change at extreme ends of the adopter . .' categories. There i s a 3 6 . 1 per cent decrease f o r an 110 increasing number of contacts at the laggard end, and a 3 0 . 6 per cent increase f o r an increasing number of contacts at the early adopter-innovator l e v e l . This significance i s given greater impact by a 6 l per cent d i r e c t i o n a l change i n per-centage d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r combined categories at the upper and lower l e v e l s of adoption performance (Table X C I ) . The r e l a t i o n s h i p relevant to the extended extension contact score f o r the D.H. and other agents i s indicated i n Table X G I I . The trend i s s i m i l a r but i s less marked, as indicated by the smaller chi-square values, especially;-"in r e l a t i o n to four adopter categories. I l l I I I . ADOPTION AMD NON-ADOPTION'OF THE INNOVATIONS Respondents were asked about t h e i r progress through the adoption stages f o r each of the innovations. As would be expected, very few respondents could indicate c l e a r l y t h e i r stage i n the adoption process, and i t was necessary to determine the actual stage by further discussion i n an attempt to follow the pattern of the adoption process,, as recalled- by the respondent. In many instances, t h i s procedure contributed to c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the actual stage i n the adop-t i o n process. Progress Toward Adoption of the Innovations An o v e r a l l i n d i c a t i o n of the progress toward adoption by the sample of farmers i s indicated by the following average fo r the 6 innovations relevant to each stage i n the adoption process: not aware 0.1, 0.08 for awareness, 0.4 f o r i n t e r e s t , 0.7 fo r evaluation, 0.5 for t r i a l and 4.12 f o r adoption. The average f o r discontinuance (0.02) was ne g l i g i b l e and only involved a single respondent relevant to each of two practices. As seen i n Table VIII, the percentage range f o r not aware was between 1 and 8 per cent, and was only recorded f o r three innovations. Two of the three innovations involved were also the most recently introduced. At the ax^areness stage, the percentage ranged between 1 and 5,Per cent, and was only recorded f o r three practices, including two of the three indicated f o r not aware.- Respondents who were at the awareness 1 1 2 stage Included four laggards, three late majority and one early majority. The percentage of respondents at the intere s t and evaluation stages were much larger ranging from 2 to 2 1 per cent f o r in t e r e s t and from 2 to 2 ? per cent f o r evaluation. Each of these stages were relevant to f i v e of the s i x innova-t i o n s . For a l l stages discussed, the highest percentages were recorded f o r the same two practices. TABLE VIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS AT EACH STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS BY INNOVATION Stage Innovation Not Aware Aware-ness Inter-est Evalua-t i o n T r i a l Adop-t i o n Discon- Total tinuance 1 . S o i l anal-ysis f o r nematode control % 8 . 0 % 2 . 0 —J— 8 . 0 % 2 3 . 0 i 9 . 0 % 5 0 . 0 $ /° 0 . 0 % 1 0 0 . 0 2 . Captan f o r f r u i t rot control 1 . 0 0 . 0 7 . 0 2 . 0 14.0 7 6 . 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 3 . C u l t u ral operation-change from h i l l to mat-ted row 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 0 4.0 1 0 . 0 8 3 . O 1 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 4. Chemical weed control 0 . 0 1 . 0 5 . 0 1 2 . 0 5 . 0 7 6 . 0 1 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 5 . Picking carts 5 . 0 5 . 0 2 1 . 0 2 7 . 0 9.0 3 3 . 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 6 . V i rus-free plants 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 . 0 94.0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 Average: A l l innovations 2 . 3 1 . 3 7-2 ll.O 8 . 9 6 8 . 6 ...  0 . 3 . 1 0 0 . 0 1 1 3 Respondents were recorded at the t r i a l stage f o r a l l six practices, with the highest percentage (14 per cent) found i n the use of Captan f o r f r u i t - r o t control. Adoption ranged between 3 3 per cent f o r the use of picking carts and 94 per cent f o r the adoption of v i r u s - f r e e c e r t i f i e d plants. A l l innovations, except the use of picking carts, were adopted by at least 5 0 per cent of the respondents. The percentage d i s -t r i b u t i o n s between stages i n the adoption process f o r each practice are given i n Table VIII. Except f o r a single instance involving a l a t e majority respondent, unawareness of innovations was only recorded f o r laggards. Except f o r l a t e majority respondents at the evalua-t i o n stage, the percentage of respondents at each stage decreases within each of the f i r s t f i v e stages i n the d i r e c t i o n of higher adoption performance, as indicated by adopter category. For example, while there were 5 * 6 per cent and 1 9 . 4 per cent laggards at the awareness and i n t e r e s t stages, respectively, the corresponding percentages f o r the early majority respondents were 0.4 per cent and 4.2 per cent. At the early adopter-innovator l e v e l , 1 0 0 per cent adoption was recorded f o r a l l practices (Table IX). At the middle or evaluation stage, the percentages of laggards ( 1 1 . 1 per cent) and early majority ( 1 0 . 9 per cent) were almost the same, with a much higher percentage ( 1 9 . 6 per cent) f o r late majority. The o r i g i n a l trend continues at the 114 t r i a l stage, with the largest percentage among laggards ( 1 5 . 3 per cent), compared to 7 . 3 per cent f o r early majority. TABLE IX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS AT EACH STAGE . IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter Category Stage Reached Laggard Late Majority Early Majority Early Adopter-Innovator Not Aware 7° 18 .0 % 0 .6 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 Awareness 5 . 6 1.8 0.4 0 .0 Interest 19.4 1 0 . 7 4 . 2 0 . 0 Evaluation 1 1 . 1 1 9 . 0 1 0 . 9 0 .0 T r i a l 1 5 . 3 1 3 . 7 7 . 3 0 . 0 Adoption 3 0 . 6 5 3 . 0 7 7 . 2 1 0 0 . 0 Total 1 0 0 . 0 9 8 . 8* 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 * 1 . 2 per cent accounted for by Discontinuance Note: A s i g n i f i c a n t chi-was obtained. •square value ( . 0 1 level) of 161 .17 A complete reversal of the trend i n percentage d i s -t r i b u t i o n occurs at the adoption stage. There i s a continuous increase from a low 30*6 per cent f o r laggards to 100 per-cent for the early adopter-innovators. In the data shown by Verner 1 1 5 and Gubbels, 1 1 the reverse i n the percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n s occurs at the evaluation stage, while i n t h i s study, the change does not occur u n t i l the adoption stage. Also, the early adopter-innovators are a l l at the adoption stage. The chi-square test indicated a l e v e l of sig n i f i c a n c e of . 0 1 f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n s shown i n Table IX. The previous condition of a l l expected frequencies equal to or more than f i v e i s relaxed i n t h i s instance, i n accordance with the suggestion 1 p by Kurtz f o r problems involving more than one degree of freedom; at least 80 per cent of the expected frequencies are f i v e or more, and none i s less than one. The Innovation Response State of the Respondents Verner and Gubbels 1^ used the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of "innova-t i o n response state" i n order to categorize respondents i n terms of t h e i r r e l a t i v e decision regarding a practice at any moment i n time. In comparison with the c l a s s i c five-way c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by Rogers, t h i s procedure would seem to provide continuity of a more action-oriented nature, so long as the respondent i s not unaware of the innovation. A major advantage of this c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by innovation response state i s the greater degree of d e f i n i t i o n given to the respondent's r e l a t i o n s h i p to the innovation. I f the 1]-C. Verner and P. M. Gubbels, op_. c i t . , p. 42. 1 2K. H. Kurtz, 0 £ . c i t . , p. 2 2 5 . Verner and P. M. Gubbels, o£. c i t . 116 practice has not been adopted or rejected, then, the respondent i s continuing with the adoption process, and th i s state of mind f a c i l i t a t e s the e f f o r t s of the a g r i c u l t u r a l change agent. The f i v e possible innovation response states, as defined by Verner and Gubbels,"^ are used f o r further analysis. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of respondents by innovation response state for each practice i s given i n Table X. The r e l a t i v e percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r unawareness and adoption, which are i d e n t i c a l categories i n the previous analysis, remain unchanged. The percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n s for d i f f e r e n t response states would seem to bear some d e f i n i t e r e l a t i o n s h i p to available knowledge concerning the innovations. The high adoption per-centages f o r vir u s - f r e e plants (94 per cent) and the c u l t u r a l change from h i l l planting to the matted row system (83 per cent) are partly explained by the fact that they were the f i r s t of the s i x practices to be introduced to the population of farmers. No respondents were unaware of these two practices. I t i s hardly to be expected that any strawberry grower who i s the least b i t progressive would have f a i l e d to adopt the use of disease-resistant plants. Detailed analysis for adoption ' (Table XCV) shows the percentage of adoption increasing progressive! XH"C. Verner and P. M. Gubbels, ojo. c i t . , p. 4 5 . The f i v e innovation response states are Unawareness, Continuation i n the adoption process, Rejection, Adoption and Discontinuance. 1 1 7 from the laggards ( 8 3 . 3 per cent) to the e a r l y adopter-innovator category ( 9 5 . 4 per c e n t ) . This d i f f e r e n c e , however, i s r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l , and i s the l e a s t among a l l s i x innovations TABLE X PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY INNOVATION RESPONSE STATE FOR EACH INNOVATION Innovation 1 . S o i l analy-s i s f o r nematode c o n t r o l 2 . Captan f o r f r u i t - r o t c o n t r o l 3 . C u l t u r a l operation-change from h i l l to matted row 4 . Chemical weed c o n t r o l Innovation Response S t a t e Not Continuing Rejec A.ware the adoption t i o n process Adop- Discon- T o t a l t i o n tinuance T 8 . 0 1 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 . P i c k i n g c a r t s 5 » 0 6 . V i r u s - f r e e p l a n t s 2 6 . 0 1 5 . 0 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 1 2 . 0 2 1 . 0 4 . 0 1 6 . 0 8 . 0 6.0 11.0 41.0 2.0 T 5 0 . 0 7 6 . 0 8 3 . 0 7 6 . 0 3 3 . 0 9 4 . 0 0? 1 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 Average: A l l Innovations 2 . 3 14.7 14.0 6 8 . 6 . 0 . 3 100.0 118 Bi v a r i a t e analysis showed that among the few respondents who did not adopt the practice, the percentage was greater with each step lower i n the l e v e l of adoption performance. Non adopters included 16.7 per cent laggards, 7.1 per cent l a t e majority and 4.7 per cent early majority. Only laggards reported that they had rejected the practice. The next highest percentage for adoption (83 per cent) was reported f o r the change i n the c u l t u r a l system from h i l l planting to matted row. Rejection was reported "by laggards (33-3 per cent) and l a t e majority (3.6 per cent) respondents. Those continuing with the adoption process were laggards (25 per cent), l a t e majority (17.9 per cent) or early majority (4.6 per cent) (Tables XCIV - XCVI). Adoption of captan for f r u i t rot control was reported by 76 per cent of the growers; the only i n d i v i d u a l unaware of th i s practice was c l a s s i f i e d as a laggard. The pattern of r e j e c t i o n among respondents was a t y p i c a l decreasing proportion i n the d i r e c t i o n of the upper adoption l e v e l . One t h i r d of the laggards (33*3 per cent), compared to 10.7 per cent late majority and 2.3 per cent early majority reported r e j e c t i o n . Twenty-five per cent of the laggards and 28.6 per cent l a t e majority were continuing with the adoption process, compared to only 9«3 P e r cent late majority. One t h i r d of the laggards (33.3 per cent), almost twice the proportion of late majority (60.7 per cent) and 88.4 per cent of early majority respondents 1 1 9 adopted the innovation. Except f o r the two innovations already-discussed, t h i s practice had the lowest percentage r e j e c t i o n . The considerable economic losses which may re s u l t from f r u i t rot damage have been indicated, therefore, i t i s d i f f i c u l t f o r growers to stop using this practice even i f they are not s a t i s f i e d with the r e s u l t s . As shown e a r l i e r (Table VIII), the highest percentage were at the t r i a l stage f o r t h i s innovation. S i m i l a r l y , again except f o r the change over to matted rows, thi s practice also has the largest combined percentage for interes t and evaluation ( 9 per cent). Reference to Table XCV further i l l u s t r a t e s the fac t ; except f o r t h e long introduced innovations, a higher percentage of laggards (33*3 Per cent) adopted t h i s practice, compared to any other. Seventy-six per cent of the respondents also reported adopting the use of chemical weed control, with only a single i n d i v i d u a l reporting having discontinued the practice (Table VII I ) . The t y p i c a l percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n among adopter categories ranged between 1 6 . ? per cent f o r laggards to 9 5 . 4 per cent f o r early majority and 1 0 0 per cent f o r the early adopter-innovators. A reverse d i s t r i b u t i o n i s shown f o r the innovation response states of continuing with the adoption process and r e j e c t i o n (Tables SCIV and XCVI). The combined percentage f o r these two innovation response states ( 2 3 per cent) i s the same f o r both innovations involving the routine use of chemical treatments — captan and chemical weed control. 120 The adoption of s o i l analysis s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r nematode control was reported by 5° per cent of the respondents. The percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n ranged from 8 .3 per cent f o r laggards to 62.8 per cent f o r the early majority respondents. More than one-half the laggards (58.3 per cent) and 3.6 per cent of the late majority were unaware of the innovation. This i s the only innovation i n respect of which any but a laggard reported unawareness. Except f o r the use of picking carts, t h i s practice had the largest percentage o f - r e j e c t i o n (16 per cent), and f o r continuing with the adoption process (26 per cent). The high percentage of respondents i n these two s i t u a -tions i s partly explained by a s i t u a t i o n which was unique i n i t s relevance to t h i s innovation. A number of respondents, were aware of the economic safeguards to be expected from actual f i e l d treatment i n the event of an i n f e s t a t i o n ; thus, even though they never actually t r i e d the innovation of s o i l t esting, they had gone ahead with application of the treatment process. A few growers with very large acreages, who practiced rotation, f e l t that they had adequate safeguards i n this procedure. While some respondents indicated that they had rejected the practice, others were s t i l l evaluating i t s merits, and were, therefore, considered to be continuing with the adoption process. The use of picking carts as an innovation had the lowest percentage adoption (33 per cent), and the highest percentage fo r r e j e c t i o n (41 per cent). The percentage continuing with 1 2 1 adoption ( 2 1 per cent) i s also second only to that f o r the use of s o i l analysis i n the control of nematodes (Table X). The practice was not adopted by any laggards, and varied within the narrow range of 1 7 . 9 per cent adoption f o r the l a t e majority and 2 5 . 6 per cent f o r the early majority. This innovation, i n pa r t i c u l a r , i l l u s t r a t e s the tendency of the early adopter-innovator to get ahead with new innovations i n the management of the farm enterprise. Rejection was quite high within a l l three relevant adopter categories as this innovation response state was reported by at least 5 0 Per cent of the laggards, 5 7 . 1 per cent l a t e majority and as much as 46.5 per cent of the early majority respondents (Table XCVT). At least one quarter of the "majority" respondents had not yet made a firm decision about the innovation (Table XCIV). The recency of the innovation i s indicated by only 41 per cent awareness among laggards while no other respondents reported unawareness (Table XCIII). The r e l a t i o n s h i p between innovation response state and adopter category i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table XI. Unawareness i s largel y confined to the respondents c l a s s i f i e d as laggards. Continuation i n the adoption process i s at the same general l e v e l f o r respondents i n the lower adopter categories (22-23 per cent) with only.12.4 per cent among the early majority. The percentage r e j e c t i o n increases away from the upper adopter category l e v e l , while adoption shows the t y p i c a l reverse trend. 122 Reasons f o r Delay i n the Adoption Process For the purpose of this study, delay implies two or more years spent i n the adoption process. Since the process begins with the respondent becoming aware of the innovation, many reasons are l i k e l y to explain the time span involved. Reasons given were c l a s s i f i e d into two major sub-types. Where possible, they were c l a s s i f i e d as being relevant to a character-15 i s t i c of the innovation, as suggested by Rogers i n other TABLE XI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY INNOVATION RESPONSE STATE AND BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter Category Innovation Response Laggard Late Early Early Adopter-State Majority Majority Innovator /° $ -* Unaware 18.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 Continuing with the adoption process 22.2 23-8 12.4 0.0 Rejection 29.2 21.4 10.4 0.0 Adoption 30.6 53.0 77.2 100.0 Total 100.0 98.8* 100.0 100.0 *1.2 per cent accounted for by Discontinuance 1 5 E . M. Rogers, op. c i t . , pp. 124-133 • 123 instances, they are c l a s s i f i e d under a number of non-specific or general reasons which were relevant to the p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a -t i o n as seen by the respondent. Characteristics of the innovations were of somewhat less e r importance (45-3 per cent) compared to other general reasons (54.7 per cent).' Concerning the former sub-type, f a i l u r e to perceive the r e l a t i v e advantage of the innovation (23-6 per cent) and communicability — d i f f i c u l t y i n seeing the b e n e f i c i a l results of i t s application — (1?«3 per cent) were most oustand-ing. Except for these reasons, a number of miscellaneous s i t u a t i o n a l factors (38.5 per cent) were the only other outstand-ing category (Table XII). The reasons c l a s s i f i e d within the two major sub-heads are almost evenly divided f o r three of the six innovations — the use of chemical;weed control, the use of v i r u s - f r e e c e r t i f i e d plants and the change from h i l l planting to matted row. While there i s a 12 per cent difference i n favour of innovation char-a c t e r i s t i c s f o r s o i l analysis relevant to nematode control, the percentages under t h i s sub-head are much smaller f o r the use of Captan (22.2 per cent) and picking carts (36 per cent). In general, however, there i s a predominance of responses f o r relevant advantage, communicability and miscellaneous s i t u a -t i o n a l factors (Table XIII). Concerning s o i l analysis f o r nematode control, some respondents simply said that they had "no problem" implying that they had never suffered the effects of an i n f e s t a t i o n . 124 TABLE XII PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF REASONS FOR_DELAY IN PROCEEDING THROUGH THE ADOPTION PROCESS FOR ALL INNOVATIONS.COMBINED Reasons f o r delay Frequency By C h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the.innovation % Relative advantage ^ 23*6 Compatibility 3«4 Complexity 0.5 D i v i s i b i l i t y 0 . 5 Communicability 1 7 . 3 Subtotal 4 5 . 3 Other General Reasons Fear or evidence of crop damage 2 . 4 Needed more information 7»2 Unsatisfactory results by other farmers 0 . 9 Influenced by other farmers who decided not to adopt the innovation 0 '9 Influenced by members of the. respondent's family ' 0 . 5 Innovation considered to be costly 4 . 3 Miscellaneous s i t u a t i o n a l factors 3 8 . 5 Subtotal 5 4 . 7 Total f o r a l l reasons 1 0 0 . 0 TABLE XIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF REASONS FOR DELAY IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS BY INNOVATION . Innovation Reasons f o r Delay •Soil Analysis f o r Nematode Control Captan for f r u i t - r o t Control Change from H i l l to Matted Row Chemical Weed Control Use of Picking Carts Use of ' Virus-free C e r t i f i e d Plants By Char a c t e r i s t i c of the % of /o " 7° i " % Innovation Relative advantage 2 5 . 0 _ 2 1 . 1 2 5 . 5 3 6 . O 3 1 . 4 Compatibility 2.8 - - 1 2 . 8 - -Complexity - - - 2 . 1 - -D i v i s i b i l i t y 2.8 - - - - -Communicability 2 5 . O 2 2 . 2 2 ° . 3 8 . 5 3 6 . O 2 0 . 0 Sub-total 5 5 . 0 2 2 . 2 48.9 5 1 . 4 Other G;eneral Reasons Fear or evidence of crop damage 2.8 - - 8.5 - -Needed more information 5 . 5 7.4_ 7 . 9 6.4 4.0 1 1 . 4 Unsatisfactory results by other farmers - 3 . 7 - 2 . 1 _ _ Influenced by other farmers who decided not to adopt the innovation 2.8 — — 2 . 1 _ _ Influenced by members of the family 2.8 - - — — — Innovation considered to be costly 5 . 5 3 . 7 - 2 . 1 1 2 . 0 5 . 7 Miscellaneous s i t u a t i o n a l factors 2 5 . 0 6 3 . 0 . 44.7 2 9 . 8 48.0 3 1 . ^ . Sub-total 44.4 7 7 . 8 52.6 51.0 64.0 48.5 Total 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 126 The b e n e f i c i a l effects of such an innovation were not c l e a r l y evident, and i t took some time before they r e a l i z e d the pre-cautionary benefits to be derived from the s o i l test innovation. In the case of Captan, i t was quite clear that a number of growers were not sure about the degree of effectiveness of i t s a pplication. S p e c i f i c recommendations f o r the l o c a l s i t u a -t i o n did not seem to be available f o r the f i r s t few years af t e r the innovation was introduced. Inadequate f i e l d treatment and poor results i n some instances must have made i t more d i f f i c u l t f o r the innovation to gain acceptance. Some growers complained that they s t i l l obtain a large number of rotten b e r r i e s . The r e s u l t s to be obtained from such an;1 innovation needs careful explanation, since the benefit derived i s not the complete removal of the incidence of rotted f r u i t but a reduction i n 16 the proportion of rotted f r u i t to marketable.product. The use of picking carts, c e r t i f i e d v i r u s - f r e e plants and the change to the matted row system, involve innovations which are meant to replace c l e a r l y established.practices, but which are not s t r i k i n g i n t h e i r r e l a t i v e advantage, esp e c i a l l y to smaller growers who are not usually as keen on e f f i c i e n c y or as a l e r t to means of reducing costs. With respect to the two l a t t e r practices, the communicability aspect i s also involved. Some farmers claimed that since plants obtained from t h e i r own f i e l d s continued to give good y i e l d s , they did J. A. Freeman, "New Findings i n F r u i t Rot Control i n Strawberries," o£. c i t . , p. 4. 127 not see any reason f o r buying c e r t i f i e d plants. Some farmers said that use of the matted row system meant greater d i f f i c u l t y i n weed control; as a r e s u l t , adop-t i o n did not occur u n t i l they were also able to use chemical weed k i l l e r s . This linkage i n practice adoption i s further indicated by the fact that growers were aware that matted rows meant a higher environmental f i e l d humidity which resulted 17 i n a higher incidence of f r u i t rot, and that they did not think i t was i n t h e i r best i n t e r e s t to adopt the innovation u n t i l they were able to control f r u i t rot by the use of the captan spray. S i t u a t i o n a l factors accounted f o r a large percentage of the reasons f o r delay i n the adoption process. One such reason which occurred quite frequently, and was of p a r t i c u l a r relevance to the use of vi r u s - f r e e plants, captan and chemical weed control, and the change i n the c u l t u r a l system, was the fact that a number of growers had ceased operations over short periods f o r one reason or another. This occurred especially a f t e r they suffered extensive damage due to prolonged low temperatures. Another point of intere s t i s that i n quite a few instances, e s p e c i a l l y where less experienced growers were involved, indi v i d u a l s became aware of innovations i n strawberry c u l t i v a t i o n long before they a c t u a l l y decided to grow the crop themselves. " J . A. Freeman, l o c . c i t . 128 In the case of s o i l analysis f o r nematode control, i n -a b i l i t y to have the test c a r r i e d out was a major reason for delay as u n t i l quite recently, i t was generally necessary to send s o i l samples across the border to Washington for t e s t i n g . Others did not have t h e i r s o i l tested, because i n the event of a need for s o i l treatment, f i e l d service was generally d i f f i c u l t to obtain. Even a f t e r the matted row system was f i r s t introduced, a number of farmers explained t h e i r delay i n adoption as waiting u n t i l they changed over from growing the older B r i t i s h Soverign variety to newer v a r i e t i e s . Others only made the change when t h e i r entire crop was destroyed by one of the periodic freeze outs. In any event, the use of t h i s new system of layout was only possible i n old f i e l d s when the grower decided to replant h i s crop. Delay i n the adoption of v i r u s - f r e e plants seems to have been hampered by the experience of a few farmers with "bad plants"; i n other instances they claim that plants were not always available. The most frequently stated reason by a number of growers for delay i n the use of Captan was the small acreage under c u l t i v a t i o n e s p e c i a l l y at the time when they f i r s t became aware of the innovation. The cost factor i s also involved i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n a l factor, since even i f the grower could afford the necessary expenditure, he would consider the investment to be uneconomical. Non-ownership of a sprayer, and the d i f f i c u l t y of i s o l a t e d growers obtaining custom 129 service were also mentioned. The acreage fa c t o r was also of p a r t i c u l a r relevance to the use of chemical weed control. Growers generally f e l t that hoe weeding was much more economical for small holdings. Also, i n a few instances, respondents intimated that t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r weed control problem was not serious enough to warrant the additional investment. Uneconomical expenditure due to small acreages was frequently mentioned as the reason f o r delay, relevant to the use of picking carts. In many instances, growers preferred not to purchase carts while t h e i r hand ca r r i e r s were s t i l l service-able. During the interviewing i t was quite evident from the enthusiastic responses of some growers that either p r i o r experience with a s i m i l a r innovation or experience with the same material i n another s i t u a t i o n f a c i l i t a t e d acceptance of a new practice. Growers who were f a m i l i a r with c e r t i f i e d seed potato rea d i l y accepted c e r t i f i e d strawberry plants, others had used captan with vegetables, while some of them had used chemical weed control with potatoes or other crops. There i s some difference In responses by adopter cate-gory between respondents at the upper and lower lev e l s of adoption performance. Laggards and late majority respondents emphasize c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the innovation (60 per cent), with special reference to r e l a t i v e advantage and conimunicabil-i t y . On the other hand, early majority and early adopter-innovator respondents stressed s i t u a t i o n a l factors (See Table 130 XIV). These respondents are more a l e r t to changes and were obviously among the e a r l i e s t to use the innovation, thus explaining reference to the need for more information and the fear of crop damage. One early majority respondent pointed out that his f i r s t t r i a l with chemical weed control resulted i n the destruction of f i v e acres of his crop, together with some of his neighbour's. Reasons fo r Rejection of the Innovations In many instances there i s a degree of s i m i l a r i t y between both the actual reason given and the percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n of reasons given f o r r e j e c t i o n and those' previously indicated f o r delay i n the adoption process. Under character-i s t i c s of the innovation, the responses were more evenly d i s t r i b u t e d between r e l a t i v e advantage ( 1 0 . 6 per cent) and communicability ( 1 2 . 1 per cent) (Table XV). Miscellaneous s i t u a t i o n a l factors increase i n importance by almost 20 per cent ( 57 -6 per cent). Communicability ( 3 0 . 8 per cent) i s the most important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c indicated f o r s o i l analysis for nematode control relevant to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the innovation (Table XVI). Relative advantage and the cost of the innova-t i o n are evenly weighted ( 1 5 . 4 per cent). A number of laggard and l a t e majority respondents rejected the innovation simply because they had "no problem"; two early majority respondents f e l t that crop r o t a t i o n was adequate. TABLE XIV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF REASONS FOR DELAY IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY 1 3 1 Adopter Categories Reasons f o r Delay Late Early Early Adopter Laggards Majority Majority Innovator % % % % By C h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the Innovation Relative advantage 2 6 . 6 Compatability 6 . 7 Complexity D i v i s i b i l i t y 6 . 7 Communicability 2 0 . 0 Sub-Total . 6 0 . 0 Other General Reasons 24.3 3 . 0 .3,1:2 6 0 . 6 2 7 . 9 3 . 5 11.6 4 3 . 0 17.6 4.1 1 6 . 2 3 7 . 9 Fear or evidence of crop damage Needed more information Unsatisfactory results by other farmers Influenced by other farmers who decided not to adopt the innovation Influenced by members of the family Innovation considered to be costly Miscellaneous s i t u a -t i o n a l factors Sub-Total 3 . 0 3 - 0 8.1 3 . ^ 1 . 2 2.7 9 . 5 GRAND TOTAL 6 . 7 3 . - 0 - -6 . 7 - - -6 . 7 - 5 . 8 4.1 20.0 30.3 38.4 45.9 40.1 3 9 . 3 5 7 . 0 6 2 . 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Note: The chi-square test was used to test the n u l l hypothesis of no s i g n i f i c a n t difference among adopter categories, using only sub-totals. The chi-square value of 16.292 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the . 0 1 l e v e l . F a i l u r e to see clear evidence of the advantages of captan i s again evident; one la t e majority respondent said that "they rotten anyway". S i t u a t i o n a l factors included too small an acreage to j u s t i f y the expenditure, or where the respondent had decided that he was about to stop growing the crop and was not id. 1 l i n g to incur additional expenditure. TABLE XV PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF REASONS FOR REJECTION OF ALL INNOVATIONS Reasons f o r Rejection Frequency By Char a c t e r i s t i c of the Innovation % Relative advantage Compatibility Complexity D i v i s i b i l i t y Communicability 1 0 . 6 6 . 1 1 . 5 -1 2 . 1 3 0 . 3 Other General Reasons Fear or evidence of crop damage Unsatisfactory results by other farmers Innovation considered to be costly Miscellaneous s i t u a t i o n a l factors Sub-Total 3 . 0 1 . 5 7 . 6 5 7 . 6 6 9 . 7 Total 1 0 0 . 0 Concerning the use of matted rows, some respondents f e l t that this practice resulted i n an increase i n the number of runners and a larger•proportion of small berries, drying out of s o i l moisture on l i g h t s o i l s i n h i l l y areas, a need for TABLE XVI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF REASONS FOR REJECTION BY INNOVATION Innovation 5asons f o r Rejection S o i l Analysis f o r Nematode Control Captan f o r f r u i t - r o t Control Change from H i l l to Matted Row Chemical Weed Control Use of Picking Carts Use of V i r u s - f r e C e r t i f i e d Plants i of p p % . % <z' p T C h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the movation i l a t i v e advantage )mpatibility >mplexity . v i s i b i l i t y xmmunicability 15.4 3 0 . 8 14.2 42.9 75.0 33-3 6.1 3-0 3-o -Sub-total 46.2 57.1 75.0 33.3 12.1 oTo ' ;her Genera.l Reasons jar or evidence of crop damage i s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s by other farmers movation considered to be costly L s c e l l a n e o u s s i t u a t i o n a l factors Sub-total' 15.4 38.4 53.8 42.9 42.9 25.0 2 5 . 0 22.3 11.1 11.7 6.1 81.8 87.9 . 0 . 0 T o t a l ' 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0 . 0 h I 134 more f e r t i l i z e r and a high incidence of f r u i t r o t . These reasons point to the fact that where necessary the introduction of a new innovation must be accompanied by e f f o r t s to ensure that farmers comprehend the changes or adjustments i n a l l i e d practices which may be v i t a l to success i n the o v e r a l l manage-ment operation. The use of matted rows requires adequate pruning f o r the control of runners, and the reduction of the incidence of under-sized f r u i t ; also the use of captan f o r f r u i t rot control becomes more urgent. One t h i r d of the reasons given f o r the r e j e c t i o n of chemical weed control were c l a s s i f i e d as compatibility. Some growers just did not "believe" i n the use of chemicals. One laggard made i t quite clear when he said: the way they spray around here, every week, spray f o r t h i s , spray f o r that, poison the whole bloody country. Unsatisfactory r e s u l t s by some farmers, and the general fear of crop damage accounted f o r 3^ .3 Per cent of the reasons f o r rej e c t i o n ; too small an acreage to warrant the expenditure was also indicated by some growers. An extremely high percentage of s i t u a t i o n a l reasons were given f o r the r e j e c t i o n of picking carts. Growers i n the low-l y i n g Delta, Richmond and Ladner areas indicated that the o r i e n t a l contract labour used f o r harvesting would not accept the change; the general f e e l i n g i s expressed by one who said "Chinese don't go f o r anything new". In addition, these 135 TABLE XVII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF REASONS FOR REJECTION BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Adopter Category Reasons f o r Rejection Laggard Late Early Early Adopter-Majority Majority Innovator % % % % By Characteristics of the Innovation Relative advantage 16.5 4 . 5 11.5 — Compatibility 5.6 4 . 5 7.7 -Complexity 5.6 - - -D i v i s i b i l i t y - - - -Communicability 5 . 6 32.0 -Sub-total 33.3 41 .0 19.2 0.0 Other General Reasons Fear or evidence -of crop damage 5.6 4 . 5 - -Unsatisfactory results by other farmers - 4 .5 - -Innovation considered to be costly . 5.6 - 15.4 -Miscellaneous s i t u a -t i o n a l factors '50.0 65.4 Sub-total I.OTS 59.0 80.c1 0T0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 Note: The chi-square test was used to test the n u l l hypothesis of no s i g n i f i c a n t difference among adopter categories, using only sub-totals f o r the 3 adopter categories i n which responses are recorded. The chi-square value of 11.395 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l . 136 p a r t i c u l a r growers used a d i f f e r e n t type of f i e l d crate and basket arrangement which would have to be changed and accepted by the cannery before they could consider using the new system; others among them made mention of the fact that the heavier clayey s o i l i n the area would provide d i f f i c u l t y i n using the carts under moist conditions. Growers i n other areas said that t h e i r f i e l d s were too h i l l y , and that children, many of whom are employed at harvest time, would have d i f f i c u l t y using picking carts. Others who had a large stock of hand c a r r i e r s indicated that they were quite s a t i s f i e d with this t r a d i t i o n a l method or that t h e i r size of enterprise was too'small to j u s t i f y additional expenditure. A larger percentage of reasons relevant to innovation c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are given by laggards and l a t e majority respondents, while s i t u a t i o n a l factors and other general reasons are much more predominant with early majority respon-dents (Table XVII). CHAPTER VI SOURCES OF INFORMATION In t h i s study, the d i f f e r e n t i a l use of sources of information i s not a major consideration, and the analysis of such i s , therefore, somewhat l i m i t e d i n scope. Sources of information are c l a s s i f i e d "by two procedures previously used by Verner and Gubbels 1. The f i r s t method of c l a s s i f i c a -t i o n i s by Origin, with reference to the agency from which the information originated. In the second instance, class-i f i c a t i o n by nature of the a c t i v i t y refers to the method of communication used i n each instance and emphasis i s on the i n s t r u c t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n relevant to the learning experience. Both systems of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n are shown i n Table XVIII. I. THE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY ORIGIN This method of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n includes k sub-categories: Government: information sources ori g i n a t i n g with the federal or p r o v i n c i a l governments. Commercial:' information sources ori g i n a t i n g with business agents, custom operators or establishments dealing with farmers. Farm Organ-i z a t i o n : information sources originating from farmers' organizations, such as cooperatives and the L.M.H.I.A. C. Verner and P. M. Gubbels, ojo. c i t . , pp. 2 9 - 3 2 . 138 TABLE XVIII CLASSIFICATION OF SOURCES OF INFORMATION C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by: Sources of Information Nature of the Origin A c t i v i t y General farm magazines M C Special h o r t i c u l t u r a l magazines M C B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Agriculture publications M G Federal Department of Agriculture publications M G Radio, t e l e v i s i o n , newspapers M C Agriculture f i e l d days and demonstrations IG G Agriculture meetings IG G Meetings of the H o r t i c u l t u r a l Improvement Association IG FO Growers' Short Courses sponsored by the L.M.H.I.A. IG FO Growers' Short Courses held in.the State of Washington, U.S.A. IG FO Other Adult Education courses IG G Vocational agriculture courses IF G University courses i n agriculture IG G Personal v i s i t to an Experimental s t a t i o n or to the University of B r i t i s h Columbia II G D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t II G d i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r i s t II G Neighbours, friends, wife, children and r e l a t i v e s P P Salesmen and dealers II C Manager or employees of the processing plant II C Farm employees P p Observation on other farms -P p. Foreign t r a v e l or fo r e i g n publications ' P p Personal experience or ideas P p Meetings of the Abbotsford Growers' Cooperative IG FO Meetings of the Matsqui-Aldergrove Berry Growers' Association IG FO Key: Nature of A c t i v i t y Origin P: personal P: personal M: mass G: Government IG: I n s t r u c t i o n a l group 1 C: Commercial II: Individual I n s t r u c t i o n a l FO: Farm Organization TABLE XVIII (Continued) CLASSIFICATION OF SOURCES OF INFORMATION C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by: Sources of Information Nature of the Origin A c t i v i t y Meetings of the P a c i f i c Cooperative Union IG FO Newsletters of the P a c i f i c Cooperative Union M FO Meetings of the Fraser Valley F r u i t and Vegetable Growers Association IG FO Key: Nature of the A c t i v i t y P: Personal M-: Mass IG: Instr u c t i o n a l group II: Individual I n s t r u c t i o n a l Ori( gin P.: Personal G: Government C: Commercial FO: Farm Organiza t i o n Personal: information sources that l i e within the farmer's personal orbit — friends, family, personal observation and experience. Personal sources had the highest degree of use xtfithin a l l adopter categories, but was s l i g h t l y larger among the laggard and late majority respondents. Government information sources, which ranked second i n importance f o r a l l adopter categories, were used least by laggards ( 2 0 . 3 per cent) and s l i g h t l y more, but at the same general l e v e l f o r the "majority" respondents (approximately 2 6 . 5 per cent). The highest percentage use ( 3 2 . 5 Per cent) was by the early adopter-innovator category (See Table XIX). l 4 p The use of commercial and farm organization sources do not hear any d i s t i n c t pattern i n terms of adoption performance. Commercial sources were t h i r d i n importance f o r a l l adopter categories, except the late majority respondents who used a higher percentage of farm organization sources. Early majority respondents reported the highest percentage use ( 1 8 . 7 per cent), followed by laggards ( 1 7 . 0 per cent), early adopter-innovators ( 1 1 . 5 per cent), with the lowest use by the l a t e majority ( 9 « 9 per cent). TABLE XIX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE USE OF SOURCES OF INFORMATION BY ADOPTER CATEGORY WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY ORIGIN Adopter Category Origin Lagg ard Late Majority Early Majority Early Adopter Innovator % oi /o °/ 1 % Government 2 0 . 3 26 . 2 26. .8 3 2 . 5 Commercial 1 7 . 0 9 . 9 18 . -7 1 1 . 5 Farm Organizations 7 . 4 1 2 . 1 8. .9 7 .0 Personal 5 5 . 3 5 1 . 8 4 5 . ,6 4 9 . 0 Total 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 100. .0 1 0 0 . 0 Note: A n u l l hypothesis of no difference i n class proportions between adopter categories f o r each type of information source was used at the- . 05 l e v e l . The chi-square value o f 9 . 4 2 2 was not s i g n i f i c a n t . 141 The least used source type was farm organization, ranging between 7 - 9 per cent, except as already indicated for the late majority (12.1 per cent,). There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between adopter categories i n the proportional use of source types. The pattern of information source use i n t h i s study, with sp e c i a l reference to personal and government sources, i s i n agree-o ment with Rogers' observations. Personal sources are r e l a t i v e l y •more important at the lower adoption l e v e l . On the other hand, sources which are i n closer contact with the o r i g i n of new ideas — including the D.H., the experiment s t a t i o n and the University — are used to a greater extent by the early adopter-innovator. The d i f f e r e n t i a l use of information sources at the aware-ness stage f o r each innovation i s presented i n Table XX. The chi-square test indicated s i g n i f i c a n t differences at the .001 l e v e l . A s i g n i f i c a n t l y larger percentage of respondents used government sources f o r three of the more recent innovations — s o i l analysis f o r nematode control, captan for f r u i t - r o t control and chemical weed control (Table XXI). The s i t u a t i o n i s reversed i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between vi r u s - f r e e plants, a long estab-l i s h e d practice, and the recently introduced picking carts. I t i s reasonable to assume that government agencies must have made a sp e c i a l e f f o r t i n the introduction of t h i s l a t t e r i n -novation to growers, i n view of the importance of reducing the incidence of disease and heavy crop losses. 142 Evidence of a more extensive use of commercial sources f o r innovations involving the use of chemicals i s shown i n Table XXII. Responses indicated that salesmen were f a i r l y active i n some areas. A sample of such responses include: Salesmen keep us pretty well informed. In this area we f i n d out more about chemicals from salesmen. TABLE XX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED AT THE AWARENESS STAGE FOR EACH INNOVATION WITH SOURCES CLASSIFIED BI ORIGIN C l a s s i f i e d by Origin Innovation Govern- Commer- Farm Organ-ment c i a l i z a t i o n Personal Total 1 5 . 6 2 3 . ? 2 . 4 2 7 . 3 9 . 8 S o i l Analysis f o r Nematode Control 2 8 . 9 Captan for f r u i t - r o t control 22.7 Change from h i l l planting to matted-row 11.0 Chemical weed control 18.2 Picking carts 8.7 Virus-free C e r t i f i e d Plants 20. 3 1 3 . 3 14.4 4.9 12.1 8.7 15^. /° 81.7 42.4 72.8 07 42.2 100.0 3 9 . 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 5 0 . 6 1 0 0 . 0 Average: A l l Innovations18.3 1 5 . 5 11.4 54.8 100.0 Note: A n u l l hypothesis of no difference i n class proportions betweer. innovations f o r each type of information source was used. The chi-square value of 78.420 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the .001 l e v e l . TABLE XXI Z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL USE OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SOURCES BETWEEN.INNOVATIONS AT THE AWARENESS STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS RELEVANT TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF SOURCES BY ORIGIN* Innovation Innovation Captan f o r Change from Chemical Picking Virus-free f r u i t - r o t H i l l plant- Weed Carts c e r t i f i e d control ing to Matted Control plants Row S o i l analysis f o r nematode control 1 .020 Captan f o r f r u i t -rot control C h a n g e from H i l l planting to Matted Row Chemical Weed Control 3 .168** 1 .672 3 .693** 1.414 2 . 2 1 2 0 .796 2.750** 0 .390 - 1 . 4 4 0 0 . 5 4 2 - 1 . 8 2 7 2 .026 -2.320 *N0TE: Details of procedure used are given i n Appendix VI. Underlined values are s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l . * * S i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l . TABLE XXII Z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL USE OF COMMERCIAL INFORMATION SOURCES BETWEEN INNOVATIONS AT THE AWARENESS STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS RELEVANT TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF SOURCES BY ORIGIN* . Innovation Innovation Captan f o r Change from Chemical Picking Virus-free f r u i t - r o t H i l l - plant- Weed Carts c e r t i f i e d control ing to Matted Control plants Row S o i l analysis for nematode control - 1 . 4 3 4 Captan f o r f r u i t -rot control Change from H i l l planting to Matted Row Chemical Weed Control Picking Carts 3.300** -2.038 1 .237 4.542** -0 .550 2.628** -4.980* -2.236 3-199** 0 .340 1 .792 -l^oZi* 4 2 .209 -0 .895 *N0TE: Details of procedure used are given i n Appendix VI. Underlined values are s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l . '"••-Significant at the . 01 l e v e l . 144 To some extent the influence of salesmen as a commercial source of information at the awareness stage may "be somewhat understated i n t h i s study. In a few instances a grower, who i s c l a s s i f i e d as a "personal" source, may do a c e r t a i n amount of custom operation or he may be an agent f o r some chemicals. It i s to his advantage, therefore, to -encourage other growers to use the relevant innovation, even i f done i n ' a somewhat neighbourly manner, as d i s t i n c t from the non-grower chemical salesmen. The s i g n i f i c a n t l y larger percentage use f o r v i r u s - f r e e plants and picking carts i n comparison with the use of matted rows i s accounted for l a r g e l y by advertisement i n newspapers and magazines, as indicated by some respondents. On the other hand, there was hardly any r e l e -vance of commercial sources to the introduction of the matted row system to growers. There are few instances of s i g n i f i c a n t differences with respect to farm organization sources, none of which exceed the'.05 l e v e l (Table. XXIII). The pattern of s i g n i f i c a n c e observed suggest the greater a c t i v i t y of farm organizations i n more recent times, -hence t h e i r importance f o r two of the more recent innovations. S i g n i f i c a n t differences i n the use of personal sources are a l l at the .01 l e v e l (Table XXIV). The greater use of personal sources f o r simpler innovations which do not involve the use of chemicals, compared to others, i s p a r t i c u l a r l y outstanding. In the case of picking carts, frequently used information sources included farm employees and observation on other farms. TABLE XXIII Z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL USE OF FARM ORGANIZATION INFORMATION SOURCES BETWEEN INNOVATIONS AT THE AWARENESS STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS. RELEVANT TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF SOURCES BY ORIGIN* Innovation Innovation Captan f o r Change from Chemical Picking Virus-free f r u i t - r o t H i l l plant- Weed Carts c e r t i f i e d control ing.to Matted Control plants Row S o i l analysis f o r nematode control - 0 . 2 2 5 Captan f o r f r u i t -rot control Change from H i l l planting to Matted ROTtf Chemoal weed control Picking carts 2.100 2.241 0.256 1.057 •0.389 0.490 1.245 - 0 . 1 6 0 •1.800 -1.055 0.802 - 2 . 4 2 9 - 0 . 6 3 4 -1 .419 *N0TE: Details of procedure used are given i n Appendix VI. Underlined values are s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l . TABLE XXIV Z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL. USE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION SOURCES BETWEEN INNOVATIONS AT THE AWARENESS STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PRO-CESS RELEVANT TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF SOURCES BY ORIGIN AND BY NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY* Innovation Innovati on Captan f o r Change from Chemical Picking Virus-free f r u i t - r o t H i l l plant- Weed Carts c e r t i f i e d control ing to Matted Control plants Row , S o i l analysis f o r nematode control 0.434 Captan f o r f r u i t -rot control Change from H i l l planting to Matted Row Chemi c a l weed control Picking carts - 5 . 7 6 6 * * -6.142** - . 0 2 9 - 3 . 7 5 0 * * - 0 . 4 6 2 - 4 . 8 0 0 * * 5.737** 1.506 -1.200 -1 .629 4.691** -1.171 3.241** *N0TE: Details of procedure used are given i n Appendix VI. Underlined values are s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l . :'*Significant at the .01 l e v e l . I I . THE USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY THE NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY The four sub-categories within t h i s system of c l a s s i f i c a -t i o n are: Personal: d i r e c t face-to-face communication between the communicator and the receiver. The i n d i v i d u a l sources included i n thi s type are exactly the same as f o r the previous c l a s s i f i c a t i o n (Table XVIII), and also includes a l l responses r e l e -vant to foreign t r a v e l — f o r example, the United States. Mass: information media directed to farmers i n general, and i n which there i s no provision f o r two-way communication. Instruc t i o n a l Group: educational a c t i v i t i e s i n which information i s presented to a number of farmers simultan-eously and i n which there i s an opportunity fo r two-way communication. Individual Instructional educational a c t i v i t i e s which lend themselves to being conducted with a single farmer at a time, such as farm v i s i t s by the D.H. and personal v i s i t s to a research s t a t i o n . There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between adopter cate-gories i n the t o t a l use of di f f e r e n t information sources by type (Table XXV). The percentage use of personal sources remained the 147 same as f o r the previous c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , and were therefore the most extensively used. TABLE XXV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE USE OF SOURCES OF INFORMATION BY ADOPTER CATEGORY WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY THE NATURE OF THE ACTICITY Adopter Category  Nature of the Laggard Late Early Early Adopter A c t i v i t y Majority Majority Innovator V /° % % % Personal 5 5 - 3 5 1 . 8 - 4 5 . 6 4 9 . O Mass 5 . 3 7 . 1 8 . 5 6 . 0 Instructional Group 1 2 . 8 1 5 . 9 1 1 . 9 1 2 . 0 Individual Inst r u c t i o n a l 2 6 . 6 2 5 . 2 3 4 . 0 3 3 . 0 NOTE: A n u l l hypothesis of no difference i n class proportions between adopter categories f o r each source of information was used at the . 0 5 l e v e l . The chi-square value of 9.422 was not s i g n i f i c a n t . Individual i n s t r u c t i o n a l type information sources were second i n importance. Even though the differences are not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , there i s more extensive use at the upper adoption l e v e l ( 3 3 - 3 4 per cent), compared to l a t e major-i t y and laggard respondents ( 2 5 - 2 7 per cent). Instructional group sources were used s l i g h t l y more than mass types, but i n neither instance i s there evidence of a d i s c e r n i b l e trend i n the proportional use between adopter categories. Also, the differences between categories are n e g l i g i b l e . 148 The general rank order, and pattern of use of. personal and i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l group sources on a t o t a l basis i s i n 3 general agreement with the findings of Verner and Gubbels . In th i s instance, however, the use of i n s t r u c t i o n a l group sources exceed that of mass types. The chi-square test indicated s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n the use of d i f f e r e n t source types between the Innovations at the awareness stage (Table XXVI). Detailed analysis, using Z values fo r the test of a difference between proportions, i s shown i n Tables XXVII - XXIX. There i s a consistency i n the s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater use of p a r t i c u l a r source types such as government' and commercial ( c l a s s i f i e d by origin) and mass and i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l ( c l a s s i f i e d by the nature of the a c t i v i t y ) f o r the recent innovations of a more complex nature, compared to the proportional use for the Matted Bow system and picking carts. Individual i n s t r u c t i o n a l sources within t h i s context are largely r e l a t e d to the D.H., fieldmen and dealers, and personal v i s i t s to the experimental s t a t i o n . On the other hand, mass types now include government publications with information relevant to the innovations. There are only two instances of a s i g n i f i -cant difference with respect to i n s t r u c t i o n a l group sources (Table XXVIII). I I I . THE USE OF INDIVIDUAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION The predominance of personal sources i s again i l l u s t r a t e d by the fact that neighbours and friends were used to the greatest extent by a l l adopter categories. Laggards and l a t e 'C. Verner and P. M. Gubbels, op_. c i t . , p. 3 3 . 149 majority respondents, however, were the greatest users compared to other adopter categories, the least use being made of t h i s source by early adopter-innovators (Table XXX). TABLE XXVI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SOURCES OF INFORMATION AT THE AWARENESS STAGE FOR EACH INNOVATION WITH THE SOURCES CLASSIFIED BY NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY C l a s s i f i e d by : Mature of the A c t i v i t y Innovation Personal Mass In a l s t r u c t i o n -C-roup Individual Total Instructional p i % cf p p S o i l Analysis for Nematode Control • 42.2 1 3 - 3 1 6 . 7 2 7 . 8 1 0 0 . 0 Captan for f r u i t -rot control 3 9 . 2 1 2 . 4 1 5 . 5 3 2 . 9 1 0 0 . 0 Change from H i l l planting to Matted Row 8 1 . 7 1 . 2 1 2 . 2 4 . 9 1 0 0 . 0 Chemical weed control 42.4 7 . 1 14.1 3 6 . 4 1 0 0 . 0 Picking carts 7 2 . 8 3 . 3 1 5 . 2 8 . 7 1 0 0 . 0 Virus-free C e r t i f i e d Plants 5 0 . 6 7 . 6 24.1 1 7 . 7 1 0 0 . 0 Average: A l l Innovations 5 4 . 8 7 . 5 1 . 6 . 3 2 1 . 4 1 0 0 . 0 NOTE: A n u l l hypothesis of no difference i n class proportions between innovations f o r each type of information source was used. The chi-square value of 89.652 Is s i g n i f i c a n t at the . 0 0 1 l e v e l . TABLE XXVII 1 5 0 Z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL USE OF MASS INFORMATION SOURCES BETWEEN INNOVATIONS AT THE AWARENESS STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS RELEVANT TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF SOURCES BY NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY* I n n o v a t i o n I n n o v a t i o n Captan f o r Change from C h e m i c a l P i c k i n g V i r u s - f r e e f r u i t - r o t H i l l p l a n t - Weed C a r t s c e r t i f i e d C o n t r o l i n g to C o n t r o l p l a n t s Mat ted Row S o i l a n a l y s i s f o r nematode c o n t r o l Captan f o r f r u i t -r o t c o n t r o l Change from H i l l p l a n t i n g to Matted Row C h e m i c a l i^eed c o n t r o l P i c k i n g c a r t s  0 . 1 9 2 3 . 3 6 1 * * 1 . 4 6 2 2 . 6 7 4 * * 1 . 3 4 4 3 . 1 1 1 * * 1 . 2 5 0 2 . 4 3 3 1 . 1 3 2 -2.235 • -1.214 -2.424 1 . 2 6 7 - 0 . 1 3 9 *NOTE: D e t a i l s of procedure used are g i v e n i n Appendix V I . U n d e r l i n e d v a l u e s are s i g n i f i c a n t at the . 0 5 l e v e l . * * S i g n i f i c a n t a t the . 0 1 l e v e l . TABLE XXVIII Z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL USE OF INSTRUCTIONAL GROUP INFORMATION SOURCES BETWEEN INNOVATIONS AT THE AWARENESS STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS RELEVANT TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF SOURCES BY NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY  ; I n n o v a t i o n  I n n o v a t i o n Captan f o r Change from Chemica l P i c k i n g V i r u s - f r e e f r u i t - r o t H i l l p l a n t - Weed C a r t s c e r t i f i e d c o n t r o l i n g to C o n t r o l p l a n t s Mat ted Row S o i l a n a l y s i s f o r nematode c o n t r o l 2 . 5 7 5 * * 0 . 9 2 0 0 . 5 2 0 0.295 - 1 . 3 1 0 Captan f o r f r u i t -r o t c o n t r o l 0 . 6 1 3 0.280 0 . 0 6 0 - 1 . 5 2 2 Change from H i l l p l a n t i n g t o Mat ted Row -0.405 - 0 . 6 1 3 -2.434 C h e m i c a l weed c o n t r o l P i c k i n g c a r t s - 0 . 2 2 5 -1.828 , . , - 1 . 5 7 ^ * N 0 T E : D e t a i l s of p r o c e d u r e used are g i v e n i n Appendix V I . U n d e r l i n e d v a l u e s are s i g n i f i c a n t a t the . 0 5 l e v e l . * * S i g n i f i c a n t a t the . 0 1 l e v e l . 1 5 1 The D.H. ranks second i n importance f o r a l l categories except laggards, with the greatest use by early adopter-innovators (20.5. per cent). Early and la t e majority respondents reported approximately the same l e v e l of use ( 1 6 - 1 7 per cent). In marked contrast, however, t h i s p a r t i c u l a r source i s si x t h on the l i s t f o r laggards, averaging only 6 . 4 per cent. Salesmen, dealers and custom operators rank second i n importance f o r laggards, sixth for late.majority, f i f t h f o r early majority, but i s not included i n the f i r s t s i x sources f o r early adopter innovator respondents. TABLE XXIX Z VALUES FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL USE OF INDIVIDUAL INSTRUCTIONAL INFORMATION SOURCES BETWEEN INNOVATIONS AT THE AWARENESS STAGE IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS RELEVANT TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF SOURCES BY NATURE OF THE ACTIVITY* Innovation Innovation S o i l analysis f o r nematode control Captan f o r f r u i t -rot control Captan f o r Change from Chemical Picking Virus-free f r u i t - r o t H i l l planting Weed - Carts c e r t i f i e d control to Matted Row Control plants - 0 . 7 8 7 Change from H i l l planting to Matted Row Chemical weed control Picking carts 4 . 4 9 9 * * 5.118** - 1 - 3 1 3 3 . 5 5 0 * * 1.709 - 0 . 5 2 2 4.159** 2 . 5 0 0 -5.181* - 1 . 0 5 5 -2.943** 4.687** 2.997** *N0TE: Details of procedure used are given i n Appendix VI. Underlined values are s i g n i f i c a n t at the . 0 5 l e v e l . * * S i g n i f l e a n t at the . 0 1 l e v e l . 1 5 2 TABLE XXX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SIX MOST FREQUENTLY USED SOURCES OF INFORMATION BY ADOPTER CATEGORY ' Adopter Category Laggard Late Majority Early Majority Early Adopter-Innovator Neighbours Neighbours Neighbours Neighbours and friends and friends and friends and friends 2 8 . 7 3 2 . 5 2 5 . 1 2 3 . 5 Salesmen, dealers D i s t r i c t D i s t r i c t D i s t r i c t and custom Ho r t i c u l t u r - H o r t i c u l t u r - H o r t i c u l t u r -operators i s t i s t i s t 1 1 . 7 1 7 . 1 1 5 . 9 2 0 . 5 A g r i c u l t u r a l meet-ings and Short Courses sponsored by the L.M.H.I.A., Observation on or other A g r i c u l - Observation on Foreign other'farms t u r a l meetings other farms t r a v e l 1 0 . 6 1 3 - 9 8 . 1 1 1 . 0 A g r i c u l t u r a l meet-ings and Short Courses sponsored Observation by the L.M.H.I.A. Observation Personal on other or other A g r i c u l - on other Experience farms t u r a l Meetings farms' . 8 . 5 1 0 . 4 9 . 6 9 . 5 A g r i c u l t u r a l meetings and A g r i c u l t u r a l meet- Short Courses ings and Short sponsored, by . Courses sponsored the L.M.H.I.A. by the L.M.H.I.A., or other or other A g r i c u l - Personal Salesmen and Ag r i c u l t u r a l t u r a l meetings Experience dealers meetings 8 . 5 5 . 4 7 . 4 8 . 5 Manager of Employ-D i s t r i c t Salesmen and ees of the Proc- Personal H o r t i c u l t u r i s t dealers essing Plant Experience 6 . 4 4 . 6 7 . 2 5 . 5 7 4 . 4 8 3 . 9 7 3 . 3 7 8 . 5 153 Foreign t r a v e l was t h i r d i n importance f o r early adopter-innovators with 1 1 . 0 per cent of t h e i r responses. Some of these respondents indicated frequent contact with other growers, and they also attended growers' short courses i n the State of Washington. A few of them v i s i t e d experiment stations and had contacts with government h o r t i c u l t u r i s t s and other s p e c i a l i s t s i n the United States. As Rogers^ has indicated, the early adopter-innovators exhibited more cosmopolite behaviour i n t h e i r use of sources of information. This p a r t i c u l a r source of information i s not included i n the f i r s t s i x sources f o r any other category. Observation on other farms i s t h i r d i n importance f o r laggards ( 1 0 . 6 per cent) and early majority ( 8 . 1 per cent), but i s fourth f o r l a t e majority respondents ( 1 0 . 4 per cent) and early adopter-innovators ( 9 -5 per cent). Meetings of farm organizations together with short courses sponsored by the L.M.H.I.A. are of increasingly l e s s e r importance between la t e majority and early adopter innovators — t h i r d f o r late majority, fourth f o r early majority and f i f t h f o r early adopter-innovators. This source ranks s i x t h f o r laggards, and accounted f o r the same percentage use as early adopter innovators ( 8 . 5 per cent). Personal experience i s the l a s t of the s i x sources for early adopter-innovators; i t ranks f i f t h f o r late majority and fourth f o r laggards, but i s not included f o r early majority res-pondents, f o r whom manager or employees of the processing plant E. M. Rogers, op_. c i t . , p. 1 8 0 . 154 occuples the s i x t h p o s i t i o n . This l a t t e r source i s not included for any other adopter category. CHAPTER VII INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION The a g r i c u l t u r a l extension agent i s an agent of change whose e f f o r t s are directed at achieving planned or purposeful change within a " c l i e n t " or target s o c i a l system. x Being an adult educator, he in e v i t a b l y aims at "cooperation" i n the process. His f i e l d of concentration i s the "community". As Goodenough points out, a "mutual i d e n t i f i c a t i o n " of goals i s necessary since "development c a l l s f o r a considerable degree 2 of cooperative action between community and agent." The "human factor" i n e v i t a b l y becomes a c r u c i a l variable i n his approach to the promotion of change. Thus, success i n the promotion of the adoption of innova-tions within the c l i e n t system implies cooperation with, and acceptance by the existing leadership structure whose personal influence reaches downwards to the more passive members of the community i n the nature of an i n t e r a c t i o n effect.'-* While there i s general agreement on what constitutes leadership, there i s some difference i n agreement as to how i t operates or how i t should be studied. Freeman et. a l . l i s t George M. Beal et• a l . , S o c i a l Action and Interaction i n Program Planning (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1 9 6 6 ) , p. 5 2 . ^Ward H. Goodenough, Cooperation i n Change (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1963), p. lo""I 3 - -^ E. M. Rogers, D i f f u s i o n of Innovations, op. c i t . , pp. 208-k Linton C. Freeman et. a l . , "Locating Leaders i n Local Com-munities: A Comparison of Some Alternative Approaches", American  S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 2 8 : 7 9 1 , October, 1 9 6 3 * 1 5 6 four types of compromise i n e x i s t i n g methodology and suggest that the most r e a l i s t i c would seem to have as a basis the assumption of "active p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n decision making",®>as an index of leadership. When the sociometric technique i s used with appropriate responses, s p e c i f i c to the decision-making process, i t would seem to f i t this p a r t i c u l a r requirement. The r e s u l t i n g sociogram enables the observer to determine the r e l a t i v e status of i n d i v i d u a l members, i d e n t i f y leaders, and to obtain some i n d i c a t i o n of existing groups and cleavages within the social unit being investigated. 1 . THE BASIS OF ANALYSIS This chapter i s devoted to the study of interpersonal relationships among the strawberry growers of the Lower Fraser V a l l e y as indicated by the d i s t r i b u t i o n of sociometric choices i n the interpersonal network. Ideally, a l l the growers i n the region should be interviewed to achieve a complete picture. The inherent l i m i t a t i o n i n t r y i n g to map the interpersonal net-work by the use of sociometric responses from the random sample only, i s p a r t l y compensated f o r by the fact that t h i s sample consisted of more than 5 0 per cent of the known 1 9 4 growers. A greater degree of completion i n i d e n t i f y i n g the i n t e r -personal communication patterns was r e a l i z e d i n one l o c a l i t y "'Ibid., p. 792. ^Urie Bronfenbrenner, The Measurement of Sociometric Status, Structure and Development (Sociometry Monographs No. 6 , Beacon House, 1 9 4 5 ) , p. 3 6 . 157 by interviewing" a l l the growers resident i n a single c l u s t e r . As previously indicated, t h i s c l u s t e r contained a t o t a l of 46 growers, including 22 who were picked i n the random sample. Where responses on interpersonal communication indicated growers who were not i n the sample, t h e i r names and addresses were obtained so that i t was passible to include-them i n the sociogram, thus increasing the l e v e l of completion of the sociometric presentation. Growers were asked about other growers from whom they "always" sought advice i n a r r i v i n g at a decision concerning whether or not to t r y an innovation. In addition, the respond-ent was asked to indicate three persons whom he v i s i t e d s o c i a l l y most frequently. The respondent was free to name anyone, and no e f f o r t was made to obtain mentions of other growers i n p a r t i c -u l a r . This provided further scope fo r examining the potential f o r information transfer i n informal interpersonal communication behaviour. Various aspects of the interpersonal network were analysed including the d i s t r i b u t i o n of opinion leaders i d e n t i f i e d by the concentration of sociometric responses. The communica-t i o n behaviour of the i n d i v i d u a l respondent was observed both within and between ethnic groupings, and with reference to the degree of linkage between l o c a l i t y groups. Adoption performance was also used as a basis f o r the analysis of existing r e l a t i o n -ships. In the case of the non-randomly selected growers i n the clust e r who were interviewed, the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n into adopter 158 categories was on the basis of t h e i r adoption score as with a l l growers, and the chi-square test indicated that the d i s t r i b u -t i o n of scores obtained represented a f a i r l y good f i t i n terms of a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n . I I . SOCIOMETRIC BEHAVIOUR FOR ADVISORY DYADS The sociometric patterns plotted i n Figure I i l l u s t r a t e the s e l e c t i o n of other growers as a source of advice. This i d e n t i f i e s the indivi d u a l s who are most i n f l u e n t i a l i n the decision-making process. The s p e c i f i c reference to another grower from whom advice was "always" sought, i n e f f e c t , neces-s i t a t e s some thought and a d e f i n i t e commitment on the part of the respondent. During the interviews, respondents seemed to exercise considerable caution i n i d e n t i f y i n g other growers. While i n many instances a grower xrould acknowledge a general tendency to discuss various aspects of strax\rberry c u l t i v a t i o n with other growers, he would either not name anyone as being relevant to the question, or he would only name a single i n d i v i d u a l . There would seem to have been no doubt, generally, as to who was considered worthy of being mentioned as a constant source of advice. This conservative attitude i s further i l l u s t r a t e d by the extent to which other individuals were named; 45 per cent of a l l growers interviewed did not name another i n d i v i d u a l i n an advisory r e l a t i o n s h i p . 1 5 9 I t would seem also, that the response behaviour i s partly explained by a ce r t a i n degree of d i s t r u s t among growers as to the r e l i a b i l i t y of advice obtained from other farmers. This attitude was detected i n widely separated l o c a l i t y areas, but was only c l e a r l y evident among the non-Japanese growers. A sample of the relevant responses vrhich suggest the opinion expressed are: Farmers around here don't l i k e to t e l l anything they have found out. I go to them but they don't give me any... they won't t e l l you anything.... Strawberry growers are the worst l i a r s i n the world. I I I . THE SAMPLE Adopter Category and Sociometric Tendency Differences among adopter categories r e l a t i v e to whether or not the respondent named another grower as a source of advice are not p a r t i c u l a r l y oustanding. The lowest percentage of i n d i v i d u a l s , by adopter category, naming another grower was among the laggards (41.7 per cent). This d i f f e r s only s l i g h t l y from the early majority (46.5 per cent) or the early adopter-innovators (47.1 per cent). A much larger percentage ( 6 0 . 7 per cent) of l a t e majority respondents named someone. Combined average percentages indicate a very s l i g h t bias towards l a t e r adopters as being more l i k e l y to choose someone i n an "advisor-advisee" r e l a t i o n s h i p . The chi-square test indicated a s i g n i f i c a n t difference at the . 0 5 l e v e l i n the ov e r a l l 16 o d i s t r i b u t i o n between adopter categories (Table XXXI) TABLE XXXI RESPONSE OF GROWERS TO NAMING ANOTHER GROWER AS A SOURCE OF ADVICE Type of Response  Random Sample A l l Respondents Interviewed Adopter Named Did not Named Did not Category Someone name someone Someone name someone No. /o No. % No. t No. % Laggard 5 41.7 7 58.3 7 5 0 . 0 7 5 0 . 0 Late majority 17 6 0 . 7 11 39-3 2 3 6 2 . 2 14 37.8 Early majority 2 0 4 6 . 5 2 3 53.5 2 5 5 0 . 0 2 5 5 0 . 0 Early Adopter-Innovator 8 47.1 9 52.9 13 56.5 10 43.5 Total of Numbers .. ^ 68 5 6 TToTaT~= 1 0 0 ) " "(Total = 124) Note: The chi-square test was used to test the n u l l hypothesis of no s i g n i f i c a n t difference among adopter categories (random sample only). The chi-square value of 8 . 0 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the . 0 5 l e v e l . Sociometric Status and Adopter Category In an in v e s t i g a t i o n of i n f l u e n t i a l s i n the decision-making process, those named as a source of advice i n the "seeker-sought" dyad are of especial importance. Generally, these i n f l u e n t i a l s f i t one or many of the roles i n the iinnovator-communicator-7 legitimator r e l a t i o n s h i p along the continuum of influence i n the p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l system. In thi s study, the major concern i s not to i d e n t i f y individuals with d i f f e r e n t i a l behaviour on such H. F. Lionberger and H. C. Chang, ojo. c i t . , pp. 5-6 discuss each of these roles i n d e t a i l . 161 a broad b a s i s . The s p e c i f i c question asked suggests strongly the role of the legitimator, granted that he may also serve the innovator-communicator r o l e , either partly or e n t i r e l y . The s p e c i f i c reference to "advice", therefore, i s a clear case of "where a conceptual d i s t i n c t i o n has been made between becoming Q informed and being convinced". Twenty per cent of the sample of 100 growers were named i n response to the question; 13 per cent were named once only, while 7 per cent were named more than once. Differences between adopter categories were n e g l i g i b l e , especially f o r those receiv-ing a single choice. This group included a single laggard ( 8 . 3 per cent of a l l laggards), and 2 early adopter-innovators (11.1 per cent). The largest percentage was among the early majority respondents (18.6 per cent). Differences were more d i s t i n c t among individ u a l s with a sc o r e 9 of 2 or more; they were more l i k e l y to be early adopters. These higher status individuals included 17.6 per cent of the early adopter innovators, 4.7 per cent of the early majority, and 7.1 per cent of the l a t e majority, but not a single laggard. The chi-square test indicated a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n s at the .01 l e v e l (Table XXXII). °Ibid., p. 6. 9The sociometric score i n the context indicates the number of choices (or mentions) an i n d i v i d u a l received by other growers; abbreviated frequently hereafter as SS. 162 TABLE XXXII SOCIOMETRIC STATUS OF GROWERS AS A SOURCE OF ADVICE BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Sociometric Status Total Adopter Category ( 1 ) Score = 1 ( 2 ) Score ( 3 ) Growers with a score of 1 or more (47 Growers with no score No. i No. No. - J No. at Laggard 1 8.3 - 1 8.3 1 1 9 1 . 7 Late majority 2 7 . 1 2 7 . 1 4 14.2 24 85.7 Early majority 8 18.6 2 4.7 1 0 2 3 - 3 3 3 7 6 . 7 Early Adopter-Innovator 2 1 1 . 8 3 17.6 5 29.4 1 2 7 0 . 6 Total of Numbers 1 3 7 1M_ 2 0 80 _ Note: The chi-square test was used to test the n u l l hypothesis of no s i g n i f i c a n t difference among adopter categories. (Using Columns 1, 2 and 4). The chi-square value of 32.84 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l . Dyadic Relationships i n Relation to Adopter Category The sociometric analysis was further extended to examine possible d y a d i c 1 0 relationships i n terms of i n t e r a c t i o n within and between adopter categories. In t h i s analysis, i n t e r e s t was focused on whether or not there was any apparent relationship i n the pattern of advisory sociometric choices, on the basis of A dyadic r e l a t i o n i s defined as "the i n t e r a c t i o n which occurs between the two partners i n a s o c i a l stimulus s i t u a t i o n . I t refers to a pai r i n sociation, usually, but not always of associative ch.ara.cter. I t i s the relationship between a pair of units or actors" i n S. Ivan Nye and F e l i x M. Berado (ed.), The Emerging Conceptual Frameworks i n Family Analysis (New York: The McMillan Company, 1 9 6 6 ) , p. 1 0 8 . 1 6 3 adoption performance, relevant to both the i n f l u e n t i a l and his follower. In a d i r e c t i o n a l sense, dyads were considered as being upward, downward or across depending on whether the sociometric choice was extended to an i n d i v i d u a l c l a s s i f i e d i n a higher, lower or the same adopter category. For the purpose of t h i s analysis, however, i t was only possible to consider those dyadic relationships which extend between two respondents, since an adoption score was not available f o r growers who were not i n t e r -v i ewed. The analysis f o r the sample included 41 of the 4 8 choices originating from randomly selected respondents. A large majority of these sociometric choices ( 9 2 . 7 per cent) extended either upward or across. More than twice the percentage of choices were upward ( 6 5 . 9 per cent) compared to those extended at the same adoption l e v e l ( 2 6 . 8 per cent). Upward choices f o r each adopter category were d i s t r i b u t e d as follows: early majority ( 3 7 . 5 per cent), late majority ( 8 4 . 2 per cent) and laggards ( 7 5 per cent); early adopter-innovators directed a l l choices to other growers at the same l e v e l of adoption. Downward choices were only evident f o r early majority respondents. This group also directed the l a r g -est percentage of choices ( 4 3 . 8 per cent) towards the same adop-t i o n performance l e v e l (Table XXXIII). The chi-square value, which was s i g n i f i c a n t at the .001 l e v e l indicates quite c l e a r l y that sociometric choices on the basis of adoption performance are not random or due to chance. 164 The concentration of the dyadic relationships -in the d i r e c t i o n of individuals s i m i l a r to or better than those who choose t h e i r source of leg i t i m a t i o n i s c l e a r l y evident, from the percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n s i n the table. TABLE XXXIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SOCIOMETRIC CHOICES BETWEEN RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY Individuals Individuals Named as a Source of Advice naming others Adopter Category as a source of advice Lagj gard Late Majority Early Majority Early Adopter-Innovator Total Adopter Category % % % % % Laggard 25 . 0 2 5 . 0 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 100 .0 Late majority 0 .0 1 5 . 8 3 6 . 8 4 7 . 4 1 0 0 . 0 Early majority 0 .0 1 8 . 7 4 3 . 8 ' 3 7 . 5 1 0 0 . 0 Early Adopter-Innovator 0 .0 • 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 Note: The chi-square test was used to test the n u l l hypothesis of no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of dyadic relationships among adopter categories. The chi-square value of 219 .79 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the . 001 l e v e l . Sociometric Patterns and Ethnic Origin The Menonite and Japanese respondents were observed to be concentrated l a r g e l y i n two d i s t r i c t l o c a l i t y .groups. On the other hand, the other growers are f a i r l y widely d i s t r i b u t e d throughout the sample area, except f o r the p a r t i c u l a r l o c a l i t y where the Japanese growers are concentrated. Seventy-six per cent of the Menonites are i n the general area i n which the 165 cluster i s located; s i m i l a r l y 63 per cent of the Japanese growers are confined to a single l o c a l i t y area. From the data i t i s evident that sociometric choices for l e g i t i m i z a t i o n purposes are strongly concentrated within each of the three ethnic groups. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y outstand-ing among the Menonites and Japanese. Sociometric i n t e r a c t i o n i n the advisor-advisee dyadic relationships indicate quite c l e a r l y that e t h n i c i t y i s an appreciable b a r r i e r to interpersonal communication between di f f e r e n t ethnic groups. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of dyads among Japanese respondents suggest that they operate on a closed group basis. Not a single Japanese respondent named a non-Japanese grower i n a l l 13 dyads reported within the random sample. Among Menonites, 6 (75 Per cent) of a t o t a l of 8 choices were directed to other Menonites, 1 to a Japanese, and the remain-ing single choice to one of the other respondents. Dyads originating from the t h i r d group of respondents occur on a much broader basis; however, again the majority of choices i s very larg e l y confined to non-Menonite and non-Japanese i n d i v i d u a l s . Of 21 choices, 15 (71 -4 per cent) were directed to si m i l a r growers and 6 ( 2 8 . 6 per cent) to Menonites. Not a single Japanese grower was mentioned, thus giving further support to the apparent i s o l a t i o n of Japanese respondents on a communal basis. The relevant percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n s are given i n Table XXXIV. The chi-square value was s i g n i f i c a n t at the .001 l e v e l . 166, TABLE XXXIV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SOCIOMETRIC CHOICES BETWEEN RESPONDENTS BY ETHNIC ORIGIN Individuals naming Individuals named as a source of advice Total others as a source Ethnic Origin of advice J apanese Menonite Others Ethnic Origin % % % % Japanese 1 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 • 0 .0 100 .0 Menonite 1 2 . 5 7 5 . 0 1 2 . 5 100 .0 -Others 0 . 0 2 8 . 6 7 1 . 4 1 0 0 . 0 Note: The chi-square no s i g n i f i c a n t test was used difference i n to test the n u l l the d i s t r i b u t i o n hypothesis of dyadic of relationships among ethnic groups. The chi-square value of 345 .28 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the .001 l e v e l . IV. THE CLUSTER In order to obtain a more complete picture of sociometric behaviour among the close-knit group of i n d i v i d u a l s , i t was decided to select a cluster of growers i n an area which seemed, to represent a well established l o c a l i t y group. This p a r t i c u l a r cluster of 46 farmers Included 22 who were also picked i n the random sample. Adopter Category and Sociometric Tendency Among the 46 growers i n the cluster, 32 respondents ( 6 9 . 6 per cent) named another grower i n an advisory dyadic r e l a t i o n s h i p . There i s no obvious difference between adopter categories i n the tendency to make a po s i t i v e choice i n 1 6 ? response to the question. Within the 4 adopter categories, the relevant percentages were laggards ( 6 6 . 7 . p e r cent), l a t e majority ( 7 1 . 4 per cent), early majority (64.7 per cent) and early adopter-innovators ( 7 5 per cent). Combined average percentages f o r early and l a t e adopters are 6 9 . 9 per cent and 6 9 . I per cent respectively. Thus, the s l i g h t tendency toward a greater l i k e l i h o o d of response from l a t e r adopters, as was evident i n the random sample, i s not borne out within the c l u s t e r . Sociometric Status and Adopter Category Nine respondents ( 1 9 * 6 per cent) were chosen i n the advisory dyads. Of the t o t a l of 40 choices originating within the cluster, 2 2 ( 5 5 per cent) were f o r respondent No. 9. His t o t a l sociometric advisory status, however, was 2 5 since he received 3 choices from individuals not included i n the cluster, but who l i v e d i n the general area. The sociometric importance of respondent No. 9 as a single i n d i v i d u a l within a sample area compares quite favourably to other s i m i l a r studies. Hoffer and G i b s o n 1 1 used the percentage of respondents naming an i n d i v i d u a l as a sociometric index to measure leadership among farmers i n several communities. Res-ponses, however, were e l i c i t e d from a cross-section of members of -^C. R. Hoffer and D. L. Gibson, The Community Si t u a t i o n as  i t Affects A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension Work, (East Lansing: Michigan State College, A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station, October, 1 9 4 l ) , pp. 1 0 - 3 2 . 1 6 8 the community, including non-farmers. They reported indices fo r single individtials ranging between . 2 3 to . 7 0 f o r d i f f e r e n t 1 2 communities. Leuthold reported a single farmer i n one com-munity receiving 28 per cent of a l l choices f o r advisory dyads from a t o t a l of 1 3 6 respondents. Of the 9 respondents named as i n f l u e n t i a l s i n the cluster area, 1 was la t e majority, 3 early adopter-innovator and 5 (55«6 per cent) early majority. Both f o r the random sample and f o r the cluster, therefore, early majority respondents comprised the largest proportion of a l l i n f l u e n t i a l s . The 5 individuals who received more than a single choice were a l l early adopters, and included 2 early adopter-innovators and 3 early majority respon-dents . Dyadic Relationships i n Relation to Adopter Category Sociometric behaviour among respondents within the cluster shows a s i m i l a r trend indicated f o r the random sample. Upward choices comprised 6 l . l per cent of the t o t a l 3 6 choices; 2 7 . 8 per cent were across and 1 1 . 1 per cent downward. Within i n d i v i d u a l adopter categories, there are some differences. Upwa.rd choices were d i s t r i b u t e d as follows: laggards ( 1 0 0 per cent), l a t e majority ( 9 0 . 9 per cent), early majority ( 7 1 . 4 per cent). Most of the dyadic choices of the early adopter-innovators were across ( 5 5 - 5 per cent) compared to 4 5 - 5 per cent downward to early majority respondents. F. 0. Leuthold, ojo. c i t . , p. 9 1 169 Choices extending from cluster growers to individuals outside the c l u s t e r are discussed i n the section on a l l respondents.. Sociometric Patterns and Ethnic O r i g i n Since the cluster of growers did not include any Japanese respondents, the analysis of ethnic i n t e r a c t i o n . i s , confined to Menonites and "other" respondents. This discussion i s again "based on the 36 advisory dyads previously indicated. Of the 23 choices o r i g i n a t i n g from Menonite respondents, 20 (8? per cent) extended to Menonites, and 3 (13 per cent) to non-Menonites. Of the 1-3 choices made by non-Menonites, 9 ( 6 9 - 2 per cent) extended to Menonites, compared to dyads involving growers l i k e themselves ( 3 0 . 8 per cent). This l a t t e r d i s t r i b u t i o n does not f i t the typical; biased pattern previously indicated for these.respondents i n the random sample, but, 7 of the 9 choices extended to Menonites were i n respect of respondent No. 9 . In the f i r s t instance, i t would be reasonable to suggest that non- .' -• Menonites resident i n the cluster area would be integrated to some- extent; also the obvious sociometric importance of No. 9 would seem d i f f i c u l t to r e s i s t " f o r any progressive grox^er i n the v i c i n i t y , except he had access to other r e l i a b l e sources of advice and information. 170 V. ALL RESPONDENTS Within the l i m i t a t i o n s of the proportion of the t o t a l population which has been mapped, a better picture of sociometric behaviour becomes more evident when a l l possible dyadic r e l a t i o n -ships are examined. I t i s now .possible to consider a l l 152 growers mapped together with the t o t a l of 92 sociometric choices indicated f o r advisory dyads i n Figure I. The previous discussion of the sample or the cluster was confined to dyads extending between the relevant individuals i n each case. I t i s now also possible to consider dyads extending between non-sample members of the cl u s t e r and individuals i n the sample who were resident outside of the p a r t i c u l a r l o c a l i t y . Also, while the additional 28 growers not included i n the 124 respondents could not be considered i n terms of adopter category, since an adoption score would not be available, dyadic r e l a t i o n - . ships which included them could be analysed on the basis of e t h n i c i t y . Adopter Category and Sociometric Tendency The i n d i c a t i o n from the random sample of a greater tendency for late adopters to suggest an advisory dyad i s somewhat more evident when consideration i s given to a l l respondents who named more than one person. The d i s t r i b u t i o n was 13 per cent of the early adopter-innovators, 16 per cent of the early majority, and 18 . 9 per cent of the l a t e majority respondents. There were no 1 7 1 laggards In t h i s group. From the data, i t i s evident that indiv i d u a l s with high sociometric scores either did not name any grower as a source, of advice or were most l i k e l y to name a foreign grower i n the United States. In Figure I, f o r example, No. 9 with a socio-metric score of 2 5 did not name anyone; the same applies to No. 6 0 ( S S = 5 ) , No. 6 9 ( S S = 3 ) , No. 1 1 6 (SS=4), No. 44 ( S S = 3 ) . Respondents with high scores who named a single grox^er included Nos. 2 3 (SS=4) and 14 ( S S = 3 ) , both of whom are i n the cluster mentioned, and named No. 9 . an exceptionally outstanding source of advice to growers i n the general l o c a l i t y . No. 88 (SS=4) named a foreign source (S-U.S.A.). The general response of many of these high status i n d i v i d -uals indicated that they were usually conscious of being opinion leaders i n the general l o c a l i t y . As xrould be expected, however, even though some conclusions must be cautious since the entire population of a l l growers were not interviex^ed, i t would seem that some individuals may have over-rated t h e i r r e l a t i v e status • as a source of advice, as d i s t i n c t from a mere source of inform-ation. For example, neither No. 7 9 who said "many come to me and ask me" or No. 9 2 — " l o t s of them come to me" — were named by any of the respondents. Sociometric Status and Adopter Category • Of tne 1 5 2 growers plotted, 3 5 ( 2 3 per cent) were i s o l a t e d as opinion leaders.- Twenty-five were among the 124 respondents 172 F I G U R E I. T H E DISTRIBUTION O F SOCIOMETRIC CHOICES IN T H E S E A R C H FOR A D V I C E . K E Y : MENONITE " O T H E R " | j J A P A N E S E * R E S P O N D E N T NAME FOREIGN GROWER | ] ( " ^ , / \ GROWERS WHO WERE (NOT P L O T T E D ) AS A S O U R C E O F A D V I C E . | | s _ / A__A NOT INTERVIEWED 170 respondents interviewed; the remaining 10 i n c l u d e d the two p r e v i o u s l y mentioned growers i n the U.S.A. Among the 35 i n f l u e n t i a l s , 21 (60 per cent) received a s i n g l e choice, 9 ( 2 5 . 7 per cent) r e c e i v e d 2 or 3 , and 5 (14 . 3 Per cent) r e c e i v e d more.than 3 choices. The o v e r a l l s i t u a t i o n gives an average of 2 . 6 choices per i n f l u e n t i a l ; the average among i n d i v i d u a l s r e c e i v i n g 2 or more choices i s 4 . 7* The 68 respondents, from whom the dyadic r e l a t i o n s h i p s 13 o r i g i n a t e i n the "seeker-sought" J context, provided a t o t a l of 92 instances of o p i n i o n l e a d e r s h i p s e l e c t i o n , as p l o t t e d i n Figure I . Seventy-six ( 8 2 . 6 per cent) are r e l e v a n t to 25 growers who were in t e r v i e w e d , while the remaining 16 concern non-interviextfed i n d i v i d u a l s . Considering t h e . s o c i o m e t r i c choices f o r a l l respondents, comprising both the sample and the c l u s t e r , s o c i o m e t r i c s t a t u s i s c l e a r l y weighted i n favour of higher adoption performance. The percentage of i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n each adopter category r e c e i v i n g at l e a s t one s o c i o m e t r i c choice was d i s t r i b u t e d : laggards ( 7 . 1 per c e n t ) , l a t e m a j o r i t y ( 1 3 « 5 per ce n t ) ; e a r l y m a j o r i t y (26.O per cent) and e a r l y adopter-innovators ( 2 6 . 1 per cent) were about the same. Combined average percentages were 1 0 . 3 per cent f o r l a t e adopters and more than double ( 2 6 . 1 per cent) f o r e a r l y adopters. F. Lionberger and H. C. Chang, ojo. c i t . r e f e r to the "seeker-sought information-seeking r e l a t i o n s h i p " as the "element s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e " which f a c i l i t a t e s i n t e r p e r s o n a l communication, (p. 1 0 ) . l?4 Dyadic Relationships i n Relation to Adopter Category The analysis f o r a l l respondents i n terms of adopter category includes 7 2 dyadic interactions among those i n t e r -viewed, out of a t o t a l of 9 2 sociometric choices recorded i n the study. A l l other dyads included non respondents f o r whom an adoption score was not available. Forty-seven of the 7 2 choices are plotted i n Figure I I . The remaining 2 5 , relevant to respondent No.' 9 who received 2 7 * 2 per cent of a l l choices recorded, are shown i n Figure I I I . This separate diagramatic representation avoids an excessive c l u t t e r of sociometric l i n e s on Figure I I , which would have made the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n more d i f f i c u l t . More than one-half ( 5 5 • & per cent) of the 7 2 choices were directed upwards i n terms of adoption performance. One-t h i r d (33*3 Per cent) were directed across, or to growers on the same adoption l e v e l . Eight choices ( 1 1 . 1 per cent) were directed downwards towards a grower i n a lower adopter category. The analysis also suggests an important difference i n sociometric behaviour depending upon whether the seeker of advice extends his e f f o r t upwards or downwards along the con-tinuum of adoption performance. From the data, i t would seem that individuals i n search of information, and i n p a r t i c u l a r legitimation, may choose others i n one, two or three adopter categories above t h e i r own l e v e l of performance. However, those from whom advice i s sought tend to be not too f a r distant. 175 E A R L Y A D O P T E R I N N O V A T O R E A R L Y M A J O R I T Y L A T E M A J O R I T Y L A G G A R D F I G U R E II. T H E D ISTRIBUTION O F S O C I O M E T R I C C H O I C E S F O R A D V I C E IN R E L A T I O N T O A D O P T E R C A T E G O R Y . K E Y : U P W A R D S O C I O M E T R I C S O C I O M E T R I C C H O I C E C H O I C E B E T W E E N R E S P O N D E N T S IN T H E S A M E A D O P T E R DOWNWARD S O C I O M E T R I C C A T E G O R Y C H O I C E 176 EARLY ADOPTER INNOVATOR EARLY MAJORITY LATE MAJORITY LAGGARD FIGURE III. ILLUSTRATION OF THE SOCIOMETRIC IMPORTANCE OF RESPONDENT NO. 9 KEY: UPWARD SOCIOMETRIC CHOICE SOCIOMETRIC CHOICE BETWEEN RESPONDENTS IN THE SAME ADOPTER CATEGORY 177 A breakdown of the t o t a l 40 upward choices showed that 22 (55 per cent) were directed upward by one adopter category, 13 (32.5 per cent) by two, and 5 (12.5 Per cent) by three. Lionberger and Campbell concluded from t h e i r study i n two Missouri communities that the choice of personal referents as sources of information were not random i n that there was "a general i n c l i n a t i o n f o r l i k e s to choose l i k e s " , relevant to the degree of exposure to d i f f e r e n t information sources. This study suggests that even where operators are most l i k e l y to look up-ward i n t h e i r search f o r legitimating advice, the general tend-ency i s to seek individuals as close as possible i n adoption performance. These whom they seek are generally better farmers, but not too much so. Downward sociometric choices, unlike those that extend upward i n the adoption scale, did not extend beyond a single adoption category i n any instance. In any event, th i s tendency i s not prominent i n the sociometric behaviour (Figure I I ) . These p a r t i c u l a r l i n s t a n c e s w i l l be discussed l a t e r i n the chapter where consideration i s given to the o v e r a l l c h a r a c t e r i s t i of opinion leaders. Sociometric Patterns and Ethnic Origin When the advisory dyads f o r a l l respondents are analysed, the apparent ethnic b a r r i e r i s again c l e a r l y suggested. As H. F. Lionberger and R. R. Campbell, oj>. c i t . , p. 20. 1 7 8 before,, a l l choices by Japanese are confined to t h e i r own group whether the source of advice i s a l o c a l or foreign grower. Of the 3 1 choices made'by Menonites, 2 1 ( 6 7 . 7 per cent) were. for other Menonites, 2 ( 6 . 5 per cent) f o r Japanese and 8 ( 2 5 - 8 per cent) f o r the other group. The two choices for Japanese included one prominent foreign grower. Of the 40 choices ori g i n a t i n g from the t h i r d group, 1 2 . 5 per cent were f o r Japanese i n d i v i d u a l s , a l l of xtfhom were prominent, foreign growers; 3 2 . 5 per cent for Menonites and 5 5 per cent f o r individuals l i k e themselves. From the data, therefore, i t i s clear that the apparent i s o l a t i o n of Japanese growers i s to a large extent a l o c a l s i t u a t i o n relevant to the 1 5 Lower Fraser Valley area. Coleman et. a l . , i n t h e i r study on the d i f f u s i o n of a drug among doctors, found that the more is o l a t e d i n d i v i d u a l s , on the average, introduced the drug considerably l a t e r than the more s o c i a l l y integrated doctors. In t h i s study, the r e l a t i v e i s o l a t i o n of the Japanese growers from a l l other ethnic groups, and t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower l e v e l of practice adoption, would seem to bear a similar relationship to the drug study. Furthermore, sociometric behaviour among Menonites and Japanese i s almost t o t a l l y confined to the l o c a l community. In the Menonite cluster, only a single grower, No. 3 5 — Figure I — named another grower outside of the l o c a l community. J . Coleman, E. Katz and H. Menzel, ojo. c i t . , p. 2 6 7 . 179 S i m i l a r l y , among the individ u a l s i n the Japanese cluster, only No. 58^named another grower, No. 1 2 5 , outside of the immediate l o c a l i t y . This tendency towards the concentration of leadership s e l e c t i o n on a l o c a l i t y basis has also been reported by Leuthold 1 0" who found a high degree of l o c a l orienta-t i o n i n the s e l e c t i o n of farmers for advice within two d i f f e r e n t areas. •VI. INFORMAL. VISITING AND THE TOTAL POTENTIAL FOR INFORMATION TRANSFER AND LEGITIMATION IN PRACTICE ADOPTION Sociometric informal v i s i t i n g patterns are plotted i n Figure IV. These were obtained i n response to a request f o r information concerning other individuals with whom respondents v i s i t e d most frequently. Except for some of the older farmers who claimed that they seldom v i s i t e d friends at this stage i n t h e i r l i f e cycle, most respondents did name other individuals 1 i n response to the question. In a very few instances, however, some operators f e l t that t h i s question x^ as too personal, and they, therefore, gave no response. This sociogram also i l l u s t r a t e s that where other farmers x^ere named, v i s i t i n g patterns are also concentrated within the l o c a l community to some extent. The data further suggests that informal v i s i t i n g behaviour may frequently be a l l i e d with the search f o r information, and perhaps the legitimation of decisions i n t h e i r farm operations. 'F. 0. Leuthold, 0 0 . c i t . , p. 8 9 . 180 There i s evidence of some tendency toward the concentration of sociometric choices f o r friendship dyads on respondents i s o l a t e d as high status growers relevant to being a source of advice. Some respondents were evidently p a r t i c u l a r , however, not to choose these individuals as a source of advice i n the f i r s t instance. On the. other hand,' some individuals were named for both reasons by the same growers, thus i l l u s t r a t i n g what may be considered to be a dual-purpose r e l a t i o n s h i p . Examples 17 of a dual purpose choice are 119-122 , 122-101. The super-imposition of the sociometric behaviour patterns i n Figures I and IV i s shown i n Figure V. In the f i r s t instance, therefore, an opportunity f o r viei\ring the t o t a l sociometric behaviour among growers i s provided i n Figure V, thus i n d i c a t i n g the t o t a l p o t e n t i a l f o r information transfer. Secondly, changes i n the sociometric status of i n d i v i d u a l growers relevant to the concentration of face-to-face a c t i v i t y f o r both advice and friendship v i s i t i n g behaviour becomes evident. For example, No. 23 — Figure 1 — i s an i n d i v i d u a l 18 whose t o t a l p otential as an opinion leader increases as his score doubles from 4 to 8. S i m i l a r l y the score of No. 14 doubles from 3 to 6, No. 20 increases from 1 to 6. Also, a 17 Dyad relationships are indicated by two numbers, corres-ponding to the p a r t i c u l a r respondents, separated by a hyphen. 18 An individual's t o t a l p otential i s considered to be his t o t a l score, on the basis of one score for each d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l who selects him i n response to either of the two questions. 182 grower with no score f o r advice may appear quite popular i n the informal v i s i t i n g contact behavioiir; f o r example, No. 49 increases from 0 to 3. S i m i l a r l y No. 55, who i s an early adopter-innovator among Japanese growers, was not selected as a source of advice, hut his score now increases from 0 to 3 ' So that, even i f an i n d i v i d u a l i s not considered by his friends as a r e l i a b l e source of advice i n a l e g i t i m i s i n g r o l e , he may have a reputation f o r being up-to-date; he may f i t the role of 19 a "communicator". While some of the individuals with the highest socio-metric scores f o r advisory dyads did not name any grower as a source of advice, i t would seem that they are s e l e c t i v e i n t h e i r v i s i t i n g patterns, where other growers are concerned. For example No. 9 v i s i t s No. 23, an obvious opinion leader i n the l o c a l cluster area, who i s also c l a s s i f i e d as an early adopter-innovator on the basis of his score. No. 16, another early adopter-innovator, named a foreign grower as a source of advice, but he now v i s i t s No. 14 c l a s s i f i e d as early majority, but who has a high t o t a l score, and i s obviously an opinion leader. Some individuals make use of both dyadic communication behaviours to benefit from opinion leaders; for example No. 40 names No. 9, an early adopter-innovator l i k e himself, as a source of advice, 1 9 H . F. Lionberger and H . C. Chang?,02. c i t . , p. 6 include i n t h i s category "those who communicate farm information to other farmers quite devoid of the innovator and legitimator roles:"' they provide "information and not advice." I t i s conceivable, however, that these individuals may provide advice, even i f not. at the l e g i t i m i s i n g l e v e l . 183 FIGURE V . AN ILLUSTRATION OF T H E COMBINED P O T E N T I A L FOR INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION BY SOCIOMETRIC CHOICES R E L E V A N T T O B O T H A D V I C E AND FRIENDSHIP VISITING P A T T E R N S . MENONITE " O T H E R " J A P A N E S E 0 T "1 l' N | Y \ G R 0 W E R S W H 0 WERE I I v . y A... A NOT INTERVIEWED SOCIOMETRIC CHOICE AS A S O U R C E O F A D V I C E SOCIOMETRIC CHOICE IN T H E FRIENDSHIP VISITING P A T T E R N R E S P O N D E N T NAMED <V FOREIGN GROWER (NOT P L O T T E D ) AS A S O U R C E O F A D V I C E 184 but he also v i s i t s No. 2 3 . i n the same adopter category. Besides the fact that.friendship patterns may be closely a l l i e d to s i m i l a r innovative behaviour, i t would seem that even the most progressive growers keep i n touch with the general climate of opinion among growers l i k e themselves. One of the outstanding features of Figure V i s the v i v i d i l l u s t r a t i o n of the d i f f u s i o n potential f o r information transfer, which i n most adoption studies receive only descriptive treat-ment. This potential i s evident both within a single community, and even across i n t e r n a t i o n a l boundaries under some circumstances. I t must also be remembered that since a l l known strawberry growers were not interviewed, the f u l l e s t potential of the interpersonal network has not been mapped. I t i s conceivable that Japanese growers i n the Bradner-Mr. Lehman area could obtain information about growers i n the State of Washington v i a No. 6? who v i s i t s foreign growers. At the same time, they may obtain information about Japanese growers i n the Surrey area, both v i a No. 53 who v i s i t s No. 6 8 , and by i n d i r e c t transfer since growers i n the Surrey area v i s i t those i n the United States, f o r example, No. 5 0 . This transfer of information betx^een ethnic groups may also occur since a l l three types v i s i t the same foreign grower — S, U.S.A. In the Peardonville-Clearbrook area, No. 88 , an early adopter-innovator, who has both high personal extension contact with the D.H. and access to foreign information sources, i s a source of advice to many growers. Information can spread from 185 him v i a No. 72 to No. 107 (by v i s i t i n g ) and eventually to No. 116, another large scale Operator who may well be interested i n the farmer's (No. 88) operations, but may not have di r e c t contact with him. Continuing, the chain effect can r e s u l t i n the flow of information back to the Menonite community v i a No. 3 5 . Within a smaller area, the d i f f u s i o n of information i n a single community by linkage i n sociometric behaviour can be re a d i l y observed. In the predominantly Menonite community, information can spread from No. 14 to No. 25 who has dual purpose dyadic contact with the former, then to Nos. 18 and 15 by friendship dyads, thereafter to No. 20 (by advice), and eventually to numerous other growers. In the predominantly Japanese community, there i s a complete l i n k up of every single Japanese grower, plotted i n the area, by the t o t a l interpersonal network, thus i n d i c a t i n g a f a i r l y close-knit community. However, No. 93 a non-Japanese who resides i n the midst of the group i s completely cut off from th i s communication network-. I t would seem that where other growers are concerned, Japanese growers may be r e l a t i v e l y i s o l a t e d from the point of view of both types of dyadic r e l a -tionships. In essence, therefore, the combined sociometric network for a l l responses i l l u s t r a t e with remarkable effectiveness the dyadic r e l a t i o n s h i p with Rogers 2 0 suggests can be used as the E. M. Rogers, oo. c i t . , p. 214. 186 "main u n i t of a n a l y s i s i n the d i f f u s i o n process". I n a d d i t i o n , f u r t h e r support i s provided f o r the "mu.ltistep f l o w of com-21 ' munications" proposed by Menzel and Katz as a r e v i s i o n t o the e a r l i e r c l a s s i c "two-step, f l o w " . These authors suggested a type of s t a i r c a s e ascendancy i n op i n i o n l e a d e r s h i p i n the search f o r advice w i t h i n the i n t e r p e r s o n a l communication framework. For example, w i t h i n the c l u s t e r of growers, No. 9 i s a. major channel of communication between the D.H., l a r g e commercial growers and the l o c a l community. He i s a l s o the outstanding o p i n i o n leader. Two l o w e r - l e v e l outstanding opinion.leaders are Nos. 23 and 14, both of whom seek advice from No. 9 , and subsequently, obviously provide a source of i n f o r m a t i o n and advice f o r the numerous i n d i v i d u a l s who converge upon them by both types of dyadic r e l a t i o n s h i p s . V I I . SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AND OPINION LEADERSHIP The a g r i c u l t u r a l extension change agent must c o n s i s t e n t l y ' be concerned w i t h maximising returns to the expenditure of time and energy i n an e f f o r t to promote change. Studies i n the a d o p t i o n - d i f f u s i o n context have long been concerned xcLth the determination of o p i n i o n leaders who act as "e n e r g i s e r s " i n the d i f f u s i o n process, thus f a c i l i t a t i n g the adoption of innova-t i o n s . The use of so c i o m e t r i c techniques i n a p a r t i c u l a r research study may i s o l a t e these important f u n c t i o n a r i e s w i t h i n the area s t u d i e d but, i t i s necessary to examine the butstanding' •H. Menzel and E. Katz, ov.. c i t . , p. 3 4 3 . 187 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h a view t o p r o v i d i n g g u i d e l i n e s t o e x t e n s i o n agents itfho w i l l t h e n have some b a s i s f o r i d e n t i f y i n g such i n f l u e n t i a l s i n day-to-day s i t u a t i o n s . Twenty-one ( 6 0 p e r c e n t ) of t h e o r i g i n a l 3 5 o p i n i o n l e a d e r s q u a l i f i e d f o r d e t a i l e d s t u d y on t h e b a s i s of a t o t a l c h o i c e s c o r e of 2 or more. Twelve ( 5 7 . 1 per c e n t ) of t h i s s e l e c t e d group were of t h e median age f o r the random sample (45_5i4- y e a r s ) or above, w h i l e , a t l e a s t o n e - t h i r d of them were 5 5 y e a r s or more. Thus, o p i n i o n l e a d e r s tended t o be among t h e o l d e r growers, and were d e f i n i t e l y above t h e average f o r t h e p o p u l a t i o n i n age. They a l s o had l a r g e r farms and l a r g e r acreages i n s t r a w -b e r r y t h a n were t y p i c a l of t h e sample s t u d i e d . W h i l e the median s i z e of farm f o r t h e sample was from 5 t o l e s s than 15 a c r e s , 5 7 . 1 per cent of t h e s e i n f l u e n t i a l s had 1 5 o r more a c r e s . None of them had h o l d i n g s i n the c a t e g o r y of l e s s t h a n 5 a c r e s , which accounted f o r 1 7 per cent of t h e sample. T h i r t y - e i g h t p e r cent of t h e I n f l u e n t i a l s r e p o r t e d l e s s t h a n 5 a c r e s i n s t r a w b e r r y , compared t o 5 0 p e r cent of t h e sample. S i m i l a r l y 4 3 per cent had 1 0 or more a c r e s , compared t o 3 1 P e r cent f o r the sample i n the 5 - 1 5 a c r e range. As would be e x p e c t e d from t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p a l r e a d y shown between farm s i z e , acreage i n s t r a w b e r r y and income, t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s d e r i v e d l a r g e r incomes from a g r i c u l t u r e . Compared t o a median income of $ 5 - 1 0 , 0 0 0 f o r the sample, 7 1 . 4 188 per cent of the i n f l u e n t i a l s reported more than $10,000. Sixty-two per cent reported $5,000 or more from strawberry sales compared to a median of $3-5,000 f o r the sample. The l e v e l of s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n f o r opinion leaders also exceeded the average for the random sample. The average score was 19*3 compared to a median of 5-14 f o r the sample. I n f l u e n t i a l s were not p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f e r e n t from other growers i n t h e i r experience with strawberry c u l t i v a t i o n . They were very s i m i l a r to the sample studied; 6? per cent had 10 or more years of experience with the crop, compared to 68 per cent for the sample. In any event, there were surely not inexperienced i n the sphere i n which they extended t h e i r influence. On the other hand, they exhibited a greater tendency to keep up-to-date with new information relevant to t h e i r farming enterprise. Sixteen ( 7 6 . 2 per cent) were members of the L.M.H.I.A., T t f i t h 13 (62 per cent) having attended short courses during the past year, compared to a maximum of 41 per cent having attended i n any one year f o r the sample. They were c l e a r l y s e l e c t i v e i n t h e i r choice of sources of information used, esp e c i a l l y with reference to the s p e c i f i c innovations studied. F i f t y - f i v e per cent of t h e i r responses indicated sources xriiich were either government — including a g r i c u l t u r a l meetings, f i e l d days and demonstrations — magazines, short-courses or meetings of the L.M.H.I.A., or foreign. Eighteen of these indiv i d u a l s ( 8 5 . 7 per cent) reported personal contact with the D.H., compared to 78 per cent f o r 1 8 9 the sample, during the previous year; 1 5 ( ? 1 . 4 per cent) reported at least two types of personal contact. Among the 5 i n f l u e n t i a l s who received 4 or more sociometric choices as sources of advice (Figure I ) , 3 reported high frequency contact f o r a l l 3 personal contact channels with the D.H. Of the remaining two, one reported high frequency contact by 2 personal contact channels, while the other reported contact by a single channel only, at the low frequency l e v e l . Whenever respondents indicated that they f i r s t became aware of an innovation d i r e c t l y through another grower, they frequently could not r e c a l l the p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l , or at times seemed to hesitate i n naming the person. However, the importance of some of these i n f l u e n t i a l s as sources of informa-t i o n even at the Awareness stage i s indicated. The names of 1 3 of these higher status growers were mentioned s p e c i f i c a l l y as the source of information at the awareness stage f o r approx-imately 1 5 per cent of the t o t a l number of responses. It must be pointed out, however, that No. 9 . the out-standing sociometric star i n the predominantly Menonite area, was responsible f o r 64 per cent of these s p e c i f i c references by name. His own l e v e l of l o c a l importance as a legitimator i s c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figures I and I I I . He received 5 5 per cent of the t o t a l dyadic choices as a source of advice from growers i n the c l u s t e r . On the basis of adoption performance, 1 1 ( 5 2 . 4 per cent) of the 2 1 high status i n f l u e n t i a l s were early majority, 7 ( 3 3 . 3 190 per cent) were early adopter innovators and 3 ( 1 4 . 3 per cent) were la t e majority. Of the 5 growers who received more than 4 choices as sources of advice, 4 were early adopter-innovators, and 1 was early majority. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between practice adoption and opinion leadership supports previous research findings. I t has been shown that while opinion leaders are not necessarily innovators, "they are generally more innovative than t h e i r f o l l o w e r s " . ^ Lionberger and Chang^3 reported that "legitimators", i n p a r t i c -ular, i n two Missouri communities were to a large extent characterized by high technological competence, high information r e c e p t i v i t y and information-seeking behaviour r e l a t i v e to adult classes, and o r i g i n a l sources including the county agent. This data further supports the established fact that sociometric influence i s a f a i r l y widespread phenomenon, even i f concentrated i n a particular-direction-towards the upper end of the adoption scale. Among the i n f l u e n t i a l s of Japanese ethnic o r i g i n , 1 was early adopter-innovator, 1 l a t e majority and 5 early majority. Considering the two other groups together, i n view of t h e i r o v e r a l l l e v e l of interpersonal communication, 6 of the 14 were early adopter-innovators, 6 were early major-i t y and 2 were la t e majority. Thus, to some extent, the l e v e l of performance, relevant to eth n i c i t y , i s r e f l e c t e d i n the ^E. M. Rogers, ojo. c i t . , p. 2 4 3 . 2 \ . P. Lionberger and H. C. Chang, o_. c i t . , pp. 54,55. 191 l e v e l of practice adoption of t h e i r leaders. With these general observations on the major character-' i s t i c s of leaders, i t i s of interes t to take a closer look at those situations i n which individuals selected, as a source of advice, others who were c l a s s i f i e d i n a lower adopter category. These relationships, shown i n Figure I I , are i l l u s t r a t e d by examination of the following cases: Case 1. Farmer No. 14 who was c l a s s i f i e d i n the early majority category was named by growers Nos. 100 and 25, both of whom were c l a s s i f i e d as early adopter-innovators. No. 14 f e l l into the early majority category since he i s one of the individuals who reported having gone ahead using chemical s o i l treatment f o r nematode control vri.thout having ever t r i e d the s p e c i f i c practice of s o i l analysis. He i s known to be a progressive grower; one of his neighbours referred to his holding as being of an "experimental" nature. He i s in-the same age category as No. 100, operates a much larger farm, has a much larger a g r i c u l t u r a l income, and l i k e No. 100 he also has high frequency contact with the D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t . No. 25 i s his brother. Case 2. Farmer No. 44, c l a s s i f i e d as early majority was named by Nos. 38, 43 and 45, a l l of whom are c l a s s i f i e d as early adopters-innovators. Nos. kk and 43 are both immigrants from the same country; the former i s much older,'has high frequency personal contact (2 channels) with the D.H., has been a straw-, . berry grottfer f o r 20 or more years, manages a farm 4 times as large and derives a much larger income from a g r i c u l t u r a l and 1 9 2 and strawberry sales. On the other hand No. 4 3 has no personal contact with the D.H., and i s generally taken up with a f u l l time job. He no doubt has taken advice from No. 4 4 , and con-siders himself i n the adoption stages f o r a l l practices, even though No. 4 4 , himself, may be undecided i n one instance. No. 4 5 i s the son of No. 4 4 ; he i s less experienced than his farther and has less personal contact with the D.H. No. 3 8 i s the son-in-law of No. 4 4 , he i s less experienced, cultivates a much smaller acreage and has much less contact with the D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t . Case 3. Farmer No. 1 2 2 , c l a s s i f i e d as la t e majority was named by Nos. 1 1 9 and 1 2 1 , both of whom are early majority respondents. A l l three indiv i d u a l s l i v e i n the same general area. No. 1 2 2 i s the eldest and the most experienced strawberry grower. He manages a farm much larger than either of these two individuals and would generally be of high prestige status, esp e c i a l l y since his t o t a l a g r i c u l t u r a l income i s at least 3 times that of either of his followers. His l e v e l of s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s high, but i s si m i l a r to that of the others, but he d i f f e r s from them i n that he i s the only one reporting high l e v e l personal contact with the D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t . Case 4. Grower No. 6 9 , c l a s s i f i e d as late majority was named by No. 4 9 , an early majority respondent. Both growers are of the same ethnic o r i g i n ; No. 6 9 i s younger, he i s a much more experienced grower with a larger farm and larger straw-berry acreage. Also, he reported high l e v e l personal contact 193 with the D.H. by at least 2 channels, while his follower had no high l e v e l contact by any personal contact channel. Also No. 4 9 , who i s c l a s s i f i e d as early majority also seeks advice from another grower (No. 60) i n the same adopter category. While these general relationships may not hold i n every instance, i t would seem, therefore, that i t i s quite safe to predict that generally farmers w i l l look upward i n t h e i r search fo r advice and legitimation. However, there may be other operative factors which occasionally r e s u l t In an apparent downward turn, especially since the farmer, by his nature i s conservative, and places his t r u s t , p a r t l y at l e a s t , i n the safety of experience. VIII. A SUMMARY ON INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION In this chapter, the analysis i s concerned with the study of interpersonal communication among the strawberry growers i n the Lower Fraser Valley. The sociometric questions were designed to obtain information relevant to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of opinion leadership among the population of growers. In the f i r s t instance, sociometric choices were e l i c i t e d i n respect of individuals sought as a source of advice; secondly, sociometric status r e l e -vant to friendship v i s i t i n g patterns was also observed. The primary inter e s t i n t h i s aspect of the study centers on advisory dyadic relationships; the analysis takes into consideration general sociometric tendency behaviour, i n t e r a c t i o n between adopter categories and between d i f f e r e n t e^thnic groups. 194 Respondents were very conservative i n naming other growers i n an advisory capacity; 45 per cent of the respondents did not choose anyone. Also, there seems to have been some measure of d i s t r u s t among individuals concerning the willingness of others to give r e l i a b l e advice. Late adopters were more likely , to name someone f o r t h i s purpose; while the tendency was indicated fo r the sample i t was not evident within the c l u s t e r . In general, however, respondents with high sociometric status either did not name anyone or tended to choose a foreign grower. Sociometric importance i n an advisory capacity was c l e a r l y weighted i n favour of early adopters. Average combined percent-ages were 26.1 per cent of the early adopters, compared to only 10.3 Per cent of the l a t e adopters. The r e l a t i o n s h i p became more evident when the analysis was focussed on individuals with a score of 2 or more. This general r e l a t i o n s h i p was found i n both the sample and the c l u s t e r . The analysis of dyadic i n t e r a c t i o n between adopter categories only included growers who were interviewed and for whom an adoption score was av a i l a b l e . The search f o r advice and legitimation was lar g e l y i n the d i r e c t i o n of other growers characterized by a higher l e v e l of practice adoption. The percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n of choices i n an upward d i r e c t i o n , or at the same l e v e l of practice adoption, were s i m i l a r f o r both the sample and the c l u s t e r . S i x t y - s i x per cent of the choices among respondents i n the sample and 61 per cent of those within the cluster were directed upwards; s i m i l a r l y the percentage of • 1 9 5 choices at the same l e v e l of adoption were 27 and 28 per cent respectively. Among laggards and l a t e majority respondents, at least 7 5 per cent of a l l choices were directed upward. Downward choices were p a r t i c u l a r l y evident among early majority respondents i n the sample and early adopter innovators i n the cluster; i n neither instance, however, did the percentage of choices exceed those i n other d i r e c t i o n s . The chi-square test indicated a s i g n i f i c a n t difference at the . 0 0 1 l e v e l f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n of choices between adopter categories. In r e l a t i o n to ethnicity, patterns of sociometric inter-' action were concentrated within each ethnic |»roup. Japanese respondents did not name individuals within any other ethnic group as a source of advice.' At least approximately 7 0 per cent of a l l choices o r i g i n a t i n g from Menonites or the "other" respon-dents, both i n the sample and i n the cluster, were directed to growers of s i m i l a r ethnic background. The cluster of growers was predominantly Menonite and did not include any•Japanese. Eighty-seven per cent of the dyads xd.thin t h i s l o c a l i t y group were between Menonites. The lack of contact between Japanese and other growers i s further i l l u s t r a t e d by the fact that there was only a single instance of a l o c a l Japanese grower named by a non-Japanese respondent. Another i n t e r e s t i n g feature of the sociometric pattern was the general r e s t r i c t i o n of sociometric choices to immediate l o c a l i t y groups. The chi-square test again indicated a s i g n i f i c a n t difference at the . 0 0 1 l e v e l f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n 196 of choices on the basis of e t h n i c i t y . Sociometric friendship v i s i t i n g patterns suggest a tendency f o r popularity to be a l l i e d with progressive farming behaviour. Also, while many individuals of high advisory socio-metric status did not name another grower as a source of advice, i t was evident that t h e i r choices f o r friendship i n t e r a c t i o n were largel y relevant to individuals of si m i l a r status. The super imposition of advisory and friendship dyads on a single socio-gram highlighted r e a l potential f o r interpersonal communication i n the d i f f u s i o n of information. The socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of opinion leaders were examined with reference' to individuals with a t o t a l choice score of 2 or more fo r either type of dyad. Opinion leadership was characterized by individ u a l s who were above the average for the population of growers i n terms of age, siz e of farm, acreage i n strawberry, farm income and income from strawberry, l e v e l of social p a r t i c i p a t i o n and extension contact with the D.H. In r e l a t i o n to practice adoption, more than one-half of them were early majority, while one-third were early adopter-innovators. In those instances where the opinion leader was c l a s s i f i e d i n a lower adopter category than the seeker of legitimating advice, there was clear evidence of the influence of family relationships, or of the extension of sociometric choices i n the d i r e c t i o n of growers with more experience, larger commercial operations and a higher l e v e l of extension contact with the D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l -t u r i s t . CHAPTER VIII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This study involves two major aspects of practice adoption among strawberry growers i n the Lower Fraser Valley of B r i t i s h Columbia. Six practices were selected as the basis f o r studying differences among 100 randomly selected respondents i n terms of the adoption of innovations. Adop-t i o n performance i s examined i n r e l a t i o n to socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , e t h n i c i t y and the use of information sources. Emphasis i s also focused on interpersonal communication patterns, as determined by information e l i c i t e d i n response to s p e c i f i c sociometric questions. An additional number of non-random growers who formed an obvious cluster were i n t e r -viewed to obtain a more complete picture of the interpersonal network. This chapter summarises the research, findings, and states the relevant conclusions. Socio-economic Characteristics The median age category f o r the sample was 45-54 years. Age correlated negatively with adoption; 80 per cent of respondents i n the 2 0 - 3 4 age group, compared to 41.6 per cent of respondents 5 5 years or more were i n the combined upper adoption l e v e l . Older respondents had larger fa m i l i e s , with approximately one-third i n the median category of 3-4 children. 198 S l i g h t l y more than half of the respondents had 8 years or less of formal schooling; 42 per cent attended High School, but only 11 per cent completed. Twice as many res-pondents with 8 or less years of schooling (17 per cent) compared to those with more than 8 years (6.5 Per cent) were laggards. On the other hand, 74 per cent of the respondents with more than 8 years of schooling were i n the upper adoption l e v e l , compared to 47.2 per cent among less educated respondents. P a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n analysis did not indicate a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p . Respondents' wives were generally better educated than t h e i r husbands, the median educational l e v e l being 9-11 years. Their l e v e l of education was p o s i t i v e l y correlated with adop-ti o n , but was only s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l ; 75 per cent of husbands of better educated wives were i n the upper adop-t i o n l e v e l , compared to 47.2 per cent f o r less educated spouses. No more than 7 respondents reported having High School or vocational a g r i c u l t u r a l courses. One h a l f of the respond-ents attended a g r i c u l t u r a l education courses; the majority of participants were early adopter-innovators and early majority respondents. The l e v e l of attendance at L.M.H.I-.A. short courses was s u r p r i s i n g l y low; 41 per cent attended In 1966, and even fewer i n 1967. In each instance attendance i s p o s i t i v e l y related with adoption, but the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s only s i g n i f i c a n t for attendance i n 1967. No more than 10' 1 9 9 per cent attended short courses i n the State of Washington, U.S.A. i n any one year. The majority of growers were established on t h e i r farms f o r f a i r l y ' l o n g periods; 6 5 per cent were resident on the same farm.for at least 1 0 years. The older residents were the most experienced farmers, i n general, and also the most experienced strawberry growers. Two-thirds of the respondents were i n agriculture f o r 2 0 years or more, with only 2 8 per cent having a s i m i l a r amount of experience with the strawberry crop. Adoption was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to experience of either kind. F i f t y - f o u r per cent of the growers had holdings of 1 5 acres or les s ; 1 7 per cent reported less than 5 acres, while one- f i f t h managed holdings of at least 1 2 0 acres. Small f r u i t farming was the major enterprise f o r the large majority of growers; i n other instances the most important farm enter-prises included vegetables, dairying or poultry. Operators with the largest farms also had the largest acreage i n strawberry and i n other a g r i c u l t u r a l enterprises. Strawberry c u l t i v a t i o n was the major operation of 41 per cent of the growers; one h a l f of a l l respondents, however, had less than 5 acres of t h i s crop. The median income category f o r gross a g r i c u l t u r a l income was $ 5 , 0 0 0 - $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 , with 4 5 per cent reporting more than $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 , 1 5 per cent more than $ 5 5 , 0 0 0 and 18 per cent under $3,000. The predominance of small acreages i n strawberry 2 0 0 resulted i n a lower median income category of $ 3 , 0 0 0 - 1 5 , 0 0 0 f o r income from strawberry sales. Twenty growers reported no income from other a g r i c u l t u r a l enterprises besides strata-berry; the median category of income from t h i s source was more than $ 5 i 0 0 0 - | l 0 , 0 0 0 , with 2 1 per cent reporting under $ 3 , 0 0 0 and 1 0 per cent more than $ 4 0 , 0 0 0 . There was a considerable range i n the amount of labour employed for harvesting operations. More than half the operators ( 5 3 Per cent) employed less than 2 5 pickers, while large growers with 5 0 or more acres i n strawberry employed between 2 0 0 to 6 0 0 pickers. More than two-thirds ( 7 2 per cent) of the respondents were equally d i s t r i b u t e d i n the estimated farm value categor-ies of $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 - $ 2 9 , 0 0 0 and $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 - $ 5 9 , 0 0 0 . Fourteen suggested more than $150,000. The large operators who were long estab-l i s h e d on t h e i r holdings, also owned the most highly valued farms. The l e v e l of s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n was generally low, with 42 per cent obtaining a score of 14 or l e s s , with as much as 2 5 per cent having a score of less than 5 « The relationships of t h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n i s obvious when i t i s considered that a score of 1 5 indicates f u l l involvement, including holding o f f i c e , i n a single organization. Educa-t i o n a l l e v e l of both respondents and t h e i r wives were p o s i t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to the l e v e l of s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n . 2 0 1 Voluntary p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n organizations and i n adult educa-t i o n courses was generally higher among' the longer established growers i n the community. S o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n scores were highest among the larger farm operators with large incomes; these respondents were r e l a t i v e l y younger, better educated, with better educated wives and were generally characterized by higher lev e l s of practice adoption. Among the personal and economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , therefore, factors i n d i c a t i v e of the r e l a t i v e socio-economic status of the respondent were most outstanding i n r e l a t i o n to adoption. Various indices of the extent of the business operation, including size,of farm and acreage i n strawberry, estimated farm value, gross a g r i c u l t u r a l income and gross income from the s p e c i f i c enterprise r e l a t i v e to the innova-tions, a l l correlated p o s i t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y with adop-t i o n performance. Laggards averaged 3 5 ' 3 Per cent i n the 0 - 4 acre farm size group, compared to only 7 . 7 per cent f o r respondents with 30-119 acres. Combined percentages at the upper adoption l e v e l increased consistently from 29.4 per cent i n the 0 - 4 acre group to 9 0 . 9 per cent f o r more than 1 1 9 acres. Combined percentages f o r acreage i n strawberry ranged from 3 0 . 3 per cent ( 0 - 3 acres) to 8 9 . 5 per cent ( 3 0 or more acres). The si g n i f i c a n c e of gross a g r i c u l t u r a l income to adoption was most marked between growers reporting either more or less than $5,000 income. Combined percentages f o r 2 0 2 l o w e r a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s d e c r e a s e d w i t h i n c r e a s i n g income, w h i l e t h o s e f o r upper a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s i n c r e a s e d w i t h i n -c r e a s i n g income. The t r e n d r e l a t i o n s h i p i s s i m i l a r , but much more o u t s t a n d i n g f o r g r o s s income from s t r a w b e r r i e s . F o r example, combined p e r c e n t a g e s at the l o w e r a d o p t i o n l e v e l d e c r e a s e d from 64.1 per cent i n t h e l o w e s t income group t o 8 per cent f o r r e s p o n d e n t s r e p o r t i n g more t h a n $ 5 , 0 0 0 . A t t h e upper a d o p t i o n l e v e l , p e r c e n t a g e s i n c r e a s e d from 3 5 * 9 t o 9 2 per c e n t . ' L i k e w i s e , t h e s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h f a r m v a l u e i s i l l u s t r a t e d by an i n c r e a s i n g combined p e r c e n t a g e f o r upper a d o p t e r c a t e g o r i e s as f a r m v a l u e i n c r e a s e s . S i x t y p e r cent of r e s p o n d e n t s r e p o r t e d no o f f - f a r m employment, w h i l e 1 6 p e r cent were employed f u l l t i m e i n o f f - f a r m o c c u p a t i o n s . There was.no c l e a r o r c o n s i s t e n t r e l a -t i o n s h i p w i t h a d o p t i o n . E i g h t y o p e r a t o r s owned t h e i r f a rms, most of the r e m a i n i n g i n d i v i d u a l s a l s o r e p o r t e d more th a n h a l f o w nership. E t h n i c I n f l u e n c e s F i f t y - f o u r p e r cent of t h e r e s p o n d e n t s were i m m i g r a n t s , t h e m a j o r i t y coming from E a s t e r n Europe, t h e R u s s i a - U k r a i n e r e g i o n and Japan. W i t h i n t h e sample of 1 0 0 r e s p o n d e n t s , t h e r e were 3 2 Menonites and 2 3 Japanese; t h e r e m a i n d e r were c a t e g o r i s e d as " O t h e r s " . On t h e b a s i s of the c h i - s q u a r e t e s t , t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between e t h n i c groups f o r 1 6 s o c i o - e c o n o m i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and f o r some typ e s of e x t e n s i o n c o n t a c t . 203 Japanese respondents owned t h e i r farms to a greater extent, compared to a l l other growers; they were generally the most experienced farmers, hut they showed the lowest l e v e l of practice adoption and participated least i n a g r i c u l -t u r a l adult education a c t i v i t i e s . The educational l e v e l of Menonites and their.wives were the lowest among a l l ethnic groups; s i m i l a r l y they were the least active i n terms of s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The other respondents had the larger, higher valued farms with the largest acreages i n strawberry and i n other a g r i c u l t u r a l enterprises. Within the 3-15 acre category however, a large proportion of Japanese respondents reported having other a g r i c u l t u r a l enterprises. Extension contact was higher among the other respondents and lowest among Japanese; the difference was espe c i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t f o r personal type contact by telephone and farm v i s i t s . The observed r e l a t i o n s h i p between extension contact and adoption i s further i l l u s t r a t e d within the context of et h n i c i t y . Almost twice the percentage of respondents who were neither Japanese or Menonites were i n the upper adop-t i o n l e v e l , compared to Japanese respondents. Menonites showed a higher l e v e l of practice adoption compared to Japan-ese, but were not as good as the t h i r d group. Except for the fact that twice the proportion of Menonites, compared to any other group, reported contact by radio, the general r e l a t i o n -ship remained the same for impersonal type contact. 204 Extension Contact and Adoption The l e v e l of extension contact reported i n thi s study-i s exceptionally high, compared to other studies. More than half the respondents reported contact by telephone (63 per cent) or farm v i s i t s (56 ..per cent), but only 43 per cent had contact by o f f i c e v i s i t s . High i n t e n s i t y contact (frequently or very frequently) ranged between 10 per cent ( o f f i c e v i s i t s ) , 12 per cent (farm v i s i t s ) and 27 per cent (telephone). S l i g h t l y less than one half of the growers reported attend-ance at l o c a l meetings, f i e l d days or demonstrations. Impersonal contact by mail ^82 per cent) and newspaper a r t i c l e s (64 per cent) was higher than f o r any personal 'con-tact type. Less than one-third of the respondents reported contact by radio or t e l e v i s i o n ; thus, the average l e v e l of use of impersonal sources (46 per cent) was less than f o r personal type contact (54 per cent). Also the general inten-s i t y of use i s lower compared to personal contact, except i n the case of mail contact f o r which 60 percent reported high i n t e n s i t y use. In comparison with other studies c i t e d , the l e v e l of contact i s higher f o r contact by mail and newspaper a r t i c l e s , but lower f o r T.V. and radio. Considering the comments of some groxsrers, i t xvould seem that the D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t could improve the effectiveness of his use of T.V. and radio f a c i l i t i e s by informing his c l i e n t e l e well i n advance of broadcasts. Also some attempt should be made for radio and T.V. broadcasts 2 0 5 within time periods which are more convenient to the growers. Extension contact of straw-berry growers with other a g r i c u l t u r a l agents was about one-half the l e v e l indicated f o r the D.H. Contact by telephone and farm v i s i t s were reported by about one-third of the respondents. This Is understandable since more than two-thirds of the sample had at least 3 acres i n other a g r i c u l t u r a l enterprises besides strawberry. Impersonal contact was at the same average l e v e l (48 per cent) compared to that indicated f o r the D.H. Eleven respondents had no contact whatsoever with the D.H., while 5 per cent reported no contact with any agent. The median number of contacts f o r the sample was 4 with an average of 3-^ f ° r the sample. Using an extended contact score relevant to a l l a g r i c u l t u r a l agents, the median score category, out of a range of 0-56, was 11-20. The highest c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s , relevant to adoption, were obtained with t h i s v a r i a b l e . Personal'contact showed a higher degree of association; i n particular,' personal contact with the D.H. was most outstanding. Detailed analysis further i l l u s t r a t e d the strength of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between extension contact and adoption. High i n t e n s i t y contact with the D.H. was consistently associated with high adoption performance. S i m i l a r l y , only respondents i n the lower adopter categories reported no impersonal contact. Extension contact correlated p o s i t i v e l y and consist-ently, at the . 0 1 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e , with other socio-. 206 economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which were p o s i t i v e l y associated with adoption. These include farm size and income, and s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n . In p a r t i c u l a r , larger operators had more frequent contact by telephone and farm/ v i s i t s . P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a g r i c u l t u r a l adult education a c t i v i t i e s and the educational l e v e l of the farm wife correlate posi-t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y with contact by telephone. Also, those who par t i c i p a t e d i n a g r i c u l t u r a l adult education a c t i v i t i e s were more l i k e l y to have personal contact with the D.H. These findings on extension contact suggest strongly that purposeful e f f o r t by an e f f e c t i v e extension agent to increase his l e v e l of contact, i n p a r t i c u l a r personal con-tact, with his c l i e n t system i s a major factor i n promot-ing the desired' change. The general findings on the i n t e r -r e l a t i o n s h i p between extension contact, e t h n i c i t y and adop-t i o n further support t h i s suggestion. Adoption and non-Adoption of the Innovations The l e v e l of adoption performance was quite high, as indicated by an average of 4 . 1 2 out of 6 innovations fo r adoption. Discontinuance was n e g l i g i b l e , involving only a single respondent for each of two practices. Unawareness was recorded f o r 3 innovations, with a maximum of 8 per cent i n any one instance. The awareness stage was only relevant to 3 innovations with a maximum of 5 per cent. The int e r e s t 207 and evaluation stages were relevant to 5 of the 6 innova-tions, but involved less than one-third of the respondents i n any instance. Some respondents were at the t r i a l stage f o r a l l innovations, with a maximum of 14 per cent. Adop-t i o n ranged between 33-94 per cent f o r a l l adopter categories, besides the early adopter-innovators, who indicated 100 per cent adoption for a l l innovations. , Generally the percentage of respondents at each stage i n the adoption process decreased with improved adoption performance. Five of the 6 innovations were adopted by at least one-half of the respondents. Adoption was highest for those innovations introduced e a r l i e s t to the growers; these included the change i n the c u l t u r a l system (83 per cent) and c e r t i f i e d v irus-free plants (94 per cent). The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of progress towards ..adoption by innovation response state, as designed by Verner and Gixbbels, was used f o r further analysis. Relevant to both unawareness and r e j e c t i o n , the percentage of respondents by adopter category decreased with progress towards the upper adoption l e v e l . The reverse s i t u a t i o n occurred f o r adoption, but there was no consistency i n the trend f o r continuing with the adoption process. Rejection was lowest f o r the innovations introduced e a r l i e r , and f o r those which are v i t a l operations i n the economic production of the' crop on any commercial scale, such as captan and chemical weed control. On the other hand 208 almost one-half of the growers rejected picking carts. Reasons f o r Delay- i n the Adoption Process and f o r Rejection In each instance, the reasons given were c l a s s i f i e d under two major sub-types as being relevant to characteris-t i c s of the innovation-relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, d i v i s i b i l i t y or communicability — or one of a number of general reasons, including factors related to the pa r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n of the respondent. Characteristics of the innovation accounted f o r almost one-half the reasons fo r delay, compared to less than one-third of the reasons for r e j e c t i o n . Besides s i t u a t i o n a l factors, the percentage frequencies were largest for r e l a t i v e advantage and com-municability. This f i n d i n g indicates the importance of successful communication to the farmer of the p a r t i c u l a r advantages of new innovations while the farmer i s continuing i n the adop-t i o n process. S i m i l a r l y there- i s need f o r extra e f f o r t by the change agent when the results of an innovation are not eas i l y transmissible within his target s o c i a l system. S i t u a t i o n a l factors were the most outstanding under general reasons, both f o r delay i n the adoption process and for r e j e c t i o n . To some extent delay i s explained by the fact that growers may have been aware of the innovation long before they started operations on t h e i r own. In other instances, they hay have ceased operations a f t e r one of the 209 many periodic freeze outs.. Too small an acreage to j u s t i f y , added expenditure or to benefit from the r e l a t i v e advantage of a new practice, compared to one already i n use, was also frequently stated. Other s i t u a t i o n a l factors included the u n a v a i l a b i l i t y of a p a r t i c u l a r service, either from a l o c a l government agency or from custom operators. The early adopters indicated s i t u a t i o n a l factors to a greater extent than operators i n the lower adoption l e v e l . The former, therefore, were less l i k e l y to indicate that they were unable to perceive the r e l a t i v e advantage of an innovation or that there was a problem i n recognising p r o f i t -able r e s u l t s . On the other hand, being the f i r s t to t ry new innovations, they were most l i k e l y to explain some measure of delay due to the need f o r more information or the fear of crop damage. There was a more even d i s t r i b u t i o n of reasons class-f i e d as r e l a t i v e advantage or communicability f o r r e j e c t i o n . Cost, and fear or evidence of crop damage, accounted f o r a s l i g h t l y larger percentage of the general reasons. Some growers were p a r t i c u l a r l y s k e p t i c a l of the use of chemicals i n a g r i c u l t u r a l production, hence compatibility accounted for one-third of the reasons relevant to chemical weed control. The p a r t i c u l a r problem involved i n respondents seeing the b e n e f i c i a l effects'of captan i n the increased proportion of marketable f r u i t , resulted i n 42.9 per cent of the reasons c l a s s i f i e d as communicability. With a few 210 exceptions, s i t u a t i o n a l factors were generally s i m i l a r to those given f o r delay i n the adoption process. Sources of Information Except for the information sources used at the aware-ness stage f o r the s p e c i a l innovations, the analysis i n t h i s study i s based on response e l i c i t e d i n terms of a general pattern of use f o r a l l sources available to the respondent. Information sources were c l a s s i f i e d by Origin, with r e f e r -ence to the i n i t i a l source, and by Nature of the A c t i v i t y with emphasis on the i n s t r u c t i o n a l process relevant to the learning experience. In the f i r s t instance, the four cate-gories were Personal, Government, Commercial and Farm Organization; the second c l a s s i f i c a t i o n also included Personal and, i n addition, Mass, Ins t r u c t i o n a l Group and Individual I n s t r u c t i o n a l . Personal sources, which were the same for either c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , were used to the greatest extent. When c l a s s i f i e d by o r i g i n , government sources were second i n importance, and commercial sources were used more than farm organization sources. At the awareness stage, govern-ment sources were generally used to the greatest extent f o r the most recently introduced innovations while per-sonal sources were of greater importance f o r longer established and less complex practices. This no doubt results to a large extent from increased a c t i v i t y of govern-ment agencies i n more recent years. 211 The importance of salesmen especially f o r innovations involving the use of chemicals, and employees of commercial operations i s indicated by the f a i r l y extensive use of commercial sources. The r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n of government and personal types i s the same fo r a l l adopter categories; the l a t t e r however, i s used to a greater extent by respond-ents at the lower adoption l e v e l . These relationships, with p a r t i c u l a r relevance to the Awareness Stage, were generally s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t as indicated by'the test of a difference between proportions. When information sources were c l a s s i f i e d by Nature of the A c t i v i t y , the i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n a l type was second i n importance, a f t e r personal sources, and were used to a greater extent at the upper adoption l e v e l . I n s t r u c t i o n a l groups were used s l i g h t l y more than mass sources. For neither c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , however,- did the chi-square test indicate s i g n i f i c a n t differences between adopter categories. Some in t e r e s t i n g differences i n information-seeking behaviour become evident when consideration i s given to the percentage use of i n d i v i d u a l sources of information. The high l e v e l of extension contact with the D.H. i s indicated by the fact that t h i s source ranked second f o r a l l adopter categories, except the laggards. Personal experience was not included at t h i s l e v e l for late majority respondents, but was of decreasing importance with increasing adoption performance. S i m i l a r l y observations on other farms i s of 212 r e l a t i v e l y greater importance at the lower leve l s of adop-t i o n . The cosmopolitan behaviour of early adopter-innovators was made p a r t i c u l a r l y evident by the ranking of foreign t r a v e l as t h i r d i n importance, while i t was not included fo r any other adopter category. Many of these progressive operators indicate that they maintained contact with foreign government agencies and private growers. Interpersonal Communication A major aspect of the study was the pattern of i n t e r -personal communication and i t s implication for e f f e c t i v e s programme planning i n the d i f f u s i o n of innovations. Besides the 100 randomly selected respondents, an additional number of growers i n a p a r t i c u l a r l o c a l i t y area were interviewed i n order to examine more closely interpersonal communication on a community basis within the cl u s t e r of i n d i v i d u a l s . Two sociometric questions were used to e l i c i t informa-t i o n relevant to dyadic "seeker-sought" relationships i n the search for. advice, and i n informal friendship v i s i t i n g patterns. Sociometric procedures were then used to i d e n t i f y high status indiv i d u a l s relevant to opinion leadership. This c h a r a c t e r i s t i c was also analysed i n terms of ethnicity and adopter categories. There was a general caution among respondents i n naming other growers as a source of advice, with almost one-half f a i l i n g to name any one i n response to the s p e c i f i c question. 2 1 3 In p a r t i c u l a r , very few of the individuals with high socio-metric status, as indicated by the number of d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s who named them, named anyone; i f they did, i t was more l i k e l y to be a foreign grower, also of high socio-metric status. I n f l u e n t i a l s were mostly early majority respondents, followed by early adopter-innovators and late majority res-pondents. Dyadic relationships were considered as being up-ward, downward or across i n terms of whether the person named was i n a higher, lower or the same adopter category, compared to the i n d i v i d u a l from whom the choice originated. Sociometric choices were c l e a r l y biased i n the d i r e c t i o n of superior practice adoption. More than one-half ( 5 6 per cenf) of the choices were upward, one-third across and 1 1 per cent downward. Sociometric behaviour i n the search of advice would seem to be d e f i n i t e l y not a random phenomenon. While those seeking advice were l i k e l y to reach far upwards beyond t h e i r own l e v e l of practice adoption, most choices included growers i n the same adopter category, or not too f a r removed. Downward choices never extended beyond a single adopter category; i n these cases, a closer look at the detailed circumstances usually indicated s p e c i f i c family r e l a t i o n -ships or a choice i n the d i r e c t i o n of experience and pres-214 Analysis within the context of e t h n i c i t y indicated that dyadic relationships were la r g e l y between individuals of the same ethnic group. The r e l a t i o n s h i p i s most out-standing among Menonites and Japanese; i n the l a t t e r case, not a single respondent named a non-Japanese grower. The chi-square test showed s i g n i f i c a n t differences at the .001 l e v e l i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of sociometric dyads both by adopter category and by ethnic o r i g i n . Sociometric data f o r friendship v i s i t i n g patterns emphasized the existence of t i g h t - k n i t community i n t e r -personal network behaviour, e s p e c i a l l y i n the areas where the majority of Menonite and Japanese growers resided. Interpersonal dyads among growers were la r g e l y confined to individuals i n the same general l o c a l i t y areas. Two i n t e r e s t i n g features, emerged when dyadic r e l a -tionships f o r a l l responses were imposed on a single socio-gram. In the f i r s t instance, the l i m i t e d sociometric status of a number of individuals i s o l a t e d as sources of advice or "legitimators" i n the f i r s t instance, increased consider-ably. Also, i t became quite clear that i n f l u e n t i a l s who were not i s o l a t e d i n the f i r s t instance, suddenly became evident i n the less s p e c i f i c friendship network. Since the geographical area studied covered a number of sub-regional areas, the p o t e n t i a l f o r information trans-f e r between d i f f e r e n t communities was also i l l u s t r a t e d . In addition, t h i s l a t t e r dual-purpose sociogram provided actual 215 evidence of the importance of the "two-step" and "multistep" floxv of information within a community. Outstanding socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the most important opinion leaders were examined. I n f l u e n t i a l s were above average f o r the random sample relevant to age, size of. farm, acreage i n strawberry, gross a g r i c u l t u r a l income, income from strawberry and the l e v e l of s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n . However, they were not necessarily more experienced straw-berry growers. A larger percentage were members of the L.M.H.I.A. and attended the annual short courses. Their choice of information sources were also closer to the origin&and they were more l i k e l y to be i n contact with foreign sources. In p a r t i c u l a r , the high l e v e l of extension contact with the D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t was outstanding. In'general, there-fore, opinion leaders were the more progressive farmers of higher socio-economic status who were well informed on various aspects of strawberry c u l t i v a t i o n . Also, i t must be observed that there x\rere opinion leaders f o r growers at a l l levels of adoption performance. F i n a l l y , the sociometric data i l l u s t r a t e s with con-siderable c l a r i t y that, at least f o r th i s population of farmers, the concept of community i n programme planning cannot be discarded by extension agents. An a l e r t and e f f i c i e n t extension agent working with the strawberry growers would be forced to take into account the fact 216 that predominant ethnic groups constitute sub-systems of his t o t a l target c l i e n t e l e . D i f f erent r e s i d e n t i a l areas and the nature of the relationships suggest community group structures. Within each one, there i s evidence of an interpersonal network such that i f the opinion leaders are c o r r e c t l y influenced the task of information d i f f u s i o n and the promotion of change could be made considerably easier. BIBLIOGBAPHY 218 A. Government Publications B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of Agriculture, H o r t i c u l t u r a l Branch, 1962 Small F r u i t Survey. Canada Department of Agriculture, Research Branch, Experimental Farm, Agassiz, B r i t i s h Columbia. Research Report. 1958-1960. Canada, Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Census of Canada  1961. B u l l e t i n 5. 3-4. Canada Department of Agriculture, Research Branch. Research  Report. 1958-1960. Experimental Farm, Agassiz. B.C., Queen's P r i n t e r , Ottawa, 1962. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of Land, Forests, and Water Resources. The Lower Coast B u l l e t i n Area  B u l l e t i n Area Mo. 3. Queen's P r i n t e r , V i c t o r i a , B.C., 1962. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of Agriculture. A g r i c u l t u r a l Outlook Conference, 1964. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of Agriculture. A g r i c u l t u r a l Outlook Conference, 1966. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of Agriculture. A g r i c u l t u r a l Outlook Conference, 196?. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of Agriculture. Control of Small F r u i t Pests and Diseases, 1967. B. General Works Bronfenbrenner, Urie. The Measurement of Sociometric Status. Structure and Development. Sociometry Mono-graphs No. 6, Beacon House, 1945. Freund, John E. and Frank J . Williams. Modern Business  S t a t i s t i c s . Englewood C l i f f s , N. J ; Prentice H a l l , Inc., 1958. Goodenough, Ward H. S o c i a l Action and Interaction i n Program Planning. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1966. Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston Inc., 1967. 2 1 9 Kurtz, K. H. Foundations of Psychological Research. Boston: A l l y n and Bacon, Inc., 1 9 6 5 * : Lionberger, Herbert F. Adoption of New Ideas and Practices. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, i 9 6 0 . Nye, S. Ivan and F e l i x M. Berado (edi t o r s ) . The Emerging  Conceptual Frameworks i n Family Analysis. New York: The McMillan Company, 1966. Rogers, Everett M. Di f f u s i o n of Innovations. New York: The Free Press, 1 9 6 2 . C. S p e c i f i c Works Abel, Helen C. The Exchange of Farming Information. Marketing Service, Economics D i v i s i o n , Canada Depart-ment of Agriculture, Ottawa, 1 9 5 3 ' Abel, Helen C , Olaf F. Larson and Elizabeth R. Dickerson. Communication of A g r i c u l t u r a l Information i n a South-Central New York County. Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell University A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station, Ithaca, New York, 1 9 5 7 . Abel, Helen C. "The S o c i a l Consequences of the Modernization of Agriculture," Rural Canada i n Transition, Marc-Adelard Tremblay and Walter J . Anderson, editors. Publication No. 6 . Ottawa: A g r i c u l t u r a l Economic Research Council of Canada, 1 9 6 6 . A l l i n , J . S. "Inventory of Agriculture i n B r i t i s h Columbia," Inventory of the Natural Resources of B r i t i s h Columbia.  1964. ' Beal, George M., and Joe M. Bohlen. The Di f f u s i o n Process. Special Report No. 18, A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension Service, Iowa State College, Ames, March, 1957. Beal, George M., Everett M. Rogers and Joe M. Bohlen. " V a l i d i t y of the Concept of Stages i n the Adoption Process." Rural Sociology, 2 2 : 1 6 6 - 1 6 8 , 1 9 5 7 . Beal, George M. et. a l . S o c i a l Action and Interaction i n  Program Planning. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1 9 6 6 . 220 Bishop, R., and C. M. Coughenour. Discontinuance of Farm Innovations. Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics and Rural Sociology, Ohio State University, 1964 (Depart-mental Series A.E. 3 6 I ) . Bohlen, J . M. "The Adoption and Dif f u s i o n of Ideas i n Agriculture," Our Changing Rural Society: Perspectives  and Trends, J . H. Copp, editor. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1964. Campbell, Rex R. "A Suggested Paradigm of the Individual Adoption Process." Rural Sociology. 31:458-466, 1966. Carne, I. C. "Strawberry Production i n the Fraser Valley." (Department of Agriculture, Abbotsford, B r i t i s h Columbia, 1959). (Mineographed). Carne, I. C. et. a l . Second Approximation Report, A g r i c u l - ture i n the Fraser; Vall e y , 1964-1984. B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Agriculture, October, 1966. Carter, A. C. A Report on the Small F r u i t Industry i n B r i t i s h  Columbia. B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of Agriculture, H o r t i c u l t u r a l Branch, 1966. Chapin, F. S. S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1938. Coleman, A. Lee andC. P. Marsh. "The Relation of Neigh-bourhood of Residence to Adoption of Recommended Farm Practices." Rural Sociology. 19:385-389, 1954. Coleman, James, E l i h u Katz and Herbert Menzel. The Diffusion, of an Innovation Among Physicians. Sociometry, 20:253-270, 1957. Coughenour, C. Milton. "The Functioning of Farmers' Characteristics i n Relation to Contact with Media and Practice Adoption." Rural Sociology. 25:283-297, i960. Daubeny, H. A., and J . A. Freeman. "Strawberry Variety Performance i n Central B r i t i s h Columbia." F r u i t  V a r i e t i e s and H o r t i c u l t u r a l Digest. 19:75-77, 1965. F l i e g e l , Frederick C , and Joseph E. K i v l i n . Differences Among Improved Farm Practices as Related to Rates of '< Adoption. College of Agriculture, Pennsylvania State University", Pennsylvania, 1962 ( B u l l e t i n 691). 221 Freeman, J . A. "Use of Simazine for Control of Weeds i n Strawberries i n Coastal B r i t i s h Columbia." Canadian  Journal of Plant Science, 44 :555-560, 1964.. Freeman, J . A. "The Control of Strawberry F r u i t Hot i n Coastal B r i t i s h Columbia," Canadian Plant Disease  Survey, 44:96-104, 1964. Freeman, J . A. "New Findings i n F r u i t Rot Control i n Strawberries." Proceedings of the Lower Mainland  H o r t i c u l t u r a l Improvement Association: Ninth Annual Growers Short Course. Legion H a l l , Abbotsford, B.C. February 15 and 16, 1967. Freeman, J . A. "Chemical Weed Control i n Strawberries." Proceedings of the Lower Mainland H o r t i c u l t u r a l  Improvement Association: Ninth Annual Growers Short Course. o_p_. c i t . Freeman, J . A. "Small F r u i t s Research." Paper presented at 1967 Outlook Conference on Agriculture, Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, 1967. Freeman, J . A. 1967 Confederation Year Outlook f o r B r i t i s h Columbia - Small F r u i t s Panel. 1967 Outlook Conference on Agriculture, Vancouver, B. C. Freeman, J.A., and F. C. Mellor. "Influences of Latent Viruses on Vigour Y i e l d and Quality of B r i t i s h Soverign Strawberries." Canadian Journal of Plan Science, 42 :602-610, 1962. Freeman, Linton C. e_t. a l . "Locating Leaders i n Local Communities: A Comparison of Some Alt e r n a t i v e Approaches," American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 28:791-798, October, 1963.' Havens, A. E. "Increasing the Effectiveness of Predicting Innovativeness." Rural Sociology, 30:150-165, 1965« Hoffer, C. R., and D. L. Gibson.' The Community S i t u a t i o n as i t Affects A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension Work. East Lansing: A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station, Michigan State College, East Lansing, 1941. Katz, E l i h u . "The Two Step Flow of Communication," Mass Communications, Wilbur Schramm, editor. Second E d i t i o n . Urbana: University of I l l i n o i s Press, i 9 6 0 . Katz, E l i h u . "The S o c i a l I t i n e r a r y of Technical Change: Two Studies on the Dif f u s i o n of Innovations." Human  Organization, 20:70-82, I 9 6 I . 222 Katz, E l i h u , and. Paul P... Lazarsfeld. Personal Influence; The Part Played "by People i n the Flow of Mass  Communication. Glencoe, I l l i n o i s : Free Press, 1 9 5 5 . Katz, E l i h u , Martin L. Levin and Herbert Hamilton. "Traditions of Research on the D i f f u s i o n of Innovation." American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 2 8 : 2 3 7 - 2 5 2 , 1 9 6 3 . Leuthold, Frank 0. Communication and D i f f u s i o n of Improved  Farm Practices i n Two Northern Saskatchewan Farm  Communities. Canadian Centre for Community Studies, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, 1 9 6 6 . Lionberger, Herbert F." Low Income Farmers i n Missouri. University of Missouri, College of Agriculture, A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Statinn, Columbia, A p r i l , 1 9 4 8 . Lionberger, Herbert F.' "Neighbourhoods as a Factor i n the D i f f u s i o n of Farm Information i n a Northeast Missouri Farming Community." Rural Sociology. 1 9 * 3 7 7 - 3 8 4 , 1 9 5 4 . Lionberger, Herbert F., and Rex R. Campbell. The P o t e n t i a l  of Interpersonal Communicative Networks f o r Message  Transfer from Outside Information Sources: A Study of  Two Missouri Communities. University of Missouri, College of Agriculture, A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station, Columbia, Missouri, 1 9 6 3 (Research B u l l e t i n 842). Lionberger, Herbert F., and H. C. Chang. Comparative Characteristics of Special Functionaries i n the Accept-ance of A g r i c u l t u r a l Innovations i n Two Missouri Com-munities, Ozark and P r a i r i e . University of Missouri, College of Agriculture, A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station,' Columbia, Missouri, A p r i l , 1 9 6 5 . (Research B u l l e t i n 8 8 5 ) . Lionberger, Herbert F., and C. Milton Coughenour. S o c i a l Structure and D i f f u s i o n of Farm Information. A g r i c u l -t u r a l Experiment Station, 1 College of Agriculture, University of Missouri, 1 9 5 7 (Research B u l l e t i n 6 3 1 ) . ' Lower Mainland H o r t i c u l t u r a l Improvement Association By-Laws. Not Dated. Marsh, C. Paul, and A. Lee Coleman. "The Relation of Neigh-bourhood of Residence to Adoption of Recommended Farm Practices." Rural Sociology. 1 9 : 3 8 5 - 3 8 9 , 1 9 5 4 . Menzel, Herbert and E l i h u Katz. "Social Relations and Inno-vation i n the Medical Profession: The Epidemiology of a New Drug." The Public Opinion Quarterly. 19:337-352. 2 2 3 McMillon, Martin B. The Sources of Information and Factors  Which Influence Farmers i n Adoption Recommended  Practices i n Two Mew Zealand Counties. Lincoln College, University of New Zealand, I960 (Technical Publication No. 1 9 ) . Pedersen, Harold A. "Cultural Differences i n the Acceptance of Recommended Practices." Rural Sociology, 1 6 : 3 7 - 4 9 , 1 9 5 1 . Photiadas, J . D. "Motivation, Contacts and Technological Change." Rural Sociology. 2 7 - ' 3 1 6 - 3 2 6 , 1 9 6 2 . Proceedings of the Lower Mainland H o r t i c u l t u r a l Improvement Association, Ninth Annual Growers Short Course, February 1 5 - 1 6 , 1 9 6 7 . ' Abbotsford, B r i t i s h Columbia. Rogers, Everett M. "Categorizing the Adopters of A g r i c u l -t u r a l Practices." Rural Sociology, 2 3 : 3 ^ 5 - 3 5 ^ . 1 9 5 8 . Rogers, Everett M., and Harold R. Capener.- The County Extension Agent and His Constituents. Ohio A g r i c u l -t u r a l Experiment Station, Wooster, Ohio, June, i 9 6 0 . (Research B u l l e t i n 8 5 8 ) . Rogers, Everett M.-, and A. E. Havens. Extension Contact of the Ohio Farm Housewives. Ohio A g r i c u l t u r a l Exper-iment Station, Wooster, Ohio, 1 9 6 1 . (Research B u l l e t i n 8 9 0 ) . Rogers, E. M., and R. L. P i t z e r . The Adoption of I r r i g a t i o n  by Ohio Farmers. Ohio A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station, Wooster, Ohio, i 9 6 0 . (Research B u l l e t i n 8 5 1 ) . ' Ryan, Bryce and Neal C. Gross. "The Dif f u s i o n of Hybrid Seed Corn i n Two Iowa Communities." Rural Sociology, 7 8 : 1 5 - 2 4 , 1 9 5 ^ . Sheppard, D.1 "The Importance of 'Other Farmers'". Sociologia R u r a l i s . 1 1 1 : 1 2 7 - 1 4 1 . Subcommittee f o r the Study of Dif f u s i o n of Farm Practices. How Farm People Accept New Ideas.1 Special Report No. 1 5 , A g r i c u l t u r a l Extension Service, Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa, November,' 1 9 5 5 * Van den Ban, A.' W. "L o c a l i t y Group Differences i n the Adoption of New Farm Practices." Rural Sociology, 2 5 : 3 0 8 - 3 2 0 , I 9 6 0 . ' 224 Verner, Coolie, and Peter M. Gubbels. The Adoption or Rejection of Innovations by Dairy Farm Operators i n  the Lower Fraser Val ley . Agricultural Economics Research Council of Canada, 196?. Verner, Coolie, and Frank W. Mi l l erd . Adult Education and  the Adoption of Innovations by Orchardists i n the  Okanagan Valley of B r i t i s h Columbia. Department of Agricultural Economics, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B . C . , 1966 (Rural Sociological Monograph No. 1). Verner, Coolie, and John S. Newberry, J r . "The Nature of Adult Participation." Adult Education. 8:208-222, 1958. Waisanen, F . B. "Change Orientation and the Adoption Process," F ir s t Inter-American Research Symposium on  the Role of Communications i n Agricultural Development. D.' T. Myren, editor. Mexico Ci ty , October, 1964. c APPENDIX I THE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE WITH UNIVARIATE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS ADDED FOR BASIC SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERIST-ICS AND STAGES IN THE ADOPTION PROCESS 226 Ag.Ec./U.B.C./67 INTERVIEW SCHEDULE A STUDY OF THE ADOPTION OF INNOVATIONS AND THE RELEVANT INFLUENTIAL FACTORS AMONG STRAWBERRY GROWERS IN THE LOWER FRASER VALLEY. Respondent's Name_ Address Telephone Number DATA CARD NO. 1 Col. Code Respondent's Code No. 1,3 4 1 Record of V i s i t s  Date Time Comments Additional Notes: 22? Good , I am a student from the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. We are making a survey of strawberry growers i n the Lower Fraser Valley. I t i s f e l t that t h i s industry i s a very important one, and we hope that our findings would be of benefit to growers l i k e yourself and to the industry as a whole. I would be happy i f you could a s s i s t me by answering a few questions about yourself and your farm. Any information you give to me i s STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL, and w i l l only be used f o r the purpose of t h i s survey. A. FIRST OF ALL, A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY. 1. What i s your age? Column Code Frequency 1. Under 20 5 1 0 2. 20 - 24 2 1 3.' 2 5-3^ 3 9 4. 35 - 44 4 25 5. 45 - 54 5 29 6. 5 5 - 6 4 6 22 7. 65 or over 7 14 100 2. What i s your marital status? 1. Single 6 l 2. Married 2 3. Widowed 3 41. Separated 4 5. Divorced 5 6. Not stated 6 3. How many children do you have? 1. None 7 1 14 2. 1 - 2 2 . 24 3. 3 - 4 3 36 4. 5 or more 4 26 Too 228 Column Code Frequency 4. What was the highest year you completed i n school? 1. Less than 5 8 1 7 2. 5 - 8 2 46 3. 9 - 11 3 31 4. High school diploma (Grade 12) 4 7 5.. Senior matriculation (Grade 13) 5 4 6. Some university 6 3 7. University degree 7 2 8. University graduate work 8 0 9<i Graduate degree 9 0 100 5. Have you taken any agriculture courses i n high school? 1. Yes 9 1 5 2. No 2 _J9__ 100 6. Have you taken any agriculture courses at a vocational school? 1. Yes 10 1 7 2. No 2 __9__ 100 7. Have you taken any agriculture courses for credit at university? 1. Yes 11 1 2 2. ' No 2 98 100 8. Have you taken any adult education courses i n agriculture? 1. Yes 12 1 50 2. No 2 50 100 9. Have you taken any adult education courses i n other subjects? 1. Yes 13 1 29 2. No 2 _J1 100 229 Column Code Frequency 10.1 What was the highest year completed in school by your wife? 1. Less than 5 14 1 5 2. 5 - 8 2 35 3. 9 - 11 3 21 4. High school diploma (Grade 12) 4 15 5. Senior matriculation (Grade 13) 5 4 6. Some university 6 4 7. University degree 7 0 8. Not married/Not applicable/No response 8 16 100 11. How many years have you been working i n the agricultural industry? 1. Less than 5 15 1 3 2. 5 - 9 2 10 3. 1 0 - 1 9 3 21 4. 20 or more 4 66 100 12. How many years have you been i n the strawberry industry? 1. Less than 5 16 1 2. 5 - 9 2 3. 10 - 19 ' 3 4. 20 or more 4 13. How many years have you been on this present farm? 1. Less than 1 17 1 1 2. 2 - 4 2 7 3. 5 - 9 3 29 4. 1 0 - 1 9 4 38 5. 20 or more 5 25 14. Where were you born? 100 1. B r i t i s h Isles 18 1 1 2. Germany, Austria 2 3 3. Netherlands 3 £ 4 . Denmark, Norway, Sweden 4 2 5. Ukraine, Russia 5 20 2 3 0 Column Code Frequency 14.' Where were you born? (cont'd) 6. < Japan 7 . India 8. East Europe 9 . U.S.A. A. Canada B. ' Other 6 7 8 9 A B 8 1 1 1 3 46 1 1 0 0 1 5 . Since you were not born In Canada, when did you migrate to Canada? 1 . Does not apply 2 . Immigration before 1 9 4 5 3 . 1 9 4 5 to 1 9 4 9 4 . 1 9 5 0 to 1 9 5 4 5 . : 1 9 5 5 to 1 9 5 9 6 . i 9 6 0 to 1 9 6 4 7 . After 1 9 6 6 1 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 46 3 1 7 6 8 2 0 1 0 0 SOCIAL PARTICIPATION SCORE Score \ - , — - 1 \ 1 2 3 4 I 1 5 Organization Membership Attendance Contribution Committee Membership Offices Held TOTALS GRAND TOTAL = = Social Participation Score to 232 Column Code Frequency 16. S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n Score 1. No" score 2.' 1 -• 4 3. 5 -• 14 4. 15 - 24 5. 25 - 49 6.~ 50 or more 7. No response B. MY NEXT SET 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. What would you consider to be your major a g r i c u l t u r a l operation on t h i s farm? 1. Small f r u i t production 2. Dairying 3. Catt l e , hogs, sheep (excluding .i Dairying) 4. Poultry 5. Vegetables 6. Potatoes 7. Tree f r u i t s 8. Green-houses, cut flowers and nursery 9. Mixed XA. Seed Production 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A 80 4 2 4 6 1 0 2 0 1 100 18. What i s your secondary a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t y ? 0. Nil/No response 22 0 46 1. Small f r u i t production 1 19 2. Dairying 2 5 3. Cattle,' hogs, sheep (excluding Dairying) 3 7 4. Poultry 4 5 5. Vegetables 5 10 6. Potatoes 6 5 7.! Tree f r u i t s 7 0 8. Green-houses, cut flowers and nursery 8 2 9. Mixed 9 1 100 2 3 3 Column Code Frequency 19. What i s the t o t a l acreage you are farming at present? 1. Less than 3 acres Acres 23 1 8 2. 3 to less than 5 , 2 9 3 . 5 to less than 1 5 3 3 7 4.. 1 5 to less than 3 0 4 22 5. 3 0 to less than 5 0 5 6 6 . , 5 0 to less than 80 6 5 7. 80 to less than 120 7 2 8.,. 120 to less than 180 8 2 9. 180 or more (acres) 9 __2 1 0 0 How many improved acres are devoted to strawberry production? 1. Less than 3 acres Acres 24 1 3 3 2*' 3 to less than 5 2 17 3. 5 to less than 1 5 3 3 1 -4. 1 5 to less than 3 0 4 6 5.; 3 0 to less than 5 0 5 6 6. 5 0 to less than 80 6 4 7v 80 to less than 120 7 2 8. 120 to less than 180 8 . 1 9. 180 or more (acres) 9 0 100 CALCULATE: Number of improved acres devoted to a l l other a g r i c u l t u r a l operations ( i . e . beside strawberry production) 1. Less than 3 acres Acres 25 1 1 3 2. 3 to less than 5 2 1 6 3 . 5 to less than 1 5 3 2 3 4. 1 5 to less than 3 0 4 1 5 5. 3 0 to less than 5 0 5 4 6 . 5 0 to less than 80 6 4 7. 80 to less than,120 7 1 8.' 120 to less than 180 8 3 9. 180 or more (acres) 9 6 A. Nil/No response . A , 1 0 0 What was the gross value of sales from a l l your a g r i c u l t u r a l operations l a s t year? 1. Under $3,000 $ 2 6 1 18 2. $ 3 , 0 0 0 to 5,000- 2 1 3 3 . More than 5,000 to 10,000 3 20 4. More than 10,000 to 15,000 4 11 2 3 4 Column Code Frequency 22. What was the gross value of sales from a l l your a g r i c u l t u r a l operations l a s t year? (Cont'd) 5 „ * More than 1 5 . 0 0 0 to 2 5 , 0 0 0 6 . ' More than 2 5 , 0 0 0 to 4 0 , 0 0 0 7 . More than 4 0 , 0 0 0 to 5 5 . 0 0 0 8 . More than 5 5 . 0 0 0 to 7 5 . 0 0 0 9 . More than $ 7 5 , 0 0 0 A. Nil/No response 5 6 7 8 9 A 1 1 7 1 2 1 3 4 1 0 0 23. What was the gross value of strawberries sold i n 1 9 6 6 ? 1 . Under $ 3 , 0 0 0 $ 2 . : $ 3 , 0 0 0 to 5 . 0 0 0 3 . More than 5 , 0 0 0 to 1 0 , 0 0 0 4. More than 1 0 , 0 0 0 to 1 5 , 0 0 0 5 . More than 1 5 . 0 0 0 to 2 5 , 0 0 0 6 . More than 2 5 , 0 0 0 to 4 0 , 0 0 0 7 . ' More than 4 0 „ 0 0 0 to 5 5 . 0 0 0 8 . More than 5 5 . 0 0 0 to 7 5 . 0 0 0 9.. More than A.'; Nil/No response 2 7 1 3 5 2 2 0 3 1 6 4 6 5 6 6 2 7 1 8 5 9 5 A 4 1 0 0 24. CALCULATE: Gross value of sales from a l l other agriculture operations ( i . e . besides strawberries) 1 . Under $ 3 , 0 0 0 $ 2 . $ 3 , 0 0 0 to 5 , 0 0 0 3 . More than 5 , 0 0 0 to 1 0 , 0 0 0 4. More than 1 0 , 0 0 0 to 1 5 , 0 0 0 5 . More than 1 5 , 0 0 0 to 2 5 , 0 0 0 6 . More than 2 5 , 0 0 0 to 4 0 , 0 0 0 7 . More than 4 0 , 0 0 0 to 5 5 , 0 0 0 8 . More than 5 5 , 0 0 0 to 7 5 , 0 0 0 9 . More than 7 5 , 0 0 0 A. Nil/No response 28 2 5 . Do You: 1 . Own t h i s farm 2 9 2. Own more than half and rent the remainder 3. Own less than half and rent the remainder 4. Rent i t e n t i r e l y 5. Manage t h i s farm f o r someone else 1 2 1 2 1 0 3 9 4 1 0 5 7 6 5 7 1 8 3 9 6 A 28 1 0 0 1 8 0 2 1 3 3 4 4 2 5 1 1 0 0 2 3 5 Column Code Frequency 26. Did you work off your farm l a s t year? I f so, how did the amount of time spent working off your farm compare with the amount of time spent working on your farm? 1 . No off-farm work 3 0 1 6 0 2. Less than l A off-farm 2 8 3 . l A to less than 1 / 2 off-farm 3 4 4. 1/2 to less than 3 A off-farm 4 6 5 . 3 A to less than f u l l - t i m e off-farm 5 6 6 . F u l l time r- 6 1 6 1 0 0 27.' What was the largest number of pickers employed by you f o r harvesting strawberries at any one time during 1966? 1 . Less than 2 5 3 1 1 ^3 2 . 2 5 to 5 0 2 1 5 3 . 5 1 to 1 0 0 3 1 2 4. 1 0 1 to 2 0 0 4 1 0 5 . 2 0 1 to 400 5 7 6 . 401 to 6 0 0 6 1 7 . 6 0 1 to 800 7 1 8. 801 to 1,000 8 0 9 . ' 1 , 0 0 1 to 2 , 0 0 0 9 1 A. N i l A _ _ 1 0 1 0 0 28. How much would you pay f o r t h i s farm i f you were buying i t from someone else? 1 . Less than $ 5 , 0 0 0 $ 3 2 1 1 2 . 5 . 0 0 0 to less than 1 0 , 0 0 0 2 2 3 . 1 0 , 0 0 0 to less than 3 0 , 0 0 0 3 3 6 4. 3 0 , 0 0 0 to less than 6 0 , 0 0 0 4 3 6 5 . 6 0 , 0 0 0 to less than 9 0 , 0 0 0 5 5 6 . 9 0 , 0 0 0 to less than 1 2 0 , 0 0 0 6 4 7 . 1 2 0 , 0 0 0 to less than 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 7 1 8. More than 150,000 8 14 9. No response 9 l 1 0 0 236 C. WHAT KIND OF CONTACTS HAVE YOU HAD WITH THE DISTRICT HORTICULTURIST DURING THE PAST YEAR? rt CD > CD a o •d H CD CO CQ ctS O O o >» H -P CD rt a< CD rt > 5 H •P rt CD rt O 1 CD rt rt CD > Total 29. V i s i t to his office Code: Other Agricultural Agents 3 0 . 2.1 Telephone Other Agricultural Agents 3 1 . 3 . V i s i t to your farm Other Agricultural Agents 3 2 . 4. Read Circular Letters, Bul let ins , etc.  Other Agricultural Agents 3 3 . 5. Listened to Radio Ann ounc em ent s  Other Agricultural Agents 3 4 . 6. Looked at Television Programmes  Other Agricultural Agents 1 2 3 4 5 33 57 20 1 3 4 6 100 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 86 8 3 2 1 100 1 2 3 4 5 35 37 20 i6 1 5 12 100 1 2 3 4 5 3 6 69 4 16 4 7 100 1 2 3 4 5 37 44 35 9 4 8 100 1 2 3 4 5 38 64 1 5 6 5 1 0 100 1 2 3 4 5 39 18 3 1 9 1 9 41 ioo 1 2 3 4 5 40 6 3 3 8 8 18 100 1 2 3 4 5 41 73 9 14 2 2 100 1 2 3 4 5 42 57 7 21 7 8 100 1 2 3 4 5 3^ 9 0 7 1 2 0 100 1 2 3 4 5 44 57 7 28 7 1 100 2 3 7 C . WHAT KIND OF CONTACTS HAVE YOU HAD WITH THE ' DISTRICT HORTICULTURIST DURING THE PAST YEAR? ( C o n t i n u e d ) 3 5 . 7 . Read Newspaper A r t i c l e s >» rH -P >> H H !>> f5 H a 1 -P 0 O £ rH s •H fe o co -d as a* >> > rH o <D u <D o U CO o fe > 1 2 3 4 5 3 6 18 24 1 3 9 46 T o t a l 1 0 0 O t h e r A g r i c u l t u r a l A g e n t s 1 2 3 ^ 5 3 1 9 2 0 2 3 1 7 46 1 0 0 Column Code F r e q u e n c y 3 6 . D i d you a t t e n d any m e e t i n g o f t h e Lower M a i n l a n d H o r t i c u l t u r a l Improvement A s s o c i a t i o n l a s t y e a r ? 1 . No 4 7 1 2 . One 2 3 . 2 - 3 3 4 . 4 - 5 . 4 5 . 5 o r more 5 3 7 . Have you a t t e n d e d any l o c a l m e e t i n g s , f i e l d days o r d e m o n s t r a t i o n s s p o n s o r e d by y o u r D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t , D . A . o r t h e H o r t i c u l t u r a l A s s o c i a t i o n ? 1 . No 4 8 1 5 2 2 . One 2 1 7 3 . 2 - 3 3 14 4 . 4 - 5 ' • 4 __12 1 0 0 238 Column 38. Did you attend the Growers' Short Course sponsored by the H o r t i c u l t u r a l Improvement Association l a s t year? 1. Did not attend 2. One day only 3 . Both days 49 Code Frequency 1 2 3 59 16 _ 2 i 100 39. Did you attend the Growers' Short Course t h i s year? 1. Did not attend 2. One day only 3. Both days 50 1 2 3 71 12 100 4o, 42. Did you attend the Growers' Short Course i n Washington l a s t year? 1. 2. Yes No 51 41. This year? (Washington) 1. Yes 2. No 52 1 2' 1 2 I have a few questions concerning how strawberry producers communicate with each other. I would l i k e you to think c a r e f u l l y before answering them. Also, I would l i k e to assure you again that your answers w i l l be treated with s t r i c t confidence. I would l i k e you to t e l l me the name(s) of any p a r t i c u l a r grower(s) whose advice you always seek before you decide whether or not to t r y a new practice on your farm. 10 100 6 100 Column Code Frequency 1. No response 53 1 1 2. Can't think of any p a r t i c u l a r one 2 2 3. None of them 3 39 4. Name(s) given 4 48 100 239 a) Name Address b) Name Address c) Name Address d) Name Address e) Name Address 4 3 . Who are the three (3) people with whom you v i s i t s o c i a l l y most often? 1. No response 5^ 1 4 2 . No one i n p a r t i c u l a r 2 6 3 . Name(s) given 3 90 100 a) Name Address b) Name Address 240 c) Name Address D. MY NEXT QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION WHICH YOU USE CONCERNING NEW PRACTICES IN STRAWBERRY PRODUCTION. On this card which I am giving to you (hand respondent the card l i s t i n g sources of information) there are a number of sources of information from which you may or may not learn about new and improved practices i n strawberry production. I want you to give me the numbers or letters of the sources of information which apply to each question I shal l ask you. 44. When you hear of a new or improved practice, to what source(s) do you go for further information ( i . e . general, how to apply, etc.) before you apply i t to your strawberry acreage? (Names/Addresses for Personal Sources) 45. After you have gained enough information about a practice and havQ perhaps, tr ied i t , which source(s) do you use i n deciding whether or not to adopt ( i . e . to continue using) the_.practice? 1. No response (Names/Addresses^, for Personal Sources) 241 E . F I N A L L Y , TO COMPLETE THIS INTERVIEW, I WILL ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT S P E C I F I C PRACTICES WHICH APPLY TO STRAWBERRY PRODUC-T ION. THESE PRACTICES ARE LISTED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CARD. 4 6 . I f you a r e aware o f t h i s p r a c t i c e , what p r o g r e s s have you made i n r e g a r d t o i t ? 1 . No t aware 2 . Awareness 3 . I n t e r e s t 7 . D i s c o n t i n -4 . E v a l u a t i o n 5 . T r i a l 6 . A d o p t i o n uance 4 7 . I n what y e a r d i d you f i r s t become aware o f t h i s p r a c t i c e ? 1964 1965 1966 1967 A B C D 4 8 . From what s o u r c e d i d you f i r s t l e a r n o f t h i s p r a c t i c e ? ( S e l e c t f r o m l i s t o f s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n ) . (1) ( 3 ) ( 5 ) (2) . (4) (6) (Names /Add resses f o r P e r s o n a l S o u r c e s ) 4 9 . How d i d you f e e l about t h i s p r a c t i c e when you f i r s t h e a r d abou t i t ? 1 . Was n o t i n t e r e s t e d ) 2 . Was i n t e r e s t e d b u t had no f a i t h i n i t ) R e . j e c t i o n 3 . U n s u i t a b l e f o r a s t r a w b e r r y p r o d u c e r l i k e m y s e l f ) t o 60 4 . A p p l i c a b l e t o my f a r m To 50 242 Ques- S o i l Analy- Spraying C u l t u r a l Chemical Use of Use of t i o n s i s f or with Captan Operation Weed Picking Virus-free No. Nematode for F r u i t - Change from Control Carts c e r t i f i e d Control Rot Control " H i l l " to plants (1) (2) "Matted Row" (4) (5) (6) (?)  o rt 0 a _ p* 0 a 1 H - d 0 o o U O O fe 46. 65 1 8 69 1 1 73 1 0 77 1 0 105 1 5 109 1 0 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 5 2 0 3 8 3 7 3 2 3 5 3 21 3 0, i+ 23 4 2 4 4 4 12 4 27 4 0 5 9 5 14 5 10 5 5 5 9 5 6 6 50 6 _7_6 6 _J_3 6__S 6___ 6 _j9j_ 100 100 100 100 100 100 >5 > i o o rt rt rt 0 rt 0 a r f 0 C 0 o * H - d 0 H • d 0 o o JH O o rH U o fe O o fe >5 >> >> o o o rt rt rt rt ue rt ue rt no 0 •3 0 0 o< H • d 0 H 0 H - d 0 O O O O O O U O o fe O o fe O o fe 243 50. Reasons f o r f e e l i n g t h a t t h i s p r a c t i c e was a p p l i c a b l e t o your farm when you f i r s t h e a r d about i t . Yes No. 1. Y o u r fami, ly was a l s o i n t e r e s t e d 1 2 2. Good r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d by o t h e r farmers who had t r i e d i t . 1 2 3. I t was deve loped at the r e s e a r c h s t a t i o n at A g a s s i z 1 2 4. Because i t was recommended by the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e . 1 2 51. A f t e r you h e a r d about t h i s p r a c t i c e , d i d you f e e l a need to seek more i n f o r m a t i o n ? 1. Yes 2. No 52. From what s o u r c e ( s ) d i d you seek t h i s a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n ? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Names/Addresses f o r P e r s o n a l S o u r c e s ) 53» When d i d you f i r s t t r y t h i s p r a c t i c e on y o u r farm? 1. The same season ) m 2. The next y e a r ) 1 0 ->° 3. About 2 y e a r s l a t e r $ T t-j, 4. More t h a n 2 y e a r s l a t e r ) —°—-2—=—2-i 2*J4 54. What would you give as your reasons for taking 2 years or more before a c t u a l l y t r y i n g the practice a f t e r making the decision to t r y i t ? a) General Reasons 1. Fear of damage to crop 2. Needed some more information 3. Unencouraging result s by other farmers 4 . Influenced by other farmers who decided not to tr y the new practice 5. Advice from members of my family 6. Department of Agriculture x?as not r e a l l y giving much active encouragement at the time. 55* (b) Reasons relevant to the practice i t s e l f  Open  Cl a s s i f y : 1. Relative advantage 2. Compatibility 3. Complexity 4 . D i v i s i b i l i t y 5. Communicability 6. S i t u a t i o n a l factor 7. Cost 56. After t h i s f i r s t t r i a l , did you decide d e f i n i t e l y to adopt or re.ject t h i s practice i n the future, or did you begin again to evaluate the s u i t a b i l i t y of t h i s practice to your farm? Open  C l a s s i f y 1. Evaluation To 57 2. Rejection To 60 3. Adoption: In what year To 66 245 I f you were undecided about the practice a f t e r your f i r s t t r i a l , what would you give as your reasons for t h i s uncertainty? 1. Evidence of crop damage 2 . A v a i l a b i l i t y of c a p i t a l 3 ; Needed some more information 4. Unencouraging results by other farmers who t r i e d t h i s practice 5. My own results were not very convincing 6. Influence by other farmers who did not t r y the practice 7. Advice within my immediate family 8. Did not think that the Department of Agriculture was giving enough encouragement. Did you subsequently t r y t h i s practice again, or did you decide some time afterwards to reject i t completely without t r i a l a second time? I f you did t r y i t again, when? 1. Subsequently rejected i t To 59 - 60 2 . Tried i t again the next season) To 63 3 . Tried i t 2 years l a t e r ) 2nd T r i a l ) T o ^ - 62 - 63 4. Tried i t more than 2 yrs l a t e r ) )—: 2 You said you rejected i t subsequently - 58(1) ; what would you give as your reasons since you r e a l l y did not reject the practice immediately a f t e r your f i r s t t r i a l ? 1. Does not apply 2 . U n a v a i l a b i l i t y of c a p i t a l 3 . F e l t I did not have enough information 4. Unencouraging results by other farmers 5« Influence by other farmers who did not t r y the practice 6 . Advice with i n my immediate family 7. Did not think that the Department of Agriculture was giving enough active encouragement. 2 4 6 60. After making the decision to reject the practice 4 9 (1)-(2); ; 56(2) ; 58(1) ; did you ever subsequently consider t h i s practice again? I f so, what kind of decision did you make, and how long a f t e r your e a r l i e r decision to reject? 1. The same year 2. T r i a l the next season 3. T r i a l 2 years l a t e r .') 4 . T r i a l more than 2 years l a t e r ) 5. Adoption '. 6. Permanent r e j e c t i o n 61. You said that you subsequently t r i e d t h i s practice (again) 58(3) - ( 4 ) 60(3)- ( 4 ) about 2 years l a t e r ; what would you give as your reasons f o r the delay before t h i s SECOND/FIRST t r i a l ? 15(a) General Reasons: 1. Fear/Evidence of crop damage 2. Needed some more information 3. Unencouraging results by other farmers 4 . Influenced by other farmers who decided not to t r y the new practice 5. Advice within my immediate family 6. ; Did not think that the Department of Agriculture was giving enough active encouragement To 6 3 To 61 and 62 To 6 4 62. Reasons relevant to the practice i t s e l f : Open: C l a s s i f y : 1. Relative advantage 2. Compatibility 3. Complexity 4 . D i v i s i b i l i t y 5. Communicability 6. S i t u a t i o n a l factor 7. Cost (capital) 247 6 3 . What decision did you make concerning the practice a f t e r t h i s first/second t r i a l ? 1. Does not apply 2. Continued t r i a l .To 65 3 . Rejection 4. Adoption ( i n what year)...To 64 64. You decided to ADOPT the p r a c t i c e — 5 6 ( 3 ) ; 6 0 ( 5 ) 6 3 ( 4 ) a f t e r the second t r i a l ; what reasons would you give f o r t h i s decision? 1. Does not apply 2. A v a i l a b i l i t y of c a p i t a l 3 . Very encouraging result s after t r i a l 4. Encouraging results of other farmers 5 . Simply because many other farmers had adopted i t 6 . Advice within my immediate family 7 . Active encouragement from Department of Agriculture To 6 6 6 5 . Since you never r e a l l y decided to adopt the practice on your farm, what reasons would you give for your continued t r i a l ? 1. Not applicable 2. Cannot r e a l l y give any reason 3 . Limited evidence of economic p r o f i t 4. My neighbours were using the practice 5 . The good farmers i n the community were using the practice 6 . Because i t was recommended by the Department of Agriculture 7 . Because I had already purchased equipment and materials 8. I f e l t that eventually I would get better results 6 6 . After ADOPTION of t h i s practice i n (year), did you subsequently discontinue the practice? I f so, when? 1. Does not apply - s t i l l i n adoption stage 2. Discontinuance i n (year)... To 6 7 6 7 . What were t h e r e a s o n s f o r d i s c o n t i n u a n c e ? Open: _____________ . C l a s s i f y 1. R e l a t i v e advantage 2. C o m p a t i b i l i t y 3. C o m p l e x i t y 4. C o m m u n i c a b i l i t y 5. S i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r 6 . Cost 7.. I n f l u e n c e of n e i g h b o u r s and f r i e n d s 8 . I n f l u e n c e o f f a m i l y 249 APPENDIX II SOURCES OF INFORMATION 1 . General farm magazines 2 . Special h o r t i c u l t u r a l magazines 3 . B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Agriculture publications 4. Federal Department of Agriculture publications . 5 » ' Radio 6 . T e l e v i s i o n 7 . Newspapers 8. Agriculture f i e l d days and demonstrations 9 . Agriculture meetings 10. Meetings of the H o r t i c u l t u r a l Improvement Association 1 1 . Growers 1 Short Courses sponsored by the L.M.H.I.A. 1 2 . Other Adult Education courses 1 3 . Vocational agriculture courses 14. University courses i n agriculture 1 5 . Personal v i s i t to the Experimental s t a t i o n or to the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. 1 6 . D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t (or Assistant D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t ) 1 7 . D i s t r i c t A g r i c u l t u r i s t 18. Neighbours and friends 1 9 . ' Wife, children and r e l a t i v e s 2 0 . Salesmen and dealers 2 1 . Your farm employees , 2 2 . Veterans' Land Act representative SOURCES OF INFORMATION (continued) 250 2 3 . Farm Credit Corporation 24. Observation on other farms 25. Foreign travel or foreign publications 26. Personal experience or ideas 27. Manager or employees of the processing plant 28. Growers' Short Courses in Washington 29. Abbotsford Growers Co-op 30. Meetings of the Matsqui-Aldergrove Berry Growers' Association 31. Meetings of the Pacif ic Cooperative Union 32. News-letters of the Pacif ic Cooperative Union 33' Fraser Valley Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association. APPENDIX III BIVARIATE TABLES OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS VERSUS ETHNIC ORIGIN •252 TABLE XXXV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ETHNIC GROUP BY AGRICULTURAL ADULT EDUCATION Ethnic Group Attendance at Agricultural Adult Education Courses  Did not attend courses Attended Courses -Menonites Japanese Others 5 0 . 0 6 9 . 6 41.2 5 0 . 0 3 0 . 4 5 8 . 8 Total 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 TABLE XXXVI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ETHNIC GROUP BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL Ethnic Group 8 years or less Educational Level 9 - 1 1 years more than 1 1 years Total Menonites J apanes e Others 7 3 - 1 4 3 . 5 4 7 . 1 1 5 . 4 3 9 . 1 3 5 . 3 1 1 . 5 1 7 . 4 1 7 . 6 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 TABLE XXXVII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ETHNIC GROUP BY VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION Vocational agricultural education Ethnic Group Received training Did not receive training Total Menonite Japanese Others 1 5 . 4 0 . 0 5 . 9 84.6 1 0 0 . 0 94.1 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 253 TABLE XXXVIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ETHNIC GROUP BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF WIFE Educational l e v e l of wife Ethnic group 8 years or less 9 - 1 1 years 12 years or more Tota l Menonites % 73-9 % 13.0 % 13.1 % 100.0 Japanese 29.4 23.5 4 7 . 1 100.0 Others 4 o . 9 31.8 27.3 100.0 . TABLE XXXIX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ETHNIC GROUP BY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN STRAWBERRY Ethnic group 9 years or less Years of experience i n strawberry 10 - 19 years 20 or more years Total Menonites Japanese Others 30.8 13.0 4 1 . 2 30.8 65.2 33.3 38.4 21.8 25.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 TABLC XL PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ETHNIC GROUP BY YEARS ON PRESENT FARM Years on present farm Ethnic group 9 years or less 10-19 years 20 or more years Total Menonites % 46.2 % 26.9 % 26.9 % 100.0 Japanese 17.4 78.3 ^.3 100.0 Others 41.2 25.5 33.3 100.0 254 TABLE XLI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ETHNIC GROUP BY SOCIAL PARTICIPATION * So c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n score Ethnic group 4 or less 5 - 1 4 more than 14 Total % % % % Menonites 3 8 . 5 46.2 1 5 . 3 100.0 Japanese 21.7 34.8 43 .5 100.0 Others 21.6 4 3 . 1 3 5 . 3 100.0 TABLE XLII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ETHNIC GROUP BY SIZE OF FARM Size of farm Ethnic Group less than 5 acres 5 to less 15 or more than 15 acres acres Total Menonites Japanese Others 2 3 . 1 2 1 . 7 1 1 . 8 42 . 3 4 3 . 5 31.4 3 4 . 6 3 4 . 8 5 6 . 8 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 TABLE XLIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ETHNIC GROUP BY ACREAGE IN STRAWBERRY Acreage i n strawberry Ethnic group less than 3 to less 5 or more Total 3 acres than 15 acres acres Menonites % 3 4 . 6 % 1 9 . 2 % 4 6 . 2 i 100 .0 Japanese 4 7 . 8 3 0 . 4 2 1 . 8 1 0 0 . 0 Others 2 5 . 5 9 .8 6 4 . 7 100 .0 TABLE XLIV 2 5 5 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ETHNIC GROUP BY ACREAGE IN OTHER AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES Ethnic group Acreage i n other Agricultural Enterprises less than 3 to less than 3 acres 15 acres 1 5 or more acres Total Menonites Japanese Others ~ 46.2 2 1 . 7 2 1 . 6 3 0 . 8 6 5 . 3 3 1 . 4 % 2 3 . 0 1 3 . 0 4 7 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 TABLE XLV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ETHNIC GROUP BY GROSS TOTAL AGRICULTURAL SALES Gross Total Agricultural Sales Ethnic group 15,000 oi? less more than $ 5 , 0 0 0 more than Total to $15,000 $15,000 Menonites % 5 7 . 7 % 2 3 . 1 % 19.2 % 100.0 Japanese 2 6 . 1 4 7 . 8 2 6 . 1 100.0 Others 2 7 . 5 2 7 . 5 4 5 . 0 100.0 TABLE XLVI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ETHNIC GROUP BY GROSS SALES FROM STRAWBERRY Ethnic group less than ; $ 3 , 0 0 0 Gross sales from strawberry $3,000 - more than Total $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 $ 1 0 , 0 0 0  Menonites Japanese Others 5 3 . 8 3 9 . 1 3 1 . 4 2 3 . 1 5 6 . 5 3 3 . 3 2 3 . 1 4 . 4 3 5 - 3 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 TABLE XLVII 2 5 6 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ETHNIC GROUP BY GROSS SALES FROM OTHER AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES Gross sales from other agricultural enterprises  No sales or less than $3000 $3000-$5QOO more than $5000 Total Ethnic group Menonites Japanese Others 5 0 . 0 8 . 7 2 5 . 5 2 6 . 9 2 6 . 1 1 5 . 7 2 3 . 1 6 5 . 2 5 8 . 8 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 TABLE XLVIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ETHNIC GROUP BY TENURE Tenure Ethnic group owned the farm did not own the farm Total J J J~ Menonites 80.8 1 9 . 2 100.0 Japanese 9 5 . 7 4 . 3 100.0 Others 7 2 . 6 2 7 . 4 100.0 TABLE XLIX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ETHNIC GROUP BY EXTENT OF OFF-FARM WORK Extent of off-farm work Ethnic group No off-farm work Did off-farm work Total Menonites Japanese Others 46.2 7 3 . 9 6 0 . 8 5 3 . 8 2 6 . 1 3 9 . 2 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 2 5 7 TABLE L PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTIONjOF ETHNIC GROUP BY ESTIMATED FARM VALUE Estimated farm value Ethnic group less than $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 to less than $ 6 0 , 0 0 0 $ 6 0 , 0 0 0 or more Total p Jo % % Menonites 5 7 . 7 3 0 . 8 1 1 . 5 1 0 0 . 0 Japanese 4 5 . 5 40.9 1 3 . 6 1 0 0 . 0 Others 2 7 . 5 3 7 . 3 3 5 . 3 1 0 0 . 0 TABLE LI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ETHNIC GROUP BY EXTENT OF CONTACT WITH THE DISTRICT HORTICULTURIST THROUGH TELEPHONE Ethnic group Menonite Japanese Others Telephone contact with the D i s t r i c t H o r t i c u l t u r i s t  No contact seldom or frequently or Total occasionally very frequently  46.2 56.5 23.5 T 2 3 . 1 2 6 . 1 4 7 . 1 3 0 . 7 1 7 . 4 2 9 . 4 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 TABLE LII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ETHNIC GROUP BY EXTENT OF CONTACT WITH THE DISTRICT HORTICULTURIST THROUGH FARM VISITS Ethnic group Extent of contact with the D i s t r i c t Horticultures No seldom or frequently or Tot a l contact occasionally very frequently  Menonites Japanese Others 5 0 . 0 6 9 . 6 2 9 . 4 3 4 . 6 3 0 4 4 5 4 . 9 1 5 . 4 0 . 0 1 5 . 7 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 2 5 8 TABLE LIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ETHNIC GROUP BY EXTENT OF CONTACT WITH THE DISTRICT HORTICULTURIST THROUGH MAIL Ethnic group Extent of contact with the Dis tr ic t Horticulturist No seldom or frequently or Total contact occasionally very frequently  Menonites Japanese Others 2 6 . 9 3 0 . 4 7 . 9 2 3 . 1 1 7 . 4 2 3 . 5 5 0 . 0 5 2 . 2 6 8 . 6 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 TABLE LIV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ETHNIC GROUP BY.EXTENT OF CONTACT WITH THE DISTRICT HORTICULTURIST THROUGH RADIO Extent of contact with the Di s tr i c t Hort iculturist  Ethnic group No contact Contact by radio Total Menonite Japanese Others 57.7 8 7 . 0 7 4 . 5 42.3 1 3 . 0 2 5 .'5 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 TABLE LV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ETHNIC GROUP BY EXTENT OF CONTACT WITH THE DISTRICT HORTICULTURIST THROUGH NEWSPAPER ARTICLES Ethnic group no contact seldom or occasionally frequently or very frequently Total Menonites Japanese Others 46.2 47.8 2 5 . 5 42.3 2 1 . 7 5 1 . 0 1 1 . 5 3 0 . 5 2 3 . 5 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 2 5 9 TABLE LVI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ETHNIC GROUP BY ATTENDANCE AT L .M.H.I .A . SHORT COURSE (1966) Ethnic group Attendance at L .M.H.I .A . Short Course (1966) Did not attend Did attend Total_ Menonites Japanese Others T 6 9 . 2 8 2 . 6 4 3 . 1 3 0 . 8 1 7 . 4 5 6 . 9 " T 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 TABLE LVII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF ETHNIC GROUP BY ATTENDANCE AT L .M.H.I .A . SHORT COURSE (196?). Attendance at L .M.H.I .A . Short Course (1967)  Did not attend Did attend Total Ethnic group Menonites Japanese Others 7 3 . 1 9 5 . 7 5 8 . 9 2 6 . 9 4.3 41.1 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 APPENDIX IV BIVARIATE TABLES OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS VERSUS ADOPTER CATEGORY 2 6 1 TABLE LVIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY AGE GROUP Age Adopter category 2 0 - 3 4 years old 3 5 - 5 4 years old 5 5 or more years old Number of Respondent Laggard % 10.0 % 5 . 6 % 22.2 12 Ifte majority 10.0 2 5 . 9 3 6 . 2 28 Early Majority 70.0 44.4 3 3 . 3 4 3 Early adopter-innovator 10.0 24.1 8 . 3 17 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 TABLE LIX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY SIZE OF FAMILY Adopter category 0 - 2 children Number of children 3 or more children Number of Respondents Laggard 1 3 . 2 Late majority 2 3 . 7 Early majority 5 7 . 8 Early adopter-innovator 5 . 3 1 1 . 3 3 0 . 6 3 3 . 9 24.2 12 28 4 3 1 7 Total 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 2 6 2 ' TABLE LX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY LEVEL OF EDUCATION Adopter category Years of schooling 8 years or less more than 8 years Number of Respondents Laggard Late majority Early majority Early adopter-innovator 1 7 . 0 3 5 . 8 2 6 . 4 2 0 . 8 6 . 5 1 9 . 4 5 8 . 1 1 6 . 0 1 2 2 8 4 3 1 7 Total 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 TABLE LXI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF WIFE Educational l e v e l of wife Adopter category 8 years more than Number of • or less 8 years Respondents Laggard 1 5 . 0 6.8 9 Late majority 3 7 . 5 18.2 2 3 Early majority 3 2 . 5 5 0 . 0 3 5 Early adopter-innovator 1 5 . 0 2 5 . 0 1 7 Total 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 84 2 6 3 TABLE LXII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY AGRICULTURE COURSES IN HIGH SCHOOL Adopter category A g r i c u l t u r e courses i n High School Took courses Did not take courses fo 12.8 27.7 41.5 18.0 Number of respondents Laggard Late m a j o r i t y E a r l y m a j o r i t y E a r l y adopter-innovator 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 12 27 4 3 17 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 99 TABLE L X I I I PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY AGRICULTURE COURSES AT VOCATIONAL SCHOOL A g r i c u l t u r e courses i n v o c a t i o n a l school Adopter category Took Did not Number of courses take courses respondents . ; - _ S -Laggard 0.0 12.9 12 Late m a j o r i t y 28.6 28.0 28 E a r l y m a j o r i t y 28.'6 44.1 43 E a r l y adopter-innovator 42.-8 15.0 17 T o t a l 100.0 100.0 100 2 6 4 TABLE LXIV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY AGRICULTURAL ADULT EDUCATION Adopter category A g r i c u l t u r a l adult education Attended courses Jo Did not attend courses Number of respondents Laggard 12.0 Late majority 20.0 Early majority 44.0 Early adopter-innovator 24.0 12.0 3 6 . 0 42.0 10.0 12 28 4 3 17 Total 100 .-0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 TABLE LXV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY ATTENDANCE AT THE 1 9 6 6 ANNUAL SHORT COURSE (L.M.H.I.A.) Adopter category Attendance at 1 9 6 6 annual short course  did not one day both Number of attend only days respondents Laggard Late majority Early majority Early adopter-innovator 1 3 . 6 3 7 . 3 3 7 . 3 1 1 . 8 6 . 3 2 5 . 0 5 0 . 0 18.7 1 2 . 0 8.0 5 2 . 0 28.0 1 2 2 8 4 3 1 7 Total 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 2 6 5 TABLE LXVI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY ATTENDANCE AT THE 1 9 6 7 ANNUAL SHORT COURSE (L.M.H.I.A.) Attendance at 1 9 6 7 annual short course Adopter category did not one day both Number of attend only days respondents Laggard % % 0 . 0 % 5.9 12 Late majority 35.2 2 5 . 0 0 . 0 28 Early majority 38.0 5 0 . 0 58.8 43 Early adopter- 11.3 2 5 . 0 35.3 17 innovator Total 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 TABLE LXVII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY ATTENDANCE AT THE I966 ANNUAL SHORT COURSE IN WASHINGTON, U.S.A. Attendance at the 1 9 6 6 annual short course i n Washington, U.S.A.  Adopter category Attended Did not attend Number of respondents Laggard Late majority Early majority Early adopter-innovator 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 3 0 . 0 1 2 . 2 3 0 . 0 4 2.2 1 5 . 6 1 2 2 8 4 3 17 Total 100.0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 2 6 6 TABLE LXVIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY ATTENDANCE AT THE 1 9 6 7 ANNUAL SHORT COURSE IN WASHINGTON, U.S.A. Attendance at the 1 9 & 7 annual short course i n Washington, U.S.A.  Adopter category Attended Did not attend Number of or P % Laggard 1 6 . 7 1 1 . 7 12 Late majority 1 6 . 7 28.7 28 Early majority 3 3 . 3 4 3 . 6 4 3 Early adopter-innovator 3 3 . 3 16.0 17 Total 100.0 100.0 100 TABLE LXIX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY NUMBER OF YEARS OF FARMING EXPERIENCE Number of years of farming experience Adopter category 9 or less 1 0 - 1 9 2 0 or more Number of years years years respondents % % % Laggards 1 5 . 4 9 . 5 1 2 . 1 . 1 2 Late majority 1 5 . 4 28.6 3 0 . 3 2 8 Early majority 6 9 . 2 42.9 3 7 . 9 4 3 Early adopter-innovator 0 . 0 1 9 . 0 1 9 . 7 1 7 Total 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 267 TABLE LXX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY NUMBER OF YEARS IN STRAWBERRY Number of years In strawberry Adopter category Less than 5 - 9 10 - 19 20 or more Number oj 5 years years years years respondent % % w 7° % Laggard 5.9 6.7 15.0 14.3 12 Late majority 35.3 6.7 35.0 25.0 28 Early majority 52.9 6o.o 37.5 35.7 43 Early adopter-26.6 innovator .5 .9 12.5 25.0 17 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 TABLE LXXI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY NUMBER OF YEARS ON PRESENT FARM Number of years on present farm  Adopter category 4 years 5 - 9 1 0 - 1 9 20 or more Number of or less years years years respondent; Laggard 12.5 6.9 21.1 4 .0 12 Late majority 37.5 20.7 31.6 28.0 28 Early majority 25.0 44.8 39.5 52.0 42 Early adopter-innovator 25.0 27.6 7.9 16.0 17 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 . 100 268 TABLE LXXII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY ETHNIC ORIGIN Adopter Category Ethnic o r i g i n Number of Number of Number of Menonites Japanese "others" Number of respondents Laggard Late majority Early majority Early adopter-innovator 11.5 34.6 30.8 23.1 17.4 43.5 34.8 4.3 9.8 17.7 52.9 19.6 12 28 43 17 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 TABLE LXXIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY SOCIAL PARTICIPATION S o c i a l participat&on score Adopter category n i l 1-14 1 5 - 24 more Number of than 24 respondents Laggard % 37.5 % 9.8 % 0.0 $ 5.9 12 Late majority 47.7 31.4 26.7 11.8 28 Early majority 22.7 39.2 53.3 64.7 42 Early adopter-innovator 4.6 19.6 20.0 17.6 17 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99 2 6 9 TABLE LXXIV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY SIZE OF FARM Total acreage farmed Adopter category- 0 - 4 5 - 2 9 3 0 - 1 1 9 more than Number of acres acres acres 119 acres respondents % % % % Laggard 3 5 . 3 8.5 7.7 0.0 12 Late majority 3 5 - 3 3 0 . 5 2 3 . 1 9.1 28 Early majority 17.6 4 5 . 8 46.2 6 3 . 6 4 3 Early adopter-innovator 11.8 1 5 . 2 2 3 . 0 27.3 17 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 TABLE LXXV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY ACREAGE IN STRAWBERRY Acreage i n strawberry Adopter category Less than 3 - 2 9 3 acres acres 3 0 or more acres Number of , respondents % % °i /o Laggard 2 7 . 3 6 . 2 0 . 0 1 2 Late majority 4 2.'4 2 5 . 0 1 0 . 5 28 Early majority 24.2 48.0 6 3 . 2 43 Early adopter-innovator 6 . 1 2 0 . 8 , 2 6 . 3 ! 7 Total 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 2 ? 0 TABLE LXXVI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY ACREAGE IN OTHER AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES Acreage i n other a g r i c u l t u r a l enterprises Adopter category- 0 • - 2 3 - 1 4 1 5 or more Number of acres acres acres respondents Laggard i 2 1 % . 4 % 1 0 . 3 % 6 . 1 1 2 Late majority 1 7 .8 41.0 2 1 . 2 28 Early majority 3 5 .8 3 5 . 9 5 7 . 6 4 3 Early adopter-innovator 2 5 . 0 1 2 . 8 1 5 . 0 1 7 Total 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 TABLE LXXVII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY GROSS TOTAL SALES FROM AGRICULTURE Gross t o t a l sales from agriculture  N i l to less $5000 to more than Number of than $5000 $25,000 $25,000 respondents Adopter category Laggard Late majority Early majority Early adopter-innovator 28.6 40.0 22.8 8.6 2 . 4 2 3 . 8 5 7 . 1 1 6 . 7 4 . 3 1 7 . 5 4 7 . 8 3 0 . 4 1 2 28 ^ 3 1 7 T o t a l 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 271 TABLE LXXVIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY GROSS SALES FROM STRAWBERRY Gross sales from strawberry Adopter category Nil to less \ than $ 3 0 0 0 \ 1 3 0 0 0 to 55000 More than $5000 Number of Respondents Laggard % 2 5 . 6 % 5 . 6 f 0 . 0 12 Late majority 3 8 . 5 3 0 . 6 8. 0 28 Early majority 28.2 44.4 64. 0 4 3 Early adopter-28. innoyator 7 . 7 19.4 . 0 17 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 TABLE LXXIX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY GROSS SALES FROM OTHER AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES Gross sales from other a g r i c u l t u r a l enterprises Adopter category Nil to less than $3000 $ 3 0 0 0 to $15,000 More than $15,000 Number of respondents Laggard •Late majority Early majority Early adopter-innovator % 18.4 28.6 3 4 . 7 1 8 . 3 % 6 . 9 3 4 . 5 5 1 . 7 6 . 9 % 4 . 5 18.2 5 0 . 0 . 27.3 12 28 4 3 17 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 272 TABLE LXXX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY AMOUNT OF TIME SPENT IN OFF-FARM WORK Amount of time spent i n off-farm work Adopter category N i l 16.7 21.7 51.6 10.0 Less than one-quarter one-half to less than one-half or more T 0.0 50.0 25.0 25.0 Number of respondents Laggard Late majority Early majority Early adopter-innovator 7.2 32.1 32.1 28.6 12 28 43 17 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 TABLE LXXXI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY ESTIMATED FARM VALUE Adopter category Estimated farm value less than $30,000 to less $90,000 Number of $30.000 than $90.000 or more respondents Laggard Late majority Early majority Early adopter-innovator 17.9 41.1 33.3 7.7 7.3 22.0 48.7 22.0 5.3 15.8 52.6 26.3 11 28 ^3 17 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 99 273 TABLE LXXII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY EXTENSION CONTACT WITH THE DISTRICT HORTICULTURIST THROUGH OFFICE VISITS Frequency of contact with D.H. by v i s i t s to his o f f i c e  Adopter category No seldom or frequently or Number of contact occasionally very frequently respondents Laggard 14.0 12.1 0 . 0 12 Late majority 3 1 . 6 27.3 10.0 28 Early majority 45.6 42.4 3 0 . 0 43 Early adopter-innovator 8.8 18.2 6 0 . 0 17 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 TABLE LXXXIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY EXTENSION CONTACT WITH THE DISTRICT HORTICULTURIST THROUGH TELEPHONE Frequency of contact with D.H. by telephone Adopter category No contact seldom or occasionally frequently or Number of very frequently respondent Laggard % 24 .'3 % 8.3 % 0.0 12 Late majority ^ 3 . 3 19.4 18.6 28 Early majority 2 9 . 7 58.3 4 0 . 7 4 3 Early adopter-innovator i 2.7 1 3 . 9 40.7 17 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 2 7 4 TABLE LXXXIV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY EXTENSION CONTACT WITH THE DISTRICT HORTICULTURIST THROUGH FARM VISITS Frequency of contact with D.H. by farm v i s i t s Adopter category No seldom or frequently or Number of contact occasionally very frequently respondents Laggard 2 5 . 0 Late majority 4 7 - 7 Early majority 2 2 . 7 Early adopter-innovator 4 . 6 2 . 3 1 3 . 6 6 3 . 6 2 0 . 5 0 . 0 8 . 3 4 1.7 5 0 . 0 1 2 2 8 4 3 1 7 Total 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 TABLE LXXXV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY EXTENSION CONTACT WITH THE DISTRICT HORTICULTURIST THROUGH MAIL Frequency of contact with D.H. by mail  No seldom or frequently or Number of contact occasionally very frequently respondents - _ f0 Adopter category Laggard Late majority Early majority Early adopter-innovator 3 8 . 9 4 4 . 4 5 . 6 1 1 . 1 9 . 1 18.2 5 4 . 5 18.2 5 . 0 2 6 . 7 5 0 . 0 18.3 12 28 4 3 1 7 Total 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 275 TABLE LXXXVI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY EXTENSION CONTACT WITH THE DISTRICT HORTICULTURIST THROUGH RADIO ANNOUNCEMENTS Frequency of contact with D.H. by radio announcement Adopter category No seldom or frequently or Number of contact occasionally very frequently respondents _. _ _ ______ Laggard 1 7 .5 7 . 1 0.0 12 Late majority 29.8 28.6 20.0 28 Early majority 4 3 . 9 46.4 3 3 . 3 43 Early adopter-innovator 8.8 17 .9 46.7 17 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 TABLE LXXXVII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY EXTENSION CONTACT WITH THE DISTRICT HORTICULTURIST THROUGH TELEVISION Frequency of contact with D.H. by t e l e v i s i o n  Adopter category No contact Contact used Number of , respondents Jo Jo Laggard 12.4 10.0 12 Late majority 2 9 . 2 20.0 28 Early majority 4 3 . 8 30.0 42 Early adopter-innovator 14.6 40.0 17 Total 100.0 100.0 9 9 -2 7 6 TABLE LXXXVIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY EXTENSION CONTACT WITH THE DISTRICT HORTICULTURIST THROUGH NEWSPAPER ARTICLES Frequency of contact with the D.H. through newspaper a r t i c l e s  Adopter category No seldom or frequently or Number of contact occasionally very frequently respondents Laggard 3 0 . 6 2 . 4 0 . 0 1 2 Late majority 3 0 . 6 28.6 2 2 . 7 28 Early majority 3 0 . 6 5 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 4 3 Early adopter-innovator 8.2 1 9 . 0 2 7 . 3 1 7 Total 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 TABLE LXXXIX PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY ATTENDANCE AT DEMONSTRATIONS, FIELD DAYS AND LOCAL MEETINGS Attendance at demonstrations, f i e l d days and l o c a l meetings  Adopter category Did not attend any Attended one only Attended more than one Number of respondents Laggard % 1 3 . 5 % 5 . 9 % 1 2 . 9 1 2 Late majority 3 6 . 5 2 9 . 4 1 2 . 9 28 Early majority 3 4 . 6 5 2 . 9 5 1 . 6 4 3 Early adopt er--innovator 1 5 . 4 1 1 . 8 2 2 . 6 1 7 Total 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 2 7 7 TABLE XC PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS OF THE L.M.H.I.A.* Attendance at meetings of the L.M.H.I.A.  Did not Attended Attended more Number of _attend one meeting than one meeting respondent; Adopter Category Laggard Late majority Early majority Early adopter-innovator T 1 6 . 7 3 6 . 7 3 3 . 3 1 3 . 3 1 1 . 1 2 2 * 2 5 5 . 6 1 1 . 1 3 . 2 1 2 . 9 5 8 . 1 2 5 . 8 1 2 2 8 4 3 1 7 Total 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 *Lower Mainland H o r t i c u l t u r a l Improvement Association TABLE XCI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY NUMBER OF CONTACTS WITH THE DISTRICT HORTICULTURIST Number of extension contacts with the D.H. Adopter category 1 or no 2 - 4 5 - 7 Number of contact contacts contacts respondents % % % Laggard 3 8 . 9 8 . 7 2 . 8 1 2 Late majority 3 8 . 9 3 4 . 8 1 3 . 9 28 Early majority 1 6 . 7 5 0 . 0 4 7 . 2 4 3 Early adopter- 6 . 5 innovator 5 . 5 3 6 . 1 1 7 Total 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 278 TABLE XCII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY ALL EXTENSION CONTACTS Adopter category Extension contact score; D.H. and other agents 10 or less 11 or more Number of respondents Laggard Late majority Early majority Early adopter-innovator 2 5 . 0 41.7 27.8 5 . 5 4.8 19.0 5 2 . 4 2 3 . 8 12 27 43 17 Total 100.0 100.0 99 APPENDIX V DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE INNOVATION RESPONSE STATES 2 8 0 TABLE XCIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS UNAWARE OF THE INNOVATION, BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY INNOVATION Adopter Category Innovation Laggard Late Early Early Adopter-Majority Majority Innovator % % Jo % S o i l Analysis f o r 3.6 nematode control 58.3 - -Spraying with Captan f o r f r u i t - r o t control 8.3 - - -Change from H i l l to Matted Row - - - -Chemical Weed Control - - - -Use of Picking Carts 41.7 - - -Use of Virus-free Ceirtified Plants - - - -Average 18.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 TABLE XCIV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS CONTINUING THE ADOPTION PROCESS, BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY INNOVATION Adopter Category Innovation Laggard Late Early Early Adopter-Majority Majority Innovator S o i l Analysis f o r % Jo % i nematode control 1 6 . 7 46.4 2 5 . 6 Spraying with Captan for f r u i t - r o t control 2 5 . 0 2 8 . 6 9 . 3 _ Change from H i l l to Matted Row 2 5 . 0 1 7 . 9 4.6 _ Chemical Weed Control 5 0 . 0 1 7 . 9 2 . 3 _ Use of Picking Carts 8 . 3 2 5 . 0 2 7 . 9 Use of Virus-free • C e r t i f i e d Plants 8 . 3 7 . 1 4.6 _ Average 2 2 . 2 2 3 - 8 1 2 . 4 0 . 0 2 8 1 TABLE XCV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS WHO HAD ADOPTED THE INNOVATION, BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY INNOVATION Adopter Category Innovation Laggard Late Early Early Adopter-majority majority Innovator % % % % S o i l Analysis f o r nematode control 8 . 3 1 7 . 9 6 2 . 8 1 0 0 . 0 Spraying with Captan fo r f r u i t - r o t con-;:, - .. t r o l 3 3 . 3 6 0 . 7 8 8 . 4 1 0 0 . 0 Change from H i l l to Matted Row 41.7 7 1 . 4 * 9 5 . 4 1 0 0 . 0 Chemical Heed Control 1 6 . 7 5 7 . 1 * 9 5 . 4 1 0 0 . 0 Use of Picking Carts 1 7 . 9 2 5 . 6 1 0 0 . 0 Use of Virus-free c e r t i f i e d plants 8 3 . 3 92.9 9 5 . 4 1 0 0 . 0 Average 3 0 • 6 5 3 . 0 7 7 . 2 1 0 0 . 0 * 1 respondent ( 3 . 6 per cent) accounted, f o r by Discontinuance TABLE XCVI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS WHO HAD : REJECTED THE INNOVATION, BY ADOPTER CATEGORY AND BY INNOVATION Adopter Category Innovation Laggard Late Early Early Adopter-ma.i o r i t y ma.1 or i ty Innovator % % % % S o i l Analysis f o r nematode control 1 6 . 7 3 5 . 7 1 1 . 6 _ Spraying with Captan for f r u i t - r o t control 3 3 . 3 1 0 . 7 2 . 3 _ Change from H i l l to Matted Row 3 3 . 3 3 . 6 _ _ Chemical Weed Control 3 3 . 3 2 1 . 4 2 . 3 _ Use of Picking Carts 5 0 . 0 5 7 . 1 46;5 _ Use of ^ i r u s - f r e e C e r t i f i e d Plants 8 . 3 - - -Average 2 9 . 2 2 1 . 4 1 0 . 5 0 . 0 2 8 2 APPENDIX VI PROCEDURE FOR COMPUTING Z VALUES IN DETERMINING SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TWO PROPORTIONS NOTE: 1 . The test of sign i f i c a n c e of the difference between two proportions was used with the n u l l hypothesis that there was no difference i n the use of an information source at the awareness stage between d i f f e r e n t innovations at the . 0 5 l e v e l of si g n i f i c a n c e . The c r i t e r i o n used to test the n u l l hypothesis was to reject i t i f Z ^ - l . 9 6 or zy I . 9 6 , and to accept i t i f - 1 . 9 6 ^ I . 9 6 where: f l - x 2 r Z = * 1 n 2 1 1 ^ P ( 1 - P ) n x + n 2 x^ = percentage use of an information source f o r one innovation; = percentage use of the same source for another innovation: n = 1 0 0 per cent X- ' x 1 2 2 . Where "*" indicates s i g n i f i c a n c e at the . 0 1 l e v e l within the tables, the c r i t i c a l values used to test the n u l l hypothesis were: reject the n u l l hypothesis i f Z < - 2 . 5 8 or Z > 2 . 5 8 , and accept i t i f - 2 . 5 8 ^ Z ^  2 . 5 8 . 283 3 . Negative Z values indicate that the innovation l i s t e d i n the row has a lower percentage use of an information source than the innovation l i s t e d i n the column. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0102268/manifest

Comment

Related Items