Combinations of bonding, bridging, and linking social capital for farm innovation: How farmers configure different support networks

On-farm agricultural innovation through incorporation of new technologies and practices requires access to resources such as knowledge, financial resources, training, and even emotional support, all of which require the support of different actors such as peers, advisors, and researchers. The literature has explored the support networks that farmers use and the overall importance ranking of different support actors, but it has not looked in detail at how these networks may differ for different farmers. This study fills this gap by looking at farmer support network configurations through the lens of the social capital available to them in such configurations. Using a Chilean fruit-farmer case, we examine how different types of social capital (bonding, bridging, and linking) are used to achieve what has been called ‘ambidexterity’. Ambidexterity implies both that open networks (based on linking and bridging social capital) are used to explore and access new knowledge and resources, and that closed networks (based on bonding social capital) are used to successfully implement and exploit new technologies and practices. Our findings show that farmers use all types of social capital – bonding, bridging, and linking – in their support networks, but that they have different configurations, five in this study. These configurations are based on personal motivations, innovation objectives, and resource endowments. Despite the different network configurations and types of social capital – which may be more balanced or less balanced in light of ambidexterity – farmers may achieve the same ambitions and type of innovations. A main theoretical implication is that the configuration of support networks is thus not a one-size-fits-all where each farmer's ranking of support actors for on-farm innovation is the same. This nuances earlier work and calls for more attention to a better understanding of how each support network configuration responds to a certain logic, and hence cannot be identified as superior or inferior.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Cofré-Bravo, Gabriela, Klerkx, Laurens, Engler, Alejandra
Format: Article/Letter to editor biblioteca
Language:English
Subjects:Advisory systems, Agricultural innovation systems, Chile, Farm innovation, Micro AKIS, Networking, Organizational ambidexterity, Social capital, Technology adoption,
Online Access:https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/combinations-of-bonding-bridging-and-linking-social-capital-for-f
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id dig-wur-nl-wurpubs-550440
record_format koha
spelling dig-wur-nl-wurpubs-5504402024-10-02 Cofré-Bravo, Gabriela Klerkx, Laurens Engler, Alejandra Article/Letter to editor Journal of Rural Studies 69 (2019) ISSN: 0743-0167 Combinations of bonding, bridging, and linking social capital for farm innovation: How farmers configure different support networks 2019 On-farm agricultural innovation through incorporation of new technologies and practices requires access to resources such as knowledge, financial resources, training, and even emotional support, all of which require the support of different actors such as peers, advisors, and researchers. The literature has explored the support networks that farmers use and the overall importance ranking of different support actors, but it has not looked in detail at how these networks may differ for different farmers. This study fills this gap by looking at farmer support network configurations through the lens of the social capital available to them in such configurations. Using a Chilean fruit-farmer case, we examine how different types of social capital (bonding, bridging, and linking) are used to achieve what has been called ‘ambidexterity’. Ambidexterity implies both that open networks (based on linking and bridging social capital) are used to explore and access new knowledge and resources, and that closed networks (based on bonding social capital) are used to successfully implement and exploit new technologies and practices. Our findings show that farmers use all types of social capital – bonding, bridging, and linking – in their support networks, but that they have different configurations, five in this study. These configurations are based on personal motivations, innovation objectives, and resource endowments. Despite the different network configurations and types of social capital – which may be more balanced or less balanced in light of ambidexterity – farmers may achieve the same ambitions and type of innovations. A main theoretical implication is that the configuration of support networks is thus not a one-size-fits-all where each farmer's ranking of support actors for on-farm innovation is the same. This nuances earlier work and calls for more attention to a better understanding of how each support network configuration responds to a certain logic, and hence cannot be identified as superior or inferior. en application/pdf https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/combinations-of-bonding-bridging-and-linking-social-capital-for-f 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.04.004 https://edepot.wur.nl/477201 Advisory systems Agricultural innovation systems Chile Farm innovation Micro AKIS Networking Organizational ambidexterity Social capital Technology adoption https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Wageningen University & Research
institution WUR NL
collection DSpace
country Países bajos
countrycode NL
component Bibliográfico
access En linea
databasecode dig-wur-nl
tag biblioteca
region Europa del Oeste
libraryname WUR Library Netherlands
language English
topic Advisory systems
Agricultural innovation systems
Chile
Farm innovation
Micro AKIS
Networking
Organizational ambidexterity
Social capital
Technology adoption
Advisory systems
Agricultural innovation systems
Chile
Farm innovation
Micro AKIS
Networking
Organizational ambidexterity
Social capital
Technology adoption
spellingShingle Advisory systems
Agricultural innovation systems
Chile
Farm innovation
Micro AKIS
Networking
Organizational ambidexterity
Social capital
Technology adoption
Advisory systems
Agricultural innovation systems
Chile
Farm innovation
Micro AKIS
Networking
Organizational ambidexterity
Social capital
Technology adoption
Cofré-Bravo, Gabriela
Klerkx, Laurens
Engler, Alejandra
Combinations of bonding, bridging, and linking social capital for farm innovation: How farmers configure different support networks
description On-farm agricultural innovation through incorporation of new technologies and practices requires access to resources such as knowledge, financial resources, training, and even emotional support, all of which require the support of different actors such as peers, advisors, and researchers. The literature has explored the support networks that farmers use and the overall importance ranking of different support actors, but it has not looked in detail at how these networks may differ for different farmers. This study fills this gap by looking at farmer support network configurations through the lens of the social capital available to them in such configurations. Using a Chilean fruit-farmer case, we examine how different types of social capital (bonding, bridging, and linking) are used to achieve what has been called ‘ambidexterity’. Ambidexterity implies both that open networks (based on linking and bridging social capital) are used to explore and access new knowledge and resources, and that closed networks (based on bonding social capital) are used to successfully implement and exploit new technologies and practices. Our findings show that farmers use all types of social capital – bonding, bridging, and linking – in their support networks, but that they have different configurations, five in this study. These configurations are based on personal motivations, innovation objectives, and resource endowments. Despite the different network configurations and types of social capital – which may be more balanced or less balanced in light of ambidexterity – farmers may achieve the same ambitions and type of innovations. A main theoretical implication is that the configuration of support networks is thus not a one-size-fits-all where each farmer's ranking of support actors for on-farm innovation is the same. This nuances earlier work and calls for more attention to a better understanding of how each support network configuration responds to a certain logic, and hence cannot be identified as superior or inferior.
format Article/Letter to editor
topic_facet Advisory systems
Agricultural innovation systems
Chile
Farm innovation
Micro AKIS
Networking
Organizational ambidexterity
Social capital
Technology adoption
author Cofré-Bravo, Gabriela
Klerkx, Laurens
Engler, Alejandra
author_facet Cofré-Bravo, Gabriela
Klerkx, Laurens
Engler, Alejandra
author_sort Cofré-Bravo, Gabriela
title Combinations of bonding, bridging, and linking social capital for farm innovation: How farmers configure different support networks
title_short Combinations of bonding, bridging, and linking social capital for farm innovation: How farmers configure different support networks
title_full Combinations of bonding, bridging, and linking social capital for farm innovation: How farmers configure different support networks
title_fullStr Combinations of bonding, bridging, and linking social capital for farm innovation: How farmers configure different support networks
title_full_unstemmed Combinations of bonding, bridging, and linking social capital for farm innovation: How farmers configure different support networks
title_sort combinations of bonding, bridging, and linking social capital for farm innovation: how farmers configure different support networks
url https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/combinations-of-bonding-bridging-and-linking-social-capital-for-f
work_keys_str_mv AT cofrebravogabriela combinationsofbondingbridgingandlinkingsocialcapitalforfarminnovationhowfarmersconfiguredifferentsupportnetworks
AT klerkxlaurens combinationsofbondingbridgingandlinkingsocialcapitalforfarminnovationhowfarmersconfiguredifferentsupportnetworks
AT engleralejandra combinationsofbondingbridgingandlinkingsocialcapitalforfarminnovationhowfarmersconfiguredifferentsupportnetworks
_version_ 1813197076220084224