development and diffusion has now benefitted from about 20 years of use by FSRE practitioners,
mostly in developing countries. With an increasing interest in farmer participatory research in
North America, it is befitting that this region benefit from the experiences it has financed over
the years in less advantaged countries.

This paper has three objectives. The first is to demonstrate the advantages of coordinated, on-
farm research for effectively enhancing diffusion. The second is to help make farmers'
participation in on-farm research more productive in North America. The third is to create a
paradigm which improves on older models and can be used by research and extension institutions
to help make their efforts more efficient and effective. The discussion starts with a brief review
of extension strategies.


Historical Perspective: The Progressive Farmer Strategy

For a quarter century following World War II, the conventional technology generation and
diffusion process was patterned on a progressive farmer strategy. This strategy (Rbling, 1988.
p. 68), in turn, was based on several assumptions. First was the innovation bias (Rogers, 1983),
under which it was assumed that any innovation resulting from the established research-extension
process was "good", and therefore, should be adopted. Second, it was assumed that this kind
of technology was broadly adaptable and scale neutral anyone who was willing, could adopt
it. Third, diffusion research had shown that innovations spread within a "social system" from
one decision making unit to the next over time (Rl6ing, 1988. p. 65), so any introduced
innovation should spread throughout a community. Fourth, it was also assumed that early and
late adopters, as well as non-adopters were all from the same "social system" simply because
they lived in the same community -- late adopters or non-adopters were thought to be
"laggards", and not interested in "improvement".

It was also noticed from feedback messages (farmer to extension to research, as well as farmer
directly to research) that it was the "progressive farmers" who were adopting the technology
first, if not exclusively. However, this was not a concern because it was assumed that the
"good" technology would trickle down from these progressive farmers to those who were less
progressive or more conservative or risk diverse (Figure 1). Indeed, extension used contacts
with progressive farmers as a prime strategy.

As it became obvious that these progressive farmers were becoming wealthier and larger relative
to the other farmers in the community, this was of little concern. The emerging change in the
nature of farms was supported by the concept that bigger is better. Often the phrase, "Get big
or get out" was heard and repeated. Small farmers often were considered more of a social
problem than an agricultural problem.