Perceptions of training and performance in change agent roles by selected agricultural extensionists in Latin America

Abstract

The major purpose of this study was to determine what change agent roles were played by selected agricultural extensionists in Latin America, and the nature of training they received for these roles. Were these agricultural change agents trained for these roles? If so, what kinds of training did they receive (formal, on-the-job, or in-service)? Did they perceive this training as adequate? Was there a perceived need for training in these roles? Had training for these roles increased over time? Nine change agent roles taken from a model developed by Beal were used. Methods. A rationalistic design using survey methodology was utilized to obtain answers to six research questions and two hypotheses. Information was ascertained through pilot tested, self-reporting questionnaires in Spanish and Portuguese. A sample was drawn from persons actively employed as agricultural change agents in-country who took part in training programs of the Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). The results are based on 101 usable questionnaires collected from August, 1986 to March, 1987 in South and Central America. Results. The findings suggest that the agricultural change agents were active at differing levels in all the change agent roles described by Beal. In all cases, except for the role of Researcher, the majority of change agents had not perceived receiving training for these roles. Those who did receive training for change agent roles indicated that most of this training was in the form of in-service training, and that the training was useful in their jobs. Generally, very divergent roles such as Educator, Researcher, Consultant and Enabler were most frequently performed, and seemed to be regarded as the most important. On the other hand, roles such as Organizer, Advocate, Arbitrator, Administrator, and Broker were least often performed and regarded as possibly least important. These latter roles are very similar to roles called "process helper" roles by Havelock. These findings provide questions for further research in terms of why some roles are deemed more important than others, why some are performed more frequently than others, and what constituted training that was deemed as "useful."