Human Practice Theory

The communication experts have been questioning the subjective theory, because it failed to explain the influences of the social network and power in the communication process. Leeuwis´ model tries to explain the human practice, and helps to answer the question: ‘why people do what they do’. Figure 3 shows the factors that people take into consideration when deciding whether or not to adopt a new practice. He suggests that practices are not only influenced by the knowledge of people, but also by the social and physical environment that surrounds them, and how they perceive their self-efficiency. He identifies five main ‘groups’ of variables

that influence the human practice, evaluative frame of reference, perceived self-efficiency of the environment, social relationship and social environment, and feedback. His model is presented in this section.

Figure 3. Human Practice model. (Leeuwis 2004)

Evaluative frame of reference

The first variable suggested by Leeuwis is what he calls “evaluative frame of reference”. It is the basis for the reasoning, the knowledge that people use to take decisions (i.e. the way in which they explain facts and events, their personal theories). People’s practice depends on (a) their perception of the consequences of certain practices, (b) the perceived probability that this consequence would happen, and (c) whether they value such consequences in relation to their aspirations as negative or positive.

Perception of the consequences

Rural enterprises, such as agriculture, industrial production, services etc. are complex activities.

Entrepreneurs know that even small changes in their practices could have consequences. Thus, before adopting a new innovation they make an (conscious or unconscious) evaluation of the consequences that this adoption would have. This evaluation considers technical consequences (e.g. required inputs, required change in land distribution etc.) as well as socio – economic consequences (financial cost involved, extra labour force required, impact on social relations, etc.). For example, the adoption of a new machine to collect milk will be based on his/her previous experience, and other sources of information (Internet, neighbours, advisors, etc.) related to machines and collecting milk. Entrepreneurs will expect: an extra economic cost in purchas-ing it, an extra cost on maintainpurchas-ing this machine, an increase in income, lower labour costs, an increase in milk quality etc.

The way in which entrepreneurs evaluate the consequences is not necessarily the same as scientists. Actually, it should probably be different, since both have very different knowledge and experiences. What is important is that entrepreneur´s practice, adoption or rejection of innovation (or messages) depends on how they perceive the consequences of these practices at various levels and domains of their lives.

Perception of the probability that consequences happen

Leeuwis (2004) suggests that there are many aspects that have to be considered in managing rural enterprises.

He affirms that it is not enough to look at the technical aspects, such as machines, physical infrastructure, etc., it is also important to look at the economic variables, such as income, cost, cash flow, financial requirements, among others. Furthermore, entrepreneurs also take into consideration social issues, such as relationship with

������

friends, the community and family. Before changing their practice, for an example, adopting a new technology, they will consider the risks of this innovation over the three dimensions; technical, economic and social. The risk assessment is not an easy work. It depends on many factors such as frequency of consequence occurrence, visibility, magnitude and directness and duration of the consequence.

Valuation of consequences: positive or negative

After determining the consequences and their probability of ocurrence, entrepreneurs would classify these consequences as positive or negative, desirable or undesirable, according to their aspirations. For example, if an entrepreneur’s aspiration is to increase his income, and a proposed technology would have as a consequence a higher profit, entrepreneur will value the change as positive.

Entrepreneurs can have four types of aspirations and interests: technical/economic, social (including politi-cal), cultural and emotional. The first one, the technical/economic aspiration, would be, for example, an entrepreneur’s aspiration to reduce costs of using fertilizers. The second one, the social aspiration, would be the adoption of certain practice because it would improve his/her relationship with family members, neighbours, traders, farm labourers etc. The third one, the cultural aspiration is related to people values and norms. Organic farmers, for example, believe that the environment is in equilibrium, and they are not expected to use any fertilizer or pesticide because it would break the equilibrium causing big damages to their production and lives. The last type of aspiration is referred to as ‘emotional’ interests. The emotion that the person is feeling at the moment, anger, peace, love, appreciation, etc, can influence how the person values the risk. For an example, if a person is feeling fear, it is more likely that he/she could overestimate the risk as negative.

In, addition, the knowledge used to evaluate the consequences, risks and aspirations are questioned. Even people may question their own knowledge. In order to adopt this knowledge, it has to be checked or tested before, e.g. by on-farm experimentation, checking other sources etc.

Perceived effectiveness of the environment

Even the less sophisticated practices require a network of support relationship (i.e. network infrastructure).

For example, the adoption of a milking machine requires a credit system, a seller, repair shops, etc. Thus, entrepreneurs, before changing their practices, evaluate whether they have the appropriate organizational infrastructure (Leeuwis, 2004). However, some enterprise practices do not only require an effective support network, but also cooperation between entrepreneurs. For example, there are investments such as the broadband infrastructure, which may be viable only if a minimum number of farmers adopt it at the same time, so that overhead costs can be shared. This cooperation is called ‘public good’ dilemma, in which individuals are supposed to contribute to the acquisition/maintenance of public services, such as roads, electricity, broadband, irrigation system etc. Thus, entrepreneurs’ practices are not only shaped by their perception of the network support (infrastructure), but also their perception of the effectiveness of the commitment of other individuals to certain issues.

Perceived self-efficiency

Entrepreneurs’ practices are also shaped by the way their self-efficiency, their capability to do something is perceived. Practices require not only physical resources (cash, labour and land), but also skills, competence and valid knowledge about them. If entrepreneurs can not see themselves as able to have one of these required resources, they will probably refuse a new practice.

Social relationship and social pressure

An influencing factor that is usually underestimated by communication workers is the social relationship and social pressure. People around entrepreneurs shape their behaviour and practices. Leeuwis divides social pressure in three dimensions: a) the perceived desires and expectations from other actors (in relation to the practices), b) the resources mobilized to persuade practices and c) the valuation of expectations, resources and relationships.

Perceived desires and expectations of other actors

Entrepreneurs are not alone, thus their decisions are not free from social influences. People around them, such as relatives, neighbours, local leaders, religious leaders, communication workers etc, sometimes with differ-ent interests and knowledge, usually try to influence their practices. For example, if the national governmdiffer-ent wants farmers to adopt techniques of soil conservation, it will try to use the extension agents to put pressure on farmers in order to change their behaviour.

In order to make their voices heard, social actors make use of resources, ‘rewards’ and ‘sanctions’. For example, a government in order to persuade a farmer to change his/her practices, may apply fines (‘sanctions’) or provide financial incentives to those who adopt it (‘rewards’); a religious leader may exclude those who apply pesticides from his groups (‘sanctions’), and may highlight those who adopt ‘good practices’ (‘reward’), etc.

Finally, entrepreneurs make an evaluation between the technical, socio and economic consequences of a practice, with their aspirations. They make a valuation between negative sanctions and positive rewards and compare it with their aspirations.

Feedback

After adopting a new practice, people usually evaluate it, based on their experience and outcomes, called feedback. Feedback provides information to evaluate this new practice to assist decisions to continue with it or not. This process of action and feedback is like a cycle, in which an action creates feedback that can change that action.

Box 1: Summary of communication theories mentioned above:

A) Message Reception Theory