Rural Sociology 5500 — Second ExamDiffusion of Innovation(Exam #2) InstructionsFor each question, be sure to back up your points using information from class lectures and discussion—and make...

1 answer below »
Please see attachment for instructions


Rural Sociology 5500 — Second Exam Diffusion of Innovation (Exam #2) Instructions For each question, be sure to back up your points using information from class lectures and discussion—and make sure that you cite the articles/books we have read for this class. Your grade is based on the quality and completeness of your response. Quality exams have the following attributes: 1. The essays have organizational clarity. (Is the discussion clear? Is the text tight and to the point? Do your arguments follow a clear, logical path?) 2. The essay responses are appropriate and correct in interpretation of the course material. 3. The essays are strong in analytical depth. (Does the discussion show thoughtful consideration of the material at a level that would be expected for a student at a major university?) 4. The essays are comprehensive as much as possible given our limited page length. 5. The essays are edited– lack of editing makes it difficult to understand your points. The quality of editing also indicates the amount of effort you have put into the exam. Please be careful in organizing your responses. Use headings and state the part of the question that you are answering. After you have written your responses, please take some time to edit your answers and to make sure the organization of the paper is clear. Citing references: It is easiest to give the author's name and year of publication only in the text ---for example, (Harper and Leicht 2019 p. 102). Please add a bibliography page at the end of your assignment. As a reminder: quotation marks must be used to indicate text that is taken word-for-word from another person, website, or publication-- and you must ensure that your essay is your own personal work and that you have not taken your ideas from another student. Please make sure that you do not share your exam answers and ideas with any other student—students must earn their exam grade independently. Page length. For graduate students-minimum 5 pages 12-point font, Times New Roman font, double spaced, one-inch margins. Questions 1. As traditional innovation diffusion programs were implemented in developing countries, social scientists began to see the limitations of these programs for improving public well-being. (A) What are the limitations of traditional, top-down innovation diffusion/ technology transfer programs--for improving the well-being of poorer populations and the public at large? (B) What are some of the bottom-up strategies for improving public well-being? (Your examples should include examples of participatory models.) What are the strengths and limitations of bottom-up strategies for producing social change? In this question your focus should be on the material in Part V of the course—you will use at least two class readings by different authors from Part V of this course. PART V. DEVELOPMENT IN THE GLOBAL SYSTEM AND BOTTOM-UP DIFFUSION WEEK 13 (November 14 and 16) Globalization/Development, Technology, the Poor, and Gender 1) Harper/Leicht, The Emerging Global System: Development and Globalization, Chapter 11. 2) Robert K. Schaeffer, “Technology, Food, and Hunger,” Understanding Globalization: The Social Consequences of Political, Economic, and Environmental Change (Rowman and Littlefield, 1997), pp. 143-185 Available on Carmen/Canvas, titled: Schaeffer, Technology, Food, Hunger Longo, Stefano B., and Richard York. 2015. “How Does Information Communication Affect Energy Use?” Human Ecology Review 22 (1), pp. 55-71. "Bottom-Up" Approaches to Social Change: Participatory Approaches and Diffusion across Communities 1) Bruges, Murray, and Willie Smith. 2008. “Participatory Approaches for Sustainable Agriculture: A Contradiction in Terms?” Agriculture and Human Values 2008, Volume 25, pp; 13-23. 2) Hayward, Simpson, and Wood. 2004. “Still Left Out in the Cold: Problematising Participatory Research and Development.” Sociologia Ruralis 44 (1): 95-108. Author University Libraries eReserves 222 Thompson Library 1858 Neil Avenue Mall Columbus, OH 43210 614-292-6448 [email protected] book 0-7425-1998-8 Understanding Globalization Rowman & Littlefield Technology, Food and Hunger Robert Schaeffer 1997 2 153 185 33 Chapter title Author Year Volume - missing pages page total page to page from Issue Edition The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproduction of copyrighted materials. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research. If electronic transmission of reserve materials is used for purposes in excess of what constitutes “fair use,” that user may be liable for copyright infringement. NO FURTHER REPRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THIS COPY IS PERMITTED BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION OR BY ANY OTHER MEANS. WARNING CONCERNING COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS Type (book, journal, unpub) Chapter number ISN Title Publisher mailto:[email protected] 7 * Technology, Food, and Hunger D uring the past century, successive technological revolutions hav~ increased food supplies in the United States and around the world. But while agricultural technologies have increased world food production, which has grown even faster than world population, they have also displaced U.S. farmers and contributed to hunger around the world. Agricultural revolutions in the United States raised farm costs and lowered the prices farmers earned for their crops. These developments forced millions of farmers off the land, with important consequences for rural communities, urban consumers, and the environment. In the South, the introduction of agricultural technologies greatly increased the volume of food produced. But because technology was typically used to grow crops for export and for animal feed, it displaced staple crops and small farmers, contributing to widespread hunger. The irony is that growing food supplies and gnawing hunger go hand in hand in the modem world. Jn this chapter, we will examine the social and environmental problems associated with technological change in agricultural settings, first in the United States, and then around the world. TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTIONS Three technological revolutions in agriculture have occurred during the past century, and we are on the verge of a fourth. The first began in the l 920s, with the introduction of tractors and soybeans. The second got under way in the 1940s, with the introduction of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, hybrid seeds, animal antibiotics, and government-supplied power and water, all elements of what came to be known as the "Green Revolution." The introduction of Green Revolution technologies began in the United States. The introduction and adop- tion of these technologies by farmers around the world resulted in a third 153 154 Chapter 7 agricultural revolution during the 1960s and 1970s. A fourth revolution, which is associated with the introduction of new biological and genetic technologies, is just now getting under way. Each of these technological revolutions transformed agriculture and increased food production. The first revolution began in the 1920s, at a time when seven million family farmers worked the land, using horses for traction. The typical I SO-acre farm planted SO acres of corn or wheat, grew another SO acres of oats to feed the horses, and kept SO acres in pasture to rest the land, though farmers grazed their beef or dairy cattle on this fallow pasture .1 The arrival in the United States of immigrants from Europe, Latin America, and Asia swelled the popula- tion and kept the demand for farm products strong and prices high. Indeed, the prices farmers received were as high as at any time during this century. Because their expenses for !and, horses, and housing were low and stable, and prices were high-wheat sold for $JOO a ton and corn for $76 a ton-farmers could support their families and foster vibrant rural communities nearby.l Although farm supplies fluctuated annually, depending on the weather, the relation between supply and demand remained fairly close or balanced from the farmers' perspective. Moreover, the existence of millions of small farms sup- ported local banks, small businesses, and neighborly towns across the country. But during the 1920s, the introduction of cheap tractors made by the emerging auto industry transformed U.S. agriculture, leading in the 1930s to glut and crisis. In 1910, only 1.000 farmers used tractors. But by 1920, with earnings from high wartime food prices, farmers had purchased 2SO,OOO tractors from Henry Ford and John Deere, and by 1930, 900,000 farmers owned the new, hard- working machines.' The introduction of tractors on the farm was important because it eliminated the need for horses and for the oats they consumed. Farm- ers could stop growing oats for horses and, instead, plant com or soybeans. "As powered machinery replaced the horse, more land became available for cash crops," noted Peter Phillips, an agricultural economist.• In the 1920s and 1930s, many farmers began planting soybeans. Because this legume fixes nitrogen, it can be used in rotation with corn to replenish corn-depleted soil. And because its oils can be used in industry (for paints and varnishes), in food processing (for cooking oil and margarine), and in animal feed (its protein-rich residue can be fed to cows). soybeans often took over forrner oat fields. These developments enabled farmers to increase the volume of food supplies enormously. In a sense, the widespread adoption of tractors and soybeans "was equivalent to the discovery and development of a new continent, of a new North America, in the 20th century," argues Jean-Pierre Berlan, an agricultural econo- mist. 5 The problem was that the new tractor-based agriculture produced huge sup- plies of food, leading to gluts and lower prices. Meanwhile, the cost of buying and maintaining the new machinery significantly increased expenses for farmers. Technology, Food, and Hunger 155 When industry in the United States and around the world laid off millions of workers during the Great Depression that followed the 1929 stock market crash, the demand for food weakened and agricultural prices fell. Wheat prices fell 20 percent, to $ 79 a ton, in the 19 30s. 6 Under these conditions-mounting food supplies and falling demand, at a time when the cost of growing food was ris- ing-many farmers could not earn enough money to survive. As they lost their ability to lease land or repay loans, they were forced to abandon their farms in droves, Perhaps 1.5 million farmers were driven out of farming as a result of the Depression, a process depicted in John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath.7 Things for farmers might have been even worse if the drought of 1934-1936 had not also reduced supplies: "The calamitous years, which wiped out almost half the corn crop and a large segment of the wheat crop were, in their own peculiar way, an economic blessing since they restored the balance of supply and demand, a prerequisite for economic recovery. No government agricultural policy would have dared to do what the weather did."8 The problems associated with this farm crisis were solved, temporarily, by the outbreak of World War II. Because the worldwide war disrupted or destroyed agricultural production in many countries, global food supplies fell. And because war-related industries hired millions of workers and the military drafted millions more into service, the demand for food greatly increased. As a result, prices rose to their highest level in the twentieth century. With wheat prices soaring to $122 a ton and com to $94 a ton, "net farm income quadrupled, rising from $4, 5 billion to $12.3 billion between 1940 and 1945."9 U.S. farmers prospered. After the war, U.S. agriculture was transformed by a second technological revolution. Whereas the introduction of the tractor spurred a substantial increase in food production in the 1920s and 1930s, new biological and chemi- cal technologies greatly increased food supplies in the postwar period. The new hybrid seeds, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and antibiotics, which were devel- oped by government-sponsored research scientists and then produced and mar- keted by the emerging seed and agricultural chemical industries, dramatically improved crop yields and increased food supplies. 10 Together with the tractors and farm machinery developed during the earlier period, and the extension of government irrigation projects in the arid West and the provision of electrical power to rural communities, these technological innovations transformed agri- culture, resulting in a series of changes known collectively as the "Green Revolu- tion." The Green Revolution enabled farmers to increase yields 2 percent per acre annually since 1948. They increased com yields from 38.2 bushels an acre in 1930 to US bushels in 1985, soybeans from 21.7 to 34.l bushels, and wheat from 16.5 to 37.5 bushels in the same period. Milk production per cow increased from 5,314 pounds in 1950 to 13,786 pounds in 1987. 11 The new technologies created food supplies equal to that produced by another North American continent. 156 Chapter 7 The extension of U.S. Green Revolution technologies around the world cre-
Answered Same DayFeb 01, 2023

Answer To: Rural Sociology 5500 — Second ExamDiffusion of Innovation(Exam #2) InstructionsFor each...

Bidusha answered on Feb 02 2023
47 Votes
Written Assignment        2
WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT
Table of Contents
Answer 1    2
Answer 2    5
References    8
Answer 1
One of the principal social science thoughts is the Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) Theory, which was made by E.M. Rogers in 1962. It previously showed up in correspondence to depict how a thought or prod
uct accumulates steam and diffuses (or spreads) inside a specific populace or social framework after some time. Individuals at last hug another idea, conduct, or product as a piece of a social framework because of this dispersal. At the point when somebody embraces, they accomplish something unique in relation to what they recently did (i.e., buy or utilize another product, obtain and play out another way of behaving, and so forth.).
The individual should trust the idea, conduct, or product to be novel or creative for it to be taken on. This considers the chance of scattering. Verifiably, the Coronavirus pandemic addresses quite possibly of the most troublesome problem that global guide and improvement associations have at any point experienced. Regarding the immediate impacts of the general wellbeing emergency on wellbeing and mortality, as well as circuitous consequences for social, monetary, and political establishments, there have proactively been huge repercussions for the world's poor and defenceless. Fundamental challenges in regards to how to actually uphold the pandemic reaction and the post-pandemic reality that is starting to create face the two-sided and multilateral help framework, which has for some time been seen as overburdened (Huang et al., 2021).
Limitations Of Diffusion Of Innovation Theory
The diffusion of innovation theory has various disadvantages, including the accompanying:
• An enormous piece of the supporting information for this theory, including the adopter classes, didn't come from the field of general wellbeing, nor was it planned with reception of novel ways of behaving or clinical improvements as a main priority.
• It doesn't energize the improvement of a participatory approach to general wellbeing programs.
• Reception of ways of behaving as opposed to conduct decrease or anticipation is more successful.
• It doesn't consider an individual's assets or social organization while empowering them to take on the new way of behaving (or innovation).
This approach has been really applied in various ventures, including advertising, advertising, social work, agribusiness, and general wellbeing. Diffusion of Innovation Theory is applied to general wellbeing to hurry the reception of critical general wellbeing drives that by and large try to modify the way of behaving of a social framework. For example, in the event that a social framework's individuals are urged to acknowledge the mediation after it is intended to address a general medical problem (in light of Diffusion of Innovation Theory). Understanding the objective segment and the elements influencing their pace of reception will prompt the best reception of a general wellbeing program (Vargo, Akaka & Wieland, 2020).
A pro-innovation bias infers that all ranchers ought to be...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here