1

Buletin Penelitian Hortikultura, Tahun 1994, Volume XXVI, Nomor (2)

CHARACTERISTICS OF LINKAGE MECHANISMS BETWEEN RESEARCH

AND EXTENSION IN WEST JAVA
Witono Adiyoga

ABSTRACT

Adiyoga, W. 1994. Karakteristik Mekanisme Keterkaitan Antara Penelitian dan Penyuluhan di Jawa Barat. Penelitian ini
dilaksanakan pada bulan Januari-April 1993 dengan melibatkan para peneliti (Balai Penelitian Tanaman Pangan Bogor,
Balai Penelitian Tanaman Pangan Sukamandi, dan Balai Penelitian Hortikultura Lembang) dan penyuluh pertanian (PPS se
Jawa Barat) yang dipilih secara acak. Tujuan utama dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mempelajari karakteristik mekanisme
keterkaitan fungsional dan institusional antara penelitian dan penyuluhan tanaman pangan serta hortikultura di Jawa Barat.
Pengumpulan data dilakukan melalui survai dengan penggunaan kuesioner berstruktur. Hasil analisis menunjukkan bahwa
berdasarkan persepsi para peneliti serta penyuluh, karakteristik-karakteristik mekanisme keterkaitan yang mencakup
pengakuan resmi, standarisasi, keterlibatan perantara, intensitas pertukaran sumberdaya, dan pertukaran yang seimbang
ternyata masih relatif rendah. Hal ini memberikan indikasi bahwa mekanisme-mekanisme keterkaitan yang ada sebagai
media arus pertukaran informasi dan sumberdaya antara penelitian dan penyuluhan, belum berfungsi secara efektif.
Penelitian ini juga mengindikasikan bahwa efektivitas mekanisme keterkaitan dapat ditingkatkan seandainya pertukaran
sumberdaya serta informasi yang seimbang antara penelitian dan penyuluhan dapat tercapai melalui mekanisme tersebut.

Agricultural development ultimately requires that new forms of inputs and farming practices be
utilized by a substantial number of farmers. Key elements of this transformation are the generation and
dissemination of new agricultural technologies. Therefore, linkages between research and extension
are vital for successful agricultural technology development and delivery. Indeed, there need to be
more linkages than called for by the simple and traditional top-down model in which extension is
frequently viewed as a discrete step coming after research (Merril_Sands, Kaimowitz, Sayce & Chater,
1989). In the context of this study, a linkage mechanism is defined as any structural or managerial
device or procedure used to facilitate the interconnectedness of the tasks of technology generation and
transfer. This definition implies that the role of any linkage mechanism is to improve the integration
among tasks and the fit between institutions and units involved in the development and transfer of
agricultural technologies.
Linkage mechanisms can be grouped according to different typologies. The grouping can be
done by form, task, degree of formality, managerial level, and purpose (Eponou, 1991). In this study, a
typology by purpose is chosen because it seems more appropriate with the nature of inter-
organizational relationships between research and extension in Indonesia. Research and extension
may link with each other for six broadly defined purposes: (a) planning and review of programs and
activities, (b) professional collaboration for joint activities, (c) exchange of resources, (d) dissemination
of information and knowledge, (e) feedback, and (f) coordination. A certain amount of overlap may
occur among these categories, but the typology does serve to describe the main purposes for which
linkage mechanisms are used. By viewing an inter-organizational relationship as a social action system,
Van de Ven (1976) suggests that a structure and process for organizing activities must be adopted to
attain its goals as a unit. The structure refers to the administrative conditions which define the
relationships between organizations. Meanwhile, the process refers to the direction and frequency of
resources and information flowing between organizations. Both of them can be viewed as the
"organizational form" of collaboration between organizations. By synthesizing the works of others,
 2
Marret (1971) presents four key dimensions for characterizing the inter-organizational linkages:
1. Formalization - the degree to which exchanges between organizations are given official
sanction or agreed to by the parties involved, and the extent to which an intermediary
coordinates the relations.
2. Intensity - the amount of involvement required by parties to the exchange, in terms of the size of
resources invested (both financial and human resources) and the frequency of interaction.
3. Reciprocity - the direction of exchange, and the extent to which terms on the bases and
conditions of the exchange are mutually reached.
4. Standardization - some reliable determination of fixedness of the units of exchange and
procedures for exchange between organizations.
The information concerning these four relational properties or characteristics of research-extension
collaboration is very important in assessing the effectiveness of linkage mechanisms.
This study aims to examine the characteristics of the existing functional and institutional
research-extension linkages in the food crops and horticultural sub-sectors in West Java.

METHODOLOGY
This study was a descriptive comparative survey research that involved 145 researchers and
79 extension workers. The first sample was chosen randomly from the population of researchers
working in the Bogor Agricultural Research Institute for Food Crops, Sukamandi Agricultural Research
Institute for Food Crops, and Lembang Horticultural Research Institute. The second sample was
selected randomly from the population of extension workers (subject matter specialists) in West Java.
The study was conducted from January to April 1993. Data were collected through a mailed,
self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire was organized into two parts. Part I was designed to
obtain information regarding the frequency of respondents' participation in certain linkage mechanisms
during the past one year. Part II of the instrument asked for the opinion of the respondents regarding
the characteristics of existing linkage mechanisms. This second part consisted of both close-ended and
open-ended questions. Responses from close-ended questions were rated on a five point Likert-scale.
Data were analyzed by using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) program. The
three utilized statistical procedures were multiple regression analysis, multivariate analysis of variance,
and discriminant analysis. Meanwhile, the information gathered from the open-ended questions were
analyzed by using content analysis.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

As shown in Table 1, out of 12 linkage mechanisms listed, the three most participated
mechanisms reported by researchers during the past one year were informal personal communication
with extension workers (73%), reading publications/reports from the extension agency (68%), and
collaboration on joint on-farm research/trials (64%). Meanwhile, extension workers reported that they
were mostly involved in reading publications/reports from research agencies (95%), informal personal
communication with researchers (65%), and collaboration in joint forums (61%). Other linkage
mechanisms involved less than half of the respondents.
Both researchers and extension workers participated less than once in the past one year in
most of the existing linkage mechanisms, except in collaboration on joint on-farm trial, informal personal
communication, and reading publications/reports from the other agency. The results of the t-test
indicated that the researchers' average participation in collaboration on joint on-farm research/trial, joint
evaluation of program activities, informal personal communication, and trainings conducted by the
extension agency was higher than those of the extension workers. On the other hand, the extension
workers' average participation in seminars/workshops conducted by the research agency and reading
publications/reports from the research agency was higher than those of the researchers.
 3
Table 1 Participation of Researchers and Extension Workers in Selected Linkage Mechanisms During the Past One Year.

Linkage Mechanisms Percentage Mean t

Res Ext Res Ext
Joint research-extension planning and priority setting 20 23 .31 .39 .55
Joint research-extension meetings to review recommendation 29 37 .51 .66 .70
Joint evaluation of research-extension program activities 23 13 .38 .18 -2.28*
Joint surveys for exploratory study or formal study 48 38 .63 .46 -1.78
Collaboration on joint on-farm research/trial 64 49 1.30 .66 -3.30
Collaboration on joint on-farm demonstration 28 30 .52 .47 -.31
Informal personal comm. with research/extension personnel 73 65 2.58 1.65 -2.39*
Exchange of personnel between research and extension 4 0 .04 .00 -
Collaboration on joint forums, such as field days 55 61 .83 .85 .14
Reading publications or reports from the other agency 68 95 1.50 3.92 5.11*
Training conducted by the other agency 23 10 .08 .10 -2.99*
Seminars and workshops conducted by the other agency 20 55 .23 .78 3.24*
* p < .05.

Means and standard deviations for the relational properties (characteristics) of linkage
mechanisms are shown in Table 2. It was indicated that the mean perceptions of researchers were
higher for all five relational properties.
Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations of the Characteristics (Relational Properties) of Linkage Mechanisms.

Variable Researcher Extension Worker

Mean SD Mean SD
Official recognition 2.324 1.218 1.835 .940
Standardization 1.993 1.218 1.582 .900
Intermediary involvement 2.007 1.299 1.544 .730
Intensity of exchange 2.083 1.152 1.785 .779
Reciprocity of exchange 2.062 1.150 1.633 .850
Note. 1=very low; 2=low; 3=moderate; 4=high; 5=very high.

Multivariate analysis of variance summarized in Table 3 shows that researchers and extension
workers significantly differed on the set of five variables (relational properties) being studied. The
following univariate F tests were conducted to determine which of the variables contributed to the
overall difference. Significant differences not due to sampling variability, with a probability of .05 or
greater, were indicated by official recognition, standardization, intermediary involvement, intensity of
exchange, and reciprocity of exchange.
Since the univariate F's did not provide information about the relative importance of individual
variable, the discriminant analysis was conducted and summarized in Table 4. The Wilks' Lambda of
.9358 indicated the proportion (94%) of variance in the discriminant scores that was not explained by
differences between groups. This meant that about 6% of the variability in the discriminant scores was
attributable to between-groups differences (.255332 = .064). The Chi-square value of 2.99 suggested
that there were significant differences at .01level, in the mean scores of the five relational properties
variables. Thus, the discriminant function was found to be significant.
 4
Table 3 Multivariate Significance and Univariate F Tests on the Characteristics of Linkage Mechanisms

1. Multivariate Test of Significance

Hotellings Value = .06858 F(5,218) = 2.99**
2. Univariate F-test with (1,222) DF
Variable Hypothesis MS Error MS F
Official recognition 12.21 1.20 9.59**
Standardization 8.63 1.38 6.26**
Intermediary involvement 10.94 .94 11.65**
Intensity of exchange 4.54 1.07 4.23*
Reciprocity of exchange 9.42 1.11 8.47**
* = p < .05. ; ** = p < .01.

Evaluating the canonical discriminant function at group means, it was found that group 1 (extension
workers) had a negative mean and group 2 (researchers) had a positive mean, indicating that extension
workers had a smaller discriminant function scores than researchers. The standardized canonical
discriminant function coefficients indicated that intermediary involvement had the strongest positive
weight that would increase the function value. Meanwhile, the intensity of exchange had the strongest
negative weight that would decrease the function value. Combining the information from the
standardized discriminant function coefficients and canonical discriminant function evaluated at group
means (group centroid means), it was indicated that extension workers were more concerned about the

Table 4 Summary of Discriminant Analysis on the Characteristics (Relational Properties) of Linkage Mechanisms
1. Significance Test
Wilks' Lambda = .9358 Chi-square (df = 5) = 14.56**
2. Canonical Correlation
Eigenvalue = .0686 Canonical correlation = .2533
3. Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients
Official recognition .33842
Standardization .12044
Intermediary involvement .62379
Intensity of exchange -.55601
Reciprocity of exchange .53822
4. Canonical Discriminant Function Evaluated at Group Means
Extension Worker -.35320
Researcher .19243
** = p < .01.

intensity of resource and information exchange between agencies in determining group differences. On
the other hand, researchers' perceptions of the intermediary involvement were the most important
variable in differentiating the two groups. Since the data were obtained from two different populations,
two regression models (for researchers and extension workers) were analyzed. The results of the
multiple regression analysis are presented in Table 5.
Statistics for the researchers' regression indicated that three variables had significant partial
regression coefficients. Those variables were reciprocity of exchange, standardization,and official
 5
recognition. Higher levels of these three variables were associated with a higher level of intensity of
exchange. The variation in the four independent variables explained 73.1% of the dependent variable's
variance.
Statistics for the extension workers' regression equation indicated significant partial regression
coefficients for reciprocity of exchange and standardization at the .01 level. This implied that higher
levels of these two variables were associated with a higher intensity of exchange. The four-variable
regression equation explained 53.2% of the variation in the dependent variable.
Content analysis was conducted on two open-ended questions regarding linkage mechanism
characteristics. The results indicated that both researchers and extension workers assessed the
existing linkage mechanisms as moderately effective in facilitating the flow of information between the
two agencies. Meanwhile, the suggestions for improving linkage mechanism are

Table 5 Summary of Regression Analysis with the Intensity of Exchange as the Dependent Variable.
Independent Researcher Extension Worker
B Contribution to R2 B Contribution to R2
Reciprocity of exchange .38 .60 .37 .43
Standardization .31 .10 .26 .09
Official recognition .13 .02 .06 .01
Intermediary involvement .12 .01 .02 .00
(Constant) .13 .49
R2 .73 .53
Multiple R .86 .73
F 94.93*** 21.07***
(4.140) (4.74)
** = p < .01. ; *** = p < .001.

listed in Table 6. Both researchers and extension workers mostly suggested that linkage mechanisms
should be developed appropriately on the basis of institutional and political context in which they would
be used. This implied that linkage mechanisms should be formed by taking the policy environment,
bureaucratic structure, and structural conditions (infrastructure and resource endowment) into
consideration. The other two suggestions that were proposed in respective order were that linkage
activities should be conducted on regular basis and at multiple levels.

Table 6 Suggestions for Improving Linkage Mechanisms

Category Researcher (%) Extension Worker (%)

Context 53.8 72.2

Multiple levels 29.0 45.6

Standardization 57.9 59.5

CONCLUSIONS

Participation of both researchers and extension workers in individual linkage mechanism is

fairly low. However, if those existing mechanisms are viewed as a set of linkage mechanisms, a
considerable level of participation does occur. There is substantially more informal personal
 6
communication than formal linkages between researchers and extension workers. This mechanism
often can derive a direct perceived need for collaboration which may generate concrete goals and well-
focused activities. At the same time, however, one should be aware that this mechanism usually does
not feed into an institutional memory, beyond what is stored away in the minds of a few individuals.
Furthermore, this mechanism is often inadequately transmitted to the decision-making centers. It should
not be used as a substitute for formal mechanisms; rather it should be considered as complementary.
The effectiveness of linkage mechanisms as reflected from the researchers' and extension
workers' perceptions regarding their characteristics (official recognition, standardization, intermediary
involvement, intensity of exchange, and reciprocity of exchange) is still fairly low. Reciprocity of
exchange is perceived as the most important factor influencing the intensity of exchange. In terms of
resource exchanged, it can be viewed as the extent to which the resources in a transaction are mutually
exchanged. A higher degree of mutual resource exchanged is perceived to be associated with a larger
amount of resources committed to linkages between research and extension. Thus, the chances of
genuine collaboration between researchers and extension workers are better when both parties
recognize the mutual benefit that is likely to occur and when neither perceives the other as a threat to
achieving its objectives.

REFERENCES

Eponou, T. (1991). The effectiveness of linkage mechanisms: Evidence from case studies. The Hague:
ISNAR.
Merril_Sands,D., Kaimowitz, D. Sayce, K. & Chater, S. (1989). The technology triangle: Linking
farmers, technology transfer agents, and agricultural researchers. The Hague: ISNAR.
Marret, C. B. (1971). On the specification of inter-organizational dimensions. Sociology and Social
Research, 56, 83_99.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1976). On the nature, formation, and maintainance of relations among
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 2, 24_36.