Knowledge Creation and Flow in Agriculture: theExperience and Role of the Japanese Extension
Advisors
1

Sohaimi Zakaria and Haruki Nagata2
1

Associate Professor, Faculty of Information Management, Universiti Teknologi
MARA, Malaysia. Foreign Visiting Research Fellow, Research Center for Knowledge
Communities, Graduate School of Library, Information & Media Studies, University ofTsukuba, Japan. Email: sohaimiz@salam.uitm.edu.my
2
Professor, Research Center for Knowledge Communities, Graduate School of Library,
Information & Media Studies, University of Tsukuba, Japan.
Email: harungt@slis.tsukuba.ac.jp
Abstract: This paper presents findings of a recent study on the experience and rolesof agricultural extension advisors in the context of knowledge creation and flow inorganizations. Data were collected through interviews with eleven principal and seniorextension advisors and a consultant from different Prefectures and organizations as wellas questionnaires from 135 extension advisors in the Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan. The
purpose of the study was to explore the preferences and roles played by extension
advisors in relation to knowledge sharing among advisors, farmers and otherstakeholders. Results show that the Japanese agricultural agencies are actively involvedin facilitating knowledge creation within their organizations. The extension advisors, asintermediaries and catalysts, are the key links between farmers and the relevant agencies
in terms of providing personalized and need-based information for decision-making.
Keywords: knowledge creation, knowledge sharing, information use, knowledge
flow, agricultural information, agricultural extension, information management,
agriculture, information intermediary

1. Introduction
The Japanese agriculture has experienced several phases of reforms andmodernization for more than a century ago. Since the end of the Second WorldWar Japan started to embark on a concerted effort to revitalize its agriculture
sector in order to boost production to meet the escalating demand for food. The
Central and Prefectural Governments worked closely to enhance the training of
farmers to uplift their technical and managerial skills and to ensuresustainability, and this was remarkably carried out through the activities andprograms by the agricultural extension services.
The Japanese extension system for agriculture which started in 1948 wasmeant for helping farmers to acquire useful, appropriate and practicalknowledge in the domain of agriculture (Fujita, n. d.). This system was adaptedfrom the Western extension system into the Japanese culture to suit their local
needs and requirements. Traditionally, extension focuses on disseminating
R&D information from research laboratories to farmers (Roling, 1990),
providing farmers with technical advice as a guide to improved farming
methods (Williams, 1968), training of new, youth and women farmers as wellas community reorganization.
The Japanese agriculture has thus far been successful and sustainable.
This “suggest that farm decision-makers have either been using more and better
information or becoming more knowledgeable” (Jones et al., 1987). The foodshortage in the recent past has seen how important it is for nations to ensure1

sustainability of their agriculture sector. In fact, agricultural sustainability has
been the focus of many developed nations as well as emerging economies.
There have been a few interpretations of sustainable agriculture which could
describe a state whereby: a) farm productivity is enhanced over the long-term,b) adverse impacts on the natural resource base and associated ecosystems areameliorated, minimised or avoided, c) residues resulting from the use ofchemicals in agriculture are minimised, d) net social benefit (in both monetaryand non-monetary terms) from agriculture is maximised, and e) farming
systems are sufficiently flexible to manage risks associated with the vagaries ofclimate and markets (Australian Standing Committee on Agriculture, 1997).
It would be interesting to understand how a developed country such as
Japan manages its agriculture sector through the extension services, hence thestudy reported in this paper explored the roles and experience of the extension
advisors in the context of knowledge creation and flow.

2. Methods and proceduresThis study used questionnaire-based survey and interviews for data

gathering. Eleven principal and senior extension and agricultural
officers from different Prefectures and organizations and a consultant on
the Japanese extension system were interviewed and 232 questionnaires
were sent out to the extension advisors at the Headquarters and all of the
12 branches of the Ibaraki Prefecture Agricultural Center, Japan. Ibaraki
is one of the 47 prefectures in Japan, with an area of 6,093 km² situated in thenorthern part of the Kanto region in Honshu Island. It has close to 3 million
population and in terms of productivity, in 2006, Ibaraki was ranked 4th mostproductive agricultural region with its production of vegetables, crops, flowers,
fruits and livestocks (Ibaraki Prefectural Government, 2009).
One hundred and thirty-five completed questionnaires were returned,
providing an overall response rate of 58.2%. The breakdown of respondents
according to branch is given in Table 1.
TABLE 1
Questionnaire Response Rate
Branches of the Ibaraki Agricultural
N (135)CenterBandou12
Chikusei
12
Hitachiomiya
13
Hitachiota
10
Hokota12
Inashiki
12
Kasama12
Mito
11
Namegata
9
Tsuchiura
12
Tsukuba
12
Yuuki
8

%
8.9
8.9
9.6
7.4
8.9
8.9
8.9
8.1
6.7
8.9
8.9
5.9

The development of the questionnaire was based on the review of literature
where a few open and close-ended questions were derived from themes fromprevious studies related to information management and agricultural extension
services such as those conducted by Jones et al. (1987), Kaniki (1989), Rolling2

(1990), Majid et al. (2000), Middendorf (2007), and Fukuda (2008).
Subsequently, interviews were conducted with several experts in the field ofagricultural extension to ensure that the questionnaire items are relevant with
the nature and characteristics of the extension advisory services. The survey
instrument was reviewed by a number of senior extension advisors before it
was distributed to the extension advisors.
Meanwhile, additional information was gathered through interview
sessions with principal and senior agriculture officers from a nationalorganization for agricultural extension, a national agricultural research institute,
three Prefectural Agricultural Centers, and a retired expert and consultant on
agricultural extension system. The purpose of these interviews was to seek
further clarifications on their experiences on the overall development of theJapanese agricultural extension system in relation to inter-organizational
linkages and co-operations, common practices and leadership of the extension
services.

3. Findings and discussion
3.1

Survey demographics

Twenty-three (17.3%) respondents were between 20 and 29 years oldwhile the largest were in the age group of 30-39 years old (30.8%), 32 (24.1%)
were between 40 and 49 years old, 34 (25.6%) were between 50 and 59 years
old, and only 3 (2.3%) were 60 years old or more. Of the 134 respondents who
provided feedback on their gender, 89 (66.4%) were male and 45 (33.6%) werefemale.
On their highest educational attainment, four (3.1%) respondents held a
PhD degree, 29 (22.5%) had a Master’s degree. The majority (79 or 61.2%) ofthem had a Bachelor’s degree. Only 1 (0.8%) had only a college or high school
education.
More than a third of the extension advisors who participated in this study
had five years of working experience or less with the extension service, while
11 (8.9%) had 36 or more years of experience. Table 2 provides detail
breakdown about their experience.
TABLE 2
Experience of Respondents
Experience (years)
N (124)Up to 5
46
6-10
19
11-15
15
16-20
10
21-25
9
26-30
5
31-35
9
36 & above
11

%
37.1
15.3
12.1
8.1
7.3
4.0
7.3
8.9

As extension advisors, respondents were assigned to 1 or more areas of
specialty where 55 (40.7%) respondents associated to vegetable farming,
followed by rice cropping, 44 (32.6%), upland cropping, 31 (23%). Apart fromfarming and cropping, respondents also specialized in technology applications,23 (17%), human resource management, 22 (16.3%) as shown in Table 3.

3

TABLE 3
Area of Specialty of Respondents
Area
N
Vegetable farming
55
Rice cropping
44
Upland cropping
31
Technology applications
23
Human resource management
22
Business management
20
Fruit farming
17
Community development
16
Feed cropping
13
Flower farming
11
Dairy cow farming
8
Beef cattle farming
7
Pig farming
6
Chicken farming
5

3.2

%
40.7
32.6
23.0
17.0
16.3
14.8
12.6
11.9
9.6
8.1
5.9
5.2
4.4
3.7

Personalized learning activities

Respondents were asked to indicate on a scale of 1-5 (as noted below inTable 4) their preference of the channels of communication when interactingwith farmers, the industry as well as with other organizations and relatedparties. It was discovered that extension advisors used several means tocommunicate with their clients in performing their advisory tasks andresponsibilities. Table 4 provides the list of communication channels preferredand used by extension advisors and their mean score.
From the table, the channels which ware highly rated by the respondents
were personal face-to-face meetings with farmers and other clients and visits totheir farms and work places. The mean score for this preference was closest to
1 (most preferred). It is observed that the top 3 rated channels ofcommunication (i.e. personal face-to-face meetings, visits; fixed line telephones
and cell phones) would relate to the extension advisors’ preferences for
personal, on-the-spot and interactive communications with their clients.
TABLE 4Preference of Different Types of Communication Channels
MeanStandard
Types of Communication Channels
RatingN
Score
Deviation
1
Personal face-to-face meetings, visits
135
1.34
0.625
2
Office, residential fixed line telephones
135
1.77
0.712
3
Cellphones, SMSes
132
2.54
1.162
4
Handouts, flyers
132
2.67
1.061
5
Workshops, seminars, classes
131
3.18
1.094
6
Postal correspondences
126
3.33
0.980
7
Emails
128
4.13
0.908
8
Weblogs
127
4.87
0.591
Note: Scale: 1) Most preferred 2) Preferred 3) Neutral 4) Less preferred 5) Least
preferred4

From the interviews it was possible to highlight that active learning
happened during the interactions between extension advisors and farmers andbetween farmers where the more advanced farmers often provide assistance andguidance to other farmers. It was reported that farmers developed close
collaborations between then through the formation of various local societies
and groups. The extension services, on the other hand, constantly exchange
ideas, experience and tacit knowledge with the farmers. The ‘bottom-up’
approach which is widely practiced in the Japanese agriculture permeates wellwith the extension’s focus on personalized and repeated interactions. Thisapproach apparently allows farmers to provide direct input to the developmentof the agriculture field. In addition, through this the extensions are able togather firsthand information from farmers which are subsequently sharedwithin the community and authorities for further actions.
This phenomenon (of personalization) is further evident by the preferenceof the extension advisors to meet with farmers at the latter’s residence (meanscore of 1.38, where 1 = most commonly at/on, 2 = commonly at/on, 3 =neutral, 4 = less commonly at/on, and 5 = least commonly at/on), followed by
farmers’ farmyard (mean = 1.94). Table 5 provides the list of meeting places
rated by extension advisors.

Rating1
2
3
4
5
6

TABLE 5Preference of Places of Meeting With Farmers
Mean
Places of Meeting
N
Score
Farmers’ residence
134
1.38
Farmers’ farmyard
132
1.94
Respondents’ office132
2.64
Workshops/classes/meetings
131
2.69
Local agricultural cooperatives
130
2.92
Experimental plots/sites
129
3.19

Standard
Deviation
0.691
0.955
0.967
0.894
1.061
1.146

It would be interesting to highlight that the interactions between theplayers in agriculture provide a platform for formal and informal exchanges ofideas and experience, which gradually formed into what is called communities
of practice (Wenger, 1998) where individuals through active social
participation contribute to the practices of and learning in their communities
and/or organizations. Wenger believes that ‘learning is an issue of sustaining
the interconnected communities of practice through which an organization
knows what it knows and thus becomes effective and valuable as anorganization’ (p. 8). Sharing of one’s experience is an integral part of acommunity where the alignment of individuals towards common goals may
facilitate change within the community (Kahan, 2004).
Therefore, we can conclude that in the context of the agriculturalextension, social interactions and participations between advisors and farmers
lead to the creation and sharing of new knowledge which would contribute to
the enhancement and sustainability of the agriculture sector. In this case, theextension advisors act as intermediaries and key players in the community.
3.3 Need-based and personal sources of information
Respondents were asked to indicate from 17 items on where they acquireand seek the information required to perform their advisory and administrative5

tasks. Table 6 shows the list of advisory information and the sources used by
the extension advisors in performing their advisory tasks. Of the 19 types ofadvisory information, 12 were acquired from their Prefectural Agricultural
Center, 2 each from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries(MAFF); mass media; and customers and farmers; and 1 from their superiors,colleagues and subordinates.
It is obvious from Table 6 that the Prefectural Agricultural Center caters
for most of the advisors’ needs for information which spans from R&D
findings, new technology, technical aspects of agriculture to managerial issues.
The MAFF meanwhile was referred to for governmental incentives and policies
as well as legal and regulatory information. Information pertaining to the needsof specific farmer groups and community development were acquired fromtheir clients themselves. The mass media were relied upon for news on global
and local affairs and finally, for information on credit system, they referred totheir superiors, colleagues and subordinates.
We can conclude that the Prefectural Agricultural Center possesses arepository of tacit and explicit knowledge which could be easily accessed andused by the extension advisors in performing their advisory tasks. The
availability of such facilities is an integral part which would enhanceknowledge sharing within the organization.
TABLE 6
Sources of Information for Advisory Purposes
Advisory Information
SourceNew research & experiment findings
New technology development
Government incentives & policies
Legal and regulatory information
Farm management methods
Technical specifications
Soil improvement
Plant/animal breeds
Pest & disease control
Natural disaster protection
Water & irrigation systems
Farmer groups’ needs &requirements (new, young &women farmers)
Community reorganization
Food safety
Environmental issues
Local market information (including
prices & consumer demands)
Credit system
Current global affairs
Current local affairs

N

%

74
70
61

55.6
52.6
46.2

67

51.1

38
42
57
36
63
57
37
59

29.0
33.6
44.2
27.9
49.2
45.6
30.8
46.5

Customers, farmers
Prefectural Agricultural Center
Prefectural Agricultural Center
Prefectural Agricultural Center

29
28
34
28

22.8
21.9
26.6
22.0

Superiors, colleagues,
subordinates
Mass media
Mass media

37

28.9

61
53

47.3
41.1

Prefectural Agricultural Center
Prefectural Agricultural Center
Min of Agriculture, Forestry &Fisheries
Min of Agriculture, Forestry &Fisheries
Prefectural Agricultural Center
Prefectural Agricultural Center
Prefectural Agricultural Center
Prefectural Agricultural Center
Prefectural Agricultural Center
Prefectural Agricultural Center
Prefectural Agricultural Center
Customers, farmers

Similarly, the respondents were given a list of 10 types of administrative
information to indicate the sources of information in performing them as listed
in Table 7. It shows that 6 types of administrative information were acquired
from their superiors, colleagues and subordinates. This is followed by 2 eachfrom the Prefectural Agricultural Center and their customers and farmers.
In relation to the high preference for sources of information from the6Prefectural Agricultural Center, it could be argued that the concepts ofcommunities of practice and organizational learning with individual active
participation and sharing of experience are indeed well observed and activatedat this Prefectural Agricultural Center. It is evident that human expertise andexperience are the main source of information and shared within theorganization as the main ingredients for decision-makings, aligned toward theachievement of organizational goals.
TABLE 7
Sources of Information for Administration Purposes
Administrative Information
SourceN
Making predictions and forecasting
Doing research and experiments
Providing feedback on community
issues to research institutions
Preparing presentations
Preparing reports for farmers
For personal and private use
On-the-job training
Preparing departmental reports
Preparing institutional strategic plans
Responding to emergency cases%

Superiors, colleagues, subordinates
Prefectural Agricultural Center
Customers, farmers

32
68
42

26.0
55.7
33.6

Superiors, colleagues, subordinates
Superiors, colleagues, subordinates
Customers, farmers
Superiors, colleagues, subordinates
Prefectural Agricultural Center
Superiors, colleagues, subordinates
Superiors, colleagues, subordinates

33
36
22
43
37
42
45

27.0
28.8
17.5
36.4
31.1
35.0
37.2

4. Conclusions
This study highlights an integral factor that contributes to the success ofan organization that is the ability to generate and share knowledge among
members of the organization. Results showed that the agricultural extension
system actively promotes and facilitates the sharing of ideas and experiences
between extension advisors and farmers as well as other stakeholders.
Farmers have learned that agriculture is a risky business, hence they needto make accurate decisions based on real life experience and specificknowledge to ensure that they could get the appropriate return on investment
and to minimise losses. They need constant, accurate and timely advice fromthe extension services and other advanced farmers. The agricultural extension
organizations naturally provide the place or the Japanese concept of ‘ba’
(Nonaka & Konno, 1998), which means ‘a shared space that serves as afoundation for knowledge creation’ (p. 40) for the promotion of active
interactions, consultations and exchanges between extension and farmers.
An example of the initiative that creates the ba is the on-the-job training(OJT) for farmers through on-site and hands-on sessions, and for extension
advisors which is widely practised in most Japanese organizations. It is worth
noting that Japanese organizations adapted the OJT concept into their work
culture which allows the sharing and flow of implicit knowledge among
members. The open office concept where workers are placed closely together
in an open office space helps to further enhance the OJT practices, thus
allowing for ideas and experience to naturally flow, underpinned by a situationreferred to by Nonaka and Konno as ‘entrainment’ (synchronizing behaviour),and eventually got aligned towards the common culture and goals of theorganization.
The findings of this study have provided some insights as to the ways inwhich knowledge is created and shared within an organization and are expected
to serve as an initial framework for organizational leaders to create

7

opportunities and space for such activities to be carried out. Future research
may be conducted to find out the state of knowledge creation and sharing in theother Prefectures and in other organizations in general.

5. Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge with gratitude support from Universiti Teknologi
MARA, Malaysia; Research Center for Knowledge Communities, theUniversity of Tsukuba, Japan; and collaboration of the Japan Agricultural
Development and Extension Association (JADEA); Japan National Agricultural
Research Center (NARC); Agricultural Center of Ibaraki and Toyama
Prefectures and Hokkaido; Tochigi; Dr. Yasuki Fujita; Mr. Asahi Kiyokawa;the respondents and consultants.

References
Australia. Standing Committee on Agriculture (1997). Sustainability indicators for
agriculture: introductory guide for regional/national indicators and on-farmindicators.
Fujita, Y. (n.d.) Japan’s extension system for improvement of agriculture and rural life.
Unpublished paper.
Fukuda, K. (2008). Study of problems and improvement measures of information
activities used with information technology in agricultural extension. Tokyo:
Japan Agricultural Development and Extension Association.
Ibaraki Prefectural Government (2009). Data on Ibaraki. Mito: Ibaraki Prefectural
Government. Available at
http://www.pref.ibaraki.jp/bukyoku/seikan/kokuko/en/data/index.htm
Japan Agricultural Development and Extension Association (2005). Nougyo fukyu jiten= Agricultural extension services overview & perspectives.
Tokyo :
Maruikoubunsha.
Jones, G. E.; Rolls, M. J. and Tranter, R. B. (1987). Information management inagriculture : British Library R&D report 5931. Reading, England : Agricultural
Extension and Rural Development Centre.
Kahan, S. (2004). Etienne Wenger on communities of practice: engagement, identity andinnovation. The Journal of Association Leadership, March 2004.
Kaniki, A. M. (1989). Agricultural information needs in Zambia: a study of a two-way
information flow. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Pittsburgh.
Majid, S.; Anwar, M. A. and Eisenschitz, T. S. (2000). Information needs andinformation seeking behavior of agricultural scientists in Malaysia. Library &Information Science Research, 22(2), 145-163.
Middendorf, G. (2007). Challenges and information needs of organic growers andretailers. Journal of Extension, 45(4). Available at:
http://www.joe.org/joe/2007august/a7.shtml
Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998). The concept of ’ba’: building a foundation forknowledge creation. California Management Review, 40: 40-54.
Roling, N. (1990). The agricultural research-technology transfer interface: a knowledge
systems perspective. In David Kaimowitz (Ed.). Making the link: agriculturalresearch and technology transfer in developing countries. London: Westview.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: meaning, and identity. London:
Cambridge University Press.
Williams, D. (1968). Agricultural extension: farm extension services in Australia,
Britain and the United States of America. London: Cambridge University Press.

8