Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 375

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

From Best Practice to Best Fit: A Framework for Designing and Analyzing Pluralistic Agricultural Advisory Services Worldwide

Open access
Birner, Regina, Davis, Kristin, Pender, John, Nkonya, Ephraim, Anandajayasekeram, Ponniah, Ekboir, Javier, Mbabu, Adiel, Spielman, David J., Horna, Daniela, Benin, Samuel, Cohen, Marc·2009·The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension

Abstract

The article provides a conceptual framework and discusses research methods for analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services. The framework can also assist policy-makers in identifying reform options. It addresses the following question: Which forms of providing and financing agricultural advisory services work best in which situation? The framework ‘disentangles’ agricultural advisory services by distinguishing between (1) governance structures, (2) capacity, (3) management, and (4) advisory methods. The framework suggests an impact chain approach to analyze the performance and impact of agricultural advisory services and discusses theoretical and empirical research methods that can be used when applying the framework. The framework shows that reforms of agricultural advisory services can combine different reform elements—such as decentralization, contracting out, using new advisory methods, and changing the management style—in different ways so as to best fit local circumstances. Using a New Institutional Economics approach (transaction costs approach), the article shows that the following sets of contextual factors need to be considered in this regard: the policy environment; the capacity of potential service providers; the type of production systems and market access of farm households; and the characteristics of local communities. The framework can be used to develop assessment tools for agricultural advisory services, to inform processes of reforming of agricultural advisory services and to guide inter-disciplinary research. The framework is unique in combining the insights from different disciplines, which have, so far, been treated separately in the literature. The framework can help policy-makers and analysts to move from ‘ideological’ discussions on reform models to an evidence-based ‘best fit’ approach.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13892240903309595

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 17 references

Cited by

See all 375

Metadata

Authors
Birner, R., Davis, K., Pender, J., Nkonya, E., Anandajayasekeram, P., Ekboir, J., Mbabu, A., Spielman, D. J., Horna, D., Benin, S., & Cohen, M.
Venue
The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension
Published
2009-12
Volume
15
Issue
4
Pages
341-355
ISSN
  • 1389-224X (ISSN-L)
  • 1750-8622
OpenAlex
W2153537098
Cited by
375
References
17
FWCI
22.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: From Best Practice to Best Fit: A Framework for Designing and Analyzing Pluralistic Agricultural Advisory Services Worldwide. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/13892240903309595
The paper
Birner, R., Davis, K., Pender, J., Nkonya, E., Anandajayasekeram, P., Ekboir, J., Mbabu, A., Spielman, D. J., Horna, D., Benin, S., & Cohen, M. (2009). From Best Practice to Best Fit: A Framework for Designing and Analyzing Pluralistic Agricultural Advisory Services Worldwide. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. https://doi.org/10.1080/13892240903309595

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.