Centralised social networks can hinder innovation by making decision-making too similar

According to the UN, smallholder farms support the livelihoods of 2.5 billion people worldwide, with farmers’ decisions on how to manage their land having profound consequences for the environment and global food security.

Now a new study published in the academic journal People and Nature finds that social systems where influence is focused around one or a few individuals may create environments where new ideas are ignored, and innovation is hindered.

The study was conducted by researchers at the University of Sydney and the Stockholm Resilience Centre. It looked at social networks and the use of fertiliser in 30 rural, cocoa-producing villages in Sulawesi, Indonesia, to examine how innovative and sustainable farming practices are adopted among communities.

"Hub-and-spoke" networks

It found that when one or two farmers hold a disproportionate level of influence (often due to their roles as "model farmers" in official sustainability programs) most other farmers tend to adopt similar practices, in this case, decisions around how to fertilise their crops.

This type of social hierarchy – referred to by the researchers as “hub and spoke” networks – risks hindering innovation and could be detrimental to the adoption of practices that promote sustainability and food security, said the study’s lead author Petr Matous, associate professor at the University of Sydney’s School of Project Management:

“If you’ve ever watched a group of kindergarteners play soccer, you’ll know that they run after the one kid who has the ball all at the same time. It’s a bit like that – to foster innovation what you really need is people playing a range of roles and exploring a problem from different angles.”

Locking in the wrong approach

Centralising influence risks locking in the wrong approach as the status quo – from there it can create a culture of homogeneity, reinforcing pack mentality and groupthink. When combined with power hierarchies in which those who are less central are not listened to, it can crowd out innovative voices, sometimes swaying entire communities one way or another, according to the study.

“In the case of fertilisers, this is a problem because too much can threaten the environment and too little can impact food security,” says Petr Matous.
These findings have implications when designing interventions for sustainable farming practices. The authors caution against programs that elevate a select group of farmers that have been chosen simply because they have been the target points for previous interventions.

Centre professor Örjan Bodin, co-author of the study, explains: “While these individuals may hold sway in the short term, our findings suggest that top-down interventions risk undermining the social fabric of communities, potentially hindering adaptive capacities in the face of evolving agricultural and environmental challenges.”

Read "Hub-and-spoke social networks among Indonesian cocoa farmers homogenize farming practices" »