Is ‘adoption’ a dirty word?

To adopt or not to adopt – that is the question. Or is it that simple? 

As Queensland stands on the cusp of shaping a 25-year blueprint for the future of our primary industries—backed by the biggest consultation effort in more than a decade—there’s a single word that keeps surfacing like a stubborn weed: adoption.  

It’s everywhere. On butchers paper, sticky notes, in strategy conversations, pitch decks, project design and executive summaries. Adoption of innovation. Adoption of technology. Driving adoption. Tracking adoption. Incentivising adoption. The need for it. The slowness of it. The importance of it. 

But what does adoption really mean? And is our reliance on this buzz word helping or hindering progress? 

In terms of legacy, the term "adoption" in agriculture has come with heavy economic baggage. It suggests growers have a simple choice: adopt a new technology or don’t. Embrace a sustainable practice or reject it. It’s neat. It’s tidy. But it’s misleading. 

Growers don’t make decisions in a vacuum. In extension we are acutely aware that growers change when it makes sense and is practical, useful, and relevant to do so.  

Innovation in agriculture doesn’t look clean, its messy—it looks like trial and error, stop and start, tweak and tinker. It’s a process—one that is often slow, incremental, unique, and personal.  

So, when we reduce adoption to a binary decision, we erase all of this. We flatten a deeply complex process into a yes/no checkbox. And that’s not just inaccurate—it’s counterproductive. 

Modern global research into farmer behaviour paints a more accurate picture. Adoption isn’t a straight line—it’s a spectrum, a continuum. Growers may trial or demo new products, practices, or tech on part of their farm. They will walk away from a technology that is not fit for purpose, or they work to adapt it for their specific situation. These behaviours don’t show up on a binary adoption chart, but they are crucial to long-term change. 

New research supports this shift. Instead of measuring adoption as a binary “did or did not,” social scientists are now mapping the entire spectrum of adoption—its scale, its variability, its integration with other systems, and its longevity. Because real change doesn’t happen all at once or at the same rate. 

If we want real impact, we need to measure and support that full journey—not just the finish line. 

So, is adoption a dirty word? Not inherently. But it has become a lazy one. Used carelessly, it reduces farmers to mere endpoints in a pipeline. Used wisely, it can open richer conversations about change, complexity, and context. The challenge isn’t to abandon the word—but to reclaim it. Redefine it. Expand it. 

As we get involved in writing the next chapter for Queensland’s primary industries 25-Year Blueprint over the coming months we need language that matches the ambition. Language that reflects what’s real including all the partial steps, the lessons learned, and the changes abandoned. This highlights the need to co-design any solutions with farmers, not for them. Because they’re not just users of innovation—they’re co-creators of it.  

Adoption isn’t a tick box. It’s a story and we intend to tell and share it.