Home | Current Issue | Editions | Archives | Contact Us

RATIONALE

Keeping in view the rapid and alarming population growth of Pakistan, food security has assumed a pivotal place in our national development. At the threshold of 21st century to meet with such challenging situation, we as a nation badly required to give central contribution to agriculture development .It is, therefore, essential to launch a massive national campaign to improve agriculture period. The role of communication in this campaign has been stressed on several occasions, Lerner (1958), Schramm, (1964) Rogers, (1983).Numerous scholars emphasize the role of communication for agricultural development. Schramm,(1964)  have written of the mass media's potential for stimulating economic growth. Radio and T.V in particularly can bypass the need of mass literacy, providing a development input.

            This study advocates communication facilities, transmission of related information to farmers and feedback to the top planner and decision makers in agricultural sectors.  In order to achieve holistic development, this research will determine a program - oriented, matrix system-based approach through mass media persuasive messages.

The adoption and diffusion of innovations has an extensive literature history. Lindner (1987) classified the literature into studies principally concerned with adopter characteristics (adoption studies) and those concerned principally with innovation characteristics (diffusion studies), with each category having both cross-sectional and temporal studies. While the literature has expanded considerably in the intervening years, as reviewed by Feder and Umali (1993), the essential dichotomy described by Lindner (1987) still exists, albeit assisted by an increasingly sophisticated set of mathematical and econometric techniques. Gabriel Tarde was the main European forefather of the diffusion field. He was a French lawyer and judge by occupation. Even though he had no formal schooling, he was very innovative and ahead of his time. He observed certain generalizations about the diffusion of innovations that he called the laws of imitation; today it is called the adoption of an innovation.

            Bryce Ryan and Neal Gross: Neal Gross received his PhD in Sociology from Iowa State University in 1946. He was a researcher at Iowa State University from 1946-1948. He then took a faculty position at the University of Minnesota from 1948-51 before moving to Harvard University. Bruce Ryan was a graduate assistant for Neal Gross. No biographical information could be found on him. The British and German-Austrian Diffusionists: They were a group of anthropologists that emerged in England and in German-Austria. The viewpoint of each school was similar, and both are considered roots of diffusion research.

            Diffusionism: was the point of view in anthropology that explained social change in a given society as a result of the introduction of innovations from another society (Rogers, 1995).

            Many farmers have found the transition process to be an unsupported, isolating, and stressful experience. Relevant government support has been usually lacking (Oelhaf, 1978; Lampkin, 1985a; Henning et al., 1990) and ridicule by neighbors and professionals has been common. Because farmers have had difficulties obtaining relevant information from conventional sources, they have tended to rely instead on other farmers (at field days, conferences), sellers of alternative products, on-farm experiments, popular organic-farming magazines, and classic, largely European, literature from several decades past (Hanley, 1980; Blobaum, 1983; Kramer, 1984; Robinson, 1985; Baker and Smith, 1987). These classics include scholarly works by Howard (1943, 1947) and Albrecht (1975) and more popular discussions by Steiner (1924), Bromfield (1947), Sykes (1949), Hainsworth (1954), Turner (1955), Voisin (1960), and Balfour (1975). With regard to agricultural innovations, Everett Rogers has been instrumental in synthesizing a typology that associated personal characteristics of farmers with the timing of their adoption/non-adoption of the innovation in question (Rogers, 1962; 1983; Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971).

Approximate year of origin:

            There are two major approaches to using media and technology in agriculture: farmers can learn "from" media and technology, and they can learn "with" media and technology (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996). Learning "from" media and technology is often referred to in terms such as instructional television, computer-based instruction, or integrated learning systems (Hannafin, Hannafin, Hooper, Rieber, & Kini, 1996; Seels, Berry, Fullerton, & Horn, 1996). Learning "with" technology, less widespread than the "from" approach, is referred to in terms such as cognitive tools (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996) and constructivist learning environments (Wilson, 1996).

            In spite of vast literature on innovation adoption in agriculture our understanding about adoptive behavior of the farmer is incomplete. Up to now, farmers obtain most of their information from both popular literature and other farmers. Consequently, the diffusion process should emphasize activities that bring farmers together, e.g., short courses, field days, the creation of on-farm research associations, and the establishment of networking newsletters. Farmers in transition tend to be more interested in systems of farming rather than in specific crops. There is a lot of deviation between the actual and recommended practices. The role of mass media, of course, significant and the message makes attitude and behavior. After reviewing the existing literature, we are in need of a detailed empirical study on the agricultural innovations and the adoption level of farmers. Farmers’ are message recipient of various sources. But the existing literature does not cover maximum variables in our country. This study will explore the present situation in Pakistan especially in NWFP. It is the dire need of the time, to investigate the message consumption and the adoption level of the farmers of agricultural innovations in North West Frontier Province (NWFP) Pakistan.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The theoretical framework I have applied to my research is (1) Rogers and Shoemaker’s (1973) model “diffusion of innovation” which is a simplified version of a causal scheme outlined and the outcomes that describe how whole communities perceive and experience the end-of-life. It is; of course, a deductive inquiry tends to test established model/ theory. Deductive studies tend to be quantitative and look to see whether or not a prominent model/theory explains a given set of phenomena.

            This conceptual framework outlines adoption of agricultural innovations, farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and practice level. And also to see that to what extent they are exposed to the messages of radio, TV and the interpersonal network of communication. The most important feature of this model about work on diffusion is the weight in which the behavioral changes are sought by giving information and trying the influence motivation and attitude.  The second model to this empirical study is Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955), Tow-step flow model of mass media and “personal influence”. Lazarsfeld and Katz developed the theory of the two-step flow.  

Key concepts:Message consumption, Adoption, Agricultural innovations, Diffusion of innovation’s model, Two-step flow, Individual innovation theory, technology acceptance model, KAP level. Agriculture comprises a number of intrinsic concepts and benefits, which have been elaborated here in the form of media and interpersonal communication messages. These messages enhance the understanding of the farmers about the new ideas of agriculture yield.

HYPOTHESES

Hi:  Greater the exposure to the messages of agricultural innovations, the greater is the knowledge,
        attitude and, practice level

Hi: Farmers interconnected through interpersonal communication are likely to   have a higher
       agricultural innovations' adoption score than those who are not.                   

Hi:  The higher is the exposure to agriculture technological innovations, the higher will be  the
        relevant index of use.

METHODS
All the 24 districts of NWFP (Pakistan) were sampled systematically for the study. Our hope was to retain at least the exact number from districts in this cross-sectional survey. Within each district, data are solicited for all farmers residing therein. Union councils of a tehsil within each district are ordered according to the size of population (census 1998) and proportional-to-size sampling procedures are used to select proportional number of farmers in each Union Council (UC).

            In both urban and rural substrata, interviewers were required to visit each selected farmer from the sample frame personally to secure face-to-face interview. There was a high degree of clustering, the effects of which are well known. In such a situation, multi-stage cluster sampling method is adopted with severe care to minimize the error due to sampling.

                All people in sampling frame are divided into "strata" (groups or categories). Within each stratum, a simple random sample or systematic sample is selected. For the proportional allocation we have a formula as (n/N) × Nh) where n is the desired sample, N is the population size for a district/ UC and Nh is the number of union Council.

DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Data was collected from 500 farmers.  For data analysis both descriptive and inferential techniques of Statistics have been applied. For easy understanding I have catogorised the numerical information according to the nature of the question asked from the farmers.

 RESULTS

The findings of this empirical study have shown that farmers were significantly exposed to the messages of TV as compared to radio and the first null hypothesis was not found accepted. The predicted weekly time spend on listening radio and watching TV index indicated equal time spent. The critical region for rejecting HO, was then given by generally, Fcal ≥ Ftab. When Ftab = F(3.3)  = 9.28 which was less than Fcal = 2.53 .Since the calculated F valuewas less than the observed value obtained from the table. Therefore, we reject Ha and concluded that farmers equally spent time on listening radio and watching TV.

            In order to understand the exact nature of interest, the results showed that farmers have taken interest in radio and TV agro-campaign. This empirical study explored the independent variables like radio, TV, friends/ relatives, extension agents; sign boards newspapers and, posters as a source of information but farmers have used radio, friends and TV more frequently to get information. The critical region for rejecting HO, was then given by generally, Fcal ≥ Ftab. When Ftab = F(6.18)  = 2.66 which is less than Fcal = 1.93 .Since the calculated F valueis less than the observed table value. Therefore, I reject HO and concluded that they got information from various sources.

            This research has further provided evidences that farmers have equally taken interest in TV’s agricultural programs. Gandam Ki Kaasht Sonaa Chandi Ke saat, agricultural advertisement, expert discussion, matti sonaa and, Kisaan Time were found the most favorite agricultural programs.

Analysis of Variance for taking interest in TV’s agricultural programs

Source                                                   DF        SS        MS        F        P
C2                                                          3     52045     17348    17.63    0.000
Error                                                     16     15745       984
Total                                                     19     67790
                                   Individual 95% CIs for Mean
                                   Based on Pooled St Dev
Level                                             N      Mean     St Dev ---------+---------+---------+-------
1                                                    5    155.80     30.85                      (----*----)
2                                                    5    168.60     40.30                        (----*----)
3                                                    5    113.20     26.25               (----*----)
4                                                    5     38.00     25.91 (----*----)
                                                                            ---------+---------+---------+-------
Pooled St Dev =    31.37                    60       120       180

This study found that our friends and relatives who we saw as “opinion leaders” primarily guided our decisions. Friends/relatives were found 50% among other sources of information (agricultural inputs; extension education; agricultural technology). Opinion leader emerged as social factors to influence adoption level, specifically in groups.  It was also among those that appeared to be emphasized in the effort to introduce agricultural innovations. 

            Results prescribed that majority of the target sampled were intended to use processed seeds, fertilizers and, pesticides. Farmers were intended to use innovations for the increase in yields. The first formulated alternative hypothesis” higher the exposure to the messages of agricultural innovations, the higher is the knowledge, attitude and, practice level” has found accepted.

Table 1.1 If not then why?

Efforts were made to see that “if the farmers don’t adopt the innovation” then what the reasons were? The perceived perceptions of the farmers explored that a great majority of the respondents (48%) ranked the reasons as: “they have no money” for purchasing these innovations number first. Some of them have chalked out, “it is expensive”, “it is not easily available” and,” the innovations are not effective” respectively. Furthermore, the phenomenon of interpersonal communication, extension workers, numberdaars and, co-farmers was also explored. Interaction with co-farmers and numberdaar was found significant as compared to extension workers. Statistical calculation showed that 57% of the farmers fall in the response category of “always contact” with co-farmers. It led to the conclusion that the notion of two-step flow of information about agricultural innovations was highly supported through the obtained findings. It might be said that interpersonal contact play a significant role in diffusion of agricultural innovations and farmers easily converge towards adoption. The second hypothesis” farmers interconnected through interpersonal communication is likely to have a higher agricultural innovations' adoption score than those who are not” was supported by the findings.          

Table 1.2 Confirmation of decision

The empirical evidence illustrated that majority of the total sample “less often” spent time in confirmation of decision, while 21.2% were those who “very often” spend time on the case, and 24.2% never confirm their decision. The response to the farmers’ link with extension agents for technical innovations’ discussion and suggestions was not significant.  It was concluded that there was no significant link between farmers and extension workers. Results revealed that change agents might not motivate the farmers. It is evident that majority of the farmers were falling into the low level of motivation. This suggested that a change agent may have playing a mediating role rather than a direct influence on users. Findings showed that farmers were not satisfied with the government’s incentives.

Table 1.3:Table 2x2 showing the link between the extension agents and           
                   farmers
                      
 H0: Farmers remains linked with extension agents for technical innovations’ 
         Ha:There is no significant link

To test the hypotheses, the level of significance is set at α 0.05. The test statistic here is X2, under H0, if it is true. It is why to test whether the attributes vary with the same intensity.

                                                                                      Link

                                                                              249                174         423

 X2 =∑ (ƒo – ƒe) 2                                           
                      ƒe
                                                ---------------------------------                                                                                
                                                            Calculation                
                                                 ---------------------------------

                                                                                                               X2    =112.42
Within each cell, ƒo is in the upper left-hand corner and ƒe is in parenthesis.

            Since the computed value at df (r-1)(c-1) = 1 is higher (which is 112.42) than the tabulated value at α .05 significant level (which is 3.84). Therefore, we can reject H0. It is concluded that there is no significant link between farmers and extension agents. The result reveals that among the various innovation that extension agent have been equipped with for onward dissemination to farmers, the farmers claimed to be not involved in technical discussion and also have not  been getting involved in suggestions.

            Result demonstrated that the technological innovations i.e. cultivator, front and back blade, thresher, harvester, spray machine, gobal, plough and, tractor were at the high percentage of score. This results has accepted the third alternative hypothesis “the highly the exposure to agriculture technological innovations, the highly will be the relevant index of use”. This study concluded that arrangement of training facilities by research centers in NWFP were not satisfactory.  Refresher course and radio talk were the favorite among other activities of extension centers.

            Research results have shown that farmers, who can cope with very high levels of uncertainty about a new innovation, can understand and apply complex technical knowledge, and possess both the willingness to risk failure and the resources to absorb the possible costs of that failure. It was found that in the innovators group in a very little number were the ones who carry new ideas of agricultural innovations. The second group has a reputation for making careful and considerate adoption decision. This group of early adopters of the farmers comes with 16.2%. They have adopted new methods and innovations through the consultancy of potent opinion leaders/peers. The analysis showed that 19.6 % of the target sample fallen into early majority adopters. They were the deliberate evaluators of the agricultural innovations.  Late majority category was 21.8% of the total sample. The late majority views the presence of any uncertainty that surrounds an innovation as a possible drain on their very limited resources.  Majority of the farmers falls inLaggards group. They were tending to adopt agricultural innovations at a point when the innovation is being replaced by something newer.

DISCUSSION

 This study supported Rogers and Shoemaker’s model, which in its first stage provides primary exposure to the innovation and gives us a basic understanding of how the innovation works. The communication activities surrounding the innovation can incorporate both the mass media and personal contact. The decision stage of the model in this study is evaluated through asking question of satisfaction and adoption of farming tools. Most of the farmers have been found satisfied. During the implementation stage the actual “use-behavior” found occurs. Farmers desire to reduce uncertainty about adoption. The deliberate evaluations of the innovation by these farmers serve an important persuasion link (peer pressure) to the remaining members of the community. These farmers tend to be a bit distrustful of new innovations and will adopt them rather reluctantly.

            Innovators were respected for being successful, but ordinarily do not enjoy the highest prestige in the farming community. Because they adopt new ideas so much sooner than the average farmer, they were sometimes ridiculed by their conservative co-farmers. This fellow group pressure was largely ignored by the innovators, however. The innovations were watched by their fellow-farmers, but they were not followed immediately in new practices.

            Early adopters were found younger than the average farmer, but not necessarily younger than the innovators. They also have a higher average education, and participated more in the formal activities of the farming community. They participated more than the average in agricultural cooperatives and in government agency programs in the community (such as Extension Service or Instruction on Field). In fact, there was some evidence that this group furnishes a disproportionate amount of the formal leadership (elected officers) in the community. The early adopters are also respected as good sources of new farm information by their fellow-farmers. Early majority was slightly above average in age, education, and farming experience. They have medium high social and economic status. They were less active in formal groups than innovators or early adopters, but more active than those who adopt later. The people in this category were most likely to be informal rather than elected leaders.

            Late majority in this group have less education and are older than the average farmer. While they participate less actively in formal groups, they probably form the bulk of the membership in these formal organizations. Individually they belong to fewer organizations, are less active in organizational work, and take fewer leadership roles than earlier adopters. They do not participate in as many activities outside the community as do people who adopt earlier.

            Laggards have the least education and were the oldest. They participate least in formal organizations, cooperatives, and government agency programs. They have the smallest farms and the least capital. Many are suspicious of county extension agents and agricultural salesmen. This situation also endorsed the Röling, 1988; Vanclay & Lawrence, 1994; 1995, findings of their study that traditional extension methods have only had limited success in promoting the widespread adoption of new management practices and technology.

            Agricultural innovations and diffusion of new technologies are important factors in our country, quests for food security. Public agricultural research, both at national and local level, like much of development strategy, has bypassed the needs of small and marginal farmers and concentrated primarily on better-endowed districts, commodity-intensive production systems, and commercial crops. Small producers, particularly those operating in resource-poor areas, have benefited much less from the recent technological breakthroughs in agriculture. In order to attack poverty and hunger, it is critical to redirect and augment resources devoted to agricultural research to the farming and livelihood systems of poor rural communities.

            Many people in extension are ill prepared for extension and an extension communication job. The emphasis in their training is more on technical proficiency rather than on rhetorical and persuasive skills. An extensionist trained in this way, is unlikely to make an impact on a conservative farmer who is not likely to put his farm inputs to risk by trying the extensionist's improved technique. There is real need for extension agents training to be relevant to their jobs at the grass root.

            Extension is achieved by using advisory methods, participatory monitoring and evaluation, or by assigning responsibility for diffusing innovations to producers' organizations (farmers' organizations, NGOs, etc.). This, partnership in the diffusion of innovations requires two-way communication. Technical language used in communicating information is incomprehensible to the farmers.

            The incentive framework for the creation and adoption of valuable innovation is also vital. Again, the degree of poor farmers' organizations is crucial here. Only strong farmers' organizations can ensure the adoption and implementation of government policies that reflect their needs and concerns, and create an enabling environment for sustainable production and development.

            The formal media of mass communication such as radio, television, are generally believed to have an insidious influence in the dissemination of new ideas. They are hastily employed in campaigns such as those aimed at diffusing innovations in agriculture practice.  Personal sources of communication, as exemplified by extension agents, are more effective in creating awareness and influencing adoption of agricultural innovations among rural farmers than mass media sources.

REFEREBCES
Albrecht, W.A. (1975). The Albrecht Papers (C. Walters, ed.). Acres USA, Raytown, MO.

Baker, B.P. and Smith, D.B. (1987). Self identified research needs of New York organic farmers. American J. Alternative Agriculture 2:107-113.

Blobaum, R. (1983). Barriers to conversion to organic farming practices in the Midwestern United States. In: W. Lockeretz (ed.). Environmentally Sound Agriculture. Praeger, New York. Pp. 263-278.

Bromfield, L. (1947). Malabar Farm. Ballantyne Books, London.

Campbell, A. & R. Junior. (1992). 'Land management extension in the '90s: evolution or emasculation?'. Australian Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 5(2), 16-23.

Feder, G., & Umali, D.L. (1993). The Adoption of Agricultural Innovations: A Review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 43, 215-239.

Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K. M., Hooper, S. R., Rieber, L. P., & Kini, A. S. (1996). Research on and research with emerging technologies. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 378-402). New York: Macmillan.

Henning, J., Thomassin, P. and Baker, L. (1990). Financing organic agriculture: a survey of the experiences of farm lending institutions and organic producers in Québec. Report to Agriculture Canada. Department of Agricultural Economics, McGill University, Ste-Anne de Bellevue, QC.

Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 693-719). New York: Macmillan.

Katz, Elihu and Lazarsfeld, Paul Felix (1955) Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications (Glencoe, IL: Free Press).

Lindner, R.K., (1987). "Adoption and Diffusion of Technology: An Overview", in Technological Change in Postharvest Handling and Transportation of Grains in the Humid Tropics, Eds. Champ, B.R., Highley, E. and Remenyi, J.V., ACIAR, Proc. No 19, 144-151.

Oelhaf, R. (1978). Organic Agriculture: economic and ecological comparisons with conventional methods. Allanheld, Osman, Montclair, NJ.

Quarry, W. (1984). The Fogo Process: An interview with Dnald Showden’. Interaction, 2 (3): pp 28-63 R.W. Zmud (Ed.).

Rogers, E. (1962). Diffusion of Innovation. New York: The Free Press.

Rogers, E.M & Shoemaker, F.F. (1971). Communication network towards New

Rogers, Everett. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. Fourth edition. New York, NY:

Rogers, Everett. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. Fourth edition. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Ryan, B. & Gross, N. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities.
Rural Sociology.  8. 15-24.

Seels, B., Berry, L. H., Fullerton, K., & Horn, L. J. (1996). Research on learning from television. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 299-377). New York: Macmillan.

Voisin, A. (1960). Better Grassland Swards: ecology, botany and management. Crosby Lockwood and Son, London, UK.

W. Schramm. (1964) Mass Media and National Development (1964), pp. 19, 127, 31)

Wilson, B. G. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

ABOUT THE ATHORS

Dr. Mirza Jan graduated in 1984 from Gomal university, Dera Ismail Khan (NWFP), Pakistan. He did his PhD from University of the Punjab, Lahore Pakistan. Specialized field of media studies are, Research Methods in Communication, Communication Theories, Development Communication, Social Communication and, International Communication. Currently he serves as Chairman of the department of Mass Communication, Gomal University, D.I.Khan.
E-mail: mirzajan-5@hotmail.com
Fax: 0966-9280100
Phone: 0966-8280461

Muhammad Imran is working as lecturer in the department of Mass communication, Gomal University, Dere Ismail Khan. He is a PhD fellow.

Copyright © 2006 Global Media Journal.  All rights reserved.