This article was downloaded by: [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)], [Michael Misiko] On: 13 May 2015, At: 03:34 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Click for updates The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raee20 ABCs of Diversifying Information Resources among Rice Smallholders of Ghana M. Misiko a & E. Halm b a International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia b Strategic Communications Africa Limited (Stratcomm), No. 28 Samora Machel Rd., Asylum Down, Accra, Ghana Published online: 13 May 2015. To cite this article: M. Misiko & E. Halm (2015): ABCs of Diversifying Information Resources among Rice Smallholders of Ghana, The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, DOI: 10.1080/1389224X.2015.1038281 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2015.1038281 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Transcript
This article was downloaded by: [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)], [Michael Misiko]On: 13 May 2015, At: 03:34Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Click for updates
The Journal of Agricultural Educationand ExtensionPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raee20
ABCs of Diversifying InformationResources among Rice Smallholders ofGhanaM. Misikoa & E. Halmb
a International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT),P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopiab Strategic Communications Africa Limited (Stratcomm), No. 28Samora Machel Rd., Asylum Down, Accra, GhanaPublished online: 13 May 2015.
To cite this article: M. Misiko & E. Halm (2015): ABCs of Diversifying Information Resourcesamong Rice Smallholders of Ghana, The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, DOI:10.1080/1389224X.2015.1038281
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2015.1038281
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
ABCs of Diversifying InformationResources among Rice Smallholders ofGhana
M. MISIKO* and E. HALM†
*International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,†Strategic Communications Africa Limited (Stratcomm), No. 28 Samora Machel Rd., Asylum Down, Accra,Ghana
ABSTRACT Purpose: We investigated how information resource diversification can enhance small-holder agricultural knowledge in Ghana.Design/Methodology/Approach: Study tools and methods were questionnaire survey (N = 200),focus group discussion (N = 1), in-depth interviews (N = 18) and field direct observation.Findings: This study shows there existed diversity of information resources in Hohoe. This diversitywas, however, devoid of a broad integration process to enhance smallholder access to and use ofagricultural information. We demonstrate that new information channels or sources cannot functionindependently, but rather through an integrated approach that relies on a human facet of extension.Practical Implications: We illustrate the need for integrated extension that includes interactive fieldmodules such as basic cell phone decision guides that support smallholder construction of solutionsfor their circumstances. This process requires new sets of smallholder skills and holistic extensionschemes that diversify information resources through incorporation and adaptation, rather thansubstitution. New information resources can only be gradually mainstreamed through integrationwith more familiar extension means. They need a human interface because smallholderhouseholders did not require same types and/or amounts of information. Human interface isessential to ensure critical groups including women access and utilise agricultural informationresources, but without entrenching unfair task allocations among smallholder householders.Originality/Value: This paper illustrates how extension can be strengthened through newapproaches. However, new approaches such as use of basic cell phones cannot be standaloneprocesses; they require a human interface and an integrated process. The article presents actualdata collected from the Ghana.
KEY WORDS: Integrated extension, Gender, Smallholders, Information resources integration,Poverty, Africa.
Correspondence address: M. Misiko, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), P.O. Box5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Fax: +251 11 646 1252, Tel: +251 11 646 2314/ 24. Email: [email protected]
Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension2015, 1–19, iFirst
Agricultural information originates from multiple sources, including from farmers, fromresearchers, from the private sector (UNDP 2012). Smallholders need adequateagricultural information that is accessible, relevant and well communicated. Moreinformation is, however, not necessarily sufficient, but rather different knowledge fordifferent needs is needed (Klerkx, Hall, and Leeuwis 2010). There is need for efficientand effective information channelling to realise impact on food security (Kassie, Ndiritu,and Shiferaw 2012). The effectiveness of information transmission contributes toimproved practices among farmers (Maarleveld 2003). It further results in knowledgeregeneration. This process among smallholders is critical, because knowledge is a driverof rural innovation (Richards 1989).
Diversification of Knowledge Sources
Diversified information resources mean the presence of multiple channels and forms ofagricultural information. Multiple information resources, including print and informationand communication technology (ICT), are useful indicator of improved agricultural sector(Carter 1999; Chisenga 2012). Diversified information and knowledge sources madeavailable to poor farmers can enhance agricultural growth. There are therefore manyinitiatives aimed at increasing information channels, and content among rural farmers(e.g. Chisenga 2012; ODI 2010). Ghana has many initiatives targeting to increaseinformation resources available among rural farmers. Recent emphases have also been ongender and access to information. It is critical to increase information channels andresources to ensure women and other marginalised poor farmers have enhanced access toICT, extension, etc. (Anaglo, Boateng, and Boateng 2014). Anaglo, Boateng, andBoateng (2014) also illustrate that diversification does not necessarily result in improvedequitable access to agricultural information. They show how increased informationresources especially radio and ICT maintained men’s advantage in accessing informationthan women. Literature does not also clearly demonstrate whether resource diversitydirectly results in access to more content, more quality or more types of the mostcritically sought information. For instance, resource diversification has not bridged theknowledge and skill gaps associated with the prevention of post-harvest losses, effectiveproduct development and value addition as well as the development of effectivemarketing strategies (Entsua-Mensah 2010). Ghana therefore already has a significantlydiversified information source sector (Yaw and Asuming-Brempong 2013), but evidenceindicates effective extension is more critical in increasing crop yield (MOFA 2011).
Why is Information Resource Diversification Important?
The value of diversity of knowledge resources has often been recognised in decision-makingin agricultural management (Maarleveld 2003). However, as new information resourcescome up, local people’s skills and knowledge remain the core resource in agriculturaldevelopment. Indigenous peoples and local communities are important knowledge holdersand actors in the processes to improve or sustain ecosystems and landscapes (Richards1989). They are the most important origin and medium of information spread andregeneration. Local knowledge is, however, inadequate, and must be supplemented through
2 M. Misiko and E. Halm
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
INA
SP -
Pak
ista
n (P
ER
I)],
[M
icha
el M
isik
o] a
t 03:
34 1
3 M
ay 2
015
extension, formal school education and other resources, especially by incorporating ICT.ICT can play a critical role in facilitating rapid, efficient and cost effective knowledgemanagement (IDRC 2004; Ballantyne 2009). In a number of sub-Saharan African countries,smallholder farmers get technology-related advice as well as location-specific marketinformation on inputs and outputs through ICT kiosks (UNDP 2012).
The Role of Agricultural Extension
Over time, the role of agricultural extension has evolved (Maarleveld 2003). However,the primary purpose of agricultural extension remains that of bringing about changethrough provision of information. What has changed is the increase in complexity theextension has to contend with, the interdependence of many actors in the value chain,uncertainty in government systems, drop in resources, the changing nature of the Africansmallholder, among other factors (Reijntjes, Haverkort, and Waters-Bayer 1992).According to Sulaiman Hall, and Raina (2006) addressing this multiplicity of challengesrequires extension to play an expanded role with a diversity of objectives that includelinking farmers more effectively and responsively to domestic and international markets,enhancing crop diversification (see also Birner and Anderson 2007). This is enormous,and demands the strengthening of agricultural extension and advisory systems totransform rural information delivery (Swanson and Rajalahti 2010).
The smallholder is no longer to be seen as the recipient of information to be taught bythe expert what to do, but rather as a partner in learning (Daniels and Walker 1996).Agricultural extension must be a mechanism to facilitate utility of information, a systemfor expediting conducive processes of developing knowledge and innovations (Hafkin2000; King 2000; Groot 2002; UNDP 2012). The methods and tools developed or reliedupon in extension must therefore address the realities of the smallholder, the problemdefinition, negotiated solutions and identify the necessary skills to participate gainfully(see also Maarleveld 2003).
Diversification through Rationalisation of Information Resources
There is tendency in agricultural extension to focus on the medium of informationdissemination, and on the information itself. However inter-linkages among those mediaare not well designed. Much focus is needed on the resourcefulness of agriculturalextension, especially on how information media operate in synchrony to ensure self-reliance among smallholders (see also Outa, Etta, and Aligula 2006; Kilelu et al. 2011).For instance, this has to do with linking ICT to local processes so that smallholderreliance on external information support is reduced or rationalised. Rationalisation isabout focusing beyond attractive technologies, to concentrate on relevance and totherefore emphasise the nature of information itself (e.g. IDRC 2004). To also focus onhaving different resources used to add value, especially by improving efficiency ofinformation service delivery. This is what must advice reliance on new extensionschemes, to ensure the capture and regeneration of relevant information amongsmallholders. One key element is to translate information into local languages (e.g.AccessAgriculture 2013; Oladele 2006). The use of local languages is essential inenabling wider access to agricultural information (Carter 1999). This, however, needs tobe studied, to establish evidence that information conveyed in mother tongue results in
ABCs of Diversifying Information Resources 3
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
INA
SP -
Pak
ista
n (P
ER
I)],
[M
icha
el M
isik
o] a
t 03:
34 1
3 M
ay 2
015
better adoption or wider spontaneous sharing. A more basic yet fundamental element is toinvolve target smallholders in the development of the information and in adapting ofinformation resources (Vanmele, Salahuddin, and Magor 2005). This has to furtherinvolve smallholders in science translation, from knowledge or scientific outputs intotechnology options, efficiently transmittable through smallholder personal and communalICT platforms.
The increased pervasiveness of telecommunication networks has only enabled ICT toreach rural areas, but not to necessarily be more utilisable. Getting gadgets into the handsof rural users is not enough; it is the usability of information text, voice and applicationsbetween farmers and other stakeholders that is critical (Rudgard et al. 2013). There isneed for in-depth understanding on the merits of text messages in effective awarenesscreation as opposed to technology comprehension, especially complex options such asthose related to conservation agriculture, soil nutrient management and herbicide use.
Uses and Gratifications (U&G) Theory and Information Sources Diversification
The Uses and Gratification (U&G) theory explains how people use media for their needand gratification, rather than what media does to people (Ruggiero 2000). This theoreticalperspective applies to this current paper because it has a user-centred approach. It can beapplied to different types of communication, including through social networks. U&G’sapplications may indeed be used to explain how farmers rely on different channels for theinterpersonal and personal uses (e.g. Luo 2002). According to U&G, therefore,information sources diversification is inherently a good concept if the audience comprisesactive seekers. Emerging information channels, especially SMS and Internet, providefarmers with a wider range of source selection. For instance, Reagan (1996) observes thateach individual is increasingly having access to complex sets of channels to serve theirinterests. When the various channels are integrated, they empower the individual in termsof both the information he or she seeks and regenerates. Despite this optimistic portrait,poor farmers will benefit from cross-channel clusters of information sources thatnonetheless include extension. In other words, new communication channels do notrapidly alter the reliance on exiting channels, in the absence of capacity.
The Need for Resourcefulness of Information Services
There is need for integration of various resources, such as ICT with other media tofacilitate empowerment and learning through interaction in innovation networks.Interaction offers more possibilities for processes of innovation and knowledgeproduction and sharing. This is an ongoing paradigm transition in agricultural innovation(Perdomo, Klerkx, and Leeuwis 2010).
A more fundamental issue in the diversification of information resources is that ofaddressing user needs (see also Outa, Etta, and Aligula 2006) and understanding theirattitudes (Luo 2002). User needs are complex, and include three major issues of gender,poverty and skills in Africa (Rathgeber and Adera 2000). When user needs and attitudesare understood, diverse information resources may better be targeted to improvepenetration rate and adaptive usage pattern. To achieve adaptive use, there is need forresearch to devise an appropriate process and content, including information modules(e.g. Rudgard et al. 2013) based on science.
4 M. Misiko and E. Halm
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
INA
SP -
Pak
ista
n (P
ER
I)],
[M
icha
el M
isik
o] a
t 03:
34 1
3 M
ay 2
015
The U&G Theory, Missing Links in Literature and the Research Question
How can information resource diversification be targeted to smallholder agriculturalknowledge needs? This study question emanates from the foregoing literature that showsa tendency to focus on mere increase in channels of information. In recent years, muchemphasis has especially been on ICT. There has not, however, been clarity of how theincrements will be efficiently achieved, or as proposed by the U&G theory, how farmerswill emerge to be active users of these resources. There is assumption that more resourcesare necessarily resulting in more knowledge or information. According to U&G, newsources of information do not necessarily have to replace existing ones, but rather there isneed to empower the farmer by shifting from information drive, from mere introductionof new tools, to learning partnerships, to increasing research evidence of merits of newresources, to aggregating lessons and sharing through complementary processes. Newinformation channels necessitate that existing sources be reoriented for synchronisation.These therefore mean having a functionalist (e.g. Luo 2002) framework to moderniseagricultural extension service (AES) delivery systems to institutionalise new informationchannels such as ICT beyond pilot sites.
This Study
Hohoe Municipality of Ghana has diverse information resources (see Sites section). Ittherefore offers an ideal case, to analyse whether information multiplicity is in itselfuseful. It is especially ideal to study if the more resources necessarily mean better accessto information among poor men and women cultivators. To understand this, this studyverified the existence of different programmes that had promoted multiple informationresources (especially ICT). We then studied and analysed if there was enablingresourcefulness for use among target users.
In view of this, the objective of this paper is to analyse how information resourcediversity can enhance smallholder agricultural knowledge among smallholders of Ghana.
Methods
We combined methods that included household questionnaire survey (N = 200),numerous visits for in-depth interactions and participant observation, four interviewvisits to radio stations and to the Market Information Systems and Traders’ Organisationsin West Africa (MISTOWA) ICT offices. These were used to understand how knowledge-related activities were undertaken among smallholders, and to conceptualise theirunderlying significance. These interviews and visits generated a list of key indicators,and which have formed main themes of analyses in this paper. The household surveyallowed us to quantify how these themes in agricultural information shape smallholderperceptions and/or decisions.
Sampling
Initial visits to study villages were done with AES staff. These staff along with localvillage leaders assisted in having key informants purposively sampled (Nachmias andNachmias 2008) based on their contextual knowledge on rice farming, information sector,
ABCs of Diversifying Information Resources 5
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
INA
SP -
Pak
ista
n (P
ER
I)],
[M
icha
el M
isik
o] a
t 03:
34 1
3 M
ay 2
015
and especially people who had more than ten years of residence in the villages of study.Questionnaire respondents were randomly sampled (Nachmias and Nachmias 2008)relying on a sample frame of rice growing households in the study villages.
Data Collection
We surveyed 200 households in November 2009 to capture basic informant character-istics, agricultural activities, observe information resources or the lack of them amongsmallholders. To ensure similarity in the analytical parameters, we focused on ricesmallholders. We conducted 18 in-depth interviews with five field extension officers, fivemedia representatives, five knowledgeable farmers, two Ministry of Agriculture officialsand one MISTOWA representative. We engaged in numerous interactive events andconducted one focus group discussion (FGD) of 15 key informants focused mainly onavailability and constraints to use of agricultural information resources, preferences andcurrent knowledge-acquiring mechanisms. Men and women informants were separated tohave parallel sessions. This generated gender desegregated data. Findings were similar tothose produced through the survey questionnaire.
Data Analysis
Analyses are based on simple descriptive tables showing survey data; frequencies andpercentages to illustrate farmer narrative about information resources. We do notundertake complex statistical analyses given the goal of this paper. The smaller samplewas deliberately selected to gain deeper qualitative analytical understanding. Data fromthe household survey were analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciencesand Excel to generate descriptive statistics, frequencies and means. Findings weretriangulated with qualitative data from the FGDs, key informant interviews and othermethods discussed here. Key themes and in-depth information in this paper weregenerated and systematised from FGDs using content analysis (see Altheide 1987). Thesethemes have been used to analyse survey data and key interview information. Gender is akey theme used to understand differences in language preferences and access toinformation sources.
Sites
We conducted research in five rice growing villages of Liati/Leklebi, Ve-Koloenu, Ve-Golokwati, Akpafu/ Santrokofi and Wegbe/Akplamafu across Hohoe municipality that issituated in the centre of Volta region of south eastern Ghana. Hohoe is the main urbanarea in the municipality. There is a widening development gap between this town andrural set-up of Hohoe, which is resulting in migration from the rural agricultural areas(Republic of Ghana 2013). This has had a negative impact on agriculture.
The average household size in Hohoe is 4.6. There are about 10,226 and 22,618female-headed and male-headed households, respectively, in Hohoe. Among these, only7,172 lived in the urban areas.
6 M. Misiko and E. Halm
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
INA
SP -
Pak
ista
n (P
ER
I)],
[M
icha
el M
isik
o] a
t 03:
34 1
3 M
ay 2
015
Geographical Characteristics
Hohoe municipality is endowed with many valley bottoms (low-lying swampy areas) thatare partly used for rice cultivation. Soils are generally sandy overlying iron pans.Predominant soils are ochrosols and oxysols, which are deep and mostly acidic.
The major landforms of the municipality include part of the Akwapim-Togo rangesextending beyond the country’s eastern boundary all the way to Western Nigeria. Withinthese ranges is the Afadjato, the highest elevation in Ghana (880.3m). The region isserved with several rivers, including Danyi, Koloe, Agumatsa, Tsatsadu and Aflabo,which enable small-scale irrigation of vegetable and rice farms.
Total annual rainfall ranges between 1,100mm and 1,500mm. Rainfall pattern isbimodal with two distinct rainy seasons. The major rains start from April through to Julywhile the minor season covers the period from September through November (MOFA2013). Hohoe falls within the Forest-Savanna transitional ecological zone of Ghana, withthe forest part at its southern and eastern sections.
Agriculture and Land
Land is mostly owned by family, clan or individual. Family or clan land is held in trustfor and on behalf of the family or clan by the respective heads. Members of the family orclan have rights (titles) to portions of land for agricultural production and residentialconstruction.
The majority (about 70%) of the people of Hohoe are engaged in farming. Their majorconstraints include difficulties emanating from low use of technology and the nature oflocal landscape (Republic of Ghana 2013). Dominant technology in agriculturalproduction is traditional cutlass and hoe. Mechanised farming is very limited and thegeneral rate of adoption of agricultural technologies is low. Farming is almost entirelyrain-fed due to lack of irrigation facilities. Access roads to farming centres are poor,which hampers the marketing of the products. These, along with the absence of storagefacilities give rise to high post-harvest losses. A major drawback is the poor marketingand storage arrangements. One of the key issues in Hohoe is therefore low information/knowledge access especially among women, who do most of the processing andmarketing (e.g. of rice).
In 2002 the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) undertook an initiative toprovide assistance to 15 farmer groups (of 300 smallholders), including seed, fertiliserand herbicides. These groups were linked to a marketing company that purchased theexcess rice farmers produced. A number of other initiatives have been undertaken inHohoe, including the Africa Development Bank funded project called NERICA (in2005), and USAID’s Millennium Challenge Account Compact, that targeted privatesector-led agri-business development.
Agricultural Extension and Information Resources
The major language of information delivery in the research site is Ewe, which is spokenamong about 70% of the local population. The principal agency for transmittinginformation to farmers in Ghana is the AES. AES has a local Hohoe division called theMunicipal Agricultural Development Unit. Non-governmental organisations support
ABCs of Diversifying Information Resources 7
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
INA
SP -
Pak
ista
n (P
ER
I)],
[M
icha
el M
isik
o] a
t 03:
34 1
3 M
ay 2
015
extension delivery in the site, especially through formation of groups, capacity building,micro financing and ICT (MOFA 2013).
The USAID supported MISTOWA had activities in Hohoe in 2005 implementedthrough the Trade and Investment Program for a Competitive Export Economy (TIPCEE;USAID 2007). TIPCEE worked closely with AES to target 100,000 farm householdsthrough provision of knowledge and skills key to farmers. Activities also includedtrainings and field demonstrations. TIPCEE worked to develop new market-informationdissemination tools including web-based e-newsletters and SMS-messaging applications,and transfer them to local partners such as the Federation of Associations of GhanaianExporters. TIPCEE worked with ICT private sector through Ghana Internet ServiceProviders Association (USAID 2007).
Findings and Discussions
Knowledge Translation More Fundamental than English Literacy
Findings show that more than 90% of respondents preferred local dialects for accessingagricultural information, despite the fact that 50% were English literate. Table 1 showsthe majority of both women and men understood English comfortably, and received asignificant amount of non-agricultural information in English (Figure 3).
Focus group discussion and in-depth interviews showed that respondents consideredagricultural research information difficult to understand. Participants said that languagewas not about literacy, but rather form in which knowledge is presented. For instance,scientific knowledge would not be understood unless translated into simple designs inEnglish or any other language. Figure 1a and 1b further illustrates that affordability ofinformation resources was important. Information was also relayed at inappropriate times.
Findings show that more knowledge was in fact relayed in local language (Figure 2),partly due to assumptions of smallholder preferences or illiteracy. However, use of locallanguages presents a practical challenge to non-native knowledge transmitters, and policy.For instance, there has to always be local capacity to partner with non-local actors, butmore critically to efficiently translate scientific content into reliable/valid locallyaccessible form. Farmer preferences for local dialects (Figure 3) combined with lowICT literacy posed another hurdle; they could not broadly seek or access content fromnew technological resources such as video or Internet that are usually in English.
Hohoe municipality comprises Ewe speakers (66%) and migrants from eight differentethnic groups. The main radio station in Hohoe, Lorlornyo FM, therefore, broadcasts in
Table 1. English literacy responses among smallholder rice cultivators
English as well as other Ghanaian dialects in order to reach these different languagespeakers. Most information targeted at smallholders was broadcast in local language(Ewe), including the bi-weekly programme of the MOFA (Figure 3). Business, politics
0
25
50
75
100
Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women
Internet Video Television Print Radio
Freq
uenc
ies
Media resources
Affordability Wrong timing Language barrier Other
(a)
66%
19%
10%
5%
(b)
Figure 1. (a) and (b) Selected obstacles to use of ICT among smallholders.
0
25
50
75
100
Men
Wom
en
Men
Wom
en
Men
Wom
en
Men
Wom
en
Men
Wom
en
Men
Wom
en
Men
Wom
en
Men
Wom
en
Men
Wom
en
Agriculture Health Religious Business Social issues Politics Entertainment Development Education
Perc
enta
ge (%
)
Local dialects English N/A
Figure 2. Language of presentation of information on selected issues in Hohoe.
0
25
50
75
100
Native local dialect Non-native local diale English
Male Female
Perc
enta
ge (%
)
Figure 3. Preferred language of presentation of agricultural information among smallholders.
ABCs of Diversifying Information Resources 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
INA
SP -
Pak
ista
n (P
ER
I)],
[M
icha
el M
isik
o] a
t 03:
34 1
3 M
ay 2
015
and social information were mainly communicated in English. Local AES were allnatives of the Volta region who spoke local languages as well as English.
The reliance on English, amidst the use of other languages for official communication,underlies challenges in reaching a meaningful scale in rural Hohoe with complexagricultural information. For instance, messages have to be translated several times, andmay only reach fractions of people at a time, or that non-traditional media requireextension officers to facilitate their use.
Diversified Information Resources Must Offer Different Rewards
These findings show the need to translate research knowledge into accessible packages. Itis not literacy of language that is key, but rather complexity of knowledge passed. InHohoe, direct observation showed a diversity of information resources closer to (at localmarkets) or among smallholders. However, these resources were not necessarilyutilisable. For instance, video and Internet offered different set of opportunities that canin reality simplify smallholder access to agricultural information. Unlike radio, they offerrich visual content. Besides, Internet can offer interactive learning platforms. The powerof the new technology – Internet and mobile – to deliver relevant agricultural materials inrural Africa is great, especially in its potential to relay video. Video can be part of thesolution, it is not utterly dependent on English literacy because it can be observed andcomprehended by a smallholder. Web sites have over the years improved their capacity tohost videos, which can be an added advantage in targeting widespread access toagricultural content especially among youth and women.
However, smallholders perceived Internet and video as ‘complicated’, or requiring highinitial cost to acquire electronic equipment and new sets of skills. A key challenge is totransform smallholder perceptions and realities against new resources such as Internet.The combination of Internet and mobile could require increased smallholder expenditure,because third generation (3G) mobile data and Internet-enabled mobiles involve extracharges. It will also require smallholders to know addresses where information is hosted,how to access it, how to download or interpret. We therefore suggest the development ofmobile software-enabled decision guides that can be uploaded locally by softwaretechnicians through extension facilitation. These would be basic software accompaniedwith print manuals – with few simple steps of operation. This is more feasible, taking anenabling technology to the smallholder rather than seeking to have them work withadvanced equipment at the start.
Focus group discussion and in-depth interviews showed that Internet, video or printneed to be consistently encouraged through field/community demonstrations so they donot seem ‘elitist’ and expensive, but rather ordinary or socially amiable. This wouldcorrect poor levels of awareness due to low exposure (Figure 6). Farmers learn by seeingand doing (see also IRRI 2013). What is not known therefore cannot be preferred.
Alternative knowledge resources such as Internet and video can fundamentally solvethe hurdle of consistent knowledge availability reported in in-depth interviews andFGD. Figure 4a and 4b shows that most agricultural information was accessed weekly.Figure 5a and 5b shows that agricultural information programmes were organisedweekly, unlike more regular knowledge platforms for business, social issues, politics,entertainment and education.
10 M. Misiko and E. Halm
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
INA
SP -
Pak
ista
n (P
ER
I)],
[M
icha
el M
isik
o] a
t 03:
34 1
3 M
ay 2
015
The reason most agricultural information was received weekly has to do with radioprogrammes, aired on specific days of the week. Government information programmeswere mostly executed weekly, either through radio or field AES.
0
25
50
75
100
Family,close friends
AES Community Radio TV Mobile Print Video Internet
Perc
enta
ge (%
)Every day At least once a week At least once a month Rarely Never
(a) (b)
Figure 4. (a) and (b) Frequency of smallholder access to agricultural information from varioussources.
0
20
40
60
80
100
Dai
ly
Wee
kly
Irre
gula
rly
Dai
ly
Wee
kly
Irre
gula
rly
Dai
ly
Wee
kly
Irre
gula
rly
Dai
ly
Wee
kly
Irre
gula
rly
Dai
ly
Wee
kly
Irre
gula
rly
Dai
ly
Wee
kly
Irre
gula
rly
Dai
ly
Wee
kly
Irre
gula
rly
Dai
ly
Wee
kly
Irre
gula
rly
Dai
ly
Wee
kly
Irre
gula
rly
Agriculture Health Religious Business Social issues Politics Entertainment Development Education
Freq
uenc
ies
Male Female
Daily Weekly Irregularly
Agriculture
Health
Religious
Business
Social issues
Poli�cs
Entertainment
Development
Educa�on
(a)
(b)
Figure 5. (a) Gender and frequency of access to agricultural information compared with othersectors. (b) Frequency of smallholder access to agricultural information compared with other
sectors.
ABCs of Diversifying Information Resources 11
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
INA
SP -
Pak
ista
n (P
ER
I)],
[M
icha
el M
isik
o] a
t 03:
34 1
3 M
ay 2
015
Diversification through Integration, Rather than Substitution of Information Resources
The foregoing findings show that diversification of knowledge resources in Hohoe didnot necessarily result in improved access to agricultural information. When informationresources are diversified, there is need to gradually integrate their use with existingresources that are trusted. The interface between old and new resources must be perpetualand complementary. For instance, mobiles may be used for call-in radio programmeshosted by extension officers. Extension staff can use Internet in the field to educatefarmers. This means the role of extension needs to evolve, from knowledge transmittersto resource persons with capacity in facilitating information access as their key mandate.They can, for instance, download video materials on agricultural technologies/practices tobe seen in any location.
New Extension: Facilitating Use of Agricultural Information Resources
Figure 7 illustrates trust was a function of familiarity, and source specialisation. AES wastrusted to deliver agricultural information given its proximity and trained personnel.Radio programmes were regular, and prepared by persons considered ‘credible’ amongfarmers. AES and radio can be more resourceful by innovatively using video or applyingInternet and mobile tools in the field. This is critical in providing credible interface ortransition from traditional extension to an integrated scheme with an immediate option toachieve widespread diversification (also see U&G theory). The capacity of extension staffto incorporate new information resources in their work needs to be strengthened. Thisstudy further shows that radio programmes need to be strengthened (see also Rudgardet al. 2013; Ballantyne 2009). First, by refining programmatic content. In-depthinterviews and FGD identified content and relevance as among key obstacles. Toimprove on content and relevance, smallholders preferred to have radio programmes thathost extension staff, or which include field programmes. Radio programmes can beenhanced when content is provided by research and extension officers, for instance,through preparation of transcripts. Second, by making radio broadcasts interactive. Third,through ensuring farmers are aware of radio programmes before they air. Fourth, improveradio resourcefulness by enabling later-date smallholder access to programme contentthrough recording or translation to print. Figure 1a and 1b shows that poor timing of
0
25
50
75
100
Used by ownNever usedNot awareAware Assistedto use
Female Male
Perc
enta
ge (%
)
Figure 6. Responses among smallholder rice farmers on Internet awareness and use.
12 M. Misiko and E. Halm
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
INA
SP -
Pak
ista
n (P
ER
I)],
[M
icha
el M
isik
o] a
t 03:
34 1
3 M
ay 2
015
information transmission was a fundamental obstacle. Especially when programmesresulted in less female listenership, as they did not enjoy preferential rights to tune radios.
Appropriate capacity is central to efficiently transform agricultural extension so itfacilitates information resources diversification (see also Outa, Etta, and Aligula 2006;Rathgeber and Adera 2000). Besides, necessary knowledge partnerships need to beforged (IDRC 2004). In this regard there may be need for policy strengthening orapplication so private–public knowledge partnerships are sustained.
Why Information Resource Diversification? Information resource diversification can leadto improved knowledge broadening. Knowledge broadening is critical because small-holders do not grow for one purpose, but rather for consuming and selling, processingand storage, etc. They do not engage in one enterprise, and so no one single knowledgeresource may enable all-rounded information including on marketing, which is not thetraditional specialty of agricultural extension. Findings confirm there is already widerange of information resources in Hohoe, including the Internet. However, Figure 6shows that Internet awareness was low, and its use negligible.
Table 2 further shows that Internet was lowly ranked as a preferred resource. Figure 7further illustrates this.
Findings in Table 2 point to the need for an innovative awareness process that is longterm. Table 2 and Figure 7 rankings correlate with level of exposure among smallholdersto the different agricultural information resources, rather than their suitability or negativeexperiences. There is a case for informed choices, which can only happen throughgradual use/familiarity and convenience of use among smallholders.
Figure 7. Trustworthiness of agricultural information sources accessed by respondents [AES (ofGhana)].
ABCs of Diversifying Information Resources 13
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
INA
SP -
Pak
ista
n (P
ER
I)],
[M
icha
el M
isik
o] a
t 03:
34 1
3 M
ay 2
015
In-depth interviews and FGD showed that when farmers got better information content,they trusted the respective resource. Besides familiarity, therefore, better and accessibleagricultural content was seen among farmers as critical.
Gender Roles, Household Arrangements and Information Needs
Women more than men performed agricultural work in the field, and beyond. Figure 8aand 8b shows women almost single handedly processed and marketed crops. Besides,dependents and employees contributed to assist men more than women in all tasks exceptland preparation.
Figure 8 shows that most tasks were performed by the family. More fundamental is thatsmallholder householders may not necessarily need same type of information. Or, theymay not need same amounts of similar information. Besides, in-depth interviews andFGD showed farmers did not depend on knowledgeable hired labour. These presentanother level of challenge, to navigate household arrangements so information resourcesare targeted to improve family welfare. For instance, to ensure women access and utiliseagricultural information resources, but without entrenching unfair task allocations in thehousehold. This is complicated. First, because women are engaged with chores in and off-season (Figure 8), and have comparatively lesser spare time to seek for new knowledge.Second, because the tasks they handled were ones that were most deficient in terms ofinformation availability (Figure 9) yet they were ranked as least deserving (Table 3).
These findings justify why diversification of agricultural information resources is vital.However, they also illustrate that gender roles and household arrangements haveimplications for the search for information resource diversification. Existing informationresources were inclined to field crops production, while post-harvest information(especially marketing) received lesser prominence. In spite of this, focus discussionsshowed that crop earnings was the most important income source among most localsmallholders. Information resources diversification must therefore mainstream mechan-isms that target such needs as marketing, which were ranked lower in priority (Figure 3),yet are central in poverty alleviation. Such strategies must therefore enable African
Table 2. Ranking of main resources for agricultural knowledge access by rice smallholders
Farmer ranking (weighted)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Resource Frequency of responses (N = 200) Weighted totals Ranks
women to construct their own solutions that are sensitive to their needs and resources.They need to have meaningful support for self-help out of the marginalising situation.
Towards Diversification that is Resourceful for the Marginalised. The marginalised aredifficult to target. They need integrated extension that enhances access to market andagricultural information. They need skills so they can utilise new-type field modules andcell phone decision guides that enable context-specific business or farming decisionswithin smallholder most limiting circumstances. Such decisions include where/when tosell harvests or which soil nutrients to apply and how. Women, for instance, need to knowwhere and how to source farm equipment adapted for them. An integrated extensionscheme may, for instance, incorporate communication technology with radio pro-grammes, to be targeted so they are aired at hours that minimise conflict of interests,so men do not overrule women over tuning of radio. At the core is a human interface,critical for ensuring that diversification is based on resourcefulness of informationresources rather than mere presence of more alternative channels.
0
25
50
75
100
Land preparation Planting Crop management Harvesting Processing Marketing
)%(
egatnecrePWomen Men Employee (men roles) Employee (women roles)Dependent (men roles) Dependent (women roles) Association (women roles)
(a)
44%
25%
31%
1% 0%
Women
Men
Hired labour
Dependants
Labourassociations
(b)
Figure 8. (a) and (b) Sources of farm labour for rice chain tasks.
ABCs of Diversifying Information Resources 15
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
INA
SP -
Pak
ista
n (P
ER
I)],
[M
icha
el M
isik
o] a
t 03:
34 1
3 M
ay 2
015
Conclusions
This paper concludes that when smallholder information needs are understood andtargeted, the process of diversifying information resources may be effective in improvingrelevance and adaptive usage pattern. To achieve adaptive use of information resources,there is need for enhanced resourcefulness through devising of appropriate tools,processes and usable content. For instance to device cell phone-based basic decision-guides software/programmes or extension modules that enable smallholder interactivelearning and contextual decisions.
Given the realities demonstrated in the findings, extension resourcefulness will be keyin aiding mutual learning through interaction among knowledge facilitators andsmallholders over multiple information resources. It will require appropriate knowledgeforms, field resources that enable smallholder use of interactive decision guides, to askthe right questions about their problems based on systematised farm-level in-depth
0
25
50
75
100
Men
Wom
en
Men
Wom
en
Men
Wom
en
Men
Wom
en
Men
Wom
en
Men
Wom
en
Men
Wom
en
Landpreparation
Planting Culturalpractices
Harvesting Storage Processing Marketing
)%(
ycne iciffuS
Yes No
Figure 9. Sufficiency of agricultural information among rice smallholders of Hohoe.
Table 3. Information needs of rice smallholders
Farmer ranking (weighted)
1 2 3 4 5 6
Rice chain activities Frequency of responses (N = 200) Weighted totals Weighted ranks
knowledge. Such resourcefulness must equip women and other marginalised poor withknowledge-seeking skills, and essentially enable them to coin context-fitting solutionsunique to their circumstance, through appropriate interactive self-help. These are criticalin ensuring diversified information sources are meaningfully utilised.
Acknowledgements
Our sincere gratitude to farmers in Hohoe municipality who volunteered information,accommodated us and participated in discussions and analyses.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) throughAfrica Rice Centre (AfricaRice). IFAD through the West and Central Africa NERICA grant enabledEmma Halm to carry out fieldwork in Ghana.
ORCID
Michael Misiko http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5298-4393
References
AccessAgriculture. 2013. “Translating Videos.” Accessed March 18. AccessAgriculture.org.Altheide, D. L. 1987. “Reflections: Ethnographic Content Analysis.” Qualitative Sociology 10 (1):
65–77. doi:10.1007/BF00988269.Anaglo, J. N., S. D. Boateng, and C. A. Boateng. 2014. “Gender and Access to Agricultural
Resources by Smallholder Farmers in the Upper West Region of Ghana.” Journal of Educationand Practice 5 (5): 13–19.
Ballantyne, P. 2009. “Accessing, Sharing and Communicating Agricultural Information forDevelopment: Emerging Trends and Issues.” Information Development 25 (4): 260–271.doi:10.1177/0266666909351634.
Birner, R., and J. R. Anderson. 2007. “How to Make Agricultural Extension Demand-driven: TheCase of India’s Agricultural Extension Policy.” IFPRI Discussion Paper 00729, DevelopmentStrategy and Governance Division, IFPRI.
Carter, I. 1999. “Locally Generated Printed Materials in Agriculture: Experience from Uganda andGhana.” Education Research Paper No. 31. Department for International Development,London, 132 p.
Chisenga, J. 2012. “Opening Access to Agricultural Information in Ghana, Kenya and Zambia.”XXth Standing Conference of Eastern, Central and Southern Africa Library and InformationAssociations (SCECSAL), Nairobi, June 4–8.
Daniels, S. E., and G. B. Walker. 1996. “Collaborative Learning: Improving Public Deliberation inEcosystem-based Management.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16 (2): 71–102.doi:10.1016/0195-9255(96)00003-0.
Entsua-Mensah, C. 2010. Revitalising the Indigenous Agricultural Marketing System in Ghanathrough the E-commerce Project: An Appraisal. Accra: CSIR-INSTI. Accessed November,2014. http://ir.ucc.edu.gh/dspace/bitstream/123456789/1002/1/IAALD%20Paper.pdf.
Groot, A. 2002. “Demystifying Facilitation of Multi-actor Learning Processes.” PhD thesis,Wageningen University.
Hafkin, N. J. 2000. “Convergence of Concepts: Gender and ICTs in Africa.” In Gender and theInformation Revolution in Africa, edited by E. E. Rathgeber and O. Adera, 1–16.Ottawa: IDRC.
IDRC. 2004. “Innovative Applications of ICTs in Local Governance in Developing Countries.”Proceedings of the Workshop on Innovative Applications of ICTs in Local Governance inDeveloping Countries, UN Conference Centre, Addis Ababa, June 7–9.
IRRI. 2013. “What Is Farmer Participatory Research (FPR)?” Accessed March 17. http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/extension/index.php/fpr.
Kassie, M., S. W. Ndiritu, and B. Shiferaw. 2012. “Determinants of Food Security in Kenya, aGender Perspective.” The 86th Annual Conference of the Agricultural Economics Society,University of Warwick, Coventry, UK, April 16–18.
Kilelu, C. W., L. Klerkx., C. Leeuwis, and A. Hall. 2011. “Beyond Knowledge Brokering: anExploratory Study on Innovation Intermediaries in an Evolving Smallholder AgriculturalSystem in Kenya.” Knowledge Management for Development Journal 7 (1): 84–108.doi:10.1080/19474199.2011.593859.
King, C. 2000. Systemic Processes for Facilitation Social Learning: Challenging the Legacy.Uppsala: Department of Rural Development Studies, Swedish University of AgriculturalSciences.
Klerkx, L., A. Hall, and C. Leeuwis. 2010. “Strengthening Agricultural Innovation Capacity: AreInnovation Brokers the Answer?” International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Govern-ance and Ecology 8 (5–6): 409–438.
Luo, X. 2002. “Uses and Gratifications Theory and E-consumer Behaviors: A Structural EquationModeling Study.” Journal of Interactive Advertising 2 (2): 34–41. doi:10.1080/15252019.2002.10722060.
Maarleveld, M. 2003. “Social Environmental Learning for Sustainable Natural Resource Manage-ment: Theory, Practice, and Facilitation.” PhD thesis, Wageningen University.
MOFA (Ministry of Food and Agriculture). 2011. Agriculture in Ghana Facts and Figures. Accra:Statistics, Research and Information Directorate.
MOFA (Ministry of Food and Agriculture). 2013. Accessed February 18. http://mofa.gov.gh/site/?page_id=1707.
Nachmias, C. F., and D.. Nachmias. 2008. Research Methods in the Social Sciences. 7th ed. NewYork: Worth.
New Agriculturist. 2013. Appropriate Knowledge and Tools for Smallholder Farmers. AccessedFebruary 13. http://www.new-ag.info/en/research/innovationItem.php?a=2898.
ODI. 2010. Development Progress. Ghana’s Sustained Agricultural Growth: Development ProgressStories Putting Underused Resources to Work. London: Overseas Development Institute.Accessed November 26, 2014. http://www.developmentprogress.org/sites/developmentprogress.org/files/ghana_agriculture_0.pdf.
Oladele, O. I. 2006. “Multilinguality of Farm Broadcast and Agricultural Information Access inNigeria.” Nordic Journal of African Studies 15 (2): 199–205.
Outa, G., F. Etta, and E. Aligula. 2006. Mainstreaming ICT, Research Perspectives from Kenya.Nairobi: MvuleAfrica.
Perdomo, P. S. A., L. Klerkx, and C. Leeuwis. 2010. “Innovation Brokers and Their Roles in ValueChainNetwork Innovation: Preliminay Findings and a Research Agenda.” Proceedings of theInternational and Sustainable Development in Agriculture and Food, ISDA, Montepellier,France, June.
Rathgeber, E. M., and O. Adera. 2000. Gender and the Information Revolution in Africa.Ottawa: IDRC.
Reagan, J. 1996. “The ‘Repertoire’; of Information Sources.” Journal of Broadcasting & ElectronicMedia 40 (1): 112–121. doi:10.1080/08838159609364336.
Reijntjes, C., B. Haverkort, and A. Waters-Bayer. 1992. Farming for the Future: An Introduction toLow-external-input and Sustainable Agriculture. Leusden: Macmillan.
Republic of Ghana. 2013. Municipality Info. Accessed February 18. http://hohoe.ghanadistricts.gov.gh.
Richards, P. 1989. “Farmers also Experiment: A Neglected Intellectual Resource in AfricanScience.” Discovery and Innovation 1 (1): 19–25.
Rudgard, S., P. Ballantyne, R. Del Castello, P. Edge, M. Hani, A. Maru, E. Morras, K. Nichterlein,E. Porcari, and S. Treinen. 2013. Module 6: ICTs as Enablers of Agricultural InnovationSystems. Section 2 – Enhancing Productivity on the Farm. Accessed March 17. http://www.ictinagriculture.org/sites/ictinagriculture.org/files/final_Module6.pdf.
Ruggiero, T. E. 2000. “Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st Century.” Mass Communication& Society 3 (1): 3–37. doi:10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_02.
Sulaiman, V. R., A. Hall, and R. Raina. 2006. “From Disseminating Technologies to PromotingInnovation: Implications for Agricultural Extension.” Paper presented at the SAIC Regional,Kerala, India. Workshop on Research-Extension Linkages for Effective Delivery of Agricul-tural Technologies in SAARC Countries, November 20–22.
Swanson, B. E., and R. Rajalahti. 2010. “Strengthening Agricultural Extension and AdvisorySystems: Procedures for Assessing, Transforming, and Evaluating Extension Systems.”Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper 45, World Bank, Washington, DC.
UNDP. 2012. “Promoting ICT-based Agricultural Knowledge Management to Increase Productionand Productivity of Smallholder Farmers.” Development Brief No. 3/2012. Addis Ababa:United Nations Development Programme.
USAID. 2007. Trade and Investment Program for a Competitive Export Economy (TIPCEE).Annual Report for Partners. Accra; United States Agency for International Development.Accessed February 13, 2013. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDACJ151.pdf.
Vanmele, P., A. Salahuddin, and N. P. Magor, eds. 2005. Innovations in Rural Extension: CaseStudies from Bangladesh. Wallingford: CABI and IRRI.
Yaw, C. F. N., and S. Asuming-Brempong. 2013. “Analysis of Cocoa-based AgriculturalKnowledge and Information Systems in the Eastern Region of Ghana.” Russian Journal ofAgricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences 2 (14): 34–43.
