agricultural research delivery system in sierra leone

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH DELIVERY SYSTEM IN SIERRA LEONE

A. K. LAKOH

Deparlment of Agricullural Economies and Extension. Njala, University College, University of Sierra bone, Njula, Sierra Leone

& I. ADEFOLU AKINBODE

Department of Extension Education & Rural Sociology, University of Ife, Ile-lfe, Nigeria

(Received: 4 February. 1980)

SUMMARY

This study was carried out to establish the channels through which thefindings of the research work conducted at the Rokupr rice research station in Sierra Leone pass to the farmers and the factors which affect the delivery of such results at different stages.

The data for the study were collected between September 1977 and June 1978 from researchers working at the rice research station, the field level extension workers engaged by the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources, andfrom farmers in the five main rice growing areas of Sierra Leone using questionnaires and interview schedules. Statistical analyses used included chi-square and Spearman correlation coefficients.

The findings revealed that contacts between researchers and extension workers were limited, and hence field level extension workers depended on their immediate supervisors and colleaguesfor technological information. This limited contact was blamed on the absence of established formal linkage between research and extension, and lack of logistic support.

The main channels through which extension workers contacted farmers were personal in nature: office-calls by farmers, farm visits by extension agents and group meetings. These contacts were however veryfew as, onaverage, about halfof the 200farmers involved in the study had no contact w,ith extension workers. This situation was further worsened by the fact that the main roles performed by these agents during the limited contacts were supply functions. This was explained by a combination of institutional factors (lack of transport), agents’ characteristics (level of professional training, and knowledge of farmers’ local dialect) and, of course, the socio-economic status of the farmers. A number of recommendations were made to achieve a more effective delivery system.

289 Agriclrlrural Administrarion 0309-586X/81 /OOOS-0289jSO2.50 0 Applied Science Publishers Ltd, England, 1981 Printed in Great Britain

290 A. K. LAKOH, 1. ADEFOLU AKINBODE

INTRODUCTION

Like most developing countries in Africa, Sierra Leone is predominantly an agricultural country with over 70% of the population of roughly three million engaging in agriculture as a way of life.

With the ever increasing demand for food due to increase in population (growth rate is 2.57% per annum), the need for modernisation of the agricultural sector becomes more pressing. But even when the technologies are available, unless the research delivery system is effective, the technologies will remain on the shelves and in the files of research organisations and in learned journals, without making the expected impact. Gone are the days when the absence of technologies was complained of. The authors are of the opinion that the main problems in most developing countries nowadays are those of adapting the available technologies to suit the situation, and particularly the problem of effective delivery. The best way to start is by analysing the situation and diagnosing the problems so that appropriate solutions can be prescribed. This is the main objective of this study. Specifically this study aims at:

1. identifying the communication patterns between the rice research station and the extension agents and the extent and type of contacts which farmers had with field level extension workers, and

2. determining the factors which influence the process of communicating research information to farmers.

METHODOLOGY

Data for the study were collected from three sources, namely: (i) field extension workers, employed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources (MANR), (ii) research staff of the rice research station at Rokupr, and (iii) farmers selected from sixteen villages in seven administrative districts of Sierra Leone.

A total of 60 extension workers were interviewed from seven districts-Bombali, Tonkolili, Port Loko, Kambia, Bo, Bonth and Kailahun. This number represents over 45% of the general extension workers in these districts. Ten researchers were interviewed from a total of about twenty staff members. The sample of farmers was 200, chosen from the seven districts mentioned above.

To be eligible for inclusion in the study, an extension worker must have served in the Ministry as a field level agent for not less than one year at the time of this study, and must be involved in general extension work, since some field extension agents are assigned to special projects with limited coverage. The one year requirement is regarded as the minumum period needed by extension agents to establish themselves with their clientele. Similarly, the research workers involved in the study

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH DELIVERY SYSTEM IN SIERRA LEONE 291

were those who had worked in the station for more than one year, while the farmers were those actively involved in rice production.

Respondents from each of the three sources were selected using a table of random numbers. In the case of the farmers, the random selection was done in each of the sixteen villages separately, while for extension workers and researchers, the selection was made from the list of staff obtained from their respective agencies.

Questionnaires were used to collect the required data from researchers and extension agents, whereas the farmers were personally interviewed by the first author assisted by two trained interviewers.

The method of analysis used is mainly descriptive. However, to test for relationships between contacts and a number of factors, chi-square and Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated. The extension contact scale used by Rogers & Havens’ and Akinbode was used as the overall measure of contacts between the extension workers and farmers. One point was awarded to each type of contact made, giving a range of zero to seven contact scores. This was then divided into three contact levels-low (O-3), medium (4) and high (5-7).

Variables The dependent variable in this study is communication, and it is defined as any

overt act resulting in contact (personal or impersonal) between researchers, extension workers and farmers for the purpose of providing or seeking information on work related activities. The variable is operationalised as:

(i) participation in work related contacts, (ii) frequency of such contacts.

(iii) types of channels used. These include among others farm visits, office calls, telephone calls, radio and TV listening and viewing, group meetings and field days, and publications (printed materials).

The independent variables include personal and demographic characteristics of the respondents and their attitudes towards work related matters and respondents in other groups included in the study.

THE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH DELIVERY SYSTEM IN SIERRA LEONE

Agricultural research and extension (which is responsible for the delivery of research results to the farmers) were, prior to independence in most African countries, arms of the same organisation, usually the Ministry of Agriculture with or without natural resources. Thus, rice being the main staple food of the Sierra Leoneans, a rice research station was established at Rokupr, a mangrove area in the northern part of the country at the beginning of this century, and it was made an arm of the Division of Agriculture in the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural

292 A. K. LAKOH, I. ADEFOLU AKINBODE

Resources (MANR) alongside the extension services. This research station is responsible for both basic and adaptive research on all aspects of rice production. The West African Rice Development Association’s (WARDA) regional centre for mangrove rice production with headquarters in Monrovia, Liberia is attached to this station.

Following the establishment of Najala University College (NUC)in 1964with its emphasis on agriculture, the rice research station was integrated with the Faculty of Agriculture of the college. This merger was, however, short-lived. It did not last for more than five years, after which the research station was returned to its original parent, the MANR. It was at this stage that most of the research personnel at the station opted to join the Faculty, thus leaving the station almost empty until the early 1970s when the situation improved. Nevertheless the skeleton staff remaining in the station, in cooperation with Faculty members carried on research on rice production.

As mentioned earlier the extension services together with an information unit were started and have remained in the MANR since the latter was established and constitute the main linkage between the researchers and the ultimate consumers of their product-the farm population.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

A considerable body of literature exists which examines the transfer of technologies from research agencies to extension services, but very few have looked at the whole technology transfer and utilisation systems together. The few studies which have done this have seen the relationships between agricultural researchers, extension workers and the farmers as reciprocal interdependence3.4. In this relationship, the researchers generate new technologies which the extension workers use to solve farmers’ problems. In return the extension workers bring farmers’ problems to research scientists to be worked upon and solved.

Mosher,5 among others, postulated two conditions which have to be met for research programmes to be effective. First, research should focus on priority problems of the clientele it serves: and secondly, there should be mutual stimulation between research of varied specialities, with frequent contacts with farmers and extension workers. Similarly Kantack6 argues that research and extension staff should work as a team, as the endeavours of each affect the success or failure of the other. This interdependence has been recognised by research work carried out both in developed countries like the United States where extension, as practised today in most third world countries, started. ‘.* For example, Martin9 reported that the absence or ineffectiveness of liaison service between research and extension presented ‘very definite weaknesses’ in the information programme in Northern Nigeria; and about Western Nigeria, Martin said ‘There is a dearth of usable information


filtering down from the Research Division for use both as reference material for agents and as resource material by the information section’. In the case of Sierra Leone, Middlemiss’ said: ‘Everyone sees the need for continuous and effective liaison between research and extension, but all too often this is not the case in practice’. This situation of absence of, or ineffectiveness of, linkage between research and extension is often attributed to a number of factors among which are poor, or complete absence of, formal linkage, i1~r2 use of channels which are not generally easily avai1able,13 and persona1 and organisational factors which do not provide a favourable environment for cooperation.r4

In the case of the extension agent -farmer relationship, the farmer is charged with the responsibility of motivating the latter to change from traditional ways of farming to modern techniques. While the main aim of all extension agencies is to help all farmers, and particularly those who need help the most, extension agents often find themselves making differential contacts among farmers. This has led to the situation whereby farmers who needed help most were not reached by extension agents.15 Several factors have been identified as influencing agent-farmer contacts, among which are the personality and background characteristics of the agents, as well as physical and institutional factors.i”.i7

A study of the performance of village level extension workers in India revealed that the most effective village level workers were in the age group of thirty-one to forty, had graduated from high school, married and had a rural background.i6 Similarly Nye’s findings in MissouriI revealed that personality characteristics followed by rural background and training were the most important factors affecting the county agents’ performance. Harrisonis in his study of Nigerian extension workers concluded that the greatest single factor which differentiated the ‘best’ from the ‘worst’workers is their level of concern with making a career within the extension service. The credibility of extension agents has also been reported to affect their effectiveness in changing farmers’ attitudes. *7.20

On the other hand, Frutchey2i reported that age was not a differentiating characteristic of the more effective and less effective extension agents, while Dube22 observed that university graduates generally have not proved successful village level workers.

Even where the extension agent possesses the right combination of attributes, the socio-economic characteristics of his clientele have been found, in some cases, to limit his contacts with certain farmers, and cause the well-known differential contact example. The literature seems to be in agreement that farmers of high socio- economic status have more contacts with extension agents than those of low socio-economic status2J3.24. However, Photiadis’ study25 showed a negative relationship between farmers’ age and their contacts with extension agents, while education showed no significant relationship at all. Studies in adoption of innovations tend to support the genera1 trend of differential treatment given to farmers on the basis of socio-economic status.26,27


Apart from these personal factors discussed above, a number of infrastructural and institutional factors play a prominent role in determining the effectiveness of the agricultural research delivery system. Onazi 28 in his study of Northern Nigeria identified poor transport facilities, lack of production incentives for farmers, lack of incentive for staff and inadequate extension staff as some of the most important problems at work. This study also examines the role of this kind of factor in the communication of research results to farmers in Sierra Leone.

RESULTS OF STUDY

Delivery of results from researchers to extension workers In order to determine the parts played by researchers in this complex

interdependent relationship, the researchers were asked a number of questions on (i) their contacts with extension workers and farmers, (ii) who initiated such contacts, (iii) the purposes of the contacts, (iv) the contact methods used, and (v)the factors which affected the interactions.

The first question sought to determine the extent to which the researchers made use of extension workers in formulating their research programmes. Thus, the researchers were presented with a list of possible sources of research ideas and they were asked to rank each source according to how often the source was used- namely ‘very often’, ‘ often’, ‘occasionally’, ‘seldom’ and ‘not used at all or never’. The categories were rated from five to one, five representing ‘very often’ and one ‘never’. Weighted mean scores were then calculated and the items placed in rank order.

This analysis shows that immediate colleagues and supervisors were the most important sources of ideas used by researchers. These were followed by researchers outside Sierra Leone; farmers, extension workers and other researchers inside Sierra Leone; and lastly the programmes of the Faculty of Agriculture at Njala, in that order. This ordering puts extension workers fourth in rating, and the researchers seem to be more concerned with getting organisational, followed by international, recognition than with assisting the extension service to solve practical problems.

Following the above was the question on the categories of extension workers the researchers contacted, and the number of such contacts made during the year preceding the study. The categories of extension workers were determined using the weighted mean and ranking approaches adopted above. The data show that the researchers contacted the middle level administrators (i.e. the agricultural officers) more than they contacted the field level extension workers or the top administrators. The contact ordering was as follows: agricultural officers, principal agricultural officers, agricultural instructors, field assistants, the publicity officer, agricultural superintendents, and the chief agriculturist and his field assistants. On


the number of contacts researchers had with each category of extension workers, the findings seem to follow the pattern discussed above except for the position of publicity officer. Of the ten researchers, nine reported an average of three contacts with the agricultural officers during the preceding year. The same proportion reported similar contacts with the principal agricultural officers. The publicity officer followed the order with eight of the ten researchers reporting an average of about two contacts during the period under study. The chief agriculturist and field assistants had the least number of contacts with the researchers.

The findings on the initiator of interactions between researchers and extension workers reveal that the researchers took more initiatives than the extension workers. Fifty per cent of the researchers claimed to be the initiators, while another 40% indicated that both the researchers and the extension workers usually initiated contacts. The researchers were further asked the purposes for which they generally contacted the extension workers. Nine of the respondents said they did so (i) to keep the extension workers informed about the latest developments in agriculture, and (ii) to assist in training extension workers. Seven did so to obtain information about current farm problems, three gave direct technical advice, while two were involved in supply of farm inputs. (Each respondent gave more than one answer.)

A number of channels are open to researchers for disseminating technological information to extension workers. But, in reality, no single channel can effectively achieve whatever needs to be done. Thus, what happens in real life is that a combination of channels are used. In order to obtain an assessment of the relative importance of the channels of communication used by the reseachers, they were asked to rate, from a list of possible channels, each possible channel in one of five categories according to how often they used the channel generally. The channels included face-to-face individual contacts, correspondence, the telephone, group contacts, the radio, journals, pamphlets, research reports and newspaper articles. The possible frequencies of use were ‘very often’, ‘often’, ‘occasionally’, ‘seldom’ and ‘not at all or never’, and these were rated from five to one. The weighted mean score for each channel was then calculated and the channels ranked from ‘most frequently used’ to ‘least frequently used’ on the basis of the rank orderings. Research reports and pamphlets were the most frequently used followed byface-to- face individual contacts and group contacts. The remaining possible channels were either seldomly used or not used at all. These were journals, correspondence, newspaper articles, the radio and telephone calls, in that order.

It should be noted that research reports are generally written for administrators at the headquarters in Freetown. while pamphlets are written for the lower level administrators and sometimes for field workers. To some extent, these findings support the earlier ones which discussed the categories of extension workers being reached by researchers.

The heavy reliance on written communication could have been misplaced


because of the low level of education of the extension workers who would ultimately be expected to use these materials for teaching the farmers, except that they were closely followed in rank by personal contacts.

The hunch that what the researchers perceive as their roles might affect their relationships with extension workers was tested by asking the researchers to indicate on a five-point scale the extent to which they agreed with each of the roles listed in the questionnaire. Weighted mean scores were then calculated for each role and they were ranked. It is fascinating to note that all the roles listed were ranked high, with ‘keep extension workers informed about latest development in agriculture’ topping the list with a score of 4.9, and ‘give extension workers direct technical assistance’coming last with a score of 3.7 out of five. Other roles included in the list (and their scores) are: ‘try to find solutions to problems brought by extension workers’ (4.7) ‘seek information from extension workers about current farm problems’ (4.2) ‘prepare bulletins, pamphlets, etc. for extension workers’ (4*2), and ‘assist in training local leaders and farmers’(3.9). These imply that all the six roles presented to the researchers were considered important.

Lastly, the researchers were asked to list the factors (or problems) which hindered their interactions with the extension workers. The analysis shows that the two factors mentioned most were ‘absence of formal coordinating body’ and ‘poor means of communication’. Each of these was mentioned 40% of the time. Other factors mentioned included ‘lack of feedback/ initiative from extension workers’ (20%), and ‘lack of financial support’ and ‘red tapism’ (10% each).

Researcher-farmer contacts Training of farmers and local leaders is one of the roles researchers perceived for

themselves. It is therefore logical to find out from those concerned how this has been achieved. The ‘how’ here deals with what Verner & Booth29 refer to as ‘technique’. The most frequently mentioned techniques were field days/ agricultural shows followed by demonstrations and farm visits. The inference from these findings is that very little was being done by the researchers in training farmers or local leaders. Field days and agricultural shows are rare events organised annually or at most twice a year. Demonstrations are carried out on a few selected farmers’ farms. And unless care is taken to select farmers who are capable of multiplying the effects, only a few farmers who have access to other extension activities will benefit. By the nature of farm visits-time consuming and result-oriented-their impact is not likely to be different from that of demonstrations.

Extension workers’ contacts with researchers In order to further explore this dyadic system relationship, the extension workers

were asked some questions on their interactions with researchers. First, the extension workers were asked to indicate the extent to which they used

technological information from the various sources available to them. The analysis


shows that the respondents used most frequently the information from their supervisors and colleagues. About 87% of the 60 extension workers studied relied on information from their supervisors, with 50% using this source five or more times during the year preceding the study. Fifty-seven per cent of the respondents got help from their colleagues. It is significant to note that a large majority of the extension workers studied indicated that they did not use any technical information from the publicity officer (75%), the Faculty of Agriculture, Njala (60%) nor the rice research station (57%). Those who mentioned that they obtained help from these sources obtained it only very sparingly, on one or two occasions during the preceding year.

A null hypothesis of no relationship was tested, using Spearman correlation coefficients, between choice of sources of information and selected personal characteristics of extension agents, in order to determine the part played by each of the characteristics. Only two factors-education (Y = - 0.23) and official status (r = +23)-were statistically significantly related at 0.05 level with the choice of the rice research station as a source of technical information. This implies that the extension workers with lower professional training and official status (i.e. agro- technicians) were more likely to go to the research station for help than the agricultural instructors who had sub-degree University training in agriculture. This situation was, however, made up for by the fact that these sub-degree certificate holders were more likely to get help from the Faculty where they were trained, although the relationships were not statistically significant at 0.05 level (education Y = 0.1 I, official status r = O-15). No other source of information showed a significant relationship with any other personal factor included in the study.

Another factor which may affect a decision to use, or not to use, a particular source of information is the attitudes of the recipients towards the source and the information being given out.zOThus, the extension workers were asked to indicate one of five response alternatives, according to how best the statement characterised their feelings about the information coming to them from the rice research station. The alternatives ranged from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’ and they were assigned scores ranging from five to one depending on whether the statement was positive or negative. Mean scores were then calculated for each respondent, and the respondents were grouped into two categories: ‘positive attitude’ for those with mean scores greater than three, and ‘negative attitude’for those with mean scores of three or less. Although a high proportion of the extension workers studied (57%) did not use information emanating from the research station, 70% of them had positive attitudes towards such information. It therefore means that the meagre use of the information from the station could not be explained by the attitudes of the users. but by other factors which were likely to be institutional in nature. This conclusion is supported by the answers given when the extension workers were asked to state the factors which limited their use of information from the rice research station. The three most frequently mentioned factors were lack of


transport, hoarding of publications from the field level workers and lack of a forum for direct contact between researchers and field level extension workers, in that order. These findings agree with those provided by the researchers

Extension worker-farmer contacts It is generally accepted that the ultimate consumers of research results are the

farmers, and that, in a poorly educated farming society like Sierra Leone (9 l*O?Jo of the 200 farmers studied had no formal education), the extension workersconstitute the most recognised link between research results and farmers. The second dyadic sub-system in this agricultural research delivery system is therefore the extension worker-farmer contacts, as seen by both parties.

Thus, from the extension workers’ point of view, each extension worker was asked to indicate how often he contacted farmers through selected methods during the year preceding the study. About 67% of them received farmers in their offices with an average of four visits per extension worker. On the other hand, about 87% of the workers made an average of seven visits to the farmers’ farms. Seventy per cent of the respondents contacted farmers through group meetings about four times during the year. Other contact methods, involving use of mass media-the radio and printed materials-were sparingly mentioned, if at all. This then means that the extension workers contacted farmers mainly through farm visits, group meetings and office calls, in that order, with an overall average of five contacts per year per worker. (See Table 1.)

TABLE 1

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF AGENTS’ CONTACTS WITH FARMERS BY DESIGNATED METHODS

Number of contacts Channels

Office Farm Group Telephone Pamph- call visit contact lets

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

None (no contact) 20 33.3 8 13.3 18 30 51 95 46 767 l-5 25 41.7 16 267 29 48.3 2 3.3 14 23.3 6-i0 I 11.7 9 15.0 I 1.7 - -

I1 - 15 3 5.0 16 26,7 4” 6”:; - - - - 16 - 20 More than 20 : A.: : ;:; I I II I

Total 60 100 60 100 60 100 60 100 60 100

In order to validate the above findings, the farmers were also asked to indicate how often they contacted extension workers through the selected methods. Contrary to the impression that might have been obtained if the study had not included the farmers, the radio turned out to be the most frequently used channel through which farmers obtained information from the extension services, as 76% of


the farmers used this channel. These findings are not in conflict with those reported above, because farm radio programmes are under the control of the publicity unit of the MANR. the staff of which were not included in the study of the extension workers. The other findings concerning the use of farm visits, group meetings including demonstrations. and office calls were confirmed to a great extent (Table 2).

TABLE 2

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FARMERS’ CONTACTS WITH AGENTS BY DESIGNATED METHODS

Methods (channels)

None No. %

Number of contacis

1-2 3-4 No. % No. %

5 or *ore No. %

Office calls 169 84.5 15 7.5 6 3 10 5 Farm visits 158 79.0 7.5 4.0 19 9.5

Group contacts 154 77 :i 15 i 4.5 Demonstration 155 77.5 19 9.5 18 9.0 ii ::; (demonstration plot)

Farm tours Radio Publications

182 91.0

2 24.0

4; 2;.: 5: 2.0 2.5 27.0

5: 26.5

98.0 2 1.0 1 0.5 1 0.5

In order to determine the factors, both from the extension workers’and the farmers’ side, which affected the choice of communication channels, Spearman correlation analysis was carried out. On the extension workers’ side, only the official status of the agents (r= O-25) and their level of education (rz0.21) showed positive statistically significant association with farm visits, at 0.02 and 0.05 levels of significance respectively. On the farmers’ side, size of farm showed significant relationships with all the channels studied as well as the overall contact score except farm tours and publications; education with demonstrations, farm tours, publications and overall contact score; age with office calls, farm visits and publications; and distance from agent’s office with farm visits. (See Table 3.)

The significant association of some characteristics of the agents with farm visits is surprising. because in the Sierra Leone setting, as in many other developing countries, it is the agents with the lowest official status and formal education who are placed closest to the farmers. Perhaps what this finding confirms is the usual practice of absenteeism found within this group of extension workers, which often leads to ‘slave driving’ by senior officers. 3o The characteristics of farmers which showed significant associations with various contact methods confirm what would be expected.

The next question examined in the agent-farmer interactions is the purpose for which one party contacted the other. Although the farmers gave more specific answers on the objectives of their contacts with the agents, the answers were matched in order to facilitate comparative analysis of the relative importance of the


TABLE 3

SPEARMAN CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN FARMERS’ CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR CONTACTS WITH EXTENSION WORKERS

Channel (methods)

Office calls Farm visits Group meetings Demonstrations Farm tours Radio Publications Contact score’

Characteristics

Age

0*1213* 0.1359* 0.0987 0.0165

-0.062 I 0.0383

-0*1796** 0.0142

Education Distance from Size qf agent .farm

00223 -0~1105 02948*** 00127 ->1218* 0.2722*** 0.028 I -00174 0.2650*** 0.1698** -0.1123 02122*** 0.1430* -0.0262 0.0574 0.0346 -0.0650 0.1681** 0.4691*** -0.0213 0.0572 0.1251* -0.0519 0.2754***

‘Contact score = Number of channels used by respondent Average contact score = (score X frequency)/N = 2

* = Significant at 0.05% level ** = Significant at 0.01% level

*** = Significant at O.OOl$Z0 level

purposes mentioned as seen by each party. This analysis is contained in Table 4. There is complete disaprecmcnt (as shown in Table 4) in relative importance of the objectives for which the agents and the farmers contacted each other. For example, while the agents considered provision of information on improved farm practices to farmers as their most important motive, the farmers put this fifth and considered acquisition of farm inputs such as fertilisers, seeds and chemicals as most important. Again, arrangements for tractor hiring and loans for farmers were considered by farmers as next most important, in that order; while the agents put tractor hiring last and never mentioned loans for farmers. These findings seem logical, as the differences in ranking seem to be a function of the differences in

TABLE 4

RELATlVE IMPORTANCE OF ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH EXTENSION AGENTS AND FARMERS CONTACTEDEACHOTHER

Activities Rank ordering

Provide/seek information on improved farm practices Discussion of farm problems Supply/ask for farm inputs-fertilisers, seeds, chemicals Provide/seek information on marketing of farm produce Training of farmers and local leaders Arrange/ask for tractor hiring Arrange/ask for farm loans

Agents Farmers

1 ::

z :

5” 6 ;

3


perception of ‘what should be’. While the agents saw provision of technologial information, training and helping farmers solve their problems as their primary roles, with provision of inputs and services as subsidiary roles, if important at all, the farmers saw the latter as crucial to their success as farmers, and hence the most important roles which the agents willing to assist them should perform.

Finally, the answers to the question on factors hindering effective contact between agents and farmers confirmed the earlier findings to the effect that institutional factors, such as lack of transport facilities and incentives for the agents (as well as inadequate farm inputs), were the most important limiting factors. However, the problem of agent’s ability to speak the local dialects of the farmers was also revealed here as significant. The attitudes of the farmers towards the extension agents was not differentiating, as the majority of the farmers (82%) had positive attitudes towards the agents.

DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The predominant linear model of communication which adopts a ‘take it or leave it’ approach is fraught with inadequacies, especially where agricultural research and utilisation of results are concerned. Rogers 31 has suggested that communication should be conceptualised as a system, with the addition of the element of feedback to it. The systems analysis of the delivery of agricultural research, adopted in this study, facilitates a critical examination of the efficiency of the situation in Sierra Leone.

The limited, and usually one-way, flow of information found in this study seems to be a characteristic peculiar of any system which operates the type of organisation of research and extension found in Sierra Leone 32.33. Previous studies have attributed this largely to the tendency of agents of change to be basically oriented to ‘downward’ communication, and to lack of coordination between the separate agencies responsible for research and extension.32,34 These factors were among those identified in this study as limiting the two-way flow of farm information.

Research findings from the station did not easily, or to any great extent, reach the field level extension workers, mainly because of the delivery system adopted. Publication of research findings mainly through research reports does not make for easy accessibility of the information to the field level workers. Since the researchers accepted the training of field level workers and farmers as one of their major roles, personal contacts between researchers and extension workers need to be increased and made more effective. The problems of transportation, both for extension workers and researchers, and incentives for extension workers need to be solved immediately,

Furthermore, the information system model conceptualised by Coughenour3s and adopted by Lionberger & Chang36does not seem to apply in our situation. While the


model advocates a two-way flow of information between researchers and farmers, we discovered that the researchers initiated very limited contacts with farmers and that there was no reciprocal act. While statistical testing of the factors responsible for this situation was not carriedout, it could be hypothesised that the inaccessibility of the researchers, status differential (particularly educational level) and the limited information requirements of the subsistence farmers would be major factors.

Very few farmers were reached by extension services, and the contacts with such farmers were very low. Findings on the farmer’s attributes, as they affect contacts with extension workers, appear to be in general agreement with most studies carried out in other parts of the world. The positive relationship found between social status and agent contacts has been reported in 45 different studies in seven separate countries, while education was found to be positively related to such contacts in 25 out of 26 studies carried out in five countries.‘4

However, findings on the use of radio do not seem to be consistent with those from some other studies. While Rogers34 found significant positive relationships between functional literacy and the number of radio shows listened to in five villages in Columbia, we found no relationship between use of radio and formal education. The differences in the concept used-‘functional literacy’ and ‘formal educatiorr- and the way they were measured could be responsible for the difference. Furthermore, the farm radio magazine programme is popular in Sierra Leone and it is broadcast in four local dialects four times a week, and hence education or literacy should not be a problem in using this source. Our findings also differ from those of Williams & Williamsj7 on the relationships between radio use and farm size, which they found not to be related, and age, which they found to be related. Two explanations for these differences are tenable. The first is the factor of methodology-whereas they obtained their sample from three distinct groups (i.e. by commodity), our sample was drawn from the population of rice growers. Secondly, the economic factor of farm size might have neutralised the educational advantage of the younger farmers, to the extent that the older farmers tended to listen to radio programmes just as much as the younger ones. This might not have been the case in Nigeria.

In general however, the major findings in this study agree to a large extent with those of similar studies done in other countries.

The following specific and additional recommendations are made to improve the situation revealed in the study.

1. The rice research station should be transferred back to Njala University College, both legally and physically, with close links with the Faculty of Agriculture and be turned into a multi-commodity adaptive (food crops) research station with Rokupr as one of its out-reach stations. Out-reach stations should also be located in other ecological z.ones of the country. This is necessary for economic reasons. Sierra Leone is a relatively small country with a limited number of well trained


agriculturists. What happened when the station was taken away from the College is evidence in favour of this claim. The adoption of this recommendation would make it possible to maximise output from the available research personnel in the country, as they could train both undergraduate and postgraduate students as well as do active research. Secondly, it is our belief that Sierra Leone cannot, as of now, afford the luxury of single-commodity research agencies; and that it is sufficiently bad and unjustifiable to neglect research work on other commodities-the position of rice as the staple food crop notwithstanding. Thirdly, we strongly believe that the environment in the Ministry, in terms of administrative procedures and personnel management, is not at present conducive to doing meaningful and effective research work, hence the suggestion for transfer to the University.

2. A virile agricultural research extension liaison section should be established. This should be an establishment of the MANR but the conditions of service of the liaison officers should be similar to those of researchers, and the officers should be located in the zonal (ecological) offices of the research agency. These officers will work with researchers, extension workers and farmers on the latter’s fields, prepare training materials for both extension workers and farmers, and bring the problems of extension workers and farmers to the researchers. The advantage of locating this section in the Ministry is to ensure that the loyalty of the officers is towards the extension service and the farmers. The recommendation on conditions of service is meant to take care of the problems of recognition and effective interactions with researchers in a society where professional qualification is regarded as a status symbol. The cost of implementing this will be more than offset by the savings from the first recommendation above if adopted along with it.

3. Finally, Sierra Leone, like other developing countries, should stop paying lip-service to agricultural development. Sufficient logistic support should be given to both the researchers and extension workers to enable them to carry out their work. It appears that the six month’s training programme for agro-technicians is not sufficient for doing the job and should either be scrapped or raised to, at least, a one year programme with about half of the time devoted to practical work. The majority of the problems identified in this study could be traced to institutional inadequacies, and these problems can only be solved by according agricultural development programmes the priority they rightly deserve.

REFERENCES

ROGERS, E. M. & HAVENS, A.E., Extension contact of Ohio farm housewives, Ohio Ag. Exp. Sra. Res. Bull. No. 890, Wooster, Ohio, 1961. AKINBODE, l.A., Relationships between the socioeconomic characteristics of farmers in British Columbia and their contacts with District Agriculturist, Unpublished M.S. Thesis, University of British Columbia, 1969. THOMPSON, J.D., Organization in action, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1967.

4. AKINBODE, I.A., The organisation and effectiveness of the agricultural extension service inNigeria, Agric. Admin., 3 (1976), 271-84.

5. MOSHER. A.T.. GettinE apriculture movinz Essentials for develoDment and modernization, New York, Piaeger,‘l966. - -

6. KANTACK, B.H., Developing a working arrangement research: extension specialists view, Proceedings of the International Conference of Extension Administrators, South Dakota State University, 1965.

7. TOOLE, L.O., Interactions of resident teaching, research and extension, National Symposium on Home Demonsfrafion Work, Washington DC, 1958.

8. FAY, LG., Notes on extension in agriculture, Madras, Madras Publishing House, 1962. 9. MARTIN, R.D., An evaluation of the agricultural information programme in Northern Nigeria,

USAID Consultancy Report C-50, 1964. 10. MIDDI.EMISS, C.P., Strategies for effective agricultural extension, The Sierra Leone Agricultural

Journal, 2 (1973), - 11. STRAUSS. M.A.. Cultural factors in the functioning of agricultural extension in Ceylon, Rural

Sociologj, 18 (1953), 249- 12. PRASAD, C., Teaching, research and extension in agriculture: A case study, Indian J. qf Extension

Education, 6 (1970), - 13. ARE, L.. Improving agricultural liaison services with a view to increasing crop producation in

Nigeria, Bull. of Rural Econ. and Sot., 5 (1970), 201-21. 14. AKINBODE. LA.. Coordination of agricultural programme in the former Western Nigeria, Agric.

- _ -

Admin., 5 (1978), 95-109. 15. ROGERS, E.M. & CAPENER, H.R., The county extension agent and hisconstituents,Ohio Ag. Exp.

Sta. Res. Bull. No. 858, Wooster, Ohio, 1960. 16. RAHUDKAR, W.B., The relationship of certain factors to the success of village level workers, Rural

Sociology, 27 (1962), - 17. BYRNE, F.C., Credibility and competence: key characteristics of development communicators,

Pauer Dresented at the Third World Congress of Rural Sociology, University of Louisiana, Baton

18. Rduge: Louisiana,, 1972. NYE, I., The relatIonship of certain factors to the county agents success, Missouri Ag. Exp. Sta. Bull. 498, Columbia, Missouri, 1952.

19. HARRISON, R.K., Workand motivation: a studyofvillage levelagriculturalextension workers in the Western State of Nigeria. In: Studies in Nigerian administration, ed. D.J. Murray, London, Hutchinson Educational, 1970.

20. BERLO, D.K.. Theproce.rs of communication: An introduction to theory andpractice. Ne\\ York, HoIt. Rinehart and Winston Inc., 1960.

21. FRUTCHEY, F.P., DSfferenrial characreristics of the more effective and less effective teachers, A summarv renort of nine studies made for the Office of Naval Research, Washington, DC, US Extension Service (USDA), 1957.

22. DUBE, S.C., India’s changing village, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1958, p. 172. 23 WILKENING, E.A. Sources of information for improved farm practices, Rural Sociology, 15 (1950),

19-30.

304 A. K. LAKOH. 1. ADEFOLU AKINBODE

24. COLEMAN. L.A.. Differential contact with extension work in a New York rural community, Rural

25. 26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

Sociology; 16 (i951), 7-16. PHOTIADIS. J.D.. Motivationcontactsand technologicalchange. Rura/Soriolog~.27(1962).000-00. L~ONBERG~R, H:C., Organizational issues m- aglzultural communication. In: Communication straregies for rural development, eds R.H. Crawford & W.B. Ward, New York, State College of Agriculture and Life Science, 1974. CLARK, R.C. & AKINBODE, I.A., Factors associated with adoption of three farm practices in the Western State of Nigeria, Faculty of Agriculture Research Bulletin I, University of Ife Press, 1968. ONAZI, O.C., A study of primary responsibilities of extension workers and major problems of agricultural extension in Northern Nigeria, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Kansas State University, 1973.

VERNER. C. & BOOTH. A.. Adult education, New York, The Center for Applied Research in Education Inc., 1964. AKINBODE. LA.. Roles of the divisional extension officers in the Western State ofNigeria, Quart. J. Admin., 0 (197i), 29-41 ROGERS, E.M., Social structure and communication strategies in rural development, In: R.C. Crawford and W.B. Ward (see reference 33). \KINBODE, LA., Analysis oj-infer-organizational relationships of agriculfural research, teaching t 2nd extension in Western Nigeria, Unpublished W.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1974. ESMAN, M.J., Popular participation and feedback systems in rural development. In:


Communication strategiesfor rural development, eds R.C. Crawford & W.B. Ward, New York, State College of Agriculture and Life Science, 1974.

34. ROGERS, E.M., Modernization amongpeasants: The impact of communication, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc., 1969.

35. COUGHENOUR, M.C., Some general problems.,in diffusion from the perspective of theory of social action, Ag. Exp. Sta. Res. Bull. No. 186, Umversity of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, 1967.

36. LIONBERGER, H.F. & CHANG, H.C., Farm information for modernizing agriculture: The Taiwan system, New York, Praeger, 1970.

37. WILLIAMS, S.K.T. & WILLIAMS, C.E., The relationships of farmers’characteristics to thesources of information on improved farm practices in Western Nigeria, BUN. qfRura/ &on. & Sot. 6 (1971), 000-00.

agricultural research delivery system in sierra leone

Documents