Factors Associated with Virtual Knowledge Sharing as Perceived by Farmers, Agri Experts and Extension Workers

Jezereel Louise C. Billano & Ronan G. ZagadoOpen Academy for Philippine Agriculture - Philippine Rice Research Institute

National Rice Research and Development Conference IRRI, Los Banos, Laguna

March 2010

Federation of Crop Science Societies of the PhilippinesGrand Regal Hotel, Davao City

May 2012

• empowers farmers with significant knowledge and strategies

• enhances stakeholders’ capacity to make informed decisions

“Knowledge sharing results to a dynamic discourse wherein we could formulate agricultural solutions that are fit to the specific needs of each community.”

Extension

ICT for Development

• ICT applications are being tested to provide more convenient venues for knowledge sharing

• OPAPA is a research-cum-development program that explores the use of ICTs in agriculture

The Web Conference

It is a two-way audio and video electronic conferencing tool.

Participants can see and talk to each other without being together.

Infrastructurethe software/hardware that enables the

communicational contact between participants.

Infostructure

…set of formal rules that govern the exchange between actors

Infoculture

…is the aspect that shows the role of information in the process.

Objectives

• Determine perception of respondents on web conference’s socio-technical factors: infrastructure, infostructure, and infoculture

• Formulate framework suggesting socio-technical characteristics for effective conduct of web conference

Web conference is a convenient way to obtain agri knowledge from credible sources.

Agri concerns are aired during web conferences.

Other farmers will be invited to web conferences.

Respondents’ ratings on webcon as a knowledge sharing tool

1=Highest; 5=Lowest

Perceived advantages

Through web conferencing, communication is convenient.“Ang pakinabang ng web conferencing ay direkta na makuha naming ang sagot sa mga iksperto kahit nasa malayo sila”

(The benefit of web conferencing is that we can directly get answers from experts even though they are far from us)- farmer, Banaybanay CyberCom

Web conference is a learning venue.“Nadagdagan ang kaalaman ng ating mga farmer di lang sa larangan ng pagtatanim kundi sa lahat ng aspeto

ng agrikultura” (Our farmers gain knowledge not only in farming but also in all aspects of agriculture)- webcon facilitator

Perceived disadvantages

Web conferencing is dependent on modern technologies.

“Need the equipment/hardware to facilitate the conferencing and equipment is oftentimes expensive- PhilRice expert

Physical absence may have a negative effect on the knowledge sharing process.

“Hindi mai-hands on o maiaktwal na idemonstrate ng expert ang mga teknolohiyang ipinapaliwanag” (Expert cannot effectively demonstrate the technologies he/she is explaining)- farmer, Pampanga CyberCom

FarmersCharacteristics Socio-technical Factor Mean

Everyone is listening attentively Infostructure 3.95Questions are answered politely Infostructure 3.90Participants introduce themselves before asking questions Infostructure 3.87

Information from farmers is valued Infoculture 3.87Technical staff is available to fix technical problems Infrastructure 3.85Internet is fast, works well. Infrastructure 3.83Equipment (computer, LCD, webcam, etc.) are easily accessed, manipulated, and maintained. Infrastructure 3.79Venue is convenient Infrastructure 3.79Salutatory messages, such as good morning, are used Infostructure 3.79Participants get answers to their queries Infostructure 3.79Topics discussed are relevant to participants’ concerns Infoculture 3.79Everyone is given a chance to speak Infoculture 3.78Video is clear Infrastructure 3.77Experts ask “naiintindihan po ba?” after answering participant’s question to ensure knowledge intake Infostructure 3.77Facilitator intervenes when there is confusion between expert and participants Infostructure 3.76Actual field experiences are shared Infoculture 3.76Mistakes are politely corrected Infoculture 3.76Certain words such as “copy”, “ok”, “go ahead”, are used to facilitate the flow of discussion Infostructure 3.70Facilitators take note and review topics discussed Infostructure 3.69Audio is audible Infrastructure 3.68Participants trust experts Infoculture 3.66Contents of discussions address participants’ concerns Infoculture 3.66Participants apply repetition to emphasize and clarify a point Infostructure 3.63Foul and disgusting words are avoided Infoculture 3.57Simple words are used Infostructure 3.53No one is openly embarrassed for whatever reason Infoculture 3.51Say “yun lang po” after asking a question Infostructure 3.42Participants ask short and direct questions. Infostructure 3.41Experts are sensitive of the participant’s situation and background Infoculture 3.38Everyone speaks clearly and slowly Infostructure 3.36Language, signs, and gestures used are acceptable to everyone Infoculture 3.30Participants use verbal and nonverbal cues in communicating their ideas Infostructure 3.22Participants have a hard time expressing ideas owing to language barriers Infostructure 2.87There are no disturbing images on the screen/monitor Infrastructure 2.84Experiences automatic shutdown/system down Infrastructure 2.84Experiences delay in feedback Infrastructure 2.62Modern devices are not intimidating Infrastructure 2.50

Experiences brown out Infrastructure2.24

Characteristics Socio-technical Factor Mean

Venue is convenient Infrastructure 3.75Actual field experiences are shared Infoculture 3.75Foul and disgusting words are avoided Infoculture 3.75Information from farmers is valued Infoculture 3.75Contents of discussions address participants’ concerns Infoculture 3.75Participants get answers to their queries Infostructure 3.67Topics discussed are relevant to participants’ concerns Infoculture 3.67Participants use verbal and nonverbal cues in communicating their ideas Infostructure 3.50Questions are answered politely Infostructure 3.50Facilitator act as mediator when there is confusion between expert and participants Infostructure 3.50Participants trust experts Infoculture 3.50Mistakes are politely corrected Infoculture 3.50Facilitators take note and review topics discussed Infostructure 3.33 Technical staff is available to fix technical problems Infrastructure 3.25Salutatory messages, such as good morning, are used Infostructure 3.25Participants apply repetition to emphasize and clarify a point Infostructure 3.25Experts ask “naiintindihan po ba?” after answering participant’s question to ensure knowledge intake Infostructure 3.25Everyone is listening attentively Infostructure 3.25Certain words such as “copy”, “ok”, “go ahead”, are used to facilitate the flow of discussion Infostructure 3.25Everyone is given a chance to speak Infoculture 3.25Experts are sensitive of the participant’s situation and background Infoculture 3.25Video is clear Infrastructure 3.00There are no disturbing images on the screen/monitor Infrastructure 3.00Modern devices are not intimidating Infrastructure 3.00Participants have a hard time expressing ideas owing to language barriers Infostructure 3.00Language, signs, and gestures used are acceptable to everyone Infoculture 3.00Internet is fast, works well. Infrastructure 2.75Equipment (computer, LCD, webcam, etc.) are easily accessed, manipulated, and maintained. Infrastructure 2.75Everyone speaks clearly and slowly Infostructure 2.75Participants introduce themselves before asking questions Infostructure 2.75Participants ask short and direct questions. Infostructure 2.75Say “yun lang po” after asking a question Infostructure 2.75Simple words are used Infostructure 2.75No one is openly embarrassed for whatever reason Infoculture 2.67Audio is audible Infrastructure 2.50Experiences delay in feedback Infrastructure 2.50Experiences brown out Infrastructure 1.75

Experiences automatic shutdown/system down Infrastructure 1.50

Experts

FacilitatorsCharacteristics Socio-technical Factor Mean

Venue is convenient Infrastructure 3.75Actual field experiences are shared Infoculture 3.75Foul and disgusting words are avoided Infoculture 3.75Information from farmers is valued Infoculture 3.75Contents of discussions address participants’ concerns Infoculture 3.75Participants get answers to their queries Infostructure 3.67Topics discussed are relevant to participants’ concerns Infoculture 3.67Participants use verbal and nonverbal cues in communicating their ideas Infostructure 3.50Questions are answered politely Infostructure 3.50Facilitator act as mediator when there is confusion between expert and participants Infostructure 3.50Participants trust experts Infoculture 3.50Mistakes are politely corrected Infoculture 3.50Facilitators take note and review topics discussed Infostructure 3.33 Technical staff is available to fix technical problems Infrastructure 3.25Salutatory messages, such as good morning, are used Infostructure 3.25Participants apply repetition to emphasize and clarify a point Infostructure 3.25Experts ask “naiintindihan po ba?” after answering participant’s question to ensure knowledge intake Infostructure 3.25Everyone is listening attentively Infostructure 3.25Certain words such as “copy”, “ok”, “go ahead”, are used to facilitate the flow of discussion Infostructure 3.25Everyone is given a chance to speak Infoculture 3.25Experts are sensitive of the participant’s situation and background Infoculture 3.25Video is clear Infrastructure 3.00There are no disturbing images on the screen/monitor Infrastructure 3.00Modern devices are not intimidating Infrastructure 3.00Participants have a hard time expressing ideas owing to language barriers Infostructure 3.00Language, signs, and gestures used are acceptable to everyone Infoculture 3.00Internet is fast, works well. Infrastructure 2.75Equipment (computer, LCD, webcam, etc.) are easily accessed, manipulated, and maintained. Infrastructure 2.75Everyone speaks clearly and slowly Infostructure 2.75Participants introduce themselves before asking questions Infostructure 2.75Participants ask short and direct questions. Infostructure 2.75Say “yun lang po” after asking a question Infostructure 2.75Simple words are used Infostructure 2.75No one is openly embarrassed for whatever reason Infoculture 2.67Audio is audible Infrastructure 2.50Experiences delay in feedback Infrastructure 2.50Experiences brown out Infrastructure 1.75

Experiences automatic shutdown/system down Infrastructure 1.50

• contents of discussion address farmers’ concerns• actual field experiences are shared• information from farmers are valued • mistakes are politely corrected foul• disgusting words are avoided

• technical staff is available to fix technical problems

• venue is convenient

• queries are answered politely• farmers queries’ are answered• facilitators act as mediator whenever there is

confusion between experts and participants • salutatory messages are used • participants introduce themselves before speaking or

asking questions and say “yun lang po” after asking• everyone is listening attentively

Infoculture

InfrastructureInfostructure

KNOWLEDGE SHARING VIA WEB CONFERENCE

Recommendations• Continue testing the said modality and other ICT

applications to explore more possibilities and ways to improve it.

• Involve farmers and other stakeholders in the evaluation of ICT modalities. Extension workers should participate in web conferences.

• Comprehensive studies should be conducted to determine the effect of knowledge sharing through web conferences in the participants’ knowledge, attitude and practices.

Recommendations

Recommendations• LGUs are encouraged to invest in ICT applications to ease

information delivery and communication.

• A socio-technical approach is necessary in formulating virtual communication models that will cater to various stakeholders’ particular needs in the knowledge sharing process.

• Extension should focus on different factors that contribute to the process of effective communication with rice stakeholders.

Acknowledgments

Oliver Domingo and Jen Maloles, OPAPA-PhilRiceOPAPA-USEP

Noel Cabral, Pampanga Agricultural CollegeAileen Castañeda, PhilRice SocioEconomics Division

• LITERATURE CITED• Al-Ma’aitah, M. 2008. Using electronic media in knowledge sharing phases: case study

in Jordan hospitals. In: International Journal of Education and Information Technologies. Volume 2. Issue 4. (http://www.wseas.us/journals/educationinformation/eit-74.pdf) Retrieved on 25/11/09

• Dulany & Pellettiere. Knowledge management process: a socio-technical approach (research in progress). Aurora University. (www.swdsi.org/.../SWDSI%20Proceedings%20Paper%20S203.pdf) Retrieved on 20/10/09

• Lodhi, S.A . 2005. Culture based knowledge sharing model. National College of Business Administration & Economics. Lahore. (http://eprints.hec.gov.pk/963/1/695.html.htm) Retrieved on 12/12/09.

• Mohayidin, M.G., et.al. 2005. The application of knowledge management in enhancing the performance of Malaysian universities. In: The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management. Volume 5. Issue 3. (http://www.ejkm.com/volume-5/v5-i3). Retrieved on 04/12/09

• Sharatt, M. & Usoro, A. 2003. Understanding knowledge sharing in online communities of practice. University of Paisley. Scotland. (http://www.ejkm.com/volume-1/volume1-issue-2/issue2-art18-sharratt.pdf) Retrieved on 23/10/09

• Sun, S., et.al. 2009. Influence on willingness of virtual community’s knowledge sharing: based on social capital theory. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. (http://www.waset.org/journals/waset/v53/v53-22.pdf) Retrieved on 23/10/09.

• Supar, N., et.al Factors affecting knowledge sharing and its effect on performance: a study of three selected higher academic institutions. (http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:grYZb4c8lG8J:ickm.upm.edu.my/Parallel%2520Session%25204/Norizahsupar_Factors%2520Affecting%2520K-Sharing%2520%26%2520Its%2520Effects%2520on%2520Performance.doc+knowledge+sharing+infostructure+KM&cd=2&hl=tl&ct=clnk&gl=ph&client=firefox-a) Retrieved on 04/12/09

• Xiong, S. & Deng, H. 2008. Critical success factors for effective knowledge sharing in Chinese joint ventures. In: 19th Australasian Conference on Information Systems. Australia. (http://www.bsec.canterbury.ac.nz/acis2008/Papers/acis-0203-2008.pdf) Retrieved on 18/10/09

• Yang & Lai. Knowledge sharing dilemmas in virtual communities: the impact of anonymity. Department of Management Information Systems. Taiwan. (http://academic-papers.org/ocs2/session/Papers/E5/484-2120-1-DR.doc) Retrieved on 04/12/09