Article reprints (US $5/each) may be obtained by contacting the Academic Editor.
- Woods, J. L. Making Rural Development Projects More Effective: A Management Systems Approach.
- Rivera, W. M. Developing Agricultural Extension Systems Nationwide: A Structural Approach.
- Layton, J. J. & F. A. Santopolo. Management of Irrigation Systems: Organizing Farmers' Participation Efforts.
- Cuyno, R. V. Research System and Research Utilization: How to Reach the End-Users.
- Wang, G. Indigenous Communication Systems: In Research and Development.
- Verma, O. S. & V. V. Bhaskar. Scientists' Productivity: AAR-System Versus PA-System: A Case Study.
Woods, J. L. Making Rural Development Projects More Effective: A Management Systems Approach, 3-28.
This paper focuses on how to make existing rural development projects more effective, rather then advocating new types of projects. It describes a management systems approach to project planning and implementation. Through actual experiences gained from 41 UN sponsored rural development projects in roughly 22 countries, nine specific subsystems are identified which contribute to the success of rural development projects. The nine subsystems involved are: (1) Intended Beneficiaries, (2) Field Workers/Change Agents, (3) Programme Research/Evaluation/Monitoring, (4) Technology Generation/ Adaptation, (5) Production and Distribution of Supply Inputs, (6) Staff Development/ Training, (7) Communication Media/Materials, (8) Programme Planning, and (9) Programme Administration and Supervision. The systems approach stresses the interaction between these subsystems as contrasted with the common approach of developing individual subsystems. The management systems approach thus helps project planners and administrators to better understand the overall job they must do. It also helps explain to people involved in each of these subsystems how their specific roles fit into the overall project.
Rivera, W. M. Developing Agricultural Extension Systems Nationwide: A Structural Approach, 29-50.
Agricultural Extension has been narrowly defined, It requires Clarification. There are at least three definitions: (1) Agricultural Performance, (2) Rural Community Development, and (3) Comprehensive Nonformal Continuing and Community Education. Similarly, the assumption that there is one unified extension system is not usually the case. There are more often "multiple" systems of agricultural extension both in public and private sectors, In this paper, 12 illustrative types of extension systems, 4 main system approaches, and 4 corresponding relationships of these approaches to farmers are presented. in order to develop these systems, five Considerations are important: (1) Client Profile, (2) Agricultural Production Goals, (3) Extension Institutional Infrastructure, (4) Environmental Concerns: Natural Resources Management, and (5) Financial Concerns: National Budget and Donor Assistance. In deciding National options for extension development, three Frameworks are crucial to policy-makers- (1) Target Group Selection, (2) Agricultural Production Potential in terms of Yield and Risk factors, and (3) Multiple Extension Systems and their purposive arrangements. The Clarifications, Considerations, and Frameworks should help policy-makers in determining the "Right-Mix" of extension required for their Country's agricultural and socio-economic development.
Layton, J. J. & F. A. Santopolo. Management of Irrigation Systems: Organizing Farmers' Participation Efforts, 51-62.
Many extension efforts on organizing farmers to manage their irrigation systems have been tried throughout the World. The rationale behind has been that farmers with more management responsibilities are more willing to invest their time and money. This article reports work done in Egypt on a Canal irrigation system serving an area of 1200 acres managed by 1000 farmers. The efforts were made to organise these farmers into a Water Users Association (WUA) through eight processes of organizational characteristics defined by Haas and Drabek (1973): (1) Task, (2) Decision Making, (3) Communication, (4) Coordination, (5) Control, (6) Conflict, (7) Maintenance, and (8) Adaptation. These processes were guided by a work schedule conceptualised by Sehnert (1960, 1961) as Time Phases: (1) Introductory, (2) Planning, (3) Organization, (4) Operational, and (5) Continuation. The principles related to these conceptual schemes help to define the course of organizational activity, and therefore, the extension effort. The purpose of this discussion is to describe extension-related process of how one WUA was started in Egypt for efficient management of an improved irrigation scheme.
Cuyno, R. V. Research System and Research Utilization: How to Reach the End-Users, 63-74.
Research Utilization is a process of final test when the research results become integrated into the behavioral pattern of the end-users. It passes through seven steps: (1) Technology Assessment, (2) Promotion, (3) Attention-Evaluation, (4) Transformation, (5) Acceptance, (6) Practice, and (7) Internalization. This end-user oriented process is based on the Technology Diffusion-Adopt ion Process which involves five stages: (I) Awareness, (2) Knowledge, (3) Understanding, (4) Commitment, and (5) Adoption. The Technology Diffusion-Adoption Process is governed by several Principles: (1) In the beginning, an Innovation System, (2) Know the Territory, (3) Have Channel, (4) Differential Readiness to innovate, (5) Compatibility of Innovation to Existing Situation, (6) Innovation Barriers Identification, and (7) Role of External Change Agent. Research Utilization process may be operationalised through a strategy that might include: (1) A Unit for Communication-Extension, (2) Work Through Intermediaries, (3) Work with Multipliers, (4) Do not Compete, Collaborate, In this presentation, research utilization is taken as an integral function of the research system and therefore it is incumbent upon this system to create mechanisms for ensuring that its research results reach the ultimate end-users.
Wang, G. Indigenous Communication Systems: In Research and Development, 75-86.
The term "indigenous" is often interchangeably used with terms like "traditional" or "local". True, the Indigenous communication systems which existed before the arrival of mass media are referred to as "traditional" or "local" such as puppet show, folk-drama, story-telling, community tea-house, open market, and village meetings etc. Similarly, there are indigenous knowledge systems which are based on people's accumulated experiences. Both these systems are conceptually independent but in reality they are deeply embedded in our socio-cultural system. The systematic use of both has been well-recognised today in research and development efforts. They, however, are not without problems and difficulties. In this article, the pros and cons of the use of indigenous communication systems and indigenous knowledge are elaborated in the context of research and development.
Verma, O. S. & V. V. Bhaskar. Scientists' Productivity: AAR-System Versus PA-System: A Case Study, 87-93.
The Productivity Assessment System (PA-System) developed as a result of this study based on scientists' actual work performance through research, teaching, extension, and miscellaneous activities is proved to be an objective and reliable instrument especially when compared with the existing Annual Assessment Reporting System (AAR-System) of Indian Council of Agricultural Research. The performance of 18 scientists when computed by both the systems, 15 scientists were found either under-rated or over-rated in AAR-System. The under-rating was of the order of 24.60 per cent and over-rating 10.20 per cent. This finding only indicates that there is a substantial amount of subjectivity in AAR-System. This fact is further corroborated when 9 scientists who were selected by Known Group Technique supposed to be more productive than those 9 scientists selected at random did not turn up to be more productive on AAR-System. They all, however, were found to be symmetrically more productive on PA-System. In view of these findings, therefore, it can safely be reported that the PA-System is relatively more effective and reliable instrument to measure the scientists' performance. The AAR-System, by and large, is a subjective exercise.