Comparative Field Study of 4 Devices for Agriculture Extension · PDF fileComparative Field Study of 4 Devices for Agriculture Extension Phase 2 Report of Devices for Agriculture Extension:

Comparative Field Study of 4 Devices for Agriculture Extension

Phase 2 Report of Devices for Agriculture Extension: A Comparative Landscape Study

Kentaro Toyama (D-Rev and UC Berkeley)

S. Raghu Menon (Independent Consultant)

Rehema Baguma (Makerere University)

Andrew Gahwera (Makerere University)

Last updated: January 19, 2012

This report is available at http://www.d-rev.org/projects/accessforagriculture.html. Please direct

inquiries to kentaro_toyama(a)hotmail.com.

http://www.d-rev.org/projects/accessforagriculture.html

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Background ................................................................................................................................................... 4

Summary of the Phase 1 Report ............................................................................................................... 4

Phase 2 Scope ........................................................................................................................................... 5

Study of Devices ............................................................................................................................................ 6

Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 6

Content ................................................................................................................................................. 8

Methodological Notes ........................................................................................................................... 8

Summary of Findings............................................................................................................................... 10

Detailed Findings ..................................................................................................................................... 11

Structured Interviews with Farmers ................................................................................................... 11

Structured Interviews with Service Providers ..................................................................................... 15

Learning Trials with Farmers ............................................................................................................... 17

Higher-Level Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 18

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... 20

References .................................................................................................................................................. 20

Report Contributors .................................................................................................................................... 20

Appendix 1: Device Descriptions ................................................................................................................ 23

Device: Audio Device .............................................................................................................................. 23

Device: Enhanced Poster ........................................................................................................................ 23

Device: AV Player .................................................................................................................................... 24

Device: Mobile Phone ............................................................................................................................. 25

Appendix 2: Interview Protocol for Farmers............................................................................................... 27

Appendix 3: Interview Protocol for Service Providers ................................................................................ 29

Executive Summary Agriculture extension – the dissemination of expert agricultural knowledge and practice – is among the

major challenges in rural development. In this study, the second phase of a two-phase landscape study

investigating the potential of electronic devices for extension, four digital devices were field-tested for

their potential value to small-group, smallholder agriculture extension.

The devices were a multimedia-capable mobile phone, a portable audio-video player, an audio-

enhanced poster, and an audio recording and playback device. The enhanced poster was specifically

prototyped for this study. The studies were conducted in partnership with local extension-focused

organizations at two sites in India (Karnataka and Orissa) and one site in Uganda. Devices were studied

with respect to their usability, desirability, perceived value, and effectiveness as a medium for

information dissemination of agricultural information.

This report documents study methodology, study findings, and some high-level conclusions. Among the

study findings:

There was very enthusiastic response all around for the mobile phone, followed by moderate

response for the audio device, and trailed by muted response for both the enhanced poster and

the AV player. Enthusiasm for the phone is believed to be due to its functionality apart from

agricultural information.

As a second-order effect, there was varying appreciation for devices allowing video versus

those that didn’t. While video was rarely denigrated, some respondents who were particularly

accustomed to radio appeared to prefer audio-only devices, or audio with static imagery.

In a trial where the participant group included a range of educational backgrounds, level of

education correlated greatly with farmers’ learning of information from the devices.

There were negligible variations in the degree to which subjects learned, based on device type,

suggesting that low-cost, low-feature technology aids may be sufficient as learning aids.

High-level conclusions include the following:

a) Broad generalizations that cut across extension methodology and cultural context are difficult

to make about technology. Even between just two countries, we found some differences in

device preferences that are likely due to different degrees of exposure to specific technologies.

b) Comparative studies of electronic devices have a short shelf-life. The rapid rate of technology

innovation causes both device capabilities and device classes to change very quickly.

c) Development organizations seeking large-scale, long-term impact may wish to focus more on

building institutional capacity to incorporate new technologies within extension-interested

organizations, rather than on interventions that apply specific technologies, which themselves

will rapidly become obsolete.

This document is written to be self-contained, but makes reference to the Phase 1 report available at

http://www.d-rev.org/projects/accessforagriculture.html.


Background (For more detailed background on agriculture extension and information and communication

technologies, please see the introductory material in the Phase 1 report (Toyama 2011).)

Of the 1.1 billion people who survive on less than a dollar a day, approximately 800 million earn their

primary livelihood from small farms in developing countries. Information about up-to-date farming

practices typically does not reach smallholder farmers who live in remote rural areas, and the farmers

themselves have been denied a solid education that would allow them to find and absorb such

information on their own. Yet, the right information absorbed and applied correctly can improve

nutrition and increase net income for many households. Agriculture extension – the dissemination of

expert agricultural knowledge and practice – is, thus, at once among the major challenges in rural

development and a great opportunity.

Many smallholder farmers are also illiterate or semi-literate, making it particularly difficult to

disseminate information to them in written form. As a result, digital technologies have been cited as a

potentially effective channel. Especially as devices become cheaper, lighter, more ubiquitous, and more

powerful, their potential to serve as learning aids increases.

At the same time, the proliferation of technology makes it a challenge to gauge the relative merits of

different device classes. In this comparative landscape study commissioned by the Bill & Melinda Gates

Foundation, the goal was to understand how different device classes compare against one another

along several dimensions.

The study reported here represents Phase 2 of a 2-part study. It focused on four devices identified in

Phase 1 as being good tradeoffs between cost and functionality. The study assessed how these devices

perform with respect to usability, desirability, perceived value, and effectiveness as a medium for

information dissemination among smallholder farmers. Fieldwork was conducted in three sites in

Uganda and India, involving both smallholder farmers and people working in extension.

Summary of the Phase 1 Report The findings from Phase 1 are relevant as background and as a common basis for discussion. The main

conclusions of Phase 1 are summarized in this section. Further details can be found in the full report:

http://www.d-rev.org/projects/accessforagriculture.html (Toyama 2011).

Phase 1 conclusions included the following:

a) With respect to electronic technology use, agriculture extension can be broadly classified into

several usage contexts, including (1) one-to-one or small-group instruction, (2) large-group

presentations, (3) individual or household self-study situations, (4) peer-to-peer content

production, and (5) formal content production.

b) Small-group presentations require rugged, portable devices, but demand less in the way of

feature richness or ease of use, as the assumption is that an instructor or mentor figure is

present.


c) There is a very consistent tradeoff between device cost and features in the obvious way, with

higher cost devices providing richer features.

d) Among devices that make the optimal feature-cost tradeoffs are netbooks, smartphones, low-

cost audio-video playback devices, and low-cost audio recording/playback devices.

The Phase 1 report also issued several caveats about technology in agriculture extension:

1) Agriculture extension is best thought of as a process of deep education, which requires not

only the thin dissemination of information and knowledge, but fundamental changes in

behavior and habit which are not readily transmitted outside of a strong institutional

framework.

2) Technology is an ongoing cost, of which cost of hardware is a relatively small part. Costs of

maintenance, repair, upgrade, training, and so forth rapidly add up.

3) Automated processes are not necessarily cheaper or better in international development

contexts, as the human touch can provide important elements of trust and hand-holding that

technology alone cannot. Also, because even skilled labor is so inexpensive in these contexts,

technology is not always cheaper.

4) There is no single “perfect” technology even for the purposes of agriculture extension.

Different scenarios (due to different culture, geography, climate, extension style, etc.) call for

markedly different features.

Phase 2 Scope Phase 1 helped to narrow the scope of Phase 2.

In terms of scenarios, we focused on one-to-one interaction and small-group presentation as the

instructional context: Classical agriculture extension (also called “training and visit” or T&V extension)

typically involves a single agriculture expert interacting on a one-to-one basis with farmers, and this

remains the most common form of extension. This kind of interaction involves a farmer and an

acknowledged agriculture expert or salesman. The intimacy of the relationship permits significant

interaction with minimum social pressure. Typically, any devices in this scenario would be managed and

operated by the service provider. The key characteristics of this category are that (1) it involves a small

number of learners; (2) the group members are sufficiently comfortable with each other that they feel

little social pressure when asking questions, etc.; and (3) the service provider can pay attention

individually to group members.

The study focuses solely on the question of what electronic technologies would support this kind of

extension. (Among other things, it does not make explicit comparisons of technology-aided extension

with traditional extension without technology.) The technologies we considered could support this

context in a variety of ways: (a) as learning aids during one-to-one or small-group interaction between

service providers and farmers; (b) as learning aids provided to farmers by local NGOs or service-provider

organizations; (c) as learning aids procured and owned by individual farmers or farmer groups.

Challenges in this extension scenario which could be mitigated by technology include the following: lack

of trust; poor or incomplete knowledge on the part of the extension agent; difficulty of explaining

agricultural techniques through spoken dialogue only; etc.

Phase 1 also resulted in the selection of the four devices for study in Phase 2. These devices are…

(1) a ruggedized audio device [audio device],

(2) an audio-enhanced poster [enhanced poster],

(3) a portable audio-video player [AV player], and

(4) a multimedia-capable mobile phone [henceforth, mobile phone].

Figure 1. The four devices selected for the Phase 2 study, from left to right: audio device, enhanced poster, AV player, mobile phone.

More detailed descriptions of these devices are provided in

Appendix 1: Device Descriptions. Details of the lab analysis from Phase 1 for three of these devices (as

well as nine others) is also available in the Phase 1 report.

One item on this list differs from the four devices found to provide optimal cost-feature tradeoff in

Phase 1. Netbooks rated highly in Phase 1, but were left out of the study because their cost-feature

profile was similar to that of multimedia mobile phones, and it is expected that they will eventually lose

ground to phones in cost. In their stead, we inserted the custom-designed, audio-enhanced poster that

filled a hole in the cost-feature spectrum among devices tested in Phase 1.

Study of Devices

Methodology The four devices identified above as optimally trading-off between cost and functionality were

examined for their appropriateness in developing-world agriculture extension, specifically as might be

used in a one-to-one or small-group extension scenario. The objective was to gain a qualitative

understanding, through field studies, of how farmers and extension stakeholders would respond to the

devices in terms of their usability, desirability, perceived value, and effectiveness as a medium for

information dissemination.

Figure 2. Respondents from the study: left, a woman in Karnataka using the enhanced poster; (right) two farmers in Uganda watching a video on the AV player.

The fieldwork was conducted at three different sites, by two different research teams. Two sites were

in India (Karnataka and Orissa), and one was in Uganda (near Mbale). At each site, the following

separate activities were undertaken:

Structured interviews with non-farmer stakeholders in local agriculture extension (who will be

dubbed service providers for the remainder of the document): These people were extension

officers, NGO staff, or project staff. We sought their opinions on each of the four devices,

following brief demonstrations. At least 6 interviewees were planned per site; actual number of

those interviewed are as follows: Karnataka: 7; Orissa: 8; Uganda: 6. The interview protocol for

these service providers is provided in

Appendix 3: Interview Protocol for Service Providers.

Structured interviews and usability studies with farmers: For each subject, we sought their

opinions on each of the four devices, following brief demonstrations. The farmers were chosen

so as to be as diverse as possible with respect to their ages, genders, educational background,

and socio-economic status. At least 8 interviewees were planned per site; actual number of

those interviewed are as follows: Karnataka: 9; Orissa: 9; Uganda: 16. The interview protocol for

farmers is available in

Appendix 2: Interview Protocol for Farmers.

Learning trials with 8 additional farmers, to understand whether the devices are really useful

as a way for farmers to learn, and to get a comparative sense between devices: The subjects

for this part of the study were chosen separately from the ones above, and they were chosen to

be similar in their ages, genders, education, and socio-economic background, so that we could

compare results across devices. Each farmer was assigned a device, two farmers per device,

though subjects each undertook the study individually. Each farmer had a chance to spend 15

minutes learning from the researcher how their device worked. They then spent 15 minutes

with the device to learn the content. Each farmer was tested once before and once after the

learning from the device to see whether they were able to learn the material, given the device.

In all cases, the test was administered verbally, so as to minimize differences between literate

and non-literate subjects. At least 8 subjects were planned per site; actual number of those

tested were as follows: Karnataka: 10; Orissa: 14; Uganda: 7.

A total of 86 respondents (65 farmers and 21 service providers) were involved in the fieldwork across all

sites, providing both structured interview feedback and some sense for the possibility to gain

information from the devices.

Content

Although our focus was on a comparative understanding of the devices, we could not perform such a

study without concrete instances of agricultural content.

We selected content topics that were most relevant for each site. In Karnataka, it was sorghum seed

treatment. In Orissa, it was paddy seed treatment. In Uganda, it was cassava brown-streak disease. In

each case, the content was determined according to discussion with the partner organization and

farmer needs during the season in which the test was conducted. Ideally, we would have been able to

use the same content across all sites, but this was not feasible in practice, as the regions in which our

partners worked was dominated by different agricultural concerns.

Then, for each topic, a relevant video, 3-5 minutes in length, was identified or produced. These videos

contained substantive content on research-tested concepts that the partner organizations wished to

disseminate to more farmers. (It should be noted that finding and adapting appropriate content was

itself a labor-intensive task. Though there is considerable agricultural content available online, for

example, its quality is uneven, and most of it exists only in English. Furthermore, little of the available

content is explicitly linked to geography, except when it is maintained by a local agricultural

organization.)

The video could be used directly for the mobile phone and the audio-video playback device, but it

needed additional adaptation for the enhanced poster and the customized audio device. For the

enhanced poster, relevant screen shots from the video were used as poster graphics, and the audio

track of the video was cut into meaningful clips and assigned to each button. The same audio clips were

then also uploaded to the audio device.

Thus, all of the devices were conveying the “same” material, to the extent that their functionality

allowed. The content on the enhanced poster and the audio device, of course, did not contain the

richness of the original video content, but it nevertheless conveyed the same factual information.

Methodological Notes

This study was qualitative in nature and did not attempt to reach the scale necessary for statistically

significant quantitative results. Study results should therefore be interpreted accordingly. In particular,

though the breadth, range, and specifics of the findings may provide insight into individual cases among

the broader population of farmers and service providers, the samples are not necessarily a statistically

representative sample of the larger population. Numerical results in particular should not be read as the

typical or average responses by populations demographically similar to the subjects.

The study only considered short-term responses to devices, and not long-term effects and opinions.

Thus, there may have been novelty effects, and there was little attention paid to questions such as

battery life, ownership life cycle, and maintenance issues. In addition, any findings regarding usability

may change over time, as users become accustomed to device function.

There were some minor differences in the way the study was conducted in Uganda and India, due to

constraints of partner logistics. In Uganda, the studies were conducted with the farmer subjects all

present at a single sitting, producing an environment somewhat more like a focus group. Though we

attempted to question farmers separately, subjects inevitably overheard one another’s responses, and

in some cases spontaneously added commentary. In India, farmers were isolated individually during the

interviews and the trials. Subject responses can and do differ based on such differences in study design,

but nothing in our results suggest that this effect was particularly strong. Also, in Uganda, the learning

trials were not numerically scored.

Standard caveats about interviews and survey methodologies apply. Survey respondents are known to

second-guess answers, in a bid to affect their reputation and future outcomes. In the case of surveys

done in close association with NGOs (as done here), participants may provide responses they feel will

earn them rewards later. Especially in surveys involving tangible products such as mobile phones,

respondents may feel that certain responses will make it more likely that the NGO will roll out a future

program that involves free or loaned mobile phones.

On the other hand, all of the organizations that we partnered with have exceptionally good rapport and

trust with their communities. Because we piggy-backed on these established relationships, we believe

that responses were honest and accurate on the whole, and that there were few responses that were

meant to totally mislead. Our partners, who were present throughout the study, confirmed this belief.

Content for the audio-only devices was generated by stripping the visual imagery from video content.

The original videos were chosen so that their audio track was self-contained (i.e., it did not require visual

imagery to understand), but it’s possible that better audio content could have been generated if it were

designed specifically for audio-only devices. This methodological decision was made so that meaningful

comparisons could be made, but it could be argued that each device should have content optimally

designed for each.

Because the enhanced poster was a prototype developed just before the study, it was not in the same

state as the other devices, which were off-the-shelf products. As a result, many of the comments from

respondents indicate their dissatisfaction with the prototype, rather than with the concept. Such

comments are underemphasized in this report, but included wherever there was any doubt as to their

relevance to understanding the device type.

Finally, we note that the ultimate test of any technology is under conditions similar to those of its

expected application. Although our studies provide a preliminary sense for how the different devices

might be received in the field, there is no substitute for an actual pilot to understand impact. In

particular, because our study was designed for a generic small-group extension scenario, it does not

necessarily predict how the technologies would work with specific extension methodologies.

Summary of Findings Farmer and service-provider opinion were in alignment with respect to the devices, though service-

provider responses felt more carefully thought through. They had less (imagined) reason to second-

guess responses. There were also some differences in responses between sites.

There was very enthusiastic response all around for the mobile phone. Respondents liked that

it was multi-functional, and that it allowed video playback. Some complained about the small

screen size or the high cost. Enthusiasm for the phone is believed to be due to its functions

apart from agricultural information.

There was moderately enthusiastic response for the audio device. Respondents appeared to

appreciate its perceived low cost and resemblance to radio.

o The audio device was additionally recognized as highly portable, but criticized by some

for its lack of any visual display.

There was somewhat enthusiastic, but comparatively muted, response for both the enhanced

poster the AV player.

o For the AV player, respondents noted that though it allowed video playback, it was not

as versatile as the mobile phone, and that the screen size was too small.

o For the enhanced poster, respondents noted that it was good for group instruction, but

less interesting for individual instruction.

With regards to usability, the enhanced poster was easiest, while the other three devices

presented a significant user challenge.

For personal ownership, the devices ranked in the following order of preference: mobile

phone, audio device, AV player, enhanced poster.

No particular trends were observed for group ownership, though some comments indicated

that the AV player and the mobile phone may not be appropriate for group instruction.

Questions of device cost were high on the mind of most respondents. In some cases, they

would insert opinions about cost when answering questions not directly about cost, as in the

following exchange:

o Q: Do you think this device would be helpful in learning about agriculture?

o A: No, it is too expensive.

There were some interesting second-order effects:

o There was greater appreciation for the audio device among subjects who were very

accustomed to radio as an information source (i.e., in Uganda). They noted that the

device was just like radio, but that users could play, pause, rewind, etc. at will.

o In comparison, subjects accustomed to movies and television expressed stronger

enthusiasm for the mobile phone, and much less enthusiasm for the audio device (i.e.,

in India).

o As many as a fifth of respondents appeared to prefer audio only or audio with static

imagery to video. These mostly corresponded to those who preferred the audio device

or the enhanced poster.

Trials of information retention by farmers:

Level of education correlated more strongly than device type with respect to how well farmers

absorbed information from the devices. That is, a farmer with 10 years of formal education

easily learned more than a farmer with 3 years, regardless of the device used.

All trial subjects were able to learn the main points of the substantive content presented to

them, after 15 minutes with their assigned devices. Differences between devices were small or

non-existent.

Few subjects, however, thoroughly mastered the details of the substantive content on any

device.

There were negligible variations in the degree to which subjects learned, based on device type.

These effects were small, and in any case the study did not allow for statistical significance in

the results. Trends hint that video was marginally more effective, but more study would be

required to verify. One possibility is that low-cost, low-feature learning aids may be sufficient as

an aid for learning.

Detailed Findings

Structured Interviews with Farmers

Demographics: Statistics of the interviewed farmers are shown in

Table 1. A total of 34 farmers were interviewed; 9 from Karnataka, 9 from Orissa, and 16 from Uganda.

The groups included roughly even representations of men and women, with the exception that in

Uganda, there were 11 men and 5 women. The average age of the farmers across all sites was 46, with

the Ugandan respondents being somewhat older. The youngest farmer was 23 and the oldest was 75.

On the whole, our respondents were reasonably well-educated, with many having had up to 10 years of

formal education, and the average at 7 years. The exception was Karnataka, where some of our

respondents had no formal education, and many others did not get beyond primary education.

The prevalence of radios, mobile phones, and bicycles suggests that these farmers are not among the

poorest people in their countries, and the absence of televisions, motorcycles, and refrigerators

indicates they are definitely not among the wealthiest (Filmer & Pritchett 2011). Incorporating

information from partners, a reasonable estimate of their annual income is in the range of $500-1000

per year.

Mobile phones equal or outnumber radios in all communities, underscoring their recent, dramatic

penetration. Most such phones are low-end models capable only of voice and SMS text-messaging.

However, all of the communities we interacted with were aware that there were fancier phones with

multimedia capability.

Table 1. Demographics of farmers interviewed.

Karnataka Orissa Uganda Total

# Respondents 9 9 16 34

Female 5 5 5 15

Male 4 4 11 19

Avg. Age 43 38 52 46

Max. Age 67 58 75 75

Min. Age 23 23 27 23

Education (yrs) 2 8 9 7

Asset Ownership

Automobile 0 0 1 1

Motorcycle 2 3 1 6

Bicycle 5 9 15 29

Refrigerator 0 0 2 2

PC 0 0 0 0

Television 5 1 3 9

Mobile phone 8 6 15 29

Radio 3 5 15 23

Table 2. Agricultural statistics on farmers interviewed.


Common Crops

paddy paddy maize

sorghum mango groundnuts

soy vegetables cassava

Land Owned (acres) 1 to 4 0.5 to 3.5 2 to 6 0.5 to 6

Sources of Agriculture Information

Family, friends, neighbors 3 9 10 22

Town or market 1 7 6 14

Government extension officers 5 6 12 23

NGO staff 4 8 16 29

Radio 2 7 13 22

Television 3 1 3 7

Other 0 2 1 3

Needs Other Than Information

seeds seeds seeds

animals fertilizer loans

water loans markets

Agricultural Data: Refer to Table 2. There are few surprises here. The farmers mostly own their own land

(further evidence that they are not among the poorest in their countries), in the range of 0.5 to 6 acres.

They receive information about agriculture from a variety of sources, though television is notably low

among them. They also express the most common needs of farmers – inputs (seeds, water, fertilizer)

and/or loans to purchase them.

Table 3. Device desirability and usefulness in instruction, according to farmers.


Helpful for learning?

Audio Device 7 9 11 27

Enhanced Poster 9 9 12 30

AV Player 7 9 10 26

Mobile Phone 8 9 16 33

Useful to own?



AV Player 6 9 13 28


Which would be best to own?



AV Player 2 1 1 4


Device pedagogical value and desirability: Refer to Table 3. The vast majority of respondents indicated

that they would find each of the devices useful for learning, and would be happy to own them for the

purposes of learning. There was little difference between devices on these questions, although the

desire for the mobile phone was close to unanimous.

More revealing was a question asking respondents to choose one device they would most prefer to own.

Here, the responses were dramatically in favor of the mobile phone. The other three devices were much

less preferred, with the audio device ranking second, and the AV player and enhanced poster trailing.

There are some things to note based on free-form farmer comments:

The audio device had a robust following (though much smaller than for the mobile phone), which

appeared to correlate with farmers who were most accustomed to radio. One farmer in Orissa

represented this view: “I want to learn through listening.” Another farmer from Karnataka: “I can

remember things, and I can listen and follow practices.” Quite a few of the farmers interviewed in

Uganda agreed. Many also appreciated its comparative ease of use. Others felt that it was good for

group instruction.

There was broad assumption that the enhanced poster was designed specifically for instruction (as

opposed to the other devices which were understood to have multiple functionality). One farmer in

Karnataka noted, “It is just like teaching.” Another noted, “I have to keep looking at the device for videos,

but photos are anytime on the wall.” The enhanced poster was seen to be useful for group instruction,

but there was less expressed desire to own one individually. Although few farmers expressed interest in

the enhanced poster, all were able to use it without any training or prompting, because of its simple

interface (audio playback occurs simply by pushing any button).

The AV player was recognized as having similar capability as the phone, but without telephony.

Respondents appreciated the ability to view video, but complained about the small screen size. A farmer

in Karnataka: “No, it is not good as it is only for me. Others should also be able to see.”

The mobile phone was undoubtedly the most preferred device overall. A farmer in Karnataka

summarized the majority view: “It is good to listen and view. Can take it anywhere.” Many highlighted

its communication ability, in and above its ability to display video content. One farmer in Uganda noted,

“It is multipurpose; you can, for example, get information from Internet.” The few negatives were its

high perceived cost, as well as issues of battery life, which some were familiar with.

Device price: See Table 4. Questions around device price are particularly susceptible to self-reporting

biases, and the results of the interviews are noisy and self-contradictory.

Table 4. Price sensitivity to devices, according to interviewed farmers.


Perceived price? (mean, in USD)

Audio Device (estimated actual: $6) 120 118 9 67

Enhanced Poster (est. actual: $15) 51 219 5 88

AV Player (estimated actual: $70) 200 160 16 130

Mobile Phone (est. actual: $120) 126 131 43 98

Willing to purchase at perceived price? (# responding "yes")



AV Player 3 6 8 17


Willing to purchase at given price? (# responding "yes")

Audio Device @ $6 2 0 5 7

Enhanced Poster @ $15 0 0 1 1

AV Player @ $70 2 2 1 5

Mobile Phone @ $120 3 2 7 12

Among trends that can be accepted with some certainty: Mobile phones, were again, highly popular,

despite their high perceived and reported price. Willingness to purchase them was high, whether it

depended on respondents’ own perceived price, or the price ($120) that we indicated to them, which

was based on anticipated retail prices of the devices.

Mobile phones were followed by the audio device, the AV player, and then the enhanced poster, in that

order.

There was also an interesting effect that respondents in India tended to estimate prices much higher

than respondents in Uganda, and often higher than the actual price of the device itself. This effect was

particularly pronounced for the lower-cost devices. Conversely, farmers in Uganda tended to lowball

prices of all of the devices, including the higher-end AV player and mobile phone. It’s not clear why this

should be the case, although familiarity with similar products and second-guessing effects are likely to

play a role.

There were some outright contradictions in the respondents’ answers, indicating the strong effects of

question framing and the need for more refined methods for determining price sensitivity: Even after

respondents overestimated device price relative to actual price, they seemed to indicate they were

more willing to purchase them at the higher price than at the lower, actual price.

Additional comments: Our overall impressions during the research confirmed the findings above. In

addition, there were casual comments by farmers that brought out the following points:

Device cost was on top of mind for most farmers. Even when answering questions which did not

refer to price, they would often insert editorial comments about price, or answer the question

based on price considerations.

Ease of use was perhaps second most important to farmers. This might mean that the device

was immediately easy to use, or that respondents had sufficient familiarity with the device class

(as was the case with mobile phones).

Rugged build, portability, and type of power source was an expressed concern by a small

minority of the respondents. With regards to power, preferences depend highly on available

power sources. In India, respondents were comfortable with charging devices. In Uganda,

farmers seemed to prefer batteries, due to less availability of power from the grid.

Although our research was conducted individually, many respondents noted the desire to learn

in groups. Responses regarding small screen size were common for this reason, even among

respondents who otherwise liked the mobile phone and AV player.

As researchers, we also sensed that many respondents were interested in the phone for much

more than its instrumental value as an information device – mobile phones are seen as status

indicators, and their desirability is played up in the media at all three sites. Where farmers were

exposed to the devices one after the other, there was perceptible oohing and aahing when the

phone was taken out.

Structured Interviews with Service Providers

Group make-up: A total of 21 service providers were interviewed; 7 from Karnataka, 8 from Orissa, and

6 from Uganda. These were people who interacted regularly with farmers regarding agriculture. They

included extension officers and NGO staff members. The group overall included even representation of

men and women. Though some were members of farming communities themselves, they are all from a

higher socio-economic class than the farmers interviewed. They are reasonably well-educated, with the

least of them having 10 years of formal education, and a few having masters degrees. Their income

averaged $8550 per year. All owned mobile phones, many owned televisions, half owned motorcycles,

and about a third owned PCs.

We gathered their opinions about farmer preferences, to get another perspective that was nevertheless

from a group that is very familiar with the farmers.

Device pedagogical value: See Table 5. Service providers were largely in agreement with farmers with

respect to the pedagogical value of the devices. Mobile phones were loved by most, though the

variation in opinion among devices was not as strongly expressed as by farmers.

Service providers were somewhat more critical than farmers regarding the drawbacks of each device,

though those mentioned were consistent with farmer responses. Both the mobile phone and the AV

player were liked for their video capability, but criticized for their small screen size. The audio device

was liked for its simplicity and perceived low cost, but criticized for its lack of display. The enhanced

poster was again taken to be good for group instruction, but not considered good for individual

ownership.

Table 5. Opinions on device pedagogical value by service providers.


Helpful for learning?



AV Player 5 7 5 17


Useful to own?



AV Player 5 5 6 16


Which would be best to own?



AV Player 2 1 2 5


Device price: Refer to Table 6. Service providers’ estimates of the device prices were much more

accurate than farmers, likely due to greater socio-economic status and familiarity with similar devices.

They estimated mobile phone and AV player prices very accurately; enhanced poster reasonably

accurately, and audio device somewhat high.

As for whether farmers would purchase, opinions followed the rough qualitative contours of the

farmers’ own responses, but with less variance. Mobile phones were again seen to be desirable, but the

price was seen as a steep barrier for most farmers to own individually. The AV player and audio device

were also perceived to be worth their price; most did not see a significant difference between the

mobile phone and the AV player on this point. The enhanced poster was seen to have a poor cost-

feature tradeoff for individual ownership, but a few respondents noted that it could be useful for formal

learning groups to own.

Table 6. Service provider perception of prices and farmer willingness to purchase.


Perceived price? (average, in USD)

Audio Device (estimated: $6) 30 83 56 58

Enhanced Poster (est.: $15) 30 131 33 69

AV Player (estimated: $70) 92 105 74 93

Mobile Phone (est.: $120) 194 98 171 147

Farmers willing to purchase at perceived price? (# responding "yes")



AV Player 1 1 3 5


Farmers willing to purchase at given price? (# responding "yes")

Audio Device @ $6 2 1 2 5

Enhanced Poster @ $15 0 3 0 3

AV Player @ $70 2 3 2 7

Mobile Phone @ $120 3 1 5 9

Additional comments: Since the service providers often act as instructors to farmers, they were also

asked whether the devices would be helpful for them in instruction. Again, the mobile phone emerged

as the leader, despite its small screen size. Both the enhanced poster and the audio device were

perceived to be useful for group engagements. The AV player’s screen size was generally considered too

small for use in this context.

Otherwise, service provider comments were very much aligned with farmer comments.

Learning Trials with Farmers

Trial Set-Up: The set-up for the trial was slightly different in all three locations. In Uganda, participants

were not administered a formal trial of knowledge. Instead, they were simply asked to recite what they

knew about the topic featured on the device. No quantitative results of information content resulted.

In Karnataka, no trial was administered prior to device exposure, but participants were chosen based on

their self-reported lack of knowledge of the topic, with considerable spread in their socio-economic

backgrounds. In addition, a formal trial, resulting in a numerical score, was administered after exposure

to the device.

The trials in Orissa were administered as they were in Karnataka, but subjects were chosen to be as

similar to one another as possible with respect to their socio-economic backgrounds.

The methodology was changed between Karnataka and Orissa because after the trials in Karnataka, it

was noted that educational background was a strong element on the degree of learning.

Results: The Karnataka trial suggested that educational background is a significant component of how

much a participant was able to learn from the devices. (As much as 23% of the variation in the trial

results could be explained by number of years of formal education. The Pearson correlation coefficient

was r = 0.48.) In Orissa, where participants were chosen from a limited range of educational

backgrounds, the variance in results was much lower.

Overall, with the exception of two participants who had very little formal education, all of the

participants were able to learn the core material of the content presented to them, regardless of the

device type. (This corresponded to roughly 60% or above on the scored trials.)

Conversely, with the exception of one participant, no one was able to learn all of the material, and most

did not follow all of the details. (The highest score was 92%, with most scoring in the 70-80% range.)

Not surprisingly, the best absorbed information involved overall descriptions of problems, solution

processes, and outcomes, while the least absorbed was solution specifics, such as quantities of the

ingredients, as for example in the brine solution for paddy seed treatment.

The differences in learning between device types was minimal across all locations. Because the sample

size was small, this does not rule out the possibility of differences between them that could be

measured with a greater sample, but it does hint that such differences will be relatively small in effect.

This conclusion suggests that high-end technology may not be necessary for effective extension.

Higher-Level Conclusions Some of our findings are based on our experience undertaking the study itself, and go beyond questions

specifically asked by the study. These higher-level conclusions in some ways trump the study results

themselves, especially for the purposes of policy. Many seem obvious in retrospect, but were unknown

or not consciously acknowledged by us when the study was initially conceived and designed.

Broad generalizations that cut across extension methodology and cultural context are difficult

to make about technology. It is unrealistic to expect long-lasting, cross-cutting answers to

questions of the type, “what electronic device is the best for instructional activity X?” This is for

at least two reasons…

Electronic technology and technology ecosystems are continuously evolving. Therefore,

comparative studies of electronic devices have a short shelf-life. The rapid rate of technology

innovation causes both device capabilities and device classes to change very quickly. New device

classes became mainstream even during the duration of our study (e.g., tablet devices, pico-

projectors), and device classes saw considerable change, as well (e.g., touchscreen phones, low-

cost multimedia phones). Many of these new innovations seem likely to outperform the devices

that we tested. Similarly, the ecosystem supporting devices evolves at a rapid rate, and cascades

into developing-world environments almost as rapidly.

The value of a technology for instruction depends far more on its usage context, intended

audience, supporting organization, content quality, etc., than on the technology itself.

Electronic devices in instructional contexts should be thought of in the same way that teaching

aids are viewed in a school environment: valuable in the hands of a good teacher, but a

secondary concern to good instruction.

One broad conclusion that falls out of these points is that technology is never just the gadget in hand; it

is intricately tied to a larger system. This larger system involves electric power, technical maintenance,

market accessibility, economic capacity, user training, and so forth.

Thus, if widespread technology use is the goal, it may make more sense to invest in technology

systems, or organizations committed to the end-to-end delivery of technology systems, rather than to

individual technologies. (This is analogous to the common dictum of venture capitalists: “Invest in the

management team, not the product.”) A capable organization will seek out relevant technology and

adapt with technology changes. A less capable or non-existent organization will be unlikely to capitalize

on a new technology even if it is freely provided, and even then only for the short lifetime of that

specific technology. Organizations worth investing in might include government agriculture extension

organizations, for-profit agricultural companies, NGOs engaged with farmers, and so forth.

At the same time, if such investments are seriously considered, then the cost of technology itself shrinks

relative to the other investments that must be made. Thus, if widespread agricultural learning is the

goal, it’s not a priori clear that a technology-centric approach is either necessary or the most cost-

effective. This study does not ask that broader question, but it is a worthwhile consideration for anyone

interested in better agricultural extension, but without the constraint of using a specific technology.

Acknowledgements This study was made possible by a grant from Agriculture Development at the Bill & Melinda Gates

Foundation. We would particularly like to thank Jorge Perez-Luna, Srikant Vasan, Roy Steiner, and

Melissa Ho for their encouragement and support throughout the project.

Phase 2 of the study was undertaken by partners including Digital Green, BAIF, VARRAT, and Grameen

Technology Center AppLab. In India, we are particularly grateful to Rikin Gandhi, Nadagouda, Avinash

Upadhyay, and Chandra Shekhar of Digital Green; Nararatna P. Hublimath and M. N. Hegde of BAIF; N. K.

Mishra, Sibanath Padhan, Sandip Das, Sukanta Panda, SubhaLaxmi, and Dusmath Giri of VARRAT. In

Uganda, we thank Ian Mubiru, Annette Bogere, Sarah Mugisha, and Eisah Maranja of Grameen

Technology Center Applab, and David Nasimolo and Florence Mujaasi, Community Knowledge Workers

working with AppLab near Mbale.

Enhanced poster prototypes were designed and manufactured by Peter Russo, of Peter Russo Design,

and Andi Kleissner. They were kind to offer D-Rev a non-profit rate for their terrific work, as well as extra

time in the form of advice and customer support.

Our thanks to the staff at D-Rev. We are grateful to Krista Donaldson whose support as executive

director has been unwavering from the start; Mojgan Vijeh and Tina McDaniel for their assistance with

our finances; and Hannah Lou for ongoing administrative support and gentle reminders.

This study could not have been undertaken without the gracious support of those mentioned above.

Any errors or omissions in the work, however, are entirely ours.

References Filmer, D. and L. Pritchett. Estimating wealth effects without expenditure data – or tears: an application

to educational enrollments in states of India. Demography, Volume 38-Number 1, February 2001: 115–

132.

Toyama, K. 2011. Comparative Laboratory Study of 12 Devices for Agriculture Extension. D-Rev.

Available at http://www.d-rev.org/projects/accessforagriculture.html.

Report Contributors Kentaro Toyama, PhD, is a researcher at UC Berkeley’s School of Information. He was founding assistant

director of Microsoft Research India, in Bangalore, where he built and led the “Technology for Emerging

Markets” group, which continues to conduct scientific research to identify applications of electronic and

computing technology for socio-economic development. In 2006, Toyama co-founded the IEEE/ACM

International Conference on Information and Communication Technology and Development, which is

the premier research conference on ICT4D. Prior to his time in India, Toyama was at Microsoft Research


in Redmond, where he did research in multimedia and computer vision and worked to transfer new

technology to Microsoft product groups. In 2002, he taught mathematics at Ashesi University, a private

liberal arts college in Ghana. Toyama graduated from Harvard with a bachelors degree in physics and

from Yale with a PhD in computer science. www.kentarotoyama.org

S. Raghu Menon is a product design consultant working independently in Bangalore, India. His research

interests are in technology and design in the context of international development. Until 2008, he was a

project assistant with the Centre for Product Design and Manufacturing at the Indian Institute of Science,

Bangalore. He has also worked as a visiting assistant researcher with the Technology for Emerging

Market Group at Microsoft Research India for nine months between 2008 and 2009. Raghu has a

masters degree in Product Design and Engineering from the Indian Institute of Science and bachelors

degree in Mechanical Engineering from Visveswaraiah Technological University. He is going to spend the

next year in the University of Cambridge doing MPhil in Technology Policy as a Cambridge

Commonwealth Scholar.

Rehema Baguma, PhD, is a senior lecturer and head of the Department of Information Systems in the

School of Computing & Informatics Technology, Makerere University, Uganda. Rehema is also the

coordinator of the Development Informatics Research Group whose aim is to explore how to develop

and deploy ICT solutions that address the socio economic needs of developing countries. She is also a

freelance consultant in user-centered IT solution design and a visiting lecturer of HCI at Kigali Institute of

Technology, Rwanda. Prior to joining Makerere, Rehema worked as an IT Officer for OXFAM GB and an

ICT Officer for CEEWA –a Ugandan project on Women and ICTs whose goal was to explore how ICTs can

be used to facilitate economic empowerment of rural women entrepreneurs. Rehema graduated from

Radboud University, the Netherlands, with a PhD in information systems, from Huazhong University,

China, with an MSc in computer application technology, and from Makerere University with a post-

graduate diploma in computer science and a bachelors degree in information science.

Tumusiime Andrew Gahwera is a part time assistant lecturer in the Department of Networks and

Technology at Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. He also works as a senior information technology

officer at the Ministry of Defence, Uganda. He has designed and implemented a project in remote water

pH monitoring for the National Water Reservoirs of Uganda. Andrew did a bachelors degree in

information technology at Makerere University. In 2010, Andrew graduated from Makerere University

with a Masters of Science in data communications and software engineering.

Paul Polak, MD, American entrepreneur and philanthropist, was named by Scientific American

magazine as one of the Scientific American 50- the noted magazine's second annual list recognizing

outstanding acts of leadership in technology from 2003. Polak is named policy leader in agriculture

because of his work with rural farmers in developing nations worldwide in 2003. The founder and ex-

president/CEO of the non-profit organization, International Development Enterprises (IDE), Polak has

worked for decades to help the world escape the devastating effects of poverty through facilitating

income generation. Polak works from the base knowledge that lack of water, particularly clean water, is

the cornerstone of poverty. IDE has pioneered the development and rural mass marketing of affordable

http://www.kentarotoyama.org/

technologies through the small enterprise private sector in developing countries, and was recently

awarded a $27 million grant by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Special thanks to Krista Donaldson of D-Rev for comments and feedback on earlier drafts.

We’re grateful for support provided by D-Rev staff (past and current): Hannah Lou, Jacqueline del

Castillo, Tina McDaniel, and Mojgan Videh.

Appendix 1: Device Descriptions The following four devices were field-tested in the Phase 2 study described in this document.

Device: Audio Device Model Used: Literacy Bridge “Talking Book”

Product website: http://www.literacybridge.org/talking-book/

Description: Literacy Bridge’s “Talking Book” device is a Dictaphone variant that is specifically designed

and ruggedized for use in international development contexts. Its primary function is to permit casual,

mono-aural recording and playback of audio, and it is further constructed for ruggedness and easy

assembly.

The device differs from commercially available Dictaphones in its size (the Talking Book is bulkier), cost

(cheaper), display (no visual display), and ruggedness (more rugged).

As with all of the audio-only devices, the Talking Book may be very useful in conjunction with printed

illustrations, but in this study, it was used without visual aids.

Current manufacturing cost is around $35, but Literacy Bridge is targeting a $6 cost when mass

manufactured.

Device: Enhanced Poster Model Used: D-Rev Audio-Enhanced Poster Prototype

http://www.literacybridge.org/talking-book/

Description: This wand-shaped device allows users to press any of 12 buttons and hear recorded audio

content associated with each button. It is designed to be attached to a physical poster, such that users

can hear audio clips relevant to the poster imagery. The device was specifically prototyped for this study,

to fill a gap in the feature-cost spectrum that was outlined in Phase 1.

The bill of materials for the prototype devices is around $25, but further streamlining of the design and

mass manufacturing is expected to bring the cost below $10.

Device: AV Player Model Used: SanDisk “Sansa Fuze” MP3 Player, 4GB

Product website: http://www.sandisk.com/products/sansa-music-and-video-players/sandisk-sansa-fuze

http://www.sandisk.com/products/sansa-music-and-video-players/sandisk-sansa-fuze

Description: SanDisk’s “Sansa Fuze” Audio-Video Player is a multi-feature portable media consumption

device. It is typical of the latest personal media players, which follow in the tradition begun by Sony’s

Walkman and now emulate the functions of Apple’s iPod. As a media player, it is as well-designed and

versatile as any currently on the market: It features the ability to playback audio and video, to play FM

radio, to display digital photographs, and to record audio through an internal microphone. There is no

internal speaker; audio output requires external headphones or speakers.

Several competitors exist on the market, all with similar features and in a similar price range. They all

differ from feature-rich phones in their lack of telephony functions.

These devices cost around $70 retail.

Device: Mobile Phone Model Used: Motorola Droid

Product website: http://www.motorola.com/Consumers/US-EN/Consumer-Product-and-

Services/Mobile-Phones/Motorola-DROID-US-EN

http://www.motorola.com/Consumers/US-EN/Consumer-Product-and-Services/Mobile-Phones/Motorola-DROID-US-EN

http://www.motorola.com/Consumers/US-EN/Consumer-Product-and-Services/Mobile-Phones/Motorola-DROID-US-EN

Description: The Motorola Droid is a smartphone that effectively combines the functions of a personal

computer with those of mobile telephony. It is highly versatile, allowing the recording and playback of

video, still imagery, audio, etc. It also permits the running of interactive applications.

Smartphones typically cost $250-500 retail, but aggressive competition is rapidly bringing down the

price. The recent release of HTC’s IDEOS phone was at $80 in Kenya, though observers believe that these

phones are sold at a loss to gain market share.

Appendix 2: Interview Protocol for Farmers [This is the script and questionnaire that was used to structure interviews with farmers involved in the

study. This is a structured interview, not a quantitative survey; researchers were instructed to provide

additional explanation, encouragement, and context as necessary to elicit meaningful feedback.

Translations to Kannada, Oriya, Luganda, and other local languages were handled as appropriate.]

Introduction:

We are conducting a study on how to provide critical information to farmers. We are interested in

understanding the kinds of information that are available to you, and to hear your thoughts on what

kind of additional support would help you. We are also interested in whether certain technological tools

could help. We thank you for your time.

Demographic Questions:

Name:

Gender:

Age:

Highest level of formal education:

Crops:

Whose land do you farm? (If own land, indicate amount of land owned):

Location (village or city name, region, country):

Which of the following do you own? [A rough gauge of economic status, in lieu of direct income

questions, which are known to be unreliable.]

o Automobile

o Motorcycle

o Bicycle

o Refrigerator

o Personal computer

o Television

o Mobile phone

o Radio

Baseline Agriculture and ICT Questions:

If you have questions about agriculture, from whom do you get your answers? Please indicate

all that apply…

o Family, friends, or neighbors

o People in town or at the market

o Agriculture extension officers

o NGO staff (which NGOs?)

o Community Knowledge Worker (CKW)

o Radio

o Television

o Mobile phone (whom do you call or text?)

o Other (please indicate):

Do the people indicated above regularly use any aids such as posters, pamphlets, or electronic

devices to support their interaction with you. If so, what kinds, and how are they used?

Apart from information and knowledge, what kind of support would be of most help to you?

If there were one thing that you would like to change about yourself or your life (it does not

need to be related to farming), what would it be?

Device-Specific Questions:

We would like to show you four kinds of electronic tools that may help you gain better knowledge of

agriculture. Please let us know what you think of each of these devices. We will demonstrate each

device one by one, and then ask for your opinions.

Do you think this device would be helpful to learn about agriculture? If so, why? If not, why not?

Do you think it would be useful for you to own a device like this, if the content could be updated

appropriately for your crops and for the season?

Is there anything you would change about the device that would make it more useful?

What do you think the device is worth in monetary amounts?

Would you be willing to invest that much money for the sake of the device, if the content were

relevant?

Do you have any other comments that you’d like to make about the device?

Comparative Questions:

Of the devices you interacted with, which do you think is most useful? Why?

Is audio content useful?

Is visual content useful? Which is easier to understand – video or static imagery?

Let’s suppose that the devices each have a price as below. Which one would you be most likely

to purchase?

o Talking Book $6

o Enhanced poster $15

o Sansa Fuse Audio/Video Player $70

o Mobile Phone $120

o None (please indicate why)

Appendix 3: Interview Protocol for Service Providers [This is the script and questionnaire that was used to structure interviews with non-farmer stakeholders

involved in the study. This is a structured interview, not a quantitative survey; researchers were

instructed to provide additional explanation, encouragement, and context as necessary to elicit

meaningful feedback. Translations to Kannada, Oriya, and Luganda were handled as appropriate.]

Introduction:

We are conducting a study on how to provide critical information to farmers. Since you work directly or

indirectly with farmers, we are interested in understanding the kinds of interactions that you have with

them, and to hear your thoughts on the information they need, the non-information support that would

help them, and how certain technological tools could help. We thank you for your time.

Demographic Questions:

Name:

Gender:

Age:

Highest level of formal education:

Occupation:

Location (village or city name, region, country):

Which of the following do you own?

o Automobile

o Motorcycle

o Bicycle

o Refrigerator

o Personal computer

o Television

o Mobile phone

o Radio

Agriculture and ICT Questions:

What are the characteristics of the typical farmer whom you interact with, with regards to…?

o Location

o Gender

o Age

o Crop

o Amount of land owned (indicate acres or hectares)

o Annual income (approximate)

What are all of the kinds of interactions you have with farmers, and how often do each of these

interactions occur?

Do you regularly use any aids such as posters, pamphlets, or electronic devices to support your

interaction with farmers. If so, what kinds, and how are they used?

Apart from information and knowledge, what kind of support do you think would most help

farmers?

Device-Specific Questions:

We would like to show you four kinds of electronic tools that may help farmers gain better knowledge of

agriculture. Please let us know what you think of each of these devices. We will demonstrate each

device one by one, and then ask for your opinions.

Do you think this device would be helpful in your interactions with farmers? If so, how?

Do you think that farmers would find it interesting? If so, why? If not, why not?

Do you think it would be useful for farmers to own a device like this, if the content could be

updated appropriately for their crop and for the season?

Is there anything you would change about the device that would make it more useful?

What do you think the device is worth in monetary amounts?

Would a farmer be willing to invest that much money for the sake of the device, if the content

were relevant?

Do you have any other comments that you’d like to make about the device?

Comparative Questions:

Of the devices you interacted with, which do you think is most useful? Why?

Is audio content useful?

Is visual content useful? Which is easier to understand – video or static imagery?

Let’s suppose that the devices each have a price as below. Which one would you be most likely

to purchase?

o Talking Book $6

o Enhanced poster $15

o Sansa Fuse Audio/Video Player $70

o Mobile Phone $120

o None (please indicate why)

Documents

Comparative Field Study of 4 Devices for Agriculture Extension · PDF fileComparative Field Study of 4 Devices for Agriculture Extension Phase 2 Report of Devices for Agriculture Extension: