Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Mowbray - Farm Rural Radio Kenya -  2012 - 09- 17
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Mowbray - Farm Rural Radio Kenya - 2012 - 09- 17

6,567
views

Published on

The CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) East Africa office did a pilot project with a local radio station in Eastern Kenya — Mbaitu FM. The 30 minute radio …

The CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) East Africa office did a pilot project with a local radio station in Eastern Kenya — Mbaitu FM. The 30 minute radio show was called “Wasya wa Muimi” and gave support and information to local farmers that listened to the program. Presentation by David Mowbray, for the EA Regional Office.

Published in: Education, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
6,567
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
9
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • What do we have that binds us? In all communications we look for shared experiences and common bonds. It is one of the most important ways we decide on the value or trust we place in another person. So here we go – In the room I see people I know and who know me and people who I know a bit about but who might not know me. Then there are people who have never heard of me (except maybe through the invitation and introduction). ... So before I start the formal talk, I want to expose a bit of me to you. It might color, I hope in a warm way, how you see me.
  • Identify social scientists /economists in group. Identify communicators in group. Identify others in group
  • Everett Rogers is the ‘father’ of modern innovation theory. In 1962 he published the first edition of his work Diffusion of InnovationsRyan and Gross did the first detailed innovation dissemination study (Published in 1942). They looked at how hybrid maize came to be adopted in Iowa in the US, starting from its first introduction in 1928. They looked at the role of the very good extension service and farmer to farmer communications to move the technology
  • Here is a graph from the original Ryan and Gross publication. It shows in the top curve the cumulative number of adopters over time and below the time differentiated number of adopters – that is new adopters per year. It took more than 10 years (based on interviews of farmers in two communities) for hybrid maize to be completely adopted.
  • One of the conclusions drawn by Ryan and Gross from their interviews was that the initial adopters in the first years were influenced by extension services but later it was almost entirely farmer to farmer communication from these early adopters to their neighbours that resulted in more acceptance of the new crops. Also they noted that most farmers actually ran their own trial plots before deciding to make the switch. During all of this time – more than 10 years – the extension services remained active.
  • Here I have plotted just the data, leaving out the ‘normal curve fit’. The data does not actually fit a symmetric bell curve shape very well. Nevertheless, that easier to describe distribution has been used to model dissemination data for a long time.
  • The work of Ryan and Gross led to modern diffusion theory. The classic model, elucidated by Rogers is this:The social system is important because it provides the channels by which the easiest communication paths are followed. For example in Uganda the church congregation plays a role in seed variety dissemination among families and in Ethiopia CIAT studies showed that kinship lines that moved innovation from village to village but within families was the preferred diffusion pathway. In the original hybrid maize study in the US, Ryan and Gross found that it was neighbour to neighbour, friend to friend. This diffusion takes time because there is often a long gap between first knowledge and adoption. In the Ryan and Gross study, more than half the farmers had heard about Hybrid maize by 1932 but less than 10% had adopted. (5 stages Knowlege->Persuasion->Decision->Implementation->Confirmation)This is not the only model (see Douthwaite, “Enabling Innovation”, 2001) but it is instructive and useful here as it seems to fit much of the kind of centralized innovation work in cropping systems being done by CG centers – albeit now with much more direct farmer participation
  • The distribution does not have to be “normal” but the curve is useful – though the designation of the last adopters as “laggards” by Rogers is quite pejorative.
  • Writing about the way diffusion seemed to take place, at least in studies like the one on hybrid corn in Iowa, Rogers talked about a point during the process when if the innovation was valuable, its adoption took off. ... As he said, impossible to stop.I was fascinated when I read this bit of Rogers original book from 1962. The language reminded me of something – something I had seen as a child on TV. Perhaps Rogers had seen it too I wondered if it influenced his thinking.Here are about 40 seconds of the best educational video ever made... By Walt Disney as part of a 1957 TV show (just 5 years before Rogers published his book) called “The Atom is our Friend” (could have been propaganda encouraged by the Eisenhower administration when the “cold war” with the Soviet Union was very tense and atmospheric testing of nuclear devices was common).
  • For example Malcolm Blackie, working in Uganda, commissioned a radio drama series with an agricultural theme. He concluded based on his observations that program with messages for rural audiences had to be entertaining to be effective.
  • We did in two cycles, one in each of successive years, many different interventions, all farmer approved
  • Farmers told us and our radio station partners they wanted the improvement in our formative research using focus groups, key informant interviews and so on.
  • This schematic shows how we set up our research space. The black circle represents the limit or range of the signal of the radio station. Within the station are many farming communities. Those that received regular visits from the broadcasters for interviews and from the research staff of the project for the collection of data formed the participatory part of our project. We selected two communities in the broadcast area. We also selected two communities – shown here in ret – that could not received the radio signal but were otherwise similar in farming systems, income and so on as the active communities. Here we show one outside the range of the transmitter and the other one behind a hill. This was the state during the period of the participatory radio campaign broadcasts
  • Some months after the broadcast series was complete we conducted an outcome evaluation – just like Ryan and Gross had done in the 1940s. We surveyed a sample from our participating communities – we call them ALC or Active Listening Communities and from our two control communities. But we also did one other crucial thing. We selected two other communities that had not been involved in any way with our surveys, with radio station visits or interviews. If they had heard about the intervention and its benefits, much of that news would have to come from the radio alone and we could check that because we had the control communities. We called these communities Passive Listening Communities.
  • Then came the shock. While each of the three graphs above is very interesting, I want to focus on the right hand one. It shows from our survey how many farm families actually decided to try the innovation that had been part of the radio campaign. Not surprisingly, the Active Listening Communities – the ones with regular contact with the radio station, the ones where the participatory research had been done – had significant trial adoption – about 40% of families. The control communities showed little trial adoption. That is good otherwise our experiment would have been a real mess. But look that the red bar... The trial adoption in the Passive Listening communities... It was more than 20% averaged across 15 radio stations and campaigns. Just the radio.... Just 14-16 weeks of radio broadcasts in half hour segments.And we found that those communities had found and listened to the broadcasts, all on their own... To the tune of 66% listening to at least half of the broadcast series in their area.The graph hides a massive truth, the one I showed in the sneak preview. That is we had only two active communities per radio station but maybe hundreds of passive ones – we only surveyed two of them. When you do the math here is what happens for the total broadcast area of the 151 stations in 5 countries.
  • Depending on what figure you use for average household size, you get up to 6 million beneficiaries in a million households where the innovation was tried. Now there is a caveat... I have no error bars on the PLC data – it was based on a total of 100 interviews in (50 male head of household, 50 female) in the two selected passive communities. But across all five countries and fifteen stations that is 1500 interviews. The data is fairly consistent across the sample (for details and discrepancies, please see our report to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation)
  • We also found a very strong positive correlation between frequency of listening to the broadcasts and trial adoption – across both passive and active listening communities. It appears that the major effect of engagement with the Active Communities was to increase their listening to the broadcasts. What that tells us for the future is that we should get radio stations to make major efforts to increase the audience for the farm program throughout the listening area. That could be done via on-air competitions, visits of station personnel to many more villages to do interviews. Promos that said things like “tonight on the farm show we visit the community of ....”
  • Top down with experts telling farmers what to do or what the government policy is
  • We are using the latest survey technology with a mobile phone system called Mobenzi that gives GPS location, a photo of the interview subject and uploads the data automatically.I believe we have created a tool that can make a huge difference to small scale farmers in Africa
  • Transcript

    • 1. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: 1Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 2. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: Sneak preview Total trial adopters – families who tried on their farms what they heard about on the radio 7,000,000 ~1,000,000 small- 6,000,000 scale farm households Total beneficiaries 5,000,000 ~14,000 total 4,000,000 beneficiaries in 3,000,000 communities that 2,000,000 received active > 6 million 1,000,000 intervention by beneficiaries in 0 research communities teams, extension with radio only. and broadcasters No other extra 2 interventionLearn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 3. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: Farm Radio for Impact A powerful tool to foster the adoption of agricultural technologies that will transform lives in AfricaLearn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 4. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: • Do these names mean anything to you? – Everett Rogers – Bryce Ryan – Neal C. Gross 4Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 5. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: Source: Ryan and Gross, 1943 5Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 6. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: 6Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 7. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 7Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 8. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: • The classic diffusion-adoption model – An innovation – Communications channel(s) – Time – Social system 8Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 9. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: 9Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 10. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: “The farmer-to-farmer exchanges of their personal experiences with hybrid seed were at the heart of diffusion. When enough such positive experiences were accumulated by innovators, and especially by early adopters, and exchanged with other farmers in the community the rate of adoption took off. This threshold for hybrid corn occurred in 1935. After that point, it would have been impossible to halt its further diffusion.” Everett Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 1962 10Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 11. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter:Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 12. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: So what’s radio got to do with it? • Radio is the number one source of information for small-scale farm families in Africa • Nearly 80% have access to radio • Farm radio broadcasts have existed for a long time • Most of them have failed to inspire large scale change 12 12Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 13. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: 13Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 14. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: Could radio make a difference? • Bill & Melinda Gates • There was no analysis of Foundation asked Farm existing farm radio Radio International that content, formats, question modalities or audience • --and funded us to find sizes an answer • While Farm Radio • There was only International had ~ 250 anecdotal information partner stations in no good studies Africa we didn’t know much about them 14 14Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 15. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: 15Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 16. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: Our experiment The African Farm Radio Research Initiative • Work done from 2007-2011 • 25 stations (5 / country) • State, commercial, commun ity, church • 49 Participatory Radio Campaigns 16 16Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 17. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: The Participatory Radio Campaign (PRC) • Key elements of the campaigns –The improvement was one farmers in participating villages said they wanted –The improvement was one that was already tested and available –Every week our stations broadcast a radio program devoted to explaining the improvement, its strengths and weaknesses 17Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 18. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: The Participatory Radio Campaign (PRC) • Key elements of the campaigns –Broadcasts were scheduled at times farmers said would be most convenient –Every program featured interviews & other content from members of the participating, “Active Communities” –Every episode gave the audience an opportunity to comment, be heard 18Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 19. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: The Participatory Radio Campaign (PRC) • Key elements of the campaigns –A core story, featuring a successful farmer’s experience gave continuity every week –At about the 2/3rd mark listeners were asked to make a decision about whether or not to try the improvement they’d heard about. 19Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 20. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: The Participatory Radio Campaign (PRC) • Key elements of the campaigns –For the remaining weeks the programs gave ongoing advice and information targeted to the farmers who had decided to try the improvement or innovation. 20Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 21. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: The Participatory Radio Campaign (PRC) • Key elements of the campaigns –After the staff took a basic radio training workshop, production responsibility was left completely to the radio stations themselves. –Content was supervised for each radio station by a technical advisory committee that included content experts and other stakeholders 21Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 22. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: Experiment design Broadcast area Signal obstacle Community Participating community Control community 22 22Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 23. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: Experiment design The outcome evaluation survey • Surveyed participating communities (ALC) • Surveyed non- participating communities (PLC) • Surveyed control communities 23 23Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 24. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: PRCs – compelling results 24Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 25. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: A grand scale Total trial adopters – families who tried on their farms what they heard about on the radio ~1,000,000 small-scale Total beneficiaries 7,000,000 6,000,000 farm 5,000,000 households 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 Active, ongoin 1,000,000 g intervention 0 by Heard radio only. researchers, e No other extra xtension and intervention. broadcasters. 25Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 26. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: PRCs – facilitate adoption Relationship between frequency of listening to PRC broadcasts and percentage of respondents trying the new practice 60% Percentage of respondents trying PRC practice 50% R² = 0.957 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Listened to 1-24% 25-49% 50% 51-74% 75-99% Listened to None of the 100% of the PRC PRC Percentage of PRC episodes heard by respondents 26Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 27. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: Limitations • Only did one PRC for • Radio station must be one season, no popular and trusted in continuation from year the first place to year (nature of • Quality control of experiment) content when in • Based on other studies vernacular language is need a longer period not easy with repetition to get to • Could only measure later adopters more trial adoption not full quickly adoption 27 27Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 28. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: Limitations • Some technologies • Because of limited selected by farmers (but experience and possibly driven by capacity, some of the external interests) did initial 25 partner radio not lend themselves stations did not well to the PRC model implement the PRC and approach model very well. – E.g. establishing group • That is why results are marketing clubs for based on just 15 some commodities stations & campaigns 28 28Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 29. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: 29Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 30. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: Challenges during the experiment led to our own innovations • Partner radio stations were not equipped to go to rural communities and interview farmers. Professional recorders were in short supply and very expensive ($400). • Solution – MP3 players with built-in recording capability. – Cost $50 each (today down to $35) 30 30Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 31. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: 31Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 32. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: Challenges during the experiment led to our own innovations • Partner radio stations were not equipped to take listener feedback • Solution – Inexpensive SMS recording systems took messages and text – SMS alert systems sent messages to subscribing farmers to remind them of the upcoming show 32 32Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 33. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: 33Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 34. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: Why did the PRC approach work? • Our radio programs • Our radio programs were farmer-to-farmer reached virtually ALL communication the communities, • ‘early adopters’ and something extension ‘innovators’ learned services and NGOs from other ‘innovators’ could never do even if they didn’t know • The stations were them already trusted by the • Trust built; they spoke rural audience or else the same language they wouldn’t listen 34 34Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 35. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: Why does other radio not work? • Farm radio in Africa has • Many farm broadcasts been largely top-down are not • ‘innovators’ want to – In the vernacular ‘discover’ and try things language of farm families and use themselves unfamiliar technical • Early adopters want to terms hear from their peers in – targeted to or tailored their social network for women farmers 35 35Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 36. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: Next steps • We are now doing a follow-up survey to see if adoption spread, if early adopters continued. • We are looking to scale out our own innovative methodology This is no longer an experiment 36 36Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio
    • 37. Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org nter: Contact me, I’m friendly… Thanks! 37 37Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio