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

Prese David Mowbray Contact: dmowbray@farmradio.org
nter:

1

Learn More www.farmradio.org info@farmradio.org @farmradio

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
intervention

nter:

Farm Radio for Impact

A powerful tool to foster the
adoption of agricultural technologies
that will transform lives in Africa


nter:

• Do these names mean anything to
you?
– Everett Rogers
– Bryce Ryan
– Neal C. Gross

4


nter:

Source: Ryan and Gross, 1943

5


nter:

6


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

7


nter:

• The classic diffusion-adoption model
– An innovation
– Communications channel(s)
– Time
– Social system

8


nter:

9


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

10


nter:


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

12

nter:

13


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

14

nter:

15


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

16

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
17


nter:

Campaign (PRC)
–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
18


nter:

Campaign (PRC)
–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.

19


nter:

Campaign (PRC)
–For the remaining weeks the programs
gave ongoing advice and information
targeted to the farmers who had
decided to try the improvement or
innovation.

20


nter:

Campaign (PRC)
–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
21


nter:

Experiment design

Broadcast area

Signal obstacle

Community

Participating community

Control community

22

22

nter:

Experiment design
The outcome
evaluation
survey

• Surveyed participating
communities (ALC)
• Surveyed non-
participating
communities (PLC)
• Surveyed control
communities
23

23

nter:

PRCs – compelling results

24


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.
25


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
26


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

27

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

28

nter:

29


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

30

nter:

31


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

32

nter:

33


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

34

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

35

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

36

nter:

Contact me, I’m
friendly…

Thanks!

37

37

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

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from CCAFS | CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security

More from CCAFS | CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

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

Editor's Notes