AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION NETWORKS OF FARM WOMEN

AND ROLE OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION: THE CASE OF DALE

WOREDA, SOUTHERN NATIONS, NATIONALITIES & PEOPLES’
REGION

M.Sc. Thesis

DERIBE KASKE KACHARO

April 2007
Haramaya University
AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION NETWORKS OF FARM WOMEN
AND ROLE OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION: THE CASE OF DALE
WOREDA, SOUTHERN NATIONS, NATIONALITIES & PEOPLES’
REGION

A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Rural Development and

Agricultural Extension, School of Graduate Studies
Haramaya University

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION

By
Deribe Kaske Kacharo

April 2007
Haramaya University
 SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

As Thesis Research advisor, we here by certify that we have read and evaluated this thesis
prepared, under our guidance, by Deribe Kaske Kacharo, entitled Agricultural Information
Networks of Farm Women and Role of Agricultural Extension: The case of Dale Woreda,
Southern Nations, Nationalities & Peoples’ Region. We recommend that it be submitted as
fulfilling the Thesis requirement.

Ranjan S. Karippai (Ph. D.) _________________ ______________

Major Advisor Signature Date

Ranjitha Puskur (Ph. D.) _________________ _______________

Co-advisor Signature Date

As member of the Board of Examiners of the Final M. Sc. Thesis Open Defense Examination,
we certify that we have read, evaluated the Thesis prepared by Deribe Kaske Kacharo and
examined the candidate. We recommended that the Thesis be accepted as fulfilling the Thesis
requirement for the Degree of Master of Science in Rural Development and Agricultural
Extension.

______________________ _________________ _______________

Chairperson Signature Date

______________________ _________________ _______________

Internal Examiner Signature Date

______________________ _________________ _______________

External Examiner Signature Date

ii
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this thesis manuscript to my mother ABEBECH WOGASO, whom I lost in 2004,
for nursing me with affection and love and for her dedicated partnership in the success of my
life.

iii
 STATEMENT OF AUTHOR

First, I declare that this thesis is my bonafide work and that all sources of materials used for
this thesis have been duly acknowledged. This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements of M. Sc. degree at the Haramaya University and is deposited at the
University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. I solemnly
declare that this thesis is not submitted to any other institution anywhere for the award of any
academic degree, diploma, or certificate.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission provided that
accurate acknowledgement of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation
from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the
major department or the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies when in his or her judgment
the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances,
however, permission must be obtained from the author.

Name: Deribe Kaske Kacharo Signature: …………………

Place: Haramaya University, Haramaya
Date of Submission: …………………

iv
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Deribe, the author was born on June 5, 1961 in Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples’
Region (SNNPR), Wolaita Zone, Damot Gale Woreda to his mother Abebech Wogaso and his
father Kaske Kacharo. He attended his elementary and junior education at Boditi junior
secondary school. He also attended his High-school education at Soddo Comprehensive
Secondary school. Then joined the then Debre-Zeit Junior College of Agriculture and
graduated with Diploma in Crop Production and Protection Technology (CPPT) in July 1983.

Soon after his graduation, he was employed by the Bureau of Agriculture of the then Sidamo
Administrative Region and served for about 15 years. Then he joined the then Alemaya
University in 1999 academic year and graduated with B.Sc. degree in Agricultural Extension
in July, 2001. After that he assigned and has been working in SNNP Region Bureau of
Agriculture and Rural Development. Then after, he re-joined Haramaya University in 2005 to
pursue graduate studies for the M.Sc. in Rural development and Agricultural Extension. The
author is married and has two children.

v
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I want to give my thanks to Almighty God. Then I am really happy to
thank my major advisor, Dr. Ranjan S. Karippai, as without his encouragement and guidance,
the completion of this work may not have been possible. Thus, I am very much indebted to
him for all his support and willingness to advise me on my all efforts to successfully finalize
the thesis. The special appreciation also goes to my co-advisor Dr Ranjitha Puskur, as she
added valuable and constructive comments in the proposal and thesis. Successful and timely
accomplishment of this study would have been very difficult without her generous devotion
from the early design of research proposal and questionnaire to the final write-up of the thesis.

I am deeply beholden to IPMS/ILRI for giving me the scholarship and covering full tuition
fee and funding my M.Sc. research work. In this connection, my thanks are due to the
Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples’ Region Bureau of Agriculture and Rural
Development for its provision of the necessary support to let me join postgraduate studies at
Haramaya University.

The generous assistance of Dale Woreda OoARD and IPMS office staff members allowed me
to conduct data collection smoothly both in the field and in the office.

My special thanks are given to my wife, Shewaye Dubale and our family for their invaluable
encouragement throughout the study period. I also appreciate the assistance of Ato Solomon
Rezene, Ato Gizachew Fisaha, Ato Goa Mamo and others who directly or indirectly helped
me in making my effort successful.

My special gratitude goes to enumerators, the members of the sample farm respondents, and
members of focus group discussions for their valuable cooperation during data collection.

vi
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AKIS Agricultural Knowledge & Information System

ATVET Agricultural Technical & Vocational Education Training
AU Alemaya University
BOA Bureau of Agriculture
CI Condition Index
CSA Central Statistical Authority
CTA Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
DA Development Agent
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization
FTC Farmer Training Center
HU Haramaya University
ICT Information & Communication Technology
IPMS Improving Productivity & Market Success
Masl Meter Above Sea Level
MOA Ministry of Agriculture
MoARD Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development
MLR Multiple Linear Regression
NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations
PA Peasant Association
PADETS Participatory Demonstration and Training Extension System
PLW Pilot Learning Woreda
RAAKS Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems
SMS Subject Matter Specialist
SNNPR Southern Nations, Nationalities & Peoples’ Region
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science
T&V Training & Visit
TOT Transfer of Technology
FHH Female-Headed Household
MHH Male-Headed Household

vii
VIF Variance Inflation Factor
WOoARD Woreda Office of Agriculture & Rural Development

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHOR IV

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH V

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS VI

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS VII

LIST OF TABLES XIV

LIST OF FIGURES XV

LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX XVI

LIST OF FIGURES IN THE APPENDIX XVII

LIST OF FIGURES IN THE APPENDIX XVII

ABSTRACT XVIII

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1. Statement of the problem 5

1.2. Objectives of the study 7

1.3. Scope and Limitation of the study 7

ix
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

1.4. Significance of the study 8

1.5. Operational Definitions 8

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 10

2.1. Agricultural Extension and Information 10

2.1.1. Definition of Agricultural Information 10
2.1.2. The Concept of Information flow 11
2.1.3. Information-seeking behavior 13
2.1.4. Intra-household Transfer of Agricultural Information 15
2.1.5. Agricultural extension and information 16
2.1.6. Generation and use of agricultural information 17
2.1.7. The role of information and human Development 18
2.1.8. The state of agricultural information in Ethiopia 20
2.1.9. Generation and processing of agricultural information in Ethiopia 20
2.1.10. Common problems in information generation and use in extension institutions 21

2.2. Agricultural Extension and Women farmers 22

2.2.1. Women’s Role in Agricultural development 22
2.2.2. Extension services towards women farmers 22
2.2.3. Women’s Access to Extension Services in Ethiopia 24
2.2.4. Limitations of Ethiopia’s agricultural extension services in relation to gender issues
25

2.3 Conceptual Framework of the study 27

3. METHODOLOGY 30

3.1. Description of the Study Area 30

x
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

3.2. Sampling Technique 35

3.3. Data Type and Data Source 37

3.4. Methods of data collection 37

3.4.1. Quantitative data collection methods 37
3.4.2. Qualitative data collection methods 38

3.5. Methods of Data Analysis 38

3.6. Variables and their definitions 41

3.6.1. Dependent variable 41
3.6.2. Independent variables 42

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 46

4.1. Agricultural Information Networks of Farm Women 46

4.1.1. Information Exchange and Actors 47
4.1.1.1. Information source and its use pattern 47
4.1.1.2. Importance of the information sources 52
4.1.1.3. Proximity of information sources 53
4.1.1.4. Value of information from sources 54

4.2. Descriptions of personal, socio-economic, situational and psychological

characteristics of sample respondents 56
4.2.1. Descriptions of personal characteristics of the sample respondents 56
4.2.1.1. Age of the respondents 58
4.2.1.2. Marital status 58
4.2.1.3. Level of education 58
4.2.1.4. Communication skill of the respondents 59
4.2.1.5. Family size 59

xi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
4.2.1.6. Sharing of available information 59
4.2.2. Descriptions of socio-economic characteristics of the sample respondents 60
4.2.2.1. Radio ownership 61
4.2.2.2. Size of land holding 61
4.2.2.3. Annual income of the respondents 61
4.2.3. Descriptions of situational characteristics of the sample respondents 62
4.2.3.1. Social participation 63
4.2.3.2. Information seeking behavior 63
4.2.3.3. Cosmopoliteness 64
4.2.3.4. Access to credit 64
4.2.3.5. Extension participation 64
4.2.4. Description of psychological characteristics of sample respondents 67
4.2.4.1. Interpersonal trust 68
4.2.4.2. Positiveness of the respondents 69
4.2.4.3. Empathy of the respondents 69
4.2.4.4. Level of aspiration 69
4.2.4.5. Achievement motivation 69
4.2.4.6. Attitude towards Development Agent 70

4.3. Relationship between dependent and independent variables 72

4.3.1. Relationship between personal factors and knowledge of dairy farming 75
4.3.2. Relationship between socio-economic factors and knowledge of dairy farming 75
4.3.3. Relationship between situational factors and knowledge of dairy farming 76
4.3.4. Relationship between psychological factors and knowledge of dairy farming 77

4.4. Influence of independent variables on agricultural information network output of

farm women 79
4.4.1. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis 79

xii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

4.5. Constraints and opportunities of extension services in reaching out to rural women
85
4.5.1. Constraints in making extension service accessible to women farmers 85
4.5.1.1. Participation in extension packages 85
4.5.2. Opportunities of extension services in reaching out to rural women 92

5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 95

5.1. Summary 95

5.2. Conclusion and Recommendations 99

6. REFERENCES 102

7. APPENDICES 109

xiii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Distribution of sampled respondents by PAs in the study area, Dale Woreda, 2007 .......... 36
2. Distribution of actors as information source to the respondents in terms of their frequency
of use .................................................................................................................................. 47
3. Result of group discussion ranking information sources in terms of their importance ....... 49
4. Frequency distribution of information sources in terms of their importance ...................... 52
5. Frequency distribution of proximity of actors as information source ................................. 53
6. Frequency distribution of value of information from sources on dairy farming.................. 54
7. Distribution of sample respondents based on their personal characteristics........................ 57
8. Distribution of sample respondents based on their socio-economic factors ........................ 60
9. Distribution of sample respondents based on their situational characteristics..................... 62
10. Distribution of sample respondents based on the type of organizations participating in. . 63
11. Distribution of sample respondents based on their frequency of contact with DAs ......... 65
12. Distribution of sample respondents based on participation in extension programmes...... 65
13. Distribution of respondents based on type of extension services obtained from DAs ...... 66
14. Distribution of sample respondents based on their psychological characteristics ............. 68
15. Relationship between knowledge of dairy farming and discrete independent variables ... 72
16. Relationship between knowledge of dairy farming & continuous independent variables. 74
17. Variance inflation factor (VIF) and condition index (CI) for continuous variables .......... 80
18. Coefficients of regression function .................................................................................... 81
19. ANOVA of the regression function ................................................................................... 82
20. Distribution of sample respondents based on their usage of packages & number of
packages used..................................................................................................................... 86
21. Distribution of sample respondents based on their reasons for not using extension
packages ............................................................................................................................. 87
22. Problems in contact with development agents ................................................................... 88
23. Reasons for not participating in extension programmes .................................................... 89
24. Rank order of constraints obtained from informal interview with DAs and SMSs’ ......... 91

xiv
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1.Conceptual Framework diagram ........................................................................................... 29

2. Location of the study area .................................................................................................... 34

xv
 LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX

Appendix Table Page

I Interview Schedule .............................................................................................................. 110

II The MLR Model Summary ................................................................................................ 137
III ANOVA Table ................................................................................................................. 138
IV The multiple correlation coefficients ................................................................................ 139
V Excluded Variables ............................................................................................................ 140

xvi
 LIST OF FIGURES IN THE APPENDIX

Appendix Figure Page

1. Sampling technique diagram.............................................................................................. 141

xvii
AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION NETWORKS OF FARM WOMEN AND ROLE
OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION: THE CASE OF DALE WOREDA, SOUTHERN
NATIONS, NATIONALITIES & PEOPLES’ REGION

ABSTRACT
Ethiopian rural women make significant contribution to agriculture and are the mainstay of
the farm labor. They work in all aspects of agriculture. In addition to their active engagement
in agriculture, women are responsible for all household chores. Despite their immense
contribution to the agriculture, rural women often face difficulties than men in gaining access
to agricultural information. The Ethiopian agricultural extension system suffers from a
number of weaknesses in its services for rural women. There is, therefore, an alarming need
to improve agricultural extension work with the rural women. Therefore, this study is
intended to analyze the agricultural information network of farm women; to identify factors
influencing farm women’s information network output and to identify the constraints and
opportunities of extension services in reaching out to women in Dale Woreda, Sidama Zone,
SNNPR. Three stages sampling were used in which both non-random sampling and random
sampling procedures was followed to select four Peasant Associations and 160 respondents.
Structured interview schedule was used for collecting the essential quantitative data from the
sampled respondents. To generate qualitative data, field observations; informal interview
with key informants; discussion with separate focus groups of women and men farmers were
conducted. The quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistical tools and also χ2
= test, Cramer’s V, Pearson’s Correlation coefficient & Multiple Linear Regression were
employed. The result of the study shows that, neighbors or friends are the major and the most
important source of information for the farm women. The major output of the study indicates
that knowledge of dairy farming practice of women farmers was significantly influenced by
communication skill, interpersonal trust, social participation, total annual income, extension
participation, empathy of respondents and access to credit. The major constraints identified
in agricultural information network of farm women were low participation of women in
extension programs; poor access to credit; absence of market information and alternative
market for products; extension methods contribute less as source of information. Therefore, it
is recommended that, the extension system operating in the area, need to be strengthened
further to increase the flow of information to women for rural transformation.

xviii
 1. INTRODUCTION

Over 85% of the population in Ethiopia live in the rural areas and depend on subsistence
agriculture. Ethiopian rural women make significant contribution to agriculture and to ensure
food security and are the mainstay of the farm labor. A major chunk of women’s labour force
in production system is invested in weeding, harvesting, household animal care, marketing,
post harvest handling etc. (Ranjan and Hedija, 2004). Harrowing and weeding, in particular,
are considered as women’s activities. Women are also active in livestock production.

In addition to their active engagement in agriculture and livestock production, women are
responsible for all household chores, mainly as a result the gender division of labor. As a
consequence of this, rural women in Ethiopia are engaged in laborious tasks for not less than
15-18 hours a day, often without any cash remuneration, recognition or appreciation.

Despite their immense contribution to the household economy and given their critical role in
determining and guaranteeing food security as food producers, food providers and
contributors to household nutrition and security, rural women often face difficulties than men
in gaining access to agricultural information to increase their production and productivity
(Winrock, 2001).

According to Habtemariam (2004), the extension system in Ethiopia has a relatively longer
history than many other Sub-Saharan African countries. It has also enjoyed increasing
government support over years, though not to the level expected. Though it increased its staff
substantially to expand coverage, there is not much change in the way extension activities are
planned, implemented and evaluated. Review of the evolution of the Ethiopian extension
system under different political systems reveals the significance of prevailing policies and
development strategies on the contribution that extension could make to agricultural
development.
Any extension system must target particular categories of clients to meet their needs
efficiently (Saito, 1990). The range of women’s tasks and activities in agricultural production
is much wider than that of men – the extension service, being predominantly run by and
composed of men, needs improvement to understand women’s production system and to view
farm business and household economies from the women’s stand point (Saito and Daphne,
1992).

Women form a large segment of the agricultural workforce. As such, they deserve increased
attention of agricultural extension services in every developing nation. There is a need for an
action-oriented plan to reach the millions of women in agriculture who fill the bread baskets
of the third world and contribute to their exports (Das, 1995).

Female farmers are not considered and their agricultural activities and/or issues concerning
them have been the last priorities in the country’s agricultural research agenda, and so lacked
improved extension packages and services that assist them to improve their productivity. So
far the extension system in Ethiopia has not been able to address the cultural taboo against the
participation of female farmers in ploughing and sowing, which subsequently reduce the rigid
division of labor both at the household and field level. There is a lack of concern about the
multiple roles of female farmers while doing research on identifying the priority problems and
developing extension systems that are appropriate to the farm family’s life cycle stages. Little
efforts have been made to address and reduce the heavy burden of work that female farmers
face. Often it is observed that major emphasis in agriculture is given to men’s activities while
the role of women and children in the Ethiopian farming systems has been ignored. Married
women in particular are by-passed in the transfer of improved agricultural technologies
assuming that they will get the information through their husbands (EARO, 2000).

Without due attention for development of the majority of the women farmers, it is unlikely
that Ethiopia will be able to feed her people, to develop its agro-industries, to provide
adequate employment, to sustain or improve current level of foreign exchange earnings
(Chimdessa, 1998).

2
Increasingly, knowledge/information becoming one of the most important factors of
production, and there is no doubt that this trend will intensify. In this century, it is knowledge
accumulation and application that will drive development and create unprecedented
opportunities for economic growth and for poverty reduction. It has been estimated that the
effective integration of information and communications technologies (ICTs) in different
sectors of the economy will augment economic growth rates by 2-3%.

Having timely and relevant information can fundamentally alter people’s decision-making
capacity and is critical to increasing agricultural productivity. Information on new plant and
animal management practices, pests and diseases, transport availability, new marketing
opportunities, and the market prices of farm inputs and outputs is fundamental to an efficient
and productive agricultural economy.

Yet, ‘information poverty’ is common in rural areas in Africa. It is often difficult for rural
people to obtain relevant and timely information. Distance to the information source can be
considerable, and poor transport and communications infrastructure make access to
information difficult. Also, such information is often in written form, limiting its access for
the many women who have limited literacy. It is also difficult for rural communities to share
information beyond face-to-face contact, thus inhibiting access to information available
outside their locality. Equally important, indigenous knowledge is seldom documented and
stored, and thus ultimately is lost.

Women in the agricultural sector in eastern and southern Africa already face many socio-
economic, educational and legal obstacles in realizing their full potential. They also lack
appropriate and usable information that could help them with their farming activities. They
need information on a wide range of subjects, including agricultural production, processing,
marketing, trade laws and the natural resource base. They also need to exchange indigenous
knowledge, and they require access to ICTs to obtain information efficiently and cost-
effectively (CTA, 2002).

3
The potential of livestock to reduce poverty is enormous. Livestock contribute to the
livelihoods of more than two-thirds of the rural poor and to a significant minority of the peri-
urban poor (Holmann et al, 2003). There is also considerable evidence which shows that the
rural poor and the landless get a higher share of their income from livestock than do better off
people (Delgado et al, 1999, cited in ESAP, 2000). For many people dairy production is the
most important income generator.

Dairying provides a regular income to farmers in different parts of Ethiopia. Different authors
confirmed that the smallholders’ dairy package production system is a powerful means of
raising farm incomes and welfare (Hailemariam, 1995; Berhanu, 2002; Ahmed et al, 2003).
To improve the present traditional livestock management, knowledge/information is vital as
in the case of crop production system.

The study was conducted in Dale Woreda, Southern Ethiopia. The cattle in the study Woreda
are local cows and crossbred dairy animals. Dairy production is mainly based on local Zebu
cows in rural areas and on crossbred (Zebu x Friesian) cows around urban areas (IPMS,
2005). Dairy production is one of the major areas of activities where women farmers
participate.

About 80% of the dairy cows are found in urban and peri-urban areas (coffee/livestock
system) in the study area. Emphasis in this system is on milk production. Between 1987 and
1995 the Smallholder Dairy Development (SDD) Project of the Ministry of Agriculture
supported by FINNIDA was implementing a dairy development program in Awassa Zuria,
Shebedino and Dale Woredas. A number of farmers benefited from the project through
purchase of crossbred dairy animals, forage development, artificial insemination and bull
station services, animal health services, and milk marketing through formation of milk units
with some milk processing facilities, training and other related activities. Besides the
production of milk, manure production for nutrient cycling is important for the
coffee/livestock based production system. Animals are mainly tethered around the homestead
and cut and carry feeding system is practiced (IPMS, 2005).

4
According to the result of pilot learning site diagnosis and program design conducted by
IPMS in the study Woreda (District), inadequate knowledge on dairy management is an
important issue among the different issues which need to be addressed. To improve the
capturing and sharing of knowledge on dairy management in the PLW, the agricultural
information networks of farm women, who are important actors in the sector, has to be
explored.

1.1. Statement of the problem

Women account for 50 percent of the population. Women are the main work force in most
rural Ethiopia where economy depends on agriculture (Negatwa, 2006).

Women in Ethiopia are engaged in various economic activities including land cultivation and
harvesting, food processing, marketing, gardening, construction of housing, and animal
husbandry. By doing so, women provide approximately 40% of the family labour
(Habtemariam, 1996).

Studies in Ethiopia also indicate that women spend a great portion of their time fetching water
and collecting firewood, in addition to feeding children, taking care of the family and other
household chores (Winrock, 2001).

The agricultural extension service in the country is male dominated and predominantly
oriented towards advising and working with male farmers of the households (Ngatwa, 2006).
Women are typically, and wrongly, still characterized as “economically inactive.”
Agricultural extension services still do not attach equal importance to reaching women
farmers or women on the farm (Habtemariam, 1996).

Development planners have assumed that information given to male farmers will be passed on
to other farming members of the household. This does not often happen. Experience indicates

5
that agricultural knowledge acquired by male, unless they themselves will benefit, often does
not “trickle across” effectively to women in the family (Saito and Daphne, 1992).

Policy makers and administrators typically still assume that men are the farmers and women
play only “supportive role” as farmers’ wives. This attitude by both planners and
implementers has significant adverse effects on women’s access to agricultural extension
services (Habtemariam, 1996).

The Ethiopian agricultural extension system suffers from a number of weaknesses in its
services for rural women. There is therefore an alarming need to improve agricultural
extension work with the rural women.

Information is said to be a resource that must be acquired and used for the improvement of
agricultural production. The sharing of ideas and information forms a large part of extension
agents’ job. Having adequate well-presented information will improve the efficiency of rural
development projects and programmes (Samuel, 2001). According to Asres (2005),
information facilitates the individual to be more rational, increase the decision making
abilities and improve the standard of life. Using information is a key issue in information age.
The real challenge of our time is not producing information or storing information, but getting
people to use information.

So far, no study has been conducted in Southern Ethiopia on agricultural information flow to
farm women in relation to their access and utilization for crop and livestock packages. This
study addresses this research gap and tries to make empirical inferences to help planners and
extension administrators as well as future researchers.

6
1.2. Objectives of the study

The specific objectives of the study are:

1. to analyze the agricultural information networks of farm women;
2. to identify factors influencing farm women’s information network output in terms of
knowledge, and
3. to identify the constraints and opportunities of extension services in reaching out to
women.

1.3. Scope and Limitation of the study

The study was limited to only one selected Woreda in SNNPR. Since the study was
limited by time, financial constraints and human resources, there could have been some
bias in the information obtained about agricultural extension services.

The study focuses only on the agricultural information network of farm women and is
limited to sources of data on the subject.

Given the diversity of the Ethiopian population in terms of religion, ethnicity, agro-
ecological climate, the communities selected are not representative of all the people in
Ethiopia. As such, the research does not claim to provide conclusive findings on
agricultural information network of farm women and role of agricultural extension in
Ethiopia. However, the research finding could be used to raise awareness among different
stakeholders and also serve as background information for others who seek to do further
related research and would help serve in formulating and revising agricultural extension
strategies in the region as well as other areas with similar socio-economic conditions.

7
1.4. Significance of the study

To support women’s extensive and multifaceted roles in agriculture and to enable them to
respond to market incentives more efficiently, women need effective agricultural
extension services.

The result of this study will help to understand the flows and network of agricultural
information, information sources that rural women use, factors influencing farm women’s
information network output and the different constraints and opportunities of extension
service in reaching out to women. The findings of this study can also be used in guiding
policy makers and development planners who are concerned about gender issue while
designing agricultural projects within the region and elsewhere in the country.

1.5. Operational Definitions

Personal Characteristics: includes the variables related to personal characteristics such as

age, marital status, level of education, communication skill, family size and practice of
sharing the information with others.

Socio-economic Factors: this refers to the position of the women farmers in society, which is
determined by various social and economic variables such as income, size of land holding and
radio ownership.

Situational factors: includes the variables of the surroundings influencing women’s access to
agricultural information such as the extent of social participation, information seeking
behavior, cosmopoliteness, access to credit and extension participation,.

Psychological factors: includes the variables of psychological dimension of individual

respondent such as achievement motivation, level of aspiration, interpersonal trust,
positiveness, empathy and attitude of women farmers towards DA.

8
Network: The formal and informal relationships between women farmers and actors in the
study area in relation to flows of agricultural information.

Knowledge of farm women on dairy farming practices: knowledge is defined in Webster’s

dictionary as “acquaintance with facts, range of information, awareness or understanding, the
body of facts, principles, etc. accumulated by mankind as far as one knows within the range
of one’s information”. Knowledge, as defined in the present study, includes “those behaviors
and test situations which emphasize remembering by recall of ideas, material or practices.”

9
 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The literature review is divided into three main sections and sub-sections. In the first section,
the theoretical background that deals with the agricultural extension and information is
presented. In section two, agricultural extension and women farmers and in section three,
conceptual frameworks of the study are presented.

2.1. Agricultural Extension and Information

2.1.1. Definition of Agricultural Information

Samuel (2001) defined agricultural information as the data for decision-making and a
resource that must be acquired and used in order to make an informed decision.

Umali (1994) classified agricultural information into two broad groups: pure agricultural
information and agricultural information inherently tied to new physical inventions. Pure
agricultural information refers to any information which can be used without the acquisition
of a specific physical technology. It includes all types of self-standing advice on practices
such as production techniques, farm management, marketing and processing and community
development. On the other hand agricultural inventions or technologies are those that come in
the form of agricultural inputs, management technologies facilitating farm management, and
marketing and processing equipment.

In the light of the above definitions, in this study the researcher conceptualized the meaning
of agricultural information as both agricultural messages via extension and agricultural
information that is embodied in agricultural technologies and transferred between the actors in
the agricultural extension system.

10
2.1.2. The Concept of Information flow

The concept of knowledge-sharing is defined as the transfer of useful know-how or

information. People have investigated multiple types of flows (e.g. the material flow, the
energy flow, the message flow, control flow, etc.) and the rules they follow in respective
domains.

The knowledge flow (sometimes called information flow) is the flow of knowledge through
an organization. It is decomposed into atomic knowledge flow from one knowledge repository
to another. The knowledge flow looks like what is best known as workflow. The main
difference is that workflow is task-driven although knowledge flow is content-driven. In fact,
a workflow is a coordination and control diagram and knowledge flow is a communication
diagram. However, coordination requires information exchange and thus most of the
workflow models contain the knowledge flow. The reverse does not generally hold.

Knowledge represents a critical resource in the modern enterprise—so critical that it is now
being conceptualized as central to competitive advantage in a knowledge-based view of the
firm. But knowledge is not evenly distributed through the enterprise. Capitalizing on this
resource for enterprise performance depends upon its rapid and efficient transfer from one
organization, location or time of application to another. From a technological perspective,
such dynamic dependence points immediately to the design of information systems —along
with corresponding organization and process characteristics -to enhance knowledge flow.
According to Nissen and Levitt (2002), knowledge is distinct from information and data, and
few extant information systems even address knowledge as the focus or object of flow. Indeed
in this light, the IS field does not have the benefit of strong theory on knowledge flow, as
Nissen and Levitt (2002) note; there exist "large gaps in the body of knowledge in this area.”
So how does knowledge flow through the modern enterprise, and what kinds of managerial
interventions can be made to enhance the flow of knowledge? A number of theoretical models
have been developed to describe various aspects of the knowledge-flow phenomenon but few
provide insight into the phenomenon itself.

11
If everyone needs information, how does this information actually flow at the grassroots level
to influence the development process? Community members build their capacity for
integrating information and knowledge into their various development activities. Such
capacity empowers people to solve intelligently the problems that exist in their community.
The spread of new information (also called innovative ideas) in society follows a four-step
process: the awareness stage; the interest stage; the examination and testing stage; and the
adoption/rejection stage.

In this first stage, individuals in the community get information on a new idea or useful
practice. This new information creates an environment that allows people to start thinking
about the new practice. The first stage implies that the information is provided in such a way
that people are able to understand the new idea/practice. They understand the language,
format, and the steps in adopting the idea/practice. It is easier for members of the community
to receive new ideas, if they have access to a variety of information sources, such as
newspapers, radio, books, the Internet, and training workshops. It is more difficult to receive
new ideas, if the community does not have access to such information sources.

If the new practice is attractive because it addresses a need in the life of an individual or
community, people may start to develop an interest in it. They will try to find out more about
the idea/practice. This may lead to a search for more information. Those seeking more
information become excited and interested. They stimulate the rest of the community.
Conversation and discussion play an important role at this stage, especially communication
from relatives, neighbours, extension agents, and social networks. Together these groups raise
interest in the innovation. This communication shapes and influences opinions on
development issues in the community.

In third stage, the idea that passes the interest stage is tried out on a small scale. There is some
evaluation and consultation to see whether the idea/ practice is worth trying out.

12
After the three stages have been completed, a decision may be taken to adopt or reject the new
idea/practice. Some of the factors to influence the decision are: income levels, risk and
community priorities.

Self-confidence is important if individuals are to successfully adopt a new behaviour or

implement a new practice. If self-confidence is lacking, it is hard to adopt a new idea/practice.
Successful role models set a good example. People not only learn through their own
experience, but also by imitating the behaviour of other individuals who have succeeded in
doing something new. Good leaders, who encourage and reassure people about what they can
achieve if they work together in the community, are extremely important in a community
taking on challenging development tasks.

New ideas/practices are likely to be adopted if they have the following characteristics: a)
Relative advantage b) Compatibility/suitability c) Complexity d) Observability

The process of adopting new ideas can be speeded up through the participation of members of
the community. They will then know what to adopt. It will be easier to decide. They will feel
free to express their knowledge and information needs, and other needs they have, to build
capacity to deal with the expected social changes. Wider participation by members of the
community may also help in identifying other structural limits that prevent the adoption of
new practices. Examples of limits, for example, are the shortage of: land, financial resources,
transport, and marketing information. The community can then address these problems in
order to support the adoption of new ideas and practices (Mchombu, 2004).

2.1.3. Information-seeking behavior

Information seeking behavior is a broad term encompassing the ways individuals articulate
their information needs, seek, evaluate, select, and use information. In other words,
information-seeking behavior is purposive in nature and is a consequence of a need to satisfy
some goal. In the course of information seeking, the individual may interact with people,

13
manual information systems, or with computer-oriented information systems. According to
Pettigrew (1996), information-seeking behavior involves personal reasons for seeking
information, the kinds of information which are being sought, and the ways and sources with
which needed information is being sought. Barriers that prevent individuals from seeking and
getting information are also of great importance in understanding the information-seeking
behavior of individuals and organizations.

Information use is a behavior that leads an individual to the use of information in order to
meet his or her information needs. Information use is an indicator of information needs, but
they are not identical. As Line (1973) pointed out, individuals do not use all the information
they seek (partly because they are not always able to obtain what they need, partly because the
materials may not be relevant when they obtain them, and partly because individuals
sometimes do not know what they need). In addition, sometimes, individuals do not seek all
the information they intend to use.

Knowledge about the information-seeking behavior and information use of individuals is

crucial for effectively meeting their information needs.

According to Shin and Evans (1991), the main reason for seeking information by Illinois
agriculture and horticulture Extension advisors was to answer client inquiries. In their study,
they categorized information sources into three types: oral, written and electronic. Written-
only sources accounted for the largest single share (45.9%), followed closely by written and
oral combination (43%). Less than three percent used electronic information sources.
Radhakrishna and Thomson (1996) found that extension agents regularly seek information to
carry out their day-to-day work. Extension agents frequently communicate with a variety of
information sources. Prominent among these were: clients, another agent in the office, another
agent in another county, extension specialists, their immediate supervisor, local news
agencies, local business organizations, state and federal agencies, and local school teachers
and administrators.

14
Gholamreza and Naser (2005) investigated the factors influencing information-seeking
behaviour of Extension workers in Zanjan Province, Iran. His research showed that there was
a significant relationship between age, level of education, years of experience, and the
worker's level of job-related information with information-seeking behaviour. The main
reason for seeking information by extension workers was holding training courses, followed
by solving daily problems of farmers and up-dating their information, respectively. According
to Gholamreza and Naser (2005), Provincial Extension Specialists who were working for the
Ministry of Jihad-e Sazandegi reported radio, TV, computer, seminars and training courses as
their five most used information sources and channels. They indicated the lack of
knowledgeable and skilled information personnel as the main problem of the information
system of the Ministry of Jihad-e Sazandegi in Iran.

2.1.4. Intra-household Transfer of Agricultural Information

According to Saito and Daphne (1992), development planners have assumed that information
given to male farmers will be passed on to other farming members of the household. This
does not often happen. Experiences indicate that agricultural knowledge acquired by male,
unless they themselves will benefit, often does not “trickle across” effectively to women in
the family. Especially in polygamous household, men are usually not expected to share
information and it would be considered improper for a wife- especially a junior wife- to ask
her husband what he learned from the extension agent that day.

Men are less likely to pass information along to women when crops or tasks are gender-
specific. In Malawi, for example, wives of men in agricultural extension groups said their
husband rarely passed advice on to them. If they did, the women had difficulty understanding
the secondhand advice or did not find it relevant to their needs. Even when men are willing to
share information with their wives, they may simply not be familiar enough with an
agricultural operation or crop to share the information effectively. Mahapatra (1987), explains
that, in India, women learned of extension messages-“some in a clear way and others not so

15
clear”- through indirect channels of communication such as husbands, neighbors and other
villagers. However, this indirect effect of the extension system on women did not significantly
change production. The challenges to any extension service is how best to communicate with
the prime actors in the agricultural activity.

2.1.5. Agricultural extension and information

Schiefer (1992), defined agriculture as any production-oriented economic activity, which aims
at the production and processing of agricultural products, involving two closely
interconnected flows of:
ƒ Material goods (including production inputs, agricultural products, etc.) and
ƒ Information (in whatever form).
However, traditionally agricultural projects and researchers had paid too little attention to
agricultural information.

According to Samuel (2001), information has been identified as one of the resources required
for the improvement of agricultural production. It is defined as the data for decision-making.
It is said to be a resource that must be acquired and used in order to make an informed
decision. Those who possess appropriate and timely information will make a more rational
decision than those without.

Agricultural information system should be the basic component of extension institutions’ task
and must be incorporated into their long and short term plans.

Having adequate well-presented information will improve the efficiency of rural development
projects and programs. It will improve the implementation of rural projects and programs
through improving capacity of managers to devote due consideration to the principles of rural
development programs: accessibility, independence, sustainability, participation, effectiveness
and vision (Samuel, 2001).

16
2.1.6. Generation and use of agricultural information

According to Samuel (2001), communication defined as the sharing of ideas and information,
forms a large part of extension agents’ job and hence of extension institutions. Extension
agents must also be able to communicate with superior officers and research workers about
the situations faced by farmers to effect and result in their intervention.

The responsibility and the role played by agricultural extension institutions in rural
development demand them to establish an information system of similar size and scope.
Information and its dissemination is also a subject of considerable importance to rural
population who commonly suffer from isolation and have difficulties in communicating their
priorities to decision makers. Consequently it is imperative to find approaches, which can get
messages over them as well as means for them to communicate their problems and
aspirations.

There are different generators and users of agricultural information. Aina et al (1995),
categorize the various agricultural information user populations as follows:
ƒ Policy makers and planners
ƒ Researchers
ƒ Extension staff
ƒ Educators and students
ƒ Agro-base industries and services staff, and
ƒ Farmers.

Each of these sectors contributes directly to the improvement of agriculture and hence
relevant information provided to each category of these users population will contribute to the
development of agriculture.

Aina et al (1995), defined agricultural information as all published and unpublished

knowledge of agriculture and broadly categorized into four classes: Technical/Scientific
information, Commercial information, Social and cultural information and Legal information.

17
Information is power. Using information is a key issue in the information age. The real
challenge of our time is not producing information or storing information, but getting people
to use information. Information is a critical resource in the operation and management of
organizations. In extension organization, like other organizations, information has its own
importance to the individuals who are working in managerial or any other positions in the
organization to make right decisions. Furthermore, because communicating information and
knowledge from information resources or developers to extension clientele is an integral part
of the extension process, the flow of information in extension organizations is of more
importance than in organizations that are not responsible for providing their clients with
useful information. In the information age, extension has a major role in pointing the way to
increasing the use of knowledge and information through its people orientation.

As Buford (1990) pointed out, agricultural extension depends to a large extent on information
exchange between and among farmers on the one hand, and a broad range of other actors on
the other hand. Extension, along with education and research is typically seen as a service,
public or private, that responds to the needs of farmers and rural people for knowledge that
they can use to improve their productivity, incomes and welfare and to manage the natural
resources, on which they depend, in a sustainable way. It brings information and new
technologies to farming communities, allowing them to improve their production, incomes
and standards of living. Considering this situation, extension has little choice but to become
information-based.

2.1.7. The role of information and human Development

Regarding the role of information in modernization model of development, the thinkers of the
1960s thought that “underdeveloped countries” must transform their weak and culturally
backward societies to become “developed”, like Western capitalist societies. It was believed
that the main cause of underdevelopment lay in the backward culture of societies in
developing countries (Mchombu, 2004). The solution to underdevelopment, therefore, was to

18
change the attitudes of people in underdeveloped countries. Therefore, people forced to cast
off their culture, which was believed to be fatalistic. According to Mchombu (2004), to
produce the change from underdevelopment to development, information needed to be
communicated to peasants and small farmers through the mass media. It was believed that
radio, newspapers, television and books would change their culture, attitudes, and the
traditional way of life.

Modernization-driven information services provide direct access to information only to

powerful groups in society. The information is then expected to trickle down to the majority
at a later stage. In this top-down model of development, information on development issues
does not flow directly to everyone in the community.

Since the 1980s, an alternative development approach people-centered development approach

began to be used. This approach recognizes the importance of the well being of all the people.

The role of information services in the people-centred or human development approach is

very different from the modernization or economic growth model of development. Some of
the major differences are:
a) Access to information is for all groups in the population (including women, youth, and
rural and urban poor people);
b) Information is a tool and access to information is a process for building self-reliance,
empowerment, civil society, participation and gender equality;
c) Indigenous or traditional knowledge and locally-generated information are given high
status;
d) Traditional channels of communication are respected and not regarded as a barrier to
development.

19
2.1.8. The state of agricultural information in Ethiopia

Rural development is an indispensable prerequisite not only for any improvement but also for
the maintenance of a minimum basic living standard for a growing population.

The list of various rural development programs that have successfully replaced one another in
Ethiopia is long. But none of them left any lasting mark on the rural scene. None of them even
attempt to provide sound information about the areas they were supposed to develop (Samuel,
2001). This observation proves the difficulties the country’s long-lived extension system
faced in providing consistent, accurate and timely information in a systematic, coordinated
and sustainable way to address the wide –ranging needs of the agricultural information users.

Even though vast amount of data are collected, virtually none of them are in a readily
accessible form or in a suitable for dissemination (Samuel 2001). The situation to systematic
agricultural data/information handling in country is not well-developed and could generally be
concluded that there is no appropriate national system or entity that handles the gathering,
processing and dissemination of agricultural information.

2.1.9. Generation and processing of agricultural information in Ethiopia

According to Samuel (2001), there are three major institutions which generate agricultural
information in Ethiopia. These are government agricultural extension institution both at
federal and regional levels, Central statistical Authority (CSA) and research institutions. The
CSA is responsible mainly for macro-level data and statistics, whereas the Federal Ministry of
Agriculture (MOA) and Regional Agricultural Bureaus are also mandated by law to collect
process and disseminate data with respect to the performance of agricultural projects and
programs. Agricultural research centers are also supposed to generate and disseminate
technical data on new findings and other recommendations.

20
The regional agricultural development bureaus are the main source of agricultural data and
information at regional level. Extension/Development agents collect data mainly for
administrative purposes at the level of Development Centers.

Data generation and processing in agricultural bureaus have suffered from other weaknesses
which include, among others, lack of general appreciation about the importance of
agricultural data and information, attempts to collect more data than the existing data
processing and management capacity, over-stretching the capacity of extension agents to
collect data, lack of standardization of formats, inappropriate design of existing formats, lack
of well documented instructions to accompany data collection formats, insufficient
cooperation and support among data collectors and processors at various levels.

2.1.10. Common problems in information generation and use in extension institutions

According to Samuel (2001), Agricultural extension institutions of developing countries faced

many constraints in their activities of information generation and use. Most of the problems
caused due to the poor socio-economic conditions of their clients, farmers, and weak
infrastructural and institutional development of the area where they have been working. For
example, the following factors make their effort to generate and use information difficult:
ƒ Extension institutions in developing countries and particularly those in Africa deal
with many small and mostly subsistence farmers who are geographically dispersed in
areas characterized by poor infrastructural development which makes communication
difficult,
ƒ Farmers are in most cases illiterate,
ƒ Farmers in most cases do not maintain farm records,
ƒ Farmers’ problems and demands may change through time that may need new set of
information,
ƒ Weak and inadequate infrastructure and institutional development in rural areas.

21
2.2. Agricultural Extension and Women farmers

2.2.1. Women’s Role in Agricultural development

Every country’s development is focused mainly on the uplifting of the rural small-holder
farming sector. Most people in this group are women who labour day and night to sustain the
family’s food supply and provide extra income to the households. The majority of women in
developing countries falls within the small scale subsistence sector farming and produce more
than 80% of the food for the Sub-Saharan Africa (Irvine, 1996). Women are the busiest
people in the world. In addition, they find time to grow half of the world’s food requirements
(FAO, 1993). Women are the invisible agricultural producers in peasant society (Ellis, 1993).
Nearly 85% of women’s labor is spent in farming, which includes crop production and animal
husbandry (Yeshi, 1997).

Women in Ethiopia play multiple and overlapping roles, which have increasingly put pressure
on their health, food security, productivity and potential contribution to improved human
welfare and economic development (Senait, 2000).

Generally, women are considered as sources of food and heads of household, while all the
important activities of women are hidden behind the men. But, the fact is that women play a
significant role in food production and in farm family as a whole.

2.2.2. Extension services towards women farmers

Almaz (2000), states that, gender studies on division of labor in agricultural sector in Ethiopia
revealed that up to 40% of farming activities are done by women, especially in food
production and processing. Despite the significance of women’s role in agricultural
development, evidence through developing countries show that women’s farming productivity
and efficiency levels often remain very low. Among the key reasons for this is lack of

22
technical advice on production and marketing, cultural practices, skills and technology.
Extension services frequently fail to provide adequate information to women farmers due to
failure to recognize their specific needs. In addition to their productive tasks they are
frequently over burdened with household responsibilities which they cannot delegate, they are
often less educated than men and have a more limited access to resources such as credit. If an
extension program deals effectively with those constraints, it will be easier for women
farmers to get involved in activities (FAO, 1996).

Men and women perform different tasks they can substitute for one another only to a limited
extent and this limitation creates different demands for extension information also, as men
leave farms in search of paid employment in urban areas. Women are increasingly managing
and operating farms on a regular and full-time basis (Edlu, 2006).

Evidence suggests that women have not benefited as much as men have from publicly
provided extension services. Most local government staff, researchers and other rural visitors
are men. In most societies, women have inferior status and are subordinate to men. There are
variations and expectations, but quite often women are the poor and deprived class within a
community. They often work very long hours, and they are usually paid less than men. Rural
single women, female heads of household, and widows include many of the most wretched
and unseen people in the world (Chambers, 1983).

Agricultural information is not effectively reaching and benefiting these key persons in the
food security chain (FAO, 1996). According to Saito and Weidemann (1990), a survey of
women farmers in Burkina Faso found that 40% had some awareness about the existence of
modern crop and livestock production technologies

For most of the women, relatives and friends were the source of information; nearly one-third
had acquired their knowledge from the extension service, and only 1% had heard of the
technologies from their husbands (Saito and Weidemann, 1990). On the other hand,
Dagnachew (2002), states that extension efforts and technological packages usually address
men farmers. Extension agents are most likely to visit male farmers than female farmers. The

23
low level of women’s education and cultural barriers prevent them from the exposure to
extension channels by their initiative. The male-dominated extension system also often
restrains from contacting and working with women due to the strong taboos and value
systems in the rural areas.

2.2.3. Women’s Access to Extension Services in Ethiopia

Women are typically, and wrongly, still characterized as “economically inactive”.

Agricultural Extension services still do not attach equal importance to reaching women
farmers or women on farm. Survey results in the past study shows that only 37% of the
women have participated in extension advice and training (Habtemariam, 1996). Policy
makers and administrators typically still assume that men are the farmers and women play
only “supportive role” as farmer’s wives.

Due to this attitude, the agricultural extension services in Ethiopia are male dominated from
the national to the local levels. Front-line male extension workers tend to work mainly with
male farmers, they do so less often with female household heads. Farming wives rarely gain
different advice from the government extension services. Yet women, whether heads of
household, wives or daughters, are actively involved in farming throughout the country.

According to the study by Habtemariam (1996), women’s participation in home economics is

much greater (76.94%) than their participation in extension training (36.93%). The main
emphasis of the training was on family planning (30.2%), child care (17.9%) and on sanitation
(17.6%) by ignoring field crop production or livestock management in which women are also
actively involved.

The proportion of women currently serving in the extension system is low. The survey result
indicates that only 27.7 percent of the DAs are female (Habtemariam, 1996). Given the
cultural constraints inhibiting the interaction of men and women, female farmers both in male
and female-headed household are not benefiting as well from the extension system. As DA’s
are evaluated mainly based on the types and number of technology packages they were able to

24
disseminate and the number of farmers they could reach out, the DAs are more likely to focus
their efforts to the relatively well to do farmers. This is because women are generally not
perceived to be farmers or are poor and live in remote locations. This would further limit
women’s access to extension and other services including credit, fertilizer and improved seed.
When inputs are limited in supply, again women would receive lower priority than their male
counterparts. In addition to these factors, rural women’s ability to improve production and
productivity is also by gender determined responsibilities such as feeding and caring for the
family.

2.2.4. Limitations of Ethiopia’s agricultural extension services in relation to gender

issues

Though women play a critical role in agriculture, it is recognized that the Ethiopian
agricultural extension system suffers from a number of weaknesses in its services for rural
women. According to Habtemariam (1996), the study shows that:

First, there are misperceptions and prejudices about women’s actual and ideal roles with the
result that they are often excluded from the target group of extension. In Ethiopia farming is
traditionally considered as male activity. Women’s work in agriculture sector was considered
marginal.

Second, agricultural extension in Ethiopia focuses on efficiency objectives and on few

“progressive” farmers to the relative neglect of resource-poor households, and female heads
of rural households. The extension methodology uses the DAs as the main point of contact
between the Bureau of Agricultural and farmers through the use of demonstration plots on the
farms of better, more advanced farmers who are willing to serve as model for five to ten of
their neighbors. Since some women, particularly those in female-headed households are
generally among the poorest of farmers; their chance to be selected by DAs for extension
services is very low. They are often too poor to afford the inputs necessary for optimum
productivity even when inputs are available.

25
Third, there is a gender bias against women and among extension workers. Extension services
in Ethiopia are male- dominated and work mainly with male farmers, partly for cultural
reasons and partly because the extension system itself has traditionally relied on the use of
contact farmers, whose criteria for selection tended to exclude female farmers. Assistance for
women had usually been in the form of separate women’s projects aimed at assisting women
in their reproductive role, child care, sanitation, nutrition and home management or in
traditionally accepted roles such as sewing, knitting, processing of crops and animal by-
products, brewing beer, vegetable production and marketing. In the two case study Woredas
(Habtemariam, 1996), 87% of women interviewed acknowledged the lessons they have drawn
from home economists mainly on the use of improved stoves, nutrition and home
management planning. But they complained that home economists are stationed in Woreda or
zonal towns and come to their areas once or twice a year. Thus their impact on rural women’s
life is insignificant. Home economists were not in a position to advise women on aspects of
field crop or livestock production.

Fourth, the extension services were managed in a top-down fashion, which was reflected in
extension program planning. This gives a very little opportunity for grass root extension staff
to take the initiative and respond to local demands in any significant way. Similarly, the
management and organization of the extension service did not allow for great deal of
teamwork and there was little emphasis on multidisciplinary approaches to problem solving.

Fifth, the different needs and constraints of different categories of people are not
distinguished and treated accordingly. Extension needs of men and women are basically
different. Women in male-headed households also have different needs from women who are
household heads. It is difficult to reach women in the male-headed households. They
generally do not attend meetings, as it is generally the husbands that attend. Women in these
households need to negotiate with husbands to allow them to participate in development
activities autonomously. Women headed households are among the poorest and more
vulnerable groups. The prevailing social and cultural constraints on the interaction of men and
women, the lack of a clear strategy by extension system for targeting female farmers in
general, and female-headed households in particular, limits the extension system’s ability to

26
reach female-headed households. Female-headed households also lack alternative productive
resources that would enable them to improve their productivity and income, which in turn
would contribute to ensuring household food security.

Habtemariam (1996), sum up that, agricultural extension as an educational and

communication tool makes a vital contribution to agricultural production and rural
development. It is thus important to provide women farmers both male and female-headed
households with efficient, effective and appropriate technology, training and information.
However, it is a mistake to view “rural women” as a homogeneous social classification or to
drive policies and services for women in agriculture that are not based on empirical research
which capture their diversity. The consequence is that extension service needs to be adapted
to circumstances as there is no one one-package extension model, which can work for all
women in all places.

2.3 Conceptual Framework of the study

Literature review on information flow in agricultural extension indicated that, information is

vital for rural people, which they can use to improve their productivity, income and welfare
and to manage the natural resources, on which they depend, in a sustainable way. Information
and its dissemination is a subject of considerable importance to rural population, especially to
rural women who commonly suffer from isolation and have difficulties in communicating
their priorities to decision makers. Agricultural extension depends to large extent on
information exchange between and among farmers on the one hand, and a broad range of
other actors on the other hand. To plan effective extension activities, extension workers need
to carry out some more investigations on women’s channel of communications. Based on this
and similar areas of conceptual constructs; analyzing agricultural information network output
of farm women and identifying factors influencing women’s information network output
(knowledge of dairy farming practices) were considered under this investigation.

27
In this study efforts were made to reveal factors influencing agricultural information network
output of farmwomen that varies according to personal, socio-economic, psychological
characteristics of rural women and situational factors.

Based on the literature review that deal with personal characteristics of farmers which affect
different farmers groups toward information exchange such as; age, marital status, level of
education, communication skill, family size and sharing the information with others have been
assumed important and are considered in this study.

According to previous studies, variables considered as socio-economic characteristics of

women farmers were income of the household, size of land holding and radio ownership.

On the other hand, achievement motivation, level of aspiration, interpersonal trust,

positiveness, empathy of women farmers and their attitude towards DAs were assumed as
important psychological factors which affect farmers in the exchange of agricultural
information.

Lastly, social participation, information seeking behaviour, cosmopolitness, access to credit

and extension participation were conceptualized and identified by considering as they are
important situational factors.

Therefore, in this study the researcher tries to analyze these relationships, identify the
influence of independent variables on the dependent variable and also tries to identify the
constraints and opportunities of agricultural extension in reaching out farm women. The
conceptual framework diagram of this study is presented in figure-1.

28
 Age, marital status, level of
education, communication skill,
family size and sharing the
information with others

Personal
Factors

Social participation, Achievement

information seeking motivation, level of
behavior, INFORMATION
Situational NETWORK aspiration, interpersonal
cosmopoliteness, Factors Psychologic trust, positiveness,
OUTPUT OF
access to credit & FARM WOMEN al Factors empathy and attitude of
extension women farmers towards
participation development agent.

Socio-
economic
Factors

Income, size of land holding &

radio ownership

Figure 1Conceptual Framework diagram

29
 3. METHODOLOGY

This chapter starts by presenting the different aspects of the study Woreda. It also provides
details of the methodology followed to conduct the survey such as determination of sample
size, sampling technique, data type and data source, method of data collection and methods of
data analysis. It concludes by specifying the Multiple Linear Regression model used and the
variables.

3.1. Description of the Study Area

Dale Woreda is one of 10 Woredas in Sidama Zone and covers a total area of 1,411 km2, at
about 320 km south of Addis Ababa. The Woreda is subdivided into 76 PAs. According to
CSA (2003), the population of the Woreda is estimated as 369,548 of which women account
for 57.6% of the population. The altitude of the Woreda ranges from 1170 masl around Lake
Abaya to the west, reaching about 3200 masl in the eastern part of Woreda. The altitude at
Yirgalem, which is the Woreda headquarter, is 1765 masl

The mean annual rainfall recorded at Awada Research sub-centre in Yirgalem is 1314 mm.
Rainfall declines as one move from the highlands in the east to lowlands in the west.

There are two cropping seasons in the area, Belg (short rainy season) from March to April and
Meher (main rainy season) from June to September. Belg rains are mainly used for land
preparation and planting long cycle crops such as maize and seedbed preparation for Meher
crops. The Meher rains are used for planting of cereal crops like barley, teff, wheat and
vegetable crops. Meher rains are also responsible for the growth and development of
perennial crops such as enset, coffee and chat. Livestock also play a major role in crop
production in areas of the mid highlands and lowlands for cereal production (draught power)
in addition to meat and milk; it also denotes prestige and asset to the households.

30
Farming systems

According to IPMS (2005), two main farming systems can be found in Dale Woreda. The
garden coffee, enset, and livestock (hereafter referred to as coffee/livestock system) system is
found east of the main road transecting Dale from north to south. The terrain is hilly and soils
are red (Nitosols).

Rainfall is higher and more reliable than in the dry midlands haricot bean/livestock system.
The farming system is composed of garden coffee, enset, and cattle, which are tethered and
kept for manure and production of dairy products. Other crops in the system are haricot beans
(as an intercrop), yam, cereals, fruits, mainly avocado and bananas. Because of the perennial
nature of the crop and the small holding size (between 0.25-0.5 ha per family), hand hoeing is
the predominant method of cultivation.

The Cereals, enset, haricot beans, garden coffee, and livestock (hereafter referred to as haricot
bean/livestock system) system is the other main farming system in Dale Woreda.

This system is found west of the road transecting Dale from North to South. The terrain varies
from relatively flat to hilly. Black soils (Pellic Vertisols) are commonly found on the flat
areas and red soils on the slopes. Rainfall is lower and more erratic than in the coffee system.
This system is dominated by cereals (maize, teff) rotated with haricot beans. Enset is
cultivated near the homesteads. Garden coffee is grown in small patches, on the red soils.

Extensive grazing areas are found, which are used for herding the oxen, cattle and goats.
Average farm size is estimated at 1.5 ha. The farmers use oxen for their cultivation.

Besides these two major systems, two smaller systems can be found, one in the extreme east
at the high altitude where farmers grow horticultural crops (shallots) and the other one in the
extreme west, near Lake Abaya where a pastoralist system is found (IPMS, 2005).

31
Crop Production

The government is clear in its strategy for a market led development in that it has chosen two
crops for this Woreda. i.e.
• Coffee

• Haricot beans (white variety-Awash 1)

According to the available statistics, the area under coffee is 15,375 ha and a total of 9.3
million kg of red cherry was sold in 2002/03 and 5.7 million in 2003/04. Garden coffee
improvement is being promoted predominantly in the coffee/livestock system. A total of 42
PAs have been targeted for this specialization, While, there are 59 PAs where coffee is grown.
The commercialization of the haricot beans is targeted for the haricot bean/livestock farming
system. The area under beans at the moment is still small i.e, 2,300 ha and the estimated
production is 670 tons. A total of 22 PAs are targeted for specialization. The government
intends to commercialize the haricot bean for export purposes, using the Awash 1 variety
(small white seeds). This is a new introduction to the area which can either be added to and/or
replace the area already sown with the local red Wollayta variety (IPMS, 2005).

Livestock

The main livestock species in the Woreda are cattle, goats and sheep. The livestock resources
are cattle 225,698 (82,666 local cows and 1584 crossbred dairy animals, 80% are in urban and
peri-urban areas); sheep 30,152; Goats 31,443; Poultry 218,923; Horses 2,498; Mules 431;
Donkeys 16,321; and Beehives 10,949. Production systems range from extensive system in
the lowlands (haricot bean/livestock system) to intensive tethered system in the major
coffee/livestock system. Sheep production is important in the Dega (highlands) areas. Cattle,
sheep and goat production is major in the mid-altitudes and goat, cattle, and sheep production
are important in the lowland or Kolla areas. Land preparation is mainly done by oxen power
in the coffee/livestock system or human power using hoe in the coffee/livestock, depending
on land size and availability of oxen. Oxen ownership is very low and farmers share their
oxen for ploughing. In the Woreda, only 16% of the farmers have a pair of oxen, 26% have

32
one ox and 58% have no oxen. There is a large resource of production of skins and hides in
the Woreda. However, only 37% of the marketable skins and hides were officially marketed
in 2004. There is a plan to increase the proportion of marketable skins and hides to 70% in
three years. Production of fattened cattle, goat and sheep has great potential and there is a plan
to enhance meat production in the Woreda. The poultry production system is traditional using
local birds. The market-led priority livestock commodities incorporated in the Woreda
development plan are: 1. Dairy Production 2. Meat production from fattened ruminants
(mainly cattle and goats). 3. Skins and Hides 4. Poultry production. Apiculture is identified as
a potential commodity for development (IPMS, 2005).

33
 N

Figure 2 Location of the study area

34
3.2. Sampling Technique

Precision of facts is greater from a census. Nevertheless, due to financial and time constraints,
absolute coverage of the entire community is not practical for a student research. Sampling
allows the researcher to study a relatively small number of units representing the whole
population (Sarantakos, 1998). This study used both probability and non-probability sampling
techniques.

Sampling design

Dale Woreda was purposively selected for the study since it has significantly highest share of
women’s population (CSA, 2003); promotion of dairy cattle management is one of the thrust
areas in the Woreda development plan, in which the active role of women is significant and it
is one of the Pilot Learning Woredas (PLW) of IPMS, where dairy has been identified as a
priority area for market-oriented development.

At the time of planning this study, Sidama Zone had 10 Woredas, later; it was subdivided into
19 Woredas. As a result of this, the then Dale Woreda was divided into three new Woredas,
namely Loca Abaya, Wonsho and Dale. Since the research proposal was prepared and
defended before the separation of the previous district, the study has been continued without
any change, based on the defended proposal.

This study used a three stage sampling procedure, in which both purposive (non-probability
sampling) and simple random sampling techniques (probability sampling) were used to select
the Peasant Associations and sample respondents. In the first stage, all 76 PAs of the Woreda
were put in order of their crossbred cattle population, and out of them four PAs were
purposively selected based on larger number of crossbred dairy cattle population and distance
to town ( two are close to town PAs, and the other two are far away from town PAs). These
were Masincho, Awada, Wicho, and Hida Kaliti.

35
Sampling frame

To identify the sampling frame of the study, in the second stage using list of household heads
that was taken from Dale Woreda IPMS office, list of households having dairy cattle (local or
crossbred) were identified from selected 4 PAs by enumerators with the help of village
leaders, from which the sample respondents were to be drawn.

Sample size

An important decision that has to be taken while adopting a sampling technique is about the
size of the sample. Appropriate sample size depends on various factors relating to the subject
under investigation like the time aspect, the cost aspect, the degree of accuracy desired, etc
(Rangaswamy, 1995; Gupta and Gupta, 2002).

In this study, to determine sample size, different factors were taken into consideration
including research cost, time, human resource, accessibility, and availability of transport
facilities. In the third stage, from lists of farmers having dairy cattle (cows), 160 respondents
were sampled randomly with purposive inclusion of 10% of FHHs from the respective list of
farmers having dairy cattle in the selected four PAs using simple random sampling techniques
(Table 1).

Table 1. Distribution of sampled respondents by PAs in the study area, Dale Woreda, 2007

Peasant Total number of Number of HH owning Number of respondents

Association households * dairy cattle** in the sample
MHH FHH Total MHH FHH Total Women FHH Total
in MHH (10%)
(90%)
Masincho 791 69 860 655 51 706 35 3 38
Awada 794 147 941 693 103 796 37 7 44
Wicho 1004 74 1078 699 37 736 37 3 40
Hida Kaliti 742 689 1431 667 43 710 35 3 38
Total 3331 979 4310 2714 234 2948 144 16 160
Source: * Dale Woreda IPMS **Own survey results 2007

36
3.3. Data Type and Data Source

Data collected for this research were both quantitative and qualitative in nature. For this, both
primary and secondary data sources were used. The primary data sources were FHH and
women in MHHs. Primary and secondary data had been collected to answer the objectives of
the study. It includes, personal characteristics, socio-economic factors, situational factors,
psychological factors and constraints and opportunities of agricultural extension services in
reaching women farmers.

Data had been gathered through interview, discussions and observations. Secondary data
sources were reports, records of DAs and, published and unpublished documents of Woreda
Office of Agricultural and Rural Development (WOoARD).

The sources of qualitative data were key informants, DAs, SMSs, extension officials, village
leaders, NGO workers and, groups of women and men farmers.

3.4. Methods of data collection

3.4.1. Quantitative data collection methods

For the purpose of data collection, female enumerators, who have acquaintance with socio
economic concepts and knowledge of the culture of the society as well as local language
proficiency were selected, trained and employed.

Quantitative data were collected through personal interviews. The respondents were
interviewed using a pre-tested, structured interview schedule (See Appendix Table 1). To
collect data on information network between women farmers and actors, among Rapid
Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems (RAAKS) tools info-source-use exercise (Tool
B3/a) and communication network sheet (Tool B3/b) were used with suitable modification.

37
These tools help to identify the relevant information sources and users of these knowledge
and information, the importance, closeness and value of the information sources existing in
the study area (Salomon and Engel, 1997). Restructuring has been done using sufficient
number of non-sample respondents through a pilot study. Based on the nature and extent of
responses obtained, necessary modifications and further editing were done in the interview
schedule to ensure its clarity and completeness for generating the needed information from the
respondents.

3.4.2. Qualitative data collection methods

Qualitative data were used to supplement and to fill gaps during the quantitative data
collection process. Qualitative data were collected through field visits; observations; informal
interview with key informants, Village leaders, DAs, SMSs, NGO workers and extension
officials; discussion with separate focus groups of women and men farmers.

Focus group discussion was held on specific topics with small groups of people (that consists
7 to 8 members) who have intimate knowledge about the topic under consideration. Often,
researcher has chosen to ensure that the discussion does not diverge too far from the original
topic and that no participant dominates the discussion.

3.5. Methods of Data Analysis

The role of statistics in research is to function as a tool in analyzing its data and drawing
conclusions there from. Only after this, we can adopt the process of generalization from small
groups (i.e., sample) to population. Depending on the objectives of a given study and nature
of the data available, analysis to be made require different approaches. In fact, there are two
major areas of statistics viz., descriptive statistics and inferential statistics.

In this study, data were analyzed using different quantitative and qualitative statistical
procedures and methods. Descriptive statistical tools were used to analyze the quantitative

38
data. The important statistical measures that were used to summarize and categorize the
research data were means, percentages, frequencies, and standard deviations. The qualitative
data were partly analyzed on spot during data collection to avoid forgetting and to be able to
fill the gaps in the quantitative data.

Among the measures of correlation, Karl Pearson’s Coefficient of Correlation(r) was applied
to analyze the data. The degree of association or correlation between two variables X and Y is
answered by the use of correlation analysis (Gomez and Gomez, 1984; Kothari, 2003).

Karl Pearson’s coefficient of correlation(r) is also known as the Product Moment Correlation
Coefficient. The value of ‘r’ lies between. +1 and -1 Positive values of ‘r’ indicate positive
correlation between the two variables (i.e., changes in both variables take place in the same
direction), whereas negative values of ‘r’ indicate negative correlation i.e., changes in the two
variables taking place in the opposite directions. A zero value of ‘r’ indicates that there is no
association between the two variables. When r = (+) 1, it indicates perfect positive correlation
and when it is (-) 1, it indicates perfect negative correlation. The value of ‘r’ nearer to +1 or -1
indicates high degree of correlation between the two variables (Kothari, 2003).

The existence of a significantly high correlation between two variables tells us nothing about
why the correlation exists. In particular, the correlation does not tell us that one variable is the
cause and the other is the effect (Browen and Starr, 1983).

Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) analysis was another statistical technique used to analyze
the influence among variables (i.e. single dependent variable and several independent
variables) with the object of using the independent variables whose values are known to
predict the single dependent value (Hair et al, 1998).

39
According to Browen and Starr (1983), the regression equation takes the form:

y = a +b1x1 +b2x2 +b3x3 +...+bpxp

Where:
y = Dependent variable
x = Independent variable (of there are p)
a = y intercept
b = the slope of the line

Estimation procedure

Following the completion of the data collection, the responses were coded and entered into
SPSS version 13.0 for analysis.

Before estimating the models, it was necessary to check if multicollinearity exists among the
explanatory variables. If multicollinearity turns out to be significant, the simultaneous
presence of the two variables will reinforce the individual effects of these variables.

According to Gujarati (1995) there are various indicators of multicollinearity and no single
diagnostic will give us a complete handle over the collinearity problem. For this particular
study, Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and condition index (CI) were used for continues
variables.

The larger the value of VIF, the more it is troublesome. As a rule of thumb, if the VIF of a
variable exceeds 10 (this will happen if Ri2 exceeds 0.95), that variable is said to be highly
collinear (Gujarati, 1995). Following Gujarati (1995), the VIF is given as:
1
VIF (Xj) = 2
1− Rj

40
where, Rj2 is the coefficient of determination when the variable Xj is regressed on the other
explanatory variables.

A condition index greater than 15 indicates a possible problem and an index greater than 30
suggests a serious problem with multicollinearity.

Similarly, there may be also interaction between qualitative variables, which can lead to the
problem of multicollinearity. To detect this problem, coefficients of contingency were
compounded. The contingency coefficient was compounded as follows:

χ2
C=
n+ χ 2

Where, C is coefficient of contingency, χ2 is chi-square test and n = total sample size.

3.6. Variables and their definitions

3.6.1. Dependent variable

The dependant variable of the study is the Agricultural information Network output in terms
of knowledge. The variable is operationalized as knowledge of farm women on dairy farming
practices. In order to measure the farmers’ level of knowledge about dairy farming practices
‘teacher- made type’ test was developed. Salient features of this technology were selected in
consultation with the concerned SMS of regional and WOoARD. Then suitable questions
were framed to invoke responses from the farmers about the selected salient features. The
various items were selected for the knowledge test in respect of dairy farming practices was
given weights as per their importance.

41
3.6.2. Independent variables

For this study, twenty independent variables were hypothesized to influence the dependent
variable. Out of these variables fifteen were continuous and five were discrete. Independent
variables include the personal characteristics, socio-economic factors, situational factors and
psychological factors of rural women that may influence the dependant variables. The
selection of independent variables is based on the past research and published literature
related to the study.

Age: is measured in terms of number of years of age of the respondents. Since age is a factor
that normally makes the rural women confined more to household chores, it was assumed that
age would have a negative relationship with agricultural information network output.

Marital status: indicates whether respondents are married, unmarried, single, or widowed.
Since married women will have more roles to be performed, a positive relationship was
anticipated between marital status and agricultural information networks of farmwomen.

Education level: Education refers to the level of formal and non-formal education and will be
measured in terms of ability to read and write and enrolment in primary, secondary schools or
above. Educational level as a variable helping exposure to information, but also positively
affects use of information.

Communication skills: In this study communication skill is referred to as the ability to

express ideas effectively in written or spoken form, and the ability to listen attentively. This
variable would be measured using list of items selected through systematic procedure.
Communication skill is anticipated to have positive relationship with information network
output.

Positiveness: defined as a person’s quality that is characterized by displaying certainty,

acceptance, or affirmation. It will be measured by respondents’ willingness to discuss

42
agricultural matters with other farmers. The variable is assumed to have positive relationship
with the dependent variable.

Empathy: is defined as the ability to imagine oneself in another’s place and understand the
other’s feelings, desires, ideas, and actions. This variable would be measured using list of
items selected through systematic procedure. The variable is assumed to have positive
relationship with dependent variable.

Interpersonal trust: Expectancy held by an individual or a group that the word, promise
verbal or written statement of another individual or group can be relied upon (Rotter, 1967).
Trusting individuals will be more likely than less trusting individuals to share information
each other. Therefore, the variable is assumed to have positive relationship with the dependent
variable.

Income: income is operationally defined as the value of the products of the household after
home consumption and income obtained from off-farm and non-farm activities that is
expressed in birr per year. The income level is anticipated to have a positive relationship with
the dependant variable since normally it becomes a facilitating factor.

Size of land holding: This refers to the area (local unit ‘Timad’) of cultivated land possessed
by the respondents or their families. It was assumed that larger the farm size, the farmer has,
better access to use combination of technological packages. Therefore, it was hypothesized
that land size has a positive relationship with the dependant variable.

Family size: is the size of the family of the respondent measured in terms of total number of
members in the family including aged persons and children. Higher number of family
members leads to decision to take risk for participation in technology packages. This also
leads to exposure to get information. Therefore, family size contributes to the variation in
getting access to agricultural information. In this study, family size was assumed to have
positive relation to agricultural information network output.

43
Radio ownership: The farmers who own radio have the opportunity of getting more
agricultural information. It is, therefore, assumed that it affects the agricultural information
network positively.

Social participation: Social participation in this study refers to the involvement in social
activities and membership of respondent in various formal and informal organizations, either
as member or as an office bearer. It was measured in terms of membership or official status in
any formal or informal organizations, along with the frequency of participation and type of
organization in which she is a member using the scale developed by Trivedi (1963) with slight
modifications. Social participation was expected to have positive relationship with the
dependant variable

Achievement motivation: This was defined as the need in an individual to perform different
roles with some degree of excellence. This variable was measured using the scale suggested
by Pareek and Rao (1992), with slight modifications. Achievement motivation was expected
to have positive relationship with the dependant variable.

Information seeking behavior: This was defined as the degree to which the respondent was
eager to get information from various sources on different roles she performs. This was
measured in terms of how much information was sought, how frequently and from where the
information was sought. Information seeking behavior was assumed to have positive
relationship with the dependent variable.

Cosmopoliteness: This is the degree of orientation of the respondents towards outside the
social system to which she belongs. It is measured in terms of frequency of visits to outside
her village and the purpose of such visits. Cosmopoliteness was expected to have positive
relationship with the dependant variable since it provides more chance of exposure to external
information.

Level of aspiration: This is a strong desire or an ambition to achieve something better in the
life. This variable was measured using the scale suggested by Pareek and Rao (1992) with

44
slight modifications. Level of aspiration was expected to have positive relationship with the
information network output.

Attitude towards Development Agent: The researcher operationally defined attitude in this
study as the degree of positive or negative attitude of women farmers towards Development
Agent. This variable was measured using a Likert type scale (Thurstone, 1976).

Sharing of available information: is defined as the extent to which respondent shared the
information with others including family members, friends or neighbors, extension agent, etc.
This was also anticipated to have a positive relationship with information network output.

Access to credit: Access to credit can relax the financial constraints of women farmers. It
indicates whether respondents have access to credit or not. It was expected, in this study, that
male farmers have better access to credit than women. Therefore, access to credit has impact
on level of utilization of recommended technological packages and this in turn will expose
them to different information. Therefore, the variable was assumed to have a positive
relationship with the dependant variable.

Extension participation: This represents women farmers’ frequency of contact with

development agents and frequency of participation in extension planning, training, farmers’
field day, on-farm trial and demonstration regarding to livestock production in general and
dairy farming practices in particular. It was measured using a weighted index. It was assumed
that this variable will have a positive relationship with the information network output.

45
 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter, the results of the study are presented and discussed in detail to address the
three objectives of the research. The chapter is divided into five sections. These sections are
agricultural information network of farm women; descriptions of personal, socio-economic,
situational and psychological characteristics of sample respondents; relationship between
dependent and independent variables; influence of independent variables on agricultural
information network output of farm women which is measured in terms of knowledge of dairy
farming practices; and the constraints and opportunities of extension services in reaching out
to rural women.

The result is presented using descriptive statistical tools such as mean, percentage, standard
deviation; Pearson’s Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient employed to measure the
relationships between dependent and independent variables; Chi-square test used to evaluate
the significance of the association between variables and thereby to test the hypotheses; and
Cramer’s V statistics used to specify the strength and direction of association between
variables of categorical. MLR was also used to see the level of influence each independent
variable exerts in unit change of the dependent variable.

4.1. Agricultural Information Networks of Farm Women

This section covers information exchange between women farmers and actors, in respect of
information source and its use pattern, importance of the information sources, proximity of
information sources and value of information from sources on dairy farming. In order to
measure information exchange and actors, different scales were used.

46
4.1.1. Information Exchange and Actors

4.1.1.1. Information source and its use pattern

Information source and its use pattern was analyzed to assess the actors strengths and
weaknesses with respect to information exchange in a particular direction. Actors who are
networking for information exchange can be looked at and compared on the basis of many
different characteristics, but in this subsection they are seen only as agricultural information
source particularly on dairy farming. Distribution of frequency of use of actors as information
source on dairy farming to the respondents in terms of their use is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Distribution of actors as information source to the respondents in terms of their

frequency of use (N = 160)

No. Actors Frequency of use Score Rank

Never Sometimes Always
(0) (1) (2)
N % N % N %
1 Neighbors or
friends 21 13.1 89 55.6 50 31.3 189 1st

2 Other farmers 20 12.5 103 64.4 37 23.1 177 2nd

Development 129
3 59 36.9 73 45.6 28 17.5 3rd
Agents
Rural radio
4 81 50.6 46 28.8 33 20.6 112 4 th
programs
Religious 104
5 95 59.4 26 16.3 39 24.4 5 th
organizations
6 WOoARD 77 48.1 67 41.9 16 10 99 6th
7 Peasant association 73 45.6 76 47.5 11 6.9 87 7 th
Farmers’ 64
8 107 66.9 42 26.3 11 6.9 8 th
cooperatives
Input supplier 49
9 118 73.8 35 21.9 7 4.4 9 th
organizations
Training,
41
10 demonstration & 126 78.8 27 16.9 7 4.4 10 th
field days
11 Leaflets & folders 134 83.8 23 14.4 3 1.9 29 11 th
12 th
12 NGOs 144 90 13 8.1 3 1.9 19

47
The number of actors used to assess the information source and their use pattern, were twelve.
It could be observed from Table 2 that, neighbors or friends are the major and the first
important source of information for the farm women. This survey result is similar with the
result of focused group discussion conducted in this study. According to this study, other
farmers (other than neighbors or friends) serve as the second important information source.
The survey result showed that the third and fourth major sources of information are
Development Agents and rural radio programmes respectively. As showed in the Table 2,
religious organizations, WOoARD (Woreda Office of Agriculture and Rural Development)
and PA serve as fifth, sixth and seventh source of information respectively. Farmers’
cooperatives; input supplier organizations; training, demonstration & field days serve as
eighth, ninth and tenth information sources respectively. Leaflets & folders and NGOs serve
as the least important sources of information respectively. This is probably because they never
had access to them.

This study, also tried to summarize the agricultural information sources of the farmers in the
study area through group discussion. During the time of group discussion the group members
were familiarized with the discussion area and were expected to identify and prioritize the
agricultural information sources of farmers in their area. The group members took care in
listing all alternative sources of information available in their area using brain storming
method and tried to refine, summarize and prioritize the listed alternative information sources
again through brain storming method.

48
Table 3. Result of group discussion ranking information sources in terms of their importance

Women’s Men’s
No. Information sources
group rank group rank
1 Neighbors or friends 1st 1st
2 Other farmers (relatives or colleagues) 2nd 2nd
3 Religious organizations 3rd 8th
4 Development Agents 4th 3rd
5 WOoARD 5th 5th
6 Peasant Association 6th 4th
7 Rural radio programs 7th 6th
8 Farmers’ cooperatives 8th 7th
9 Training, demonstration & field days 9th 9th
10 NGOs 10th 10th
11 Leaflet & folders 11th 11th

The result of the group discussion also showed that, neighbors or friends stand first and the
most important and leaflets and folders stand the last and least important. The result of the
group discussion findings showed that farmers got more information easily from their
neighbors than other sources available in their area. The second and third most important
information sources of farmers in the study area were other farmers (other colleague farmers
or relatives) and religious organizations. Development Agents, WOoARD, Peasant
Association, rural radio programs and Farmers’ cooperatives were serving as fourth, fifth,
sixth, seventh and eighth source of information respectively. This might be probably because
women farmers do not have much access to institutional formal services, since they are
confined to home and neighborhood. Training, demonstration & field days, NGOs and leaflet
& folders serve as ninth, tenth and eleventh source of information respectively for women
farmers in the study area.

49
Similar results were identified by Saito and Weidemann (1990) indicating that for most of the
women, relatives and friends were the source of information. Another study conducted by
Dereje (2005) indicated that neighbor and colleagues are the major and the most important
farmers’ source of information. For women, their major sources of knowledge and
information are informal sources, indigenous knowledge and their husbands (Clare and
Ranjitha, 2005).The case study 1 presented below confirms the findings of the study.

50
 Photo: A woman farmer W/ro Bekelech Babiso, Dale Woreda, SNNPR
Case study 1
The information source and its use pattern was best illustrated by a woman rearing local
breed cows without using any technological packages in Hida Kaliti Peasant
Association, Dale Woreda, SNNPR who told her experience of information source during
focus group discussion.
A woman named Bekelech Babiso, age 38 married and living with her husband told the
following story.

She said, “Years back, two of my cows delivered at the same time, as a result I started
getting a lot of milk. However, I didn’t get any person who buys the produced milk in my
area, so I utilized it all for my family consumption. One day, a brother of my husband
who lives in the nearby town came to our residence and after that he observed what was
happening in my home, he advised me to take to the market the surplus milk produced, to
those persons in the nearby town, Aposto, (Aposto is six kilometers from the Peasant
Association), who took milk on contractual base and paid monthly. I have never heard
such information before from anybody not even Development Agents. Then he connected
me with those individuals in the town. Without delay, I started selling milk on contractual
basis. I sold two liters of milk per day, and got 140 Birr monthly. Because of the
information I got, my family life has changed noticeably.

51
To conclude, actors such as farmers or villagers, who are sometimes seen as ‘beneficiaries’ or
‘target groups’, may be essential sources of information in the information exchange for the
extension system.

4.1.1.2. Importance of the information sources

This subsection indicates how respondents perceived the importance of the information
sources to obtain information on dairy farming. Distribution of actors as information source
on dairy farming to the respondents in terms their importance is presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Frequency distribution of information sources in terms of their importance (N=160)

No Actors Relative importance of the source Score Rank

. Not Somewhat Very
important important important
(0) (1) (2)
N % N % N %
1 Neighbors or friends 12 7.5 88 55 60 37.5 208 1 st
2 Other farmers 14 8.8 101 63.1 45 28.1 191 2 nd
3 Development Agents 44 27.5 51 31.9 65 40.6 181 3 rd
4 WOoARD 64 40 46 28.8 50 31.3 146 4 th
5 Rural radio programs 70 43.8 47 29.4 43 26.9 133 5 th
6 Peasant association 69 43.1 52 32.5 39 24.4 130 6 th
Religious
7 87 54.4 33 20.6 40 25 113 7 th
organizations
Farmers’
8 90 56.3 44 27.5 26 16.3 96 8 th
cooperatives
Input supplier
9 107 66.9 30 18.8 23 14.4 76 9 th
organizations
Training,
10 demonstration & 104 65 42 26.3 14 8.8 70 10 th
field days
11 Leaflets & folders 119 74.4 32 20 9 5.6 50 11 th
12 th
12 NGOs 126 78.8 20 12.5 14 8.8 48

52
The response analysis of Table 4 indicates that, neighbors or friends, other farmers (other than
neighbors or friends), Development Agents, and WOoARD were 1st, 2nd, 3rd and the 4th most
important sources of information for women farmers in the study area respectively. This
might be probably because, the relationship is strongest between neighbors or friends who had
similar background with others and could rely on each other. Respondents perceived that
NGOs, leaflets & folders and training, demonstration & field days were the least most
important source of information on dairy farming (Table 4). Therefore, low literacy level, lack
of access to NGOs and moreover, the agricultural extension services considering women as
housewives and mothers only, focusing mainly on male farmers might be reasons for least
important sources.

4.1.1.3. Proximity of information sources

Proximity indicates how respondents were close to the information sources to get information
on dairy farming. Frequency distribution of proximity of information sources on dairy
farming is presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Frequency distribution of proximity of actors as information source (N = 160)

Proximity of the information sources

Not close Somewhat Very close
No Actors (0) close (2) Score Rank
(1)
N % N % N %
1 Neighbors or friends 10 6.3 57 35.6 93 58.1 243 1 st
2 Other farmers 12 7.5 77 48.1 71 44.4 219 2 nd
3 Development Agents 49 30.6 69 43.1 42 26.3 153 3 rd
4 Peasant Association 70 43.8 49 30.6 41 25.6 131 4 th
5 Rural radio programs 83 51.9 48 30 29 18.1 106 5 th
6 Religious organizations 88 55 32 20 40 25 112 6 th
7 WOoARD 91 56.9 54 33.8 15 9.4 84 7 th
8 Farmers’ cooperatives 104 65 35 21.9 21 13.1 77 8 th
9 Training, demonstration 121 75.6 34 21.3 5 3.1 44 9 th
& field days
10 Input supplier 126 78.8 31 19.4 3 1.9 37 10 th
organizations
11 Leaflets & folders 135 84.4 18 11.3 7 4.4 32 11 th
12 NGOs 137 85.6 17 10.6 6 3.8 29 12 th

53
According to the survey result, the most five close sources of information were neighbors or
friends, other farmers (other than neighbors or friends), Development Agents, Peasant
Association and rural radio programs. This might be due to the fact that women are more
confined to home and neighborhood, so depend on sources in proximity.

4.1.1.4. Value of information from sources

This subsection indicates how valuable the information from the sources is. As Table 6
indicates, the information from Development Agents, farmers (other than neighbors or
friends), WOoARD, and rural radio programs were the 1st to 4th most valuable respectively.
This might be because; as it was discussed previously these information sources were the
most frequently used, important and close sources of information to the respondents in the
study area, which resulted in higher degree of perceived credibility.

Table 6. Frequency distribution of value of information from sources on dairy farming

(N= 160)

No Actors Perceived value of information Score Rank

Not Somewhat Very
valuable valuable valuable
(0) (1) (2)
N % N % N %
1 Development Agents 43 26.9 39 24.4 78 48.8 195 1 st
2 Other farmers 10 6.3 109 68.1 41 25.6 191 2 nd
3 WOoARD 63 39.4 35 21.9 62 38.8 159 3 rd
4 Rural radio programs 64 40 47 29.4 49 30.6 145 4 th
5 Peasant association 64 40 61 38.1 35 21.9 131 5 th
6 Neighbors or friends 14 8.8 91 56.9 55 34.4 121 6 th
7 Religious organizations 84 52.5 40 25 36 22.5 112 7 th
8 Farmers’ cooperatives 88 55 52 32.5 20 12.5 92 8 th
9 Input supplier 100 62.5 41 25.6 19 11.9 79 9 th
organizations
10 Training, demonstration & 101 63.1 39 24.4 20 12.5 79 9 th
field days
11 NGO 122 76.3 26 16.3 12 7.5 50 10 th
12 Leaflets & folders 125 78.1 25 15.6 10 6.3 45 11 th

54
Interestingly, though other farmers (other than neighbors or friends) only rank 2nd in terms of
importance as source, proximity and valuable, they have the highest credibility, followed by
DAs.

People need both technical knowledge and awareness-raising information. These types of
information/knowledge are not separate from other areas of life. They are part of the
development process. In the process, information and knowledge become a development
resource. This information resource gives the community power over their environment and
life in general (Mchombu 2004).

In order to know, what the specific kinds of information are women wanted in relation to
dairy production; information was gathered through focus group discussion among the
respondents. During the focus group discussion with women groups, majority of the group
members indicated health care, balanced feeding, hygiene and management as major kinds of
information they seek.

55
4.2. Descriptions of personal, socio-economic, situational and psychological
characteristics of sample respondents

In this section, descriptions of personal, socio-economic, situational and psychological

characteristics is presented and discussed in detail. These are the hypothesized variables that
might influence the dependent variable, knowledge of dairy farming practices.

4.2.1. Descriptions of personal characteristics of the sample respondents

Personal Characteristics include the variables related to personal characteristics such as age,
marital status, level of education, communication skill, family size and sharing the
information with others. The distribution of sample respondents based on their personal
characteristics is presented in Table 6.

56
Table 7. Distribution of sample respondents based on their personal characteristics
(N = 160)

Attributes Frequency Per cent

Age of respondent 15-29 (Younger) 41 25.6
30-49 (Middle) 98 61.3
50-65 (Older) 21 13.1

Total 160 100.0

Marital status Married 144 90.0
Widowed 16 10.0

Total 160 100.0

Level of education Illiterate 79 49.4
Can read & write 18 11.3
Primary school 42 26.3
Secondary school 21 13.1

Total 160 100.0

Communication skills Low 6 3.8
Medium 33 20.6
High 121 75.6

Total 160 100.0

Family size 1-3 10 6.3
4-6 83 51.9
7-9 55 34.4
>9 12 7.5

Total 160 100.0

Sharing of available Share to a low extent 27 16.9
information with others Share to a medium extent 115 71.9
Share to a high extent 18 11.3

Total 160 100.0

Source: Computed from own survey data

57
4.2.1.1. Age of the respondents

Age of women farmers was one of the demographic characteristics hypothesized to influence
agricultural information network output negatively; towards this end data on the age of
women with respect to knowledge of dairy farming practices seems important.

The age of women who participated in the study ranged from 16 to 65. The mean age of the
respondents was 35.81 years with the standard deviation of 10.488. The respondents were
placed under three age categories. Women farmers aged 30-49 were the majority (61.3%)
followed by age group 15-29(25.6%) and age group 50-65(13.1%).

4.2.1.2. Marital status

The respondents were categorized as single, married, divorced, and widowed. However, the
result shows that the respondents fall under two categories only, married and widowed. Most
of the respondents 144 (90%) are married and living with their husbands, while 16 (10%)
were widowed. The proportion of married respondents was much larger than the widowed
category.

4.2.1.3. Level of education

Education is one of the important variables, which increases farmer’s ability to acquire,
process and use agricultural related information. Low level of education and high illiteracy
rate is typical in developing countries like Ethiopia. In fact, education level of farmers is
assumed to increase the ability to use agriculture related information in a better way.
Therefore, in this study, educational level is a variable helping exposure to information and its
utilization.

As indicated in Table 7, 49.4% of the sample respondents were illiterates, 11.3% were able to
read and write, 26.3% had elementary school education, and 13.1% had attended secondary

58
school education. There was a high illiteracy rate among women farmers. This is in agreement
with most studies (Winrock, 2001).

4.2.1.4. Communication skill of the respondents

Communication skills in this study referred to as the ability to express ideas effectively in
written or spoken form, and the ability to listen attentively. The respondents were categorized
into three communication skills levels. The study revealed that there is significant difference
between the three categories of respondents. As indicated in Table 7, 3.8%, 20.6%, and 75.6%
of the sample respondents were categorized under low, medium and high level of
communication skill respectively.

4.2.1.5. Family size

Higher number of family members leads to decisions to take risk for participation in
technology packages. This also leads to exposure to get information. Therefore, family size
contributes to the variation in getting access to agricultural information. In this study, family
size was assumed to have positive relation to agricultural information network output.

Family size in the study area ranges from one person to twelve persons with an average of
6.39 persons per household. This was above the national average of five persons (CSA, 1994)
which implies that the Woreda is relatively higher in family size. This is an indication for the
importance of family planning, since it is higher than the average family size for the region to
keep the balance between economy and the high population growth. The respondents were
placed under four family size categories. Based on this, 6.3%, 51.9%, 34.4% and 7.5% had
between 1 - 3, 4 - 6, 7 - 9 and greater than 9 family members respectively.

4.2.1.6. Sharing of available information

Sharing of available information is the extent to which respondents shared the information
with others including family members, friends or neighbors, extension agent, etc. According

59
to the survey result, the extent to which respondents shared information with others was
16.9%, 71.9%, and 11.3% for low, medium and higher extent categories respectively. The
majority of farm women were sharing information with others to a medium extent.

4.2.2. Descriptions of socio-economic characteristics of the sample respondents

Socio-economic factors relate to the position of the women farmers in society, which is
determined by various social and economic variables such as radio ownership, size of land
holding and income (Das, 1995). The findings are presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Distribution of sample respondents based on their socio-economic factors

Attributes Frequency Per cent

No 76 47.5
Radio ownership (N=160) Yes
84 52.5
Total 160 100.0
0-0.5 119 74.4
Size of land holding in hectare 0.51-1.0 39 24.4
(N= 160) 1.01-1.5
2 1.3
Total 160 100.0
Mean = 0.41
Min = 0.04
Max = 1.33
<656.7 Birr 52 33.1
Total annual income (N =157) 656.71 - 1266.7 Birr 53 33.8
>1266.71 Birr 52 33.1
Total 157 100.0
Mean = 1421.04
SD = 1646.27
Min = 147.00
Max = 12000.00

Source: Computed from own survey data

60
4.2.2.1. Radio ownership

The assumption was that respondents who own radio have a higher opportunity of getting
agricultural information. The finding of the study indicates that, out of the total respondents
52.5 percent owned a radio while 47.5 percent were do not own radio. This shows that there
was no significant variation between the number of farmers who own radio and who do not
own one.

4.2.2.2. Size of land holding

Land is a primary source of livelihood for all rural households. It was assumed that larger the
farm size, higher is the possibility to use a combination of technological packages. In the
study area, the size of the land owned differed from household to household. Nevertheless, all
households had access to land. This does not mean that women have access to land in their
own right but rather own land jointly with their spouses.

It could be observed from Table 8 that the land holding is generally very small. Of the total
160 respondents, 119 (74.4%) own between 0-0.5 hectare, 39 (24.4%) own between 0.51-1
hectare, while only 2 (1.3%) own 1.01-1.5 hectares of land. Average land holding of total
respondents was about 0.41 hectare with maximum and minimum of 1.33 and 0.04 hectares
respectively. The findings are in line with national reports indicating the small land ownership
in the rural areas. With the uncontrolled growth in population and the ensuing fragmentation
of land, land holding size by farmers is very small.

4.2.2.3. Annual income of the respondents

Total annual cash income is an important variable explaining the characteristics of

households, in that those who have earning relatively high income could probably participate
in technology packages and this in turn will expose them to get new information.

61
As indicated in Table 8, the average annual income was Birr 1421.04 and the minimum and
maximum annual income was Birr 147 and Birr 12000 respectively with standard deviation of
Birr 1646.31. This shows a great variation among respondents.

4.2.3. Descriptions of situational characteristics of the sample respondents

Situational characteristics include the variables that might influence women’s access to
agricultural information, such as information seeking behavior, the extent of social
participation, cosmopoliteness, access to credit and extension participation. The finding is
presented in Table 9.

Table 9. Distribution of sample respondents based on their situational characteristics (N=160)

Attributes Frequency Per cent

No 101 63.1
Social participation Yes 59 36.9
Total 160 100.0
Low score 53 33.1
Information seeking behavior Medium score 60 37.5
High score 47 29.4
Total 160 100.0
Sometimes 70 43.8
Frequency of visit to the nearby town Once a week 56 35.0
or city (Comopoliteness) Most often 18 11.3
Daily 16 10.0
Total 160 100.0
No 142 88.8
Access to credit Yes
18 11.3
Total 160 100.0
No 67 41.9
Extension participation Yes
93 58.1
Total 160 100.0
Source: Computed from own survey data

62
4.2.3.1. Social participation

As presented in Table 9, among 160 interviewed women, more than half (63.1%) were having
no involvement in any formal and informal institutions or organizations while 36.9% were
involved in different types of formal and informal institutions or organizations. Regarding the
type of institutions they were involved in, the majority of the respondents frequently involve
in informal local institutions such as ekub, edir or mahber next to religious organizations and
thirdly they frequently involve in women’s associations (Table 10).

Table 10. Distribution of sample respondents based on the type of organizations participating
in. (N= 133)

Participation in type of Never Some When ever

institutions or times conducted Total
organizations (0) (1) (2)

No N % N % N % Score Rank
1 Religious organizations - - 2 3.7 52 96.3 106 1 th
2 Informal associations 1 0.6 2 4.8 39 92.9 80 2nd
3 Women’s associations - - 3 13 20 87 43 3rd
4 Farmers cooperatives - - 1 16.7 5 83.3 11 4th
5 Peasant Associations 2 33.3 4 66.7 - - 4 5 th
6 HIV club - - - - 2 100 4 5 th
Source: Computed from own survey data

4.2.3.2. Information seeking behavior

Information seeking behavior is the degree to which the respondent is eager to get information
from various sources on different roles she performs. According to the results of the study,
from the total sample respondents, about 33.1%, 37.5% and 29.4% of them had low, medium
and high score of information seeking behavior respectively (Table 9).

63
4.2.3.3. Cosmopoliteness

Cosmopoliteness is the degree of orientation of the respondent towards outside the social
system to which she/he belongs. It provides more chance of exposure to external information.
As indicated in Table 9, out of the total respondents 43.8%, 35.0%, 11.3% and 10.0% of the
women visit the nearby town sometimes, once a week, most often and daily respectively.
Every respondent in the study area for one or other reason visits the nearby town. More than
80% were visiting with the purpose of agricultural related issues and other reasons like
shopping. Traditional rural markets are not only places to buy or sell, but also places to
exchange information.

4.2.3.4. Access to credit

Access to credit can address the financial constraints of women farmers. The finding shows
that, 88.8% of the respondents had no access to credit in 2005 production year, whereas, only
11.3% had access to credit (Table 9). Among those who have access to credit, only 5.6% of
them have got credit in the same production year in the study area. The constraints for access
to credit in the study area might be lack of collateral and unavailability of credit on time.
Women were also asked to identify the source and purpose of getting credit, accordingly most
of the respondents use both micro finance institute and local money lenders as sources of
credit in the study area and major purposes of getting credit was, to meet family requirement,
for growing crops, and for purchasing crossbred dairy cows.

4.2.3.5. Extension participation

In this study, extension participation represents women farmers’ frequency of contact with
DAs and frequency of participation in extension planning, training, farmers’ field day, on-
farm trial and demonstration regarding to livestock production in general and dairy farming
practices in particular. Involving women farmers in various areas of extension program would
be one of the main extension strategies to bring change in knowledge, skill and attitude.

64
Distribution of sample households based on their extension contact and frequency of contact
with extension agent is presented in Table 9 and 11 respectively.

Table 11. Distribution of sample respondents based on their frequency of contact with DAs
(N= 93)

Attributes Responses Frequency Per cent

Once in a week 36 38.7
Once in two
16 17.2
Frequency of contact with weeks
extension agent Once in three
14 15.1
weeks
Once in four
27 29.0
weeks
Total 93 100.0
Source: Computed from own survey data

According to the survey result, 58.1% of the farm women have contact with development
agents while 41.9% have no contact with development agents (Table 9). With regard to the
frequency of contact with DA, 38.7%, 17.2%, 15.1%, 29% of respondents had been visited by
DAs once in a week, once in two weeks, once in three weeks, and once in four weeks
respectively (Table 11). Women were also interviewed to identify areas of extension activities
they were participating in and the result is presented in Table 12.

Table 12. Distribution of sample respondents based on participation in extension programmes.

(N = 160)

Extension Extension Farmers' Demonstrati Extension

planning training field day on & on- exhibition
Response
farm trial
N % N % N % N % N %
No
147 91.9 148 92.5 150 93.8 149 93.1 158 98.8
Yes
13 8.1 12 7.5 10 6.3 11 6.9 2 1.3
Source: Computed from own survey data

65
Survey results shows that out of the total respondents only 8.1%, 7.5%, 6.3%, 6.9% and 1.3%
of the women had participated in extension planning, training, farmers’ field day,
demonstration & on-farm trial and extension exhibition respectively. To conclude,
agricultural extension services still do not actively involve women farmers or women on farm
in their activities. Similar results were found by Habtemariam (1996) indicating that only 37%
of the women have participated in extension advice and training.

Table 13. Distribution of respondents based on type of extension services obtained from DAs
(N =160)

No. Type of extension services Frequency Per cent Rank

6 Technical support & input supply 17 18.3 1st

2 Theoretical information 15 16.1 2nd
1 Technical support 14 15.1 3rd
7 Technical support & experience sharing 11 11.8 4th
12 Technical, input supply & experience sharing 11 11.8 4th
4 Experience sharing 8 8.6 5th
8 Theoretical information & input supply 6 6.5 6th
3 Input supply 5 5.4 7th
5 Technical support & theoretical information 2 2.2 8th
10 Technical support, theoretical information & 8th
2 2.2
input supply
9 Input supply & experience sharing 1 1.1 9th
11 Technical support, theoretical information & 9th
1 1.1
experience sharing
Source: Computed from own survey data

66
As Table 13 indicates, technical support, input supply and theoretical information were type
of extension services women farmers mostly getting from development agents in the study
area. Similar explanations were given in the study conducted in Enemore and Ener Woreda,
Gurage Zone by Edlu (2006), which showed that farmers got technical support, experience
sharing, input and theoretical information from DAs. This same study generalized, major
areas of service that the total HHs got from DAs was theoretical information (35.3%) and
technical support (28.7%).

4.2.4. Description of psychological characteristics of sample respondents

Psychological characteristics include the variables of psychological dimension of individual

respondent such as positiveness, empathy, interpersonal trust, achievement motivation, level
of aspiration and attitude of women farmers towards development agent. The survey results
are presented in Table 14.

67
Table 14. Distribution of sample respondents based on their psychological characteristics
(N=160)

Attributes Category Frequency Per cent

Low 62 38.8
Interpersonal trust Medium 54 33.8
High 44 27.5
Total 160 100.0
Low 58 36.3
Positiveness Medium 61 38.1
High 41 25.6
Total 160 100.0
Low 105 65.6
Empathy High
55 34.4
Total 160 100.0
Level of aspiration Low 115 71.9
High 45 28.1
Total 160 100.0
Low 102 63.8
Achievement motivation Medium 38 23.8
High 20 12.5
Total 160 100.0
Low 55 34.4
Attitude towards DA Medium 75 46.9
High 30 18.8
Total 160 100.0
Source: Computed from own survey data

4.2.4.1. Interpersonal trust

Interpersonal trust is the expectancy held by an individual or a group that the word, promise
verbal or written statement of another individual or group can be relied upon. The respondents
were put under three categories. Based on this, out of the total respondents, 38.8%, 33.8%,
and 27.5% were in low, medium and high level of interpersonal trust respectively.

68
4.2.4.2. Positiveness of the respondents

Positiveness is a person’s quality that is characterized by displaying certainty, acceptance, or

affirmation. It was measured by respondents’ willingness to discuss agricultural matters with
other farmers. As indicated in Table 14, out of the total respondents, 36.3%, 38.1%, and
25.6% were in low, medium and high level of positiveness respectively.

4.2.4.3. Empathy of the respondents

Empathy is one of the important personal characteristics, which influences the ability of a
farmer to understand the other’s situation, feelings, desires, motive, ideas, and actions. The
empathic farmer is one who genuinely feels the part he or she is performing. As presented in
Table 14 the respondents were put under two categories of empathy. Based on this, 65.6% had
low empathy and 34.4% were identified as having high empathy.

4.2.4.4. Level of aspiration

Level of aspiration is a strong desire or an ambition to achieve something. The respondents

were put under two categories of level of aspiration. Based on this, 71.9% were with low level
of aspiration and 28.1% were under high level of aspiration.

4.2.4.5. Achievement motivation

Achievement motivation was defined as the need in an individual to perform different roles
with some degree of excellence. As presented in Table14, the respondents were put under
three categories of achievement motivation. Based on this, 63.8% were under low
achievement motivation, 23.8% under medium achievement motivation and 12.5% were
identified as high achievement motivated categories.

69
4.2.4.6. Attitude towards Development Agent

Attitude towards DA operationally defined as the degree of positive or negative opinion of

women farmers towards DA. According to the result of the study, respondents were
categorized into low, medium and high score category and lower score shows negative
attitude. The result shows that 34.4% were under low category and had negative attitude,
46.9% were medium and 18.8% of respondents had positive attitude towards DA. Therefore,
the majority of interviewed women farmers in the study area show negative or moderate
attitude towards DAs. This result was proved at the time of focus group discussion with the
group of women. Case study 2 presented below confirms the findings.

70
Case study 2

In the study of women farmers’ attitude towards Development Agent, generally negative
attitude was observed. The case study done in Awada peasant association, Dale Woreda
was confirming the result of the study.

At the time of focus group discussion with women farmers at Awada peasant association
W/ro Meseret told the following tragedy of extension service she had experienced.

W/ro Meseret Koshe is 45 years old, married and, lives in Awada Peasant Association,
Dale Woreda, SNNPR. W/ro Meseret was a well known model farmer in Awada PA as
adopter of dairy package technology. She has more than eight crossbred dairy cows
relatively with better management.
The horn of one of her dairy cows was growing toward the head and penetrating the head
of the cow. Growth was increasing gradually and the cow suffered from the pain. She
didn’t know how to dehorn, so she informed the case to extension workers at woreda
level and they promised to visit her, but one, two, three weeks passed still nobody
provided solution to her problem. Finally, even if she didn’t know what to do and what
the consequence will be, she decided to cut the horn herself. One day she borrowed a saw
from her neighbor which he uses for cutting metal and she cut the horn herself. As a
matter of chance every thing went well without causing any danger. The cow that she
loves got relief from the pain. “Oh God! Your name be blessed” this was her last word.

71
4.3. Relationship between dependent and independent variables

This section covers the findings on relationship between knowledge of dairy farming
(dependent variable) and independent variables (personal factors, socio-economic factors,
situational factors and psychological factors) through Pearson’s Product-Moment Correlation
analysis for continuous variables, χ2-test and Cramer’s V for discrete categorical variables.
The relationships between knowledge of dairy farming and independent variables both
discrete and continuous variables are presented in Table 15 & 16.

Table 15. Relationship between knowledge of dairy farming and discrete independent
variables

Discrete Independent Variables Chi-square test

χ2 df p Cramer's V
Personal factors
1 Marital status 0.416 2 0.812 0.051
2 Education level 5.692 6 0.459 0.133
Socio-economic factors
3 Radio ownership 1.221 2 0.543 0.087
Situational factors
4 Cosmopoliteness 5.454 6 0.487 0.131
5 Access to credit 14.622(**) 2 0.001 0.302
** Significant at the 0.05 level

The chi-square measures indicate whether there is a relationship between two variables; but
they do not indicate the strength or direction of the relationship. A low significance value
(typically below 0.05) indicates that there may be some relationship between the two
variables. The nominal directional measures or Cramer’s V indicate both the strength and
significance of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. But the low
values for both test statistics indicate that the relationship between the two variables is a fairly
weak one.

72
The output of chi-square test in Table 15 generally revealed that, among the five discrete
independent variables, only access to credit shows positive and significant association with
the dependent variable at 5% level of significance. The other four discrete variables such as
marital status, level of education, radio ownership and cosmopoliteness were positively
associated to the dependent variable, but all of them are statistically non significant.

The probable reason for the observed non significant association between knowledge of dairy
farming practice and marital status might be due to the fact that the proportion of married
respondents was much larger than that of widowed respondents. Whereas, the probable reason
for weak and non significant relationship of the knowledge of dairy farming practice and
radio ownership might be that those who own radio were almost equal with those who do not
own.

There is positive (χ2 = 5.692), fairly weak (Cramer’s V = 0.133) and non significant
relationship (p=0.459) between education level and knowledge of dairy farming. Therefore,
findings in this study provide a supportive evidence for the presence of hypothesized
relationship between two variables.

73
Table 16. Relationship between knowledge of dairy farming & continuous independent
variables

Continuous Independent Variables Pearson correlation analysis

r p
Personal factors
1 Age -.042 .601
2 Family size .002 .978
3 Communication skill .687(***) .000
4 Sharing available information with others .578(***) .000
Socio- economic factors
5 Income .167(**) .036
6 Size of land holding .217(***) .006
Situational factors
7 Social participation .351(***) .000
8 Information seeking behavior .594(***) .000
9 Extension participation .419(***) .000
Psychological factors
10 Achievement motivation .133 .094
11 Level of aspiration .159(**) .045
12 Positiveness .564(***) .000
13 Empathy .557(***) .000
14 Interpersonal trust .641(***) .000
15 Attitude towards DA .101 .204
*** Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
** Significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The output of Pearson correlation analysis in Table 16 indicates that, out of fifteen continuous
independent variables, eleven are positively and significantly associated with the dependent
variable at different levels of significance. Except age which is negatively associated, others
continuous variables such as family size, achievement motivation and attitude towards DA are
positively correlated, but statistically they are non significant.

The negative association of age implies that, the two variables were not linearly related and
when age of the respondents’ increases, knowledge of dairy farming decreases. These prove
the hypothesis that age has a negative influence on agricultural information network output of
farm women. The findings of this study concur with the study done by Asres (2005).

74
The probable reason for non significant and quite weak relationship observed between age
and knowledge of dairy farming might be that elder women do not seek many new ideas,
since they try to conform to the practices they followed for a long time in their life.

4.3.1. Relationship between personal factors and knowledge of dairy farming

As indicated in Table 16, both communication skill and sharing available information with
others were positively and significantly (at 0.01 level) associated with continuous variables of
personal characteristics.

The positive and strong relationship between respondents’ knowledge of dairy farming and
communication skill implies that, the higher the communication skill, the higher will be their
knowledge of dairy farming practices. This might be due to the fact that, the ability to express
ideas or to listen attentively to others increases the individual’s exposure to information.

The positive and significant relationship between the knowledge of dairy farming and sharing
available information with other farmers also implies that, when women farmers’ extent of
sharing available information with others increases, knowledge of dairy farming also
increases. The result of this study agrees with the study done by Asres (2005).

4.3.2. Relationship between socio-economic factors and knowledge of dairy farming

It could be observed from Table 16 that, there was significant correlation at 0.01 significant
level and positive relationship between size of landholding and respondents’ knowledge of
dairy farming. This implies that when respondents’ size of land holding increases, their
knowledge of dairy farming also increases.

The probable reason might be that, more land enables farmers to increase production, which
provides more income that can be used to buy farm inputs. Therefore, farmers who have
relatively large farm size will be more initiated to practice improved technologies. This also

75
implies that respondents with large farm size seek many more new ideas, information and
knowledge than those who have small landholding.

Findings of Nkonya et al. (1997) hinted that those with large farm are likely to be better
informed, be able to take risk associated to experiment with new practices. Bezabih (1999),
Ramasamy et al. (1999), Edlu (2006) and Yenealem (2006) have also indicated that farm size
of crop land exerts a positive influence on the adoption of improved technologies.

Statistical analysis of Pearson correlation coefficient revealed that there was significant and
positive relationship between knowledge of dairy farming and household annual income at
5% level of significance (r = 0.167, P= 0.036). This implies knowledge of dairy farming
practices increases with increase in annual household income. The probable reason might be
those respondents with a relatively higher annual income probably participate in technology
packages and this in turn exposes them to get new information.

Many studies confirm that in addition to farm income, income obtained from off-farm and
non-farm activities increase the probability of investing on new technologies (Chilot et al,
1996; Freeman et al, 1996; Van den Ban and Hawkins, 1996; Asfew et al, 1997;
Habtemariam, 2004).

4.3.3. Relationship between situational factors and knowledge of dairy farming

Statistical analysis of Pearson correlation of field data shows that there is significant, positive
and relatively strong relationship between knowledge of dairy farming and social
participation. As a single variable, social participation has a significant influence on
knowledge of dairy farming. This might be due to farmers who have some position or
interaction in different informal and formal institutions or organizations are more likely to be
aware of different types of new information.

This proves the hypothesis that social participation has a positive influence on agricultural
information network output of farm women.

76
This study is in line with the findings of Ebrahim (2006), where he detected a positive
relationship between social participation and adoption of dairy package.

There was significant and positive relationship observed between information seeking
behavior and knowledge of dairy farming. This implies that, when the desire or eagerness of
women to get information increases, the attempt for that will follow and their knowledge of
dairy farming practices also increases.

The findings of this study agree with hypothesis assumed and with the study done by Asres
(2005).

As shown in Table 15, there was highly significant and positive relationship between access
to credit and knowledge of dairy farming. This might be because, access to credit has impact
on level of utilization of recommended technological packages and this in turn will demand
different information.

There was significant and positive relationship observed between knowledge of dairy farming
and extension participation. This indicates that when women farmers’ frequency of contact
with development agents and frequency of participation on various extension activities
increase, consequently knowledge of women farmers’ regarding dairy farming practices also
increases.

4.3.4. Relationship between psychological factors and knowledge of dairy farming

As indicated in Table 16, among six variables of psychological factors, three of them,
positiveness, empathy and interpersonal trust were significant at 1% significance level and
level of aspiration was significant at the 5% level of significance respectively, while other
variables (achievement motivation and women’s attitude towards DA) were statistically non
significant.

77
A study conducted in Dire Dawa administrative council, eastern Ethiopia, Asres (2005)
indicated that achievement motivation was statistically insignificant in access to reproductive,
productive and community role information of women.

As is shown in Table 16, there is positive, significant and strong relationship between
respondents’ knowledge of dairy farming and interpersonal trust of respondents. This might
be due to the fact that trusting individuals will be more likely than less trusting individuals to
share information each other. Therefore, increase in interpersonal trust of women results in
better sharing of information between respondents’ and this leads the women to have better
knowledge.

The result of the study revealed that there was significant and positive relationship between
positiveness of respondent and knowledge of dairy farming. This might be probably because;
the majority of women in the study area show better willingness to discuss agricultural
matters with other farmers.

There was significant and positive relationship between level of aspiration of respondents and
knowledge of dairy farming. However, the relationship was at 5% level of significance. The
probable reason might be that, level of aspiration acts as a motivating factor to improve the
activities to earn more for makes better life, which might tempt to seek new information and
to gain more knowledge.

The study revealed that there was significant, positive and strong relationship between
empathy of respondent and knowledge of dairy farming. This is because empathy connects
people together with better interpersonal relationships and therefore it gives a chance to share
information each other.

78
4.4. Influence of independent variables on agricultural information network output of
farm women

4.4.1. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis

In the preceding parts of this thesis the descriptive analysis and bivariate analysis of important
independent variables, which are expected to have influence on knowledge of dairy farming
of women farmers were presented. In this section, the selected independent variables were put
to Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) model to identify the factors influencing knowledge of
dairy farming of women farmers. A MLR model was fitted to estimate the influence of the
hypothesized independent variables. SPSS version 13 was used for analysis.

Based on bivariate analysis in the previous sections, among continuous variables,

communication skill, sharing available information, annual income, size of land holding,
social participation, information seeking behavior, extension participation, positiveness,
empathy, interpersonal trust and level of aspiration are selected while among discrete
variables only access to credit was selected for multiple regression analysis.

Prior to the estimation of the model parameters, it is crucial to look into the problem of
multicollinearity or association among the potential candidate variables. To this end, the
variance inflation factor (VIF) and condition index (CI) was used to test the degree of
multicollinearity among the continuous variables and since access to credit is the only discrete
variable, contingency coefficient test was not computed. Therefore, the variable was directly
entered into MLR analysis

79
Table 17. Variance inflation factor (VIF) and condition index (CI) for continuous variables

VIF Condition index

Variables
(Constant) 1.000
COMSKILL (X1) 1.799 3.834
SHAROINFO (X2) 1.818 4.323
TOTANINC (X3) 1.202 6.729
SIZEOLAND (X4) 1.377 7.623
SOCPARTN (X5) 1.252 8.663
INFOSEKB (X6) 2.000 10.819
EXTPART (X7) 1.227 14.752
POSTNSS (X8) 1.992 15.716
EMPATY (X9) 2.035 17.018
INTPRTR (X10) 2.260 18.626
LEVELOAS (X11) 1.205 25.335

The values of VIF and CI for continuous variables were found to be less than 10 and less than
30 respectively. To avoid serious problem of multicollinearity, it is quite essential to omit the
variables with VIF value greater than or equal to 10 and CI value greater than or equal 30
from the MLR analysis. Based on VIF and CI result, the data have no serious problem of
multicollinearity. As a result, all the 11 continuous independent variables were retained and
entered into MLR analysis (Table 17).

The variable knowledge of dairy farming was used as a continuous dependent variable.
Eventually, a set of 12 independent variables (11 continuous and 1 discrete) were included in
the model and used in the MLR analysis.

These variables were selected on the basis of theoretical explanation and the result of various
empirical studies.

80
To determine the best subset of independent variables that are good predictors of the
dependent variable, the MLR were estimated using SPSS. In this method all the above
mentioned variables were entered in a single step.

Table 18. Coefficients of regression function

Variables Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error
(Constant) -3.761 1.093 -3.441 .001
COMSKILL (X1) .194** .046 4.213 .000
INTPRTR (X10) .791** .196 4.028 .000
SOCPARTN (X5) .132** .046 2.866 .005
TOTANINC (X3) .000** .000 2.945 .004
EXTPART (X7) .371** .153 2.427 .017
EMPATY (X9) .660** .293 2.253 .027
ACSSTCRE (X12) 1.765** .841 2.098 .039
** Significant at 0.05 level
R= 0.855, R2 = 0.730, Adj. R2 = 0.707, F = 31.744, P = 0.000

Table 18 shows that, out of twelve factors considered in the model, only seven variables were
found to be significantly influencing on women farmers’ knowledge of dairy farming
practices at 0.05 levels of significance. These variables include communication skill,
interpersonal trust, social participation, total annual income of the household, extension
participation, empathy of respondent and access to credit. Five of the 12 explanatory variables
(See Appendix 5) were found to have no significant influence on women farmers’ knowledge
of dairy farming practices in the study area.

The multiple correlation coefficient measure (R=0.855) indicates that the relationship
between knowledge of dairy farming and continuous independent variables is quite strong and
positive.

The value of coefficient of determination (R2) implies that about 73.0% of the variation in
knowledge of dairy farming is explained by the independent variables in the model.

81
Table 19. ANOVA of the regression function

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 1238.032 7 176.862 31.744 .000
Residual 456.868 82 5.572
Total 1694.900 89

ANOVA results in Table 19 shows that the regression is significant at less than 1 % level.
The variables, derived as an out put of the model, are described below.
Y = α + β1X1 + β2X2+β3X3+……..+βkXk

Where: Y = Knowledge of dairy farming (KNOWORES)

X1 = Communication skill of respondent (COMSKILL)
X10 = Interpersonal trust of respondent (INTPRTR)
X5 = Social participation of respondent (SOCPARTN)
X3 = Total annual income of the household (TOTANINC)
X7 = Extension participation (EXTPART)
X9 = Empathy of respondent (EMPATY)
X12 = Access to credit (ACSSTCRE)
KNOWORES = -3.761+ .194 X1 + .791 X10 +.132 X5 + .000 X3 + .371 X7 + .660 X9 + 1.765X12
(4.231) (4.028) (2.866) (2.945) (2.427) (2.253) (2.098)

KNOWORES = -3.761 + .194 COMSKILL +.791 INTPRTR +.132 SOCPARTN .000

TOTANINC + .371 EXTPART + .660 EMPATY + 1.765 ACSSTCRE

The numbers in the parenthesis are calculated t-values of respective coefficient parameters.
The out put of the model have been thoroughly discussed below.

82
Communication skill (COMSKILL): The results showed that as communication skill of
respondent increased by 1 unit, knowledge of dairy farming would be increase by 0.194 units.
This implies, when the ability of a woman to express ideas effectively to others and the ability
to listen others attentively increases, her knowledge about the activities she was performing
also increases.

Interpersonal trust of respondent (INTPRTR): We can see from the analysis that as
interpersonal trust of the respondent increases by one unit, the level of knowledge of women
farmers regarding dairy farming practices increases by 0.791 units. Therefore, the results of
this study conform to our theoretical expectations concerning the effects of interpersonal trust
in increasing the expected knowledge of women farmers. This means that other things being
constant, interpersonal trust will lead to a greater readiness to take part in information
exchange. This is because an individual’s level of trust allows him or her to form expectations
about the actions of others.

Benson and Rochon (2004) citing Coleman (1990) states, “a group whose members manifest
trustworthiness and place extensive trust in one another will be able to accomplish much more
than a comparable group lacking that trustworthiness and trust”

People who are more trusting others in their daily life may experience getting more
knowledge than others, because trust gives one the incentive to actually take part in
information exchange.

Social participation of respondent (SOCPARTN): Correlation analysis shows that social

participation was positively and significantly correlated with knowledge of dairy farming.
Similarly, the output of regression analysis proves that, as the involvement of women in
various formal and informal institutions or organizations increases by one unit, knowledge of
women of dairy farming is also increases by 0.132 units. This means that farmers who have
some position in different informal and formal institutions or organizations are more likely to
be aware of different type of new information.

83
Total annual income of the household (TOTANINC): In many studies, total annual income
was taken as an important variable explaining the characteristics of households. In this study
it was also assumed that, those who have earning relatively higher income could be
participating in technology packages and this in turn will expose to get new information.
Pearson correlation coefficient (r = 0.167, P= 0.036) revealed that annual income of the
household was positively and significantly correlated with knowledge of dairy farming
practice at less than 5% level of significance. But in the contrary to the assumption, the result
of coefficient of model output (X3 = 0.000) indicates that knowledge of dairy farming
practices does not change with increase in annual household income.

Extension participation (EXTPART): As per the hypothesis, the relation between extension
participation and knowledge of dairy farming was found to be positive and significant, as
discussed in previous section. The output of the regression analysis (X7 = 0.371) also
confirmed the statement. One unit increment in extension participation would bring about
0.371 units increment in the knowledge of women farmers regarding dairy farming. This
implies that, frequency of contacts or visits of extension agent to farmer is very important to
up date the knowledge and skill of farmers on farm technologies, practices or activities. Thus,
the availability of extension participation in the rural areas is of a paramount importance to
farmers. Moreover, extension participation improves the knowledge and increases concern of
farmers about agricultural activities.

Empathy of respondent (EMPATY): The study revealed that the coefficient of empathy of
respondent (X9 = 0.660) was positively and significantly correlated with knowledge of dairy
farming signifying that holding the values of all other variables constant, a unit increase in an
empathetic level of a respondent would be accompanied by an increase in the knowledge of
dairy farming by 0.660 units. The probable reason might be that empathy connects people
together and therefore it gives a chance to share information each other.

Access to credit (ACSSTCRE): According to the result, the coefficient of model output (X12
= 1.765) indicates access to credit was positively and significantly correlated with women’s
knowledge of dairy farming practice, a unit increase in access to credit would be accompanied

84
by an increase in the knowledge of dairy farming by 1.765 units. This means that increased
access to credit increases utilization of recommended technological packages which exposes
women farmers to different new information.

4.5. Constraints and opportunities of extension services in reaching out to rural women

4.5.1. Constraints in making extension service accessible to women farmers

Constraints are those factors adversely influencing agricultural information networks of

farmwomen and factors that hinder extension service in reaching out to women farmers. This
subsection covers many different issues such as women’s participation in extension packages;
number of extension packages used by women; reasons for not using extension packages,
reasons for not participating in extension programmes, and reasons for not receiving credit;
constraints on access to credit, constraints on package inputs and market; problems in contact
with development agents, and problems on participation of farmers’ organizations.

4.5.1.1. Participation in extension packages

It was tried to assess number of extension packages used by women farmers’ and reasons for
not using different types of packages. Dominantly produced extension packages available in
the study area were crop, coffee, horticulture, dairy, fattening, and poultry packages. The
findings are presented in Table 20 & 21.

85
Table 20. Distribution of sample respondents based on their usage of packages & number of
packages used

No Attributes Frequency Per cent

Extension package utilized (N=160)

1 No 125 78.1
2 Yes 35 21.9
Total 160 100.0
Number of extension packages used (N=35)
1 One package 20 57.1
2 Two packages 9 25.7
3 Three packages 4 11.4
4 Four packages 2 5.7
Total 35 100.0

Table 20 shows that, out of the total respondents interviewed, 78.1% have not participated in

any of the available extension packages in the study area, while only 21.9% were participated

in extension packages. However, among the participants 12.5%, 5.6%, 2.5%, and 1.3%,

utilized 1, 2, 3, and 4 combinations of the available extension packages respectively.

There are number of reasons why women farmers have been restricted to practice only one,
two or more packages or reasons for not using extension packages. Comparative advantage,
specialization or some other reasonable rationales might have lead farmer to be selective in
choice of packages. However, some socio-economic and other factors also influence farmers’
ability to use or not the combination of packages and elements of specific package together.
There was no respondent that utilized all the six combination of packages together.
Accordingly substantial variability exists in package utilization among women farmers. This
variability is due to lack of money (unable to pay down payment or repay the previous loan),
no extension contact with development agents and scarcity of farm land, unavailability of
input, lack of interest to participate in extension packages, lack of knowledge, lack of labour
and lack of guidance by DA, in descending order of importance(Table 21).

86
Table 21. Distribution of sample respondents based on their reasons for not using extension packages

Response Crop Coffee Horticulture Dairy Fattening Poultry

package package package package package package
(N=137) (N=150) (N=147) (N=154) (N=160) (N=155) Score Rank

No N % N % N % N % N % N %
1 Lack of money 33 24.1 30 20.0 6 4.1 56 36.4 65 40.6 19 12.3 209 1st
2 Shortage of land 28 20.4 42 28.0 42 28.6 6 3.9 1 .6 - - 119 2nd
3 No extension contact 19 13.9 20 13.3 17 11.6 12 7.8 11 6.9 24 15.5 103 3rd
4 Unavailability of input 9 6.6 11 7.3 8 5.4 5 3.2 7 4.4 57 36.8 97 4th
5 Lack of interest to
13 9.5 16 10.7 10 6.8 6 3.9 18 11.3 6 3.9 69 5th
participate
6 Lack of knowledge 3 2.2 1 .7 25 17.0 6 3.9 12 7.5 10 6.5 57 6th
7 Lack of labour 6 4.4 11 7.3 11 7.5 12 7.8 13 8.1 2 1.3 55 7th
8 Lack of guidance by DA 4 2.9 4 2.7 12 8.2 12 7.8 10 6.3 10 6.5 52 8th
Lack of down payment 4 2.9 6 4.0 1 .7 13 8.4 7 4.4 16 10.3 47 9th
9 Lack of credit 3 2.2 5 3.3 - - 11 7.1 7 4.4 4 2.6 30 10th
10 High input cost 6 4.4 2 1.3 1 .7 11 7.1 2 1.3 - - 22 11th
11 Extension package is - -
1 .7 2 1.4 4 2.6 6 3.8 6 3.9 19 12th
tedious
12 Unable to repay the - -
1 .7 1 .7 6 4.1 1 .6 - - 9 13th
previous loan
13 It is not profitable 4 2.9 - - 4 2.7 - - - - - - 8 14th
14 Other reasons 3 2.2 1 .7 2 1.4 - - - - 1 .6 7 15th
15
Total 137 100 150 100 147 100 154 100 160 100 155 100

87
Women farmers were asked to identify constraints on access to credit, on access to package
input and market of products. Unavailability on time and lack of collateral were constraints
suggested by respondents on access to credit. Poor quality of breed and less extension support
were some of the problems regarding access to inputs. On the other side, distance of market
place and being unable to get alternative market for products were problems of rural women
farmers in the study area.

Table 22. Problems in contact with development agents

No. Attributes Frequency Percent

Reasons for not contacting extension agent (N=67)

1 No agent nearby 14 20.9
2 No need for service 11 16.4
3 Other reasons 42 62.7
Total 67 100.0
Reasons for not receiving credit (N=151)
1 Fear of inability to repay 29 19.2
2 High interest rate 4 2.6
3 Lack of collateral 1 0.7
4 No credit service 55 36.4
5 No need of credit 55 36.4
6 Other reasons 7 4.6
Total 151 100.0

As shown on Table 22, the major problems in contact with development agents were the
absence of development agents nearby (20.9%), no need for extension service (16%), and
some other reasons (62.7%). Some of the reasons are, most of DAs are male and because of
that they approach male farmers; DAs does not consider women as farmers; more of the
extension packages are male targeted; women are busy at home; women have no decision
power on taking inputs or other technologies. On the other hand, the absence of credit service
and no need for credit were equally important (36.4% each) reasons for not receiving credit in
the study area. No need of credit might be due to fear of inability to repay the credit, because
as discussed previously this problem contributes about 19.2% as reason for not receiving

88
credit and even though there was credit, it was unavailable on time . Other problems such as
high interest rate, lack of collateral and some other reasons collectively hold 7.9%.

To conclude, there is poor access to credit and the majority of the households were not
utilizing the credit in the study area.

Participation in extension programmes enables farmers to identify their farm problems and to
set sound solutions for further measure. As we have discussed in previous sections, majority of
women were not participating on extension activities. The reasons for not participating in
extension programmes are presented in Table 23.

Table 23. Reasons for not participating in extension programmes

Not invited No interest in Other

No Extension programmes N the program reasons
N % N % N %
1 Extension planning 147 141 95.9 6 4.1 - -
2 Extension training 147 142 96.6 4 2.7 1 .7
3 Farmers' field day 150 146 97.3 3 2.0 1 .7
4 Demonstration & on-
148 141 95.3 5 3.4 2 1.4
farm trial
5 Extension exhibition 158 153 95.6 5 3.2 - -

According to the survey result, more than 95% of women farmers in the study area were not
invited by development agents in order to participate in any extension activities such as
extension planning, training, farmers’ field day, demonstration & on-farm trials and extension
exhibitions.

The probable reason might be, most of the time male farmers were invited to participate in
extension programmes. However, males were not transferring the message to their wives as
indicated by the respondents during the group discussion. But still women are highly involved
in agricultural activities without having information. A survey conducted in Burkina Faso,

89
(DFID, 1999) reflected that, only one percent had heard of the technologies from their
husbands. Men are less likely to pass on information to their wives when crops and tasks are
gender specific.

To rate the constraints of the extension organization (WOoARD), in reaching out to women
with regard to dairy farming, suggestions was collected through informal interview from DAs
and concerned SMSs’ and respondents were asked to rate the importance of the constraints
among the list of twelve of constraints.

The rank orders of the constraints were identified through using score values of the
constraints. The constraint that got the highest score value was taken as the most important
constraint that hinder the extension organization from reaching rural women with regard to
dairy farming.

90
Table 24. Rank order of constraints obtained from informal interview with DAs and SMSs’
(N= 24)

Importance of the constraints

Constraints Not Somewhat Very Score Rank
important important important
(1) (2) (3)
Lack of organizational policy to
0 3 21 69 1st
address women
Lack of follow-up after extension
0 6 18 66 2nd
programs
Lack of training programs on
0 6 18 66 2nd
dairying topics
Lack of means of transport for
0 6 18 66 2nd
DAs
Women's busy schedule at home 3 3 18 63 3rd
Low participation of women in
0 9 15 63 3rd
extension activities
Absence of special programmes
3 3 18 63 3rd
focusing on women
Lack of market system and
market information on milk and 3 6 15 57 4th
milk products
Lack of up-to-date technical
6 6 12 54 5th
knowledge for DAs
Lack of female DA 3 15 6 51 6th
DA busy schedule of other work 12 9 3 48 7th
Cultural inhibition of women to
9 9 6 45 8th
contact male DAs

As indicated in Table 24, among the twelve constraints, lack of organizational policy to
address women is the most important constraint and cultural inhibition of women to contact
male DAs is rated as the least important constraint.

This issue was discussed in detail with SMSs of the organization (WOoARD) who also agree
in addressing women as important, but the problem is that it is not in practice. On the other
hand, the issue of cultural inhibition of women to contact male DAs was discussed in detail
with both women and men group members during focus group discussion, but they also agreed
that this constraint was minimal. So, the finding indicates the need to frame gender sensitive

91
policies to address women in agriculture, particularly on the tasks in which they play vital
roles.

4.5.2. Opportunities of extension services in reaching out to rural women

There are many possibilities in the study area to reach women farmers, in order to make them
involved in development activities. Some of these are discussed here.

Development Agents, who live with the farmers, appreciate farmers’ problems, provide new
technologies, and having close supervision, are essential partners for bringing agricultural
development in the area. The number of DAs in the study area is increasing gradually. All PAs
have DAs assigned, now in most of the PAs there are three diploma holder DAs, one each in
the areas of crop production, livestock production and natural resource management, and most
of them are ATVET graduates. This could be an opportunity to increasingly reach farmers
seeking extension services. However, it is not a matter of the presence of DAs in their
vicinity; rather the issue is having good contact, getting advice, and benefiting from their
advice. As discussed in the earlier sections, from the sampled respondents, 58.1 % of the
households have contact with agents and get information about dairy farming practices. But
this is not true for all farmers since 41.9 % didn’t have any contact with DAs.

The insufficient number of female extension workers was one of the problems observed in the
extension services. Lack of education and opportunities for the girls in rural areas contribute to
limited number of female extension professionals. Now, many parents realized that their
daughters’ education as one of their main goals. This problem has been recognized by the
Government, and as a result, enrollment rate of girls increased. Female extension workers
graduated from ATVET colleges were also assigned in the surrounding PAs in the study area.
When this research was conducted, the number of female extension workers was thirteen.
Even though, the number was too little, it was promising for the future strength of extension
service in the study area.

92
According to the national plan, extension services in the future will be centered on the use of
farmer training centers (FTCs). Based on this plan, Dale WOoARD planned to establish FTCs
throughout the Woreda. There is about one FTC at each PA. Almost every PA in the Woreda
has started to construct FTCs. Some PAs have already constructed the required number of
FTCs. Even though, most of the FTCs have not been fully equipped yet, some of them have
started training farmers. The FTCs are expected to serve as centers of extension service and
information, places where modular training to farmers of up to 6 months are given, centers of
demonstration of entrepreneurship, and as a source of advice on projects.

Women’s mutual support networks or informal institutions such as eqoub, idir and mahiber
are very widespread in rural areas, involving both men and women; provide a wide variety of
services and benefits. They serve as forums for the exchange of experience and of information,
for example, about market behaviour, the movement of goods and of prices, etc., both of
which may have economic significance. They are a potential means of independent economic
viability particularly for women. According to Desalegn (1991), such social networks provide
solidarity to individuals. The networks also empower them to use some of the services of the
information.

Lack of education opportunities for DAs contribute to poor extension services in the area. The
problem also has been recognized by the Government, and as a result, a number of DAs were
sent to ATVET colleges. Out of the total 119 DAs, 48 (40.3%) have (5 female & 43 male)
joined ATVET colleges in the year 2005/06. This indicates that, WOoARD has given due
attention to upgrade the level of education of DAs.

At present, most of the information flow reaching women farmers works through the oral
information system. It is very important not to regard the oral information system as separate
or opposed to the print-based information system. A lot of the knowledge needed by the
community will be found and taken (used) from the oral information system.

Sidama Zone has a community radio which is stationed at Yirgalem town, capital of Dale
Woreda. Out of the total farm women interviewed, 49.4% are illiterates. Therefore,

93
communicating adequate information to this group is essential because these members have a
big contribution to make in the development process of the community. Community radio is
particularly useful for this purpose because its programmes have a lot of local content.
Women’s groups can meet in the house of one of their members on a rotational basis to hold
discussions, listen to a radio programme. In this way, they can participate in the activities of
the agricultural extension services.

94
 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Summary

Ethiopian rural women make significant contribution to subsistence agriculture and to

ensuring food security and are the mainstay of the farm labor. They work in all aspects of
agriculture. In addition to their active engagement in agriculture and livestock production,
women are responsible for all household chores, mainly as a result the gender division of
labor.

Despite their immense contribution to the household economy and given their critical role in
determining, guaranteeing food security as food producers, food providers and contributors to
household nutrition and security, rural women often face difficulties than men in gaining
access to agricultural information to increase their production and productivity.

Knowledge or information is becoming one of the most important factors of production, and
there is no doubt that this trend will intensify. Having timely and relevant information can
fundamentally alter people’s decision-making capacity and is critical to increasing agricultural
productivity. It is often difficult for rural people to obtain relevant and timely information. It is
also difficult for rural communities to share information beyond face-to-face contact, thus
inhibiting access to information available outside their locality.

Women in the agricultural sector in SNNPR already face many socio-economic, educational
and institutional obstacles to realizing their full potential. They also lack appropriate and
usable information that could help them with their farming activities. They need information
on a wide range of subjects, including agricultural production, processing, marketing and the
natural resource base. Dairy production is one of the major areas of activities where women
farmers participate in the study area.

95
Information is said to be a resource that must be acquired and used for the improvement of
agricultural production. The sharing of ideas and information forms a large part in extension
agents’ job. Having adequate well-presented information will improve the efficiency of rural
development projects and programmes.

No study has been conducted in Southern Ethiopia on agricultural information flow to farm
women in relation to their knowledge of dairy farming practices. Therefore, this study is
intended to analyze the agricultural information network of farm women; to identify factors
influencing farm women’s information network output in terms of knowledge and to identify
the constraints and opportunities of extension services in reaching out to women.

The study was conducted in Dale Woreda, Southern Ethiopia. The Woreda was selected
purposively with certain criteria.

To address the objectives of the study, both quantitative and qualitative methodologies were
used in this study. Data were collected from primary and secondary sources. The primary data
necessary for the quantitative study were collected through personal interviews from 160
women farmers drawn from four PAs by conducting formal survey using structured interview
schedule. Qualitative data were collected through field visits, observations, informal interview
with key informants, Village leaders, DAs, SMSs, NGO workers and extension officials;
discussion with separate focus groups of women and men farmers. This study uses a three
stage sampling procedure in which both purposive and random sampling techniques were used
to select the PAs and sample respondents. Descriptive statistics with appropriate statistical
tests and Multiple Linear Regression model were used to analyze data collected for the study.

The results of the study revealed that the average age, land holding, family size, and annual
income were found to be 35.81 year, 0.41 ha, 6.39, and 1421.04 Birr respectively.

The survey result shows that, neighbors or friends, other farmers (other than neighbors or
friends), DAs, and WOoARD were the most important, close and frequently used sources of
information for women farmers in the study area. Respondents perceived that NGOs, leaflets

96
& folders and training, demonstration & field days as the least important sources of
information on dairy farming. The information from DAs, farmers (other than neighbors or
friends), WOoARD and rural radio programs were the 1st to 4th most valuable sources of
information respectively.

Correlation analysis of the relationship between independent variables and knowledge of dairy
farming shows that communication skill, sharing available information with others, size of
land holding, social participation, information seeking behavior, extension participation,
positiveness of respondent, empathy of respondent, interpersonal trust of respondent, total
annual income and level of aspiration of respondent were observed to have positive and
significant relationship with knowledge of dairy farming.

Dominantly produced extension packages available in the study area were crop, coffee,
horticulture, dairy, fattening, and poultry packages. Out of the total farm women interviewed,
78.1% have not participated in any of the available extension packages in the study area.
Comparative advantage, specialization or some other reasonable rationales might have lead
farmer to be selective in choice of packages. However, some socio-economic and other factors
also influence farmers’ ability to use or not the combination of packages and elements of
specific package together. According to the result of the study, substantial variability exists in
package utilization among women farmers. This variability is due to lack of money (unable to
pay down payment or repay the previous loan), scarcity of farm land, no extension contact
with development agents and unavailability of input, lack of interest to participate in extension
packages, lack of knowledge, lack of labour and lack of guidance by DA in ascending order.

There was poor access of credit and the majority of the respondents were not utilizing the
credit in the study area. Unavailability on time and lack of collateral were constraints
suggested by respondents on access to credit. Poor quality of cow breeds and lack extension
support were some of the problems regarding access to inputs. On the other side, distance of
market place and being unable to get alternative market for products were problems of rural
women farmers in the study area.

97
According to the findings of the study, 58.1% of the farm women have contact with DAs
while 41.9% have no contact with DAs. Among women farmers those who have contact with
DAs, more than half (61.3%) in the study area were less frequently contact with DAs. In
general, agricultural extension services still do not serve to reach women farmers or women on
farm in the study area.

The major constraints identified in agricultural information network of farm women were low
participation of women in extension packages and extension programmes; poor access to
credit; distance of market place and absence of alternative market for products; low
contribution of DAs, WOoARD, extension methods as source of information in the study area.

The regression output of the study indicates that knowledge of dairy farming practice of
women farmers was significantly influenced by communication skill, interpersonal trust,
social participation, extension participation, empathy of respondents, access to credit and total
annual income in descending order.

98
5.2. Conclusion and Recommendations

The study found that neighbors or friends and other farmers (other than neighbors or friends)
were the most important, close and frequently used sources of information for women farmers
in the study area, while NGOs and extension methods such as leaflets, folders, training,
demonstration and field days were perceived by respondents as the least important sources of
information on dairy farming. Therefore, it is recommended that DAs, professional experts,
administrative bodies, planners and related organizations first should consider the impact and
influence of informal sources of agricultural information. Actors such as farmers or villagers,
who are sometimes seen as ‘beneficiaries’ or ‘target groups’, become essential as source of
information in the information exchange of the extension system. Secondly they should
understand farmers’ situation and design appropriate extension communication methods to fill
the information gap and fit conditions of different categories of farmers, particularly women
farmers.

Findings of this study indicate that participation of women farmers in various areas of
extension programmes was very low in the study area. Agricultural extension services should
no longer continue considering women as housewives and mothers only, focusing mainly on
male farmers. Improving participation of women farmers in various areas of extension
programmes is the best option for empowering farm women for better networking of
agricultural information. Therefore, it is recommended that, training programmes should be
organized and conducted based on women’s need, in a manner that women are encouraged to
attend, taking into consideration timing, duration, location and language; in any training
organized for farmers, at least 30% should include women farmers.

In the study area, about half of the respondents have no contact with DAs; this implies that the
linkage between the women farmers and the DAs is very weak. The technical assistance
women farmers are acquiring from the DAs with respect to dairying is very limited. Therefore,
it is recommended to train more female DAs especially in areas with dairy management to up-
date their technical knowledge on dairy farming or orient and sensitize male extension
workers towards women farmers and their needs to make them more responsive.

99
The study also revealed that women farmers faced various constraints such as lack of access to
credit which is associated with inability to meet down payment requirements or repay the
previous loan; unavailability of credit on time; lack of alternative markets and market
information for their products; lack of participation in formal institutions like farmers
cooperative and PA. Instead, majority of rural women in the study area participate in informal
local institutions such as ekub, edir or mahber and religious organizations. Therefore, it is
recommended that improving access to credit by strengthening local micro-finance institutions
and lowering down payments to enhance participation of women farmers; enhancing women’s
participation in formal institutions like cooperatives by improving the involvement of women
in formal institutions or organizations; organizing women as milk producers cooperatives or
self help groups for mutual support and exchange of business ideas, building solidarity, etc.;
providing timely market information. It is also recommended that, reorienting community
rural radio programs and organizing women in radio listening groups for sharing their
knowledge.

Information should be made available at all levels. WOoARD also has to disseminate
information (technical and gender related). e.g. in the form of leaflets, training aids,
community radio, field visit, etc.; specific type of information that women seek need to be
identified; sex disaggregate data need to be collected, documented, disseminated and used.

Psychological factors of respondents like interpersonal trust and empathy should be

considered as factors on the extension services. DAs, professional experts and extension
planners, also should give due attention and understand the impact and influence of those
factors in the extension system.

Rural women are confined to their localities, so they can not go far from their localities. FTCs
are best and suitable institutional mechanisms to reach farm women. Therefore, FTCs should
have special, women oriented programs. A policy guideline may be framed at national or
regional levels to evolve special formal or informal trainings focusing on women in all sectors
where they play major roles. These sectors may include dairying, poultry, horticulture, post-

100
harvest technology, health & sanitation, balanced nutrition, family planning, HIV/AIDS and
other issues.

In general, appropriate intervention strategies are needed in order to make agricultural

extension services effective and to bring about equitable and sustainable changes in the study
area.

101
 6. REFERENCES

Ahmed M.M., Bezabih Emana, M. Jabbar, F. Tangka and S. Ehui, 2003. Economic and
Nutritional Impacts of Market-oriented Dairy Production in the Ethiopian Highlands, Socio-
economics and Policy Research Working Paper 51

Aina, L.O., Kaniki, A.M., Ojiambo, J.B. 1995. Agricultural Information in Africa. Third
World Information Services Limeted. Ibadan Nigeria.

Almaz Eshete, 2000. Why is gender a development issue, in the proceedings of National
Workshop on institutionalizing gender planning in agricultural technology generation and
transfer process, EARO Addis Ababa.

Asfew Negassa, Gungal, K., Mwangi, W. and Beyene Seboka, 1997. Factors Affecting
Adoption of Maize Production Technologies in Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural
economics. 2: 52-69

Asres Elias, 2005. Access and Utilization of Development Communication by Rural Women
in Dire Dawa Administrative Council, Eastern Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis, Alemaya University.
34p.

Benson, M. and Thomas R. Rochon 2004 Interpersonal Trust and the Magnitude of Protest: A
Micro and Macro Level Approach. Sage Publications

Berhanu Bedassa, 2002, Analysis of factors affecting the adoption of crossbred dairy cows in
the central highlands of Ethiopia. MSc Thesis, Alemaya University.

Bezabih Emana, 2000. The Role of New Crop Varieties and Chemical Fertilizer under Risk:
the Case of Smallholders in Eastern Oromia, Ethiopia. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Hannover,
Germany.

Browen, Earl K. and Starr, Martin K. 1983. Basic statistics for business and economics.
McGraw- Hill, Tokyo.

102
Buford, J.A. 1990. Extension management in the information age. Journal of Extension, 28(1).
Retrieved 15 July, 2006 from http://www.joe.org/joe/1990spring/fut2.html

Chambers, R., 1983. Rural development: Putting the last first. Alfred place, London. pp.104-
105.

Chilot Yirga, Shampiro, B.I, and Mulat Demeke, 1996. Factors Influencing doption of new
weate technologies in Wolmera and Addis Alem Areas of Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of
Agricultural Economics. 1:63-83

Chimdessa Bure, 1998. The Package Extension Approach and Small Holders, Farmers arm
Productivity in High Potential Areas of Ethiopia: The Case of Shashemene Area, Unpublished
M.Sc. thesis, Alemaya University, Ethiopia.

Clare Bishop-Sambrook and Ranjitha Puskur, 2005. Report of Workshop on “Integrating

Gender and HIV/AIDS issues into IPMS Project”. 3-5 October 2005, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

CSA, 1994. The 1994 population and housing census of Ethiopia, Central Statistical
Authority, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

CSA, 2003. Ethiopia: Statistical Abstract. Central Statistical Authority, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

CTA, 2002. The economic role of women in agricultural and rural development: revisiting the
legal environment. Summary report of seminar, 19-23 February 2001, Kampala, Uganda. p.28

Dagnachew Tesfaye, 2002. Factors hampering women farmers’ involvement in current

extension packages: case studies of Sulta and Mulu districts of Ethiopia, Senior Research
Report, Alemaya University.

Das, Manju Dutta 1995. “Improving the Relevance and Effectiveness of Agricultural
Extension Activities for Women Farmers". FAO. pp.3-98

Dereje, Hamza, 2005. Assessment of farmers’ evaluation criteria and adoption of improved
bread Wheat varieties. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, Haramaya University.

103
Desalegn Rahmeto, 1991. Rural Women in Ethiopia: Problems and Prospects. In: Tsehai
Berhane-Selassie, 1991. Gender Issues in Ethiopia. Institute of Ethiopian studies. Addis Ababa
University.

DFID, 1999. Locally Generated Printed Materials in Agriculture: Experience from Uganda
and Ghana, Department for International Development, Education research paper.

EARO, 2000. Institutionalizing Gender Planning in Agricultural Technology. Generation and

Transfer Processes, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Ebrahim Jemal, 2006. Adoption dairy innovations: its income and gender implications in
Adami Tulu district. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, Haramaya University.

Edlu Badwo, 2006. Extension Program Coverage and Utilization by different Categories of
Farmers in Enemore and Ener Woreda, Gurage Zone. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, Haramaya
University. pp. 23-28

Ellis, F. 1993. Peasant economics: farm households and agrarian development, second edition,
Cambridge.

ESAP, 2000. Livestock Production and The Environment-Implication For Sustainable

Livelihoods. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference of the Ethiopian Society of
Animal Production (ESAP), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

FAO, 1993. Agricultural Extension and Farm Women in the 1980’s. FAO. Rome.

FAO, 1996. Improving Extension work with Rural Women. Food and Agricultural
Organization the United Nations Rome, Italy.

Freeman, H.A., Ehui, S.K, and N. G/silassie, 1996. The Role of Credit in the Uptake of
Improved Dairy Technologies. Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural economics. 1: 11-17

104
Gholamreza P. R., and Naser, Z., 2005 "Information-seeking behaviour of Iranian extension
managers and specialists" Information Research, 10(3) paper 229 [Available at
http://InformationR.net/ir/10-3/paper229.html]

Gomez,K.A. and A.A.Gomez, 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research, John
Wiley and Sons, New York.

Gujarati, D.N., 1995. Basic econometrics. 3rd edition, McGraw Hill, Inc., New York

Gupta, SP. and M.P. Gupta, 2002. Business statistics. Suttan Chand and Sons, New Dehli.

Habtemariam Abate, 2004. The comparative influence of intervening variables in the adoption
behavior of maize and dairy farmers in Shashemene and Debre Zeit, Ethiopia. Ph. D. Thesis,
University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 294p.

Habtemariam Kassa, 1996. Agricultural Education, Research and Extension in Ethiopia:

Problems and Linkages. In: Mulat, D., Aregay W., Tesfaye Z, Solomon B., Sustainable
Intensification of Agriculture in Ethiopia. Proceedings of the Second Conference of the
Agricultural Economics Society of Ethiopia, held in Addis Ababa 3-October 1996.
Agricultural Economics Society of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, pp 229-236.

Hailemariam Tefera, 1995. Whole Farm Evaluation of Improved Management and Feeding
Strategies for Crossbred Dairy Cows in Salale Area, Central Ethiopian Highlands. MSc.
Thesis, Alemaya.

Hair, J.F., Jr., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis,
(fifth edition), New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc

Holmann F, L Rivas, N Urbina, B Rivera, L A Giraldo, S Guzman, M Martinez, A Medina

and G Ramirez, 2003. The role of livestock in poverty alleviation:An analysis of Colombia
Htpp://www.utafoundation.org/Irrd1701/cont1701.htm

IPMS, 2005. Pilot Learning Site Diagnosis & Program Design. Improving Productivity &
Market Success of Ethiopian Farmers. Available at http://www.ipms-ethiopia.org/Documents-
Publications/PLS-DPD.asp

105
Irvine Chatizwa, 1996. Gender and Ergonomics in Agricultural Engineering. In: Annemieke
Schoemaker and Katja Jassey, 1996. Gender and Agricultural Engineering, Proceeding from
AGROTEC/FAO Workshop held at Kadoma Ranch Motel, Zimbabwe, 4-8 March, 1996.

Kothari, C.R., 2003. Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques(2nd ed.). Wishwa
Prakashan, New Delhi.

Line, M. B. 1973. Information needs of the social sciences. INSPEL, 8(2), 29-39.

Mahapatra, K. 1987, "Role of Women in Agricultural Extension Program, India: A

Review" quoted in Axinn 1990.

Mchombu, Kingo J. 2004. Sharing Knowledge for Community Development and

Transformation: A Handbook. Oxfam Canada.

Negatwa A., 2006. Agriculture in Ethiopia-Gender in Agriculture. Paper presented on the

workshop for guideline formulation on gender mainstreaming in agricultural sector, April
2006, Debre Zeit. pp.9-12

Nissen, M.E. and Levitt, R., 2002. Dynamic Models of Knowledge-Flow Dynamics. CIFE
working paper # 76 Sanford University. pp.3-4. Retrieved from
http://www.stanford.edu/group/CIFE/online.publications/WP076.pdf

NKonya, Ephraim, Ted Schroeder and David Norman, 1997. Factors Affecting Adoption of
Improved Maize Seed and Fertilizer in Northern Tanzania. Journal of Agricultural Economics,
48 (1) 1-12.

Pereek Udai and T.V. Rao, 1992. First Handbook of Psychology and Social Instruments.
Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabiad.

106
Pettigrew, K. E. 1996. Modeling the information seeking of professionals. Library Quarterly,
66(2). 161-193.

Radhakrishna, R. B., and Thomson, J. S. 1996.Extension agents' use of information sources.

Journal of Extension, 34(1). Retrieved 15 July, 2006 from
http://www.Joe.org/joe/1996february/rb2.html

Ramasamy, C., Cynthia S. Bantilan, S. Elangovan and M. Asokan, 1999. Perceptions and
Adoption Decisions of Farmers in Cultivation of Improved Pearl millet Cultivars: A Study in
Tamil Nadu. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 54 (2).

Rangaswamy, R., 1995. A textbook of Agricultural Statistics. Weley Eastern Lmited, New
Delhi.

Ranjan S. Karippai and Hedija Mohammed, 2004. An introspection in to rural women

empowerment in Ethiopia, paper presented in National Education Seminar in Bahir Dar
University, Ethiopia.

Rotter, J. B. 1967. A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of
Personality, 35, 651-665.

Saito, K. and Daphne Spurling, 1992. “Developing Agricultural Extension for Women
Farmers” World Bank Discussion Papers. 156, 18-47.

Saito, K., and Weidemann, C. J., 1990. Agricultural extension for women farmers in Africa.
Washington, DC: World Bank.

Salomon Monique L. and Paul G.H. Engel, 1997. Networking for Innovation: A participatory
actor-oriented methodology. Royal Tropical Institute KIT Press, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands. P.172

Samuel G. Selassie, 2001. The Development of Integrated management Information Systems

for Agricultural Extension Institutions of Developing Countries: The case of Oromia
Agricultural Development Bureau of Ethiopia, Aachen: Shaker. pp.18-33

107
Sarantakos, S., 1998. Social Science Research, 2nd edition, Macmillan Press Ltd, London.

Schiefer, G. 1992. Integrated Systems in Agricultural Informatics: An Overview on issues and

Development Needs: In Schiefer G. (1992). Integrated Systems in Agricultural Informatics.
Institut fur landwirtsschafitliche Betreiblehre, Unversitat Bon, Germany.

Senait, S. 2000. Gender issues in food security in Ethiopia: Reflections, no 7, Panos, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.

Shin, W. R. and Evans, J. F. 1991. Where field staff get information. Journal of Extension,
29(3). Retrieved 15 July, 2006 from http://www.Joe.org/joe/1991february/a5.html

Thurstone, L.L. 1976. Attitudes Scale, In Measurement of Extension Research: Instrument

Developed at IARI, 1963-72, Division of Agricultural Extension, IARI, New Delhi,
p.49(mimeographed).

Trivedi, G. 1963. Measurement and Analysis of Socio-Economic Status of Rural Families,

Ph.D. Thesis, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi.

Umali, Lisa Schwartz, Dina L. 1994. Public and private agricultural extension: Beyond
traditional frontiers. World Bank Discussion Papers. 236, 15-26.

Van den Ban and Hawkins, H.S, 1996. Agricultural Extension. Second edition. Blackwell
Sciences Ltd. Carlton, Victoria, Australia

Winrock International Ethiopia, 2001. “Appropriate Technologies Developed/Adopted and

Disseminated to Women: A Study in sample PAs in the Amhara National Regional State and
the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples'

Yenealem Kassa, 2006. Gender Disparities in Adoption of Improved Maize varieties between
male headed and female headed households in Kuni Woreda, Western Hararghe Zone,
Ethiopia. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, Haramaya University.

Yeshi, C. 1997. The need for incorporating gender factors in agricultural research. African
Crop Science Society, Uganda.

108
7. APPENDICES

109
 Appendix I Interview Schedule

I. General Instructions to Enumerators

" Make brief introduction to each farmer before starting the interview, get introduced to the
farmers, (greet them in the local way) get her name; tell them yours, the institution you are
working for, and make clear the purpose and objective of the study.
" Please ask each question clearly and patiently until the farmer understands (gets your
point).
" Please fill up the questionnaire according to the farmers reply (do not put your own
opinion).
" Please do not try to use technical terms while discussing with farmer and do not forget to
record the local unit.
" During the process put the answer of each respondent both on the space provided and
encircle in the choose

Identification Number (code) ------------------

Peasant Association name ----------------------
Name of enumerator-----------------------------
Date of interview---------------------------------

I PERSONAL FACTORS
1. Name of the respondent _________________________
2. Age of respondent ______________
3. Marital status 1= Single 2= Married 3= Divorced 4=Widowed
4. Education level 0= illiterate
1= can read & write
2=primary school (grade 1-6)
3= secondary school (grade 7-12)
5. Total number of household members (family size) --------------------

110
SN Name of family members Relationship to Age Gender Education
(a)
the respondent 1: M level(b)
2: F
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
(a)
Relationship: 1: Husband 2: Son 3: Daughter 4: Relative 5: Raised 6: Other
(b)
Education level: 0= illiterate 1= read & write 2=primary school 3= secondary school

111
6. Communication skill

Reception skill Always Sometimes Never

When another farmer describes the matters regarding dairy farming

6.1 Do you listen it carefully? (2) (1) (0)
6.2 Do you become impatient when the (0) (1) (2)
other farmer speaks too much?
6.3 Do you interrupt him before he finishes (0) (1) (2)
the matter?
6.4 Do you try to guess the matter before he (0) (1) (2)
starts talking?
Processing skill (Translation, Interpretation, Extrapolitation)
6.5 When another farmer tells you the (2) (1) (0)
agricultural methods to make dairy
farming profitable, do you try to make it
out in your own way/
6.6 When you get an information about a (2) (1) (0)
new method of farming do you use to
think about its’ feasibility in your field
conditions and your surroundings?
6.7 When you understand a new method of (2) (1) (0)
farming from another farmer, will you
be able to predict its results in advance,
if you apply that practice in your own
field?

112
 Expression skill Always Sometimes Never

When you disseminate some agricultural information to another farmer, to what

extent you insist on the following points.
6.8 Make sure to say only the accurate (2) (1) (0)
information to the possible extent
6.9 Speak in an easily understandable way (2) (1) (0)
without any block or obstruction
6.10 Without creating a feeling of (2) (1) (0)
enforcement, try to convince the other
farmer
6.11 Explain the ideas with creation of a (2) (1) (0)
feeling of honesty in communication
Feedback orientation
6.12 When you describe any information on (2) (1) (0)
farming to another farmer, do you try to
elicit questions from him?
6.13 When the other farmer asks questions do (2) (1) (0)
you feel happy in getting an opportunity
to explain it further?
6.14 If the other farmer asks doubts again (2) (1) (0)
and again, do you try to convince him to
the maximum extent without showing
any displeasure?
6.15 Even if you encourage questions from (2) (1) (0)
the other farmer and he does not react,
do you probe further to ascertain
whether he understood it or not?

113
No. 7. Interpersonal trust Always Sometimes Never

7.1 When you describe about new agricultural (2) (1) (0)
information to another farmer, do you think
that he believes you completely?
7.2 In you perception, does the other farmer (2) (1) (0)
have only good opinion about you
capability to explain it?
7.3 When the other farmer conveys information (0) (1) (2)
regarding agriculture to you, do you think
that he may try to mislead you?
7.4 When the other farmer explains about new (0) (1) (2)
methods of farming, do you think he does
not possess the qualification to describe
those matters to you?

No. 8. Positiveness Always Sometimes Never

8.1 Do have the willing to discuss the matters of (2) (1) (0)
agriculture with any category of farmers?
8.2 Do you ever feel that there is no point in (0) (1) (2)
discussing the agricultural matters with
farmers?
8.3 Do you feel proud you when you discuss (2) (1) (0)
agricultural matters with other farmers?
8.4 Do you feel as your duty to convince other (2) (1) (0)
farmers on various aspects of Sheep
fattening?

114
No. 9.Empathy Always Sometimes Never

9.1 When do you speak about agricultural (2) (1) (0)

matters to other farmers, do you imagine in
terms of “You were in his position”?
9.2 When you communicate an information
regarding dairy farming to another farmer,
if the farmer mentions his problems that are
coming in the way of adopting that
technology (choose one appropriate
response) (0 )
1. You get angry and irritated
2. You consider it an escapism and leave ( 1)
him
3. You try to understand his problems and ( 2)
make necessary alternative solutions

115
II SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

10. Do you own land? 1= Yes 0= No

11. If yes, total land size covered by all crops (in timad) ____________
12. Number of livestock owned at present

SN Kind of livestock Crossbred Local breed Total

12.1 Oxen
12.2 Cow
12.3 Young bulls
12.4 Calves
12.5 Heifers
12.6 Sheep -
12.7 Goats -
12.8 Chicken
12.9 Horse -
12.10 Mule -
12.11 Donkey -

116
13. Annual income from off-farm, non-farm and farm activities (in birr)
SN Income from off- SN Income from non-farm SN Income from farm
farm activities activities activities
13.1 Off-farm Amount 13.2 Non-farm Amount 13.3 Farm Amount
activities in Birr activities in Birr activities in Birr
13.1.1 Wage 13.2.1 Handicraft 13.3.1 Crop sale
labour ›
13.1.2 Others, 13.2.2 Petty trading 13.3.2 Vegetable
specify sale
13.2.3 Fire wood 13.3.3 Coffee sale
and charcoal
selling
13.2.4 Brewing 13.3.4 Chat sale
13.2.5 Others, 13.3.5 Sales of
specify chicken
13.3.6 Sales of
eggs
13.3.7 Sales of
milk
13.3.8 Sales of
cheese
13.3.9 Sales of
butter
13.3.10 Sales of
hide & skin
13.3.11 Sales of
calves
13.3.12 Sales of
heifer
13.3.13 Sales of
oxen
13.3.14 Sales of
cow
13.3.15 Sales of
sheep
13.3.16 Sales of
goat
13.3.17 Others,
specify
Subtotal
›Income earned as wage labour, if any family member engaged in any off-farm activities.

117
14. Do you have a radio? (Radio ownership) 1= Yes 0= No
15. If yes, which program do you listen to mostly? (Rank according to their importance)
Rank
Agricultural program ( )
News ( )
Drama ( )
Music ( )
Others (specify) ______________ ( )

16. Why 1st ranked program is the most important to you? __________________________

17. How far your residence from the nearest town or city? ______ km. or ____ hours when
walking on foot.

18. How frequently do you visit the nearby town or city? (Cosmo politeness)
1. Daily (4)
2. Most often (3)
3. Once a week (2)
4. Sometimes (1)
5. Never (0)

19. What is the purpose of the visit?

1. Agricultural related like purchase/shopping/marketing (4)
2. To visit friends/relatives (3)
3. To get medical treatment (2)
4. Entertainment (1)
5. Any other purpose (specify) _________________________

118
III SITUATIONAL FACTORS

20. Are you involved in any activities of formal and informal institutions/ Organizations in
your area? (Social participation) 1= Yes 0= No
21. If yes, type of institutions/ Organizations & type of membership
SN Organization/ institution Weight Measures used
Maximum score = 36

21.1 Farmers 10 Leader = 10

cooperatives/union Office bearer/ committee = 7
Member only = 5
21.2 Peasant association 8 Leader = 8
Office bearer / committee = 6
Member only = 4
21.3 Women’s association 7 Leader = 7
Office bearer / committee = 5
Member only = 3
21.4 Religious organizations 5 Leader = 5
(Mosque/ church) Member only = 3
21.5 Informal associations (Idir, 4 Leader = 4
Ekub. Mahber) Member only = 2
21.6 HIV club 2 Leader = 2
Member only = 1

22. If yes, type of institutions/ Organizations and frequency of participation in activities.

SN Organization/ institution Frequency of
participation
22.1 Parent committee in school
22.2 Farmers cooperatives
22.3 Religious organizations (Mosque/ church)
22.4 Informal associations (Idir, Ekub. Mahber)
22.5 Peasant association
21.6 Women’s association
21.7 HIV club
21.8 Others (Specify)
 Frequency of participation: 0= Never 1= Sometimes 2= whenever conducted

119
23. With whom do you share the information you have about livestock management?
SN Type of information Whom you share ›
(can have more than one
response)
1 Selection criteria for dairy animal
2 Feeding
3 Watering
4 Cleaning barn
5 House construction
6 Supplemental feed preparation
7 Storage of feed
8 Health care
›1= Neighbors 2= Friends/ relatives 3= Husband 4= other family members 5= others

120
IV PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS
How much and how frequently do you seek information in the following activities? (Information
seeking behavior)

Activities SN 24. How much new SN 25. Frequency

information you of seeking
wish to get information
Selection criteria for dairy 24.1 25.1
animal
Feeding 24.2 25.2
Watering 24.3 25.3
Cleaning barn 24.4 25.4
House construction 24.5 25.5
Supplemental feed preparation 24.6 25.6
Storage of feed 24.7 25.7
Health care 24.8 25.8
Amount of new information wish to get: 0= No information 1= some information 2= All information
Frequency of seeking information: 0= Never 1= Rarely 2=sometimes 3= mostly

121
26. How is your feeling to achieve something? (Achievement motivation)

26.1 Success brings relief or further Agree Undecided Disagree

determination & not just pleasant
feeling (3) (2) (1)
26.2 How true it is to say that your efforts True Not sure Not true
are directed towards success (3) (2) (1)
26.3 How often do you seek opportunity Always Sometimes Never
to excel? (2) (1) (0)
26.4 Would you hesitate to undertake Never Sometimes Always
something (3) (2) (1)
26.5 In how many sphere that might lead Mostly Sometimes Never
to your failing?
(1) (2) (3)
26.6 How many situations do you think Mostly Sometimes Never
you will succeed in doing as well as
you can? (2) (1) (0)
Source: Pareek U. and T.V. Rao, 1992

122
27. How your desire or ambition is strong to achieve something? (Level of aspiration)
(The items should be answered on ‘yes’/’no’ responses)

27.1 Do you feel that a farmer can lead prosperous life even in the profession of farming if
he does hard work? Yes= 2 No= 0
27.2 You are being provided an opportunity to attend a tour for familiarizing you with the
new techniques of farming. Will you be prepared to spend some money to attend the
tour? Yes= 2 No= 0
27.3 Your son/daughter wants to attend young farmers training course at Hawassa
University, College of agriculture for three months. Would you work more in his
absence? Yes= 2 No= 0
27.4 Do you feel satisfied with your present method of farming? Yes= 2 No= 0
27.5 If you do not have sufficient finance, would you like to borrow them for making
permanent improvements on your farm? Yes= 2 No= 0
27.6 Good crops can only be obtained from improved seed. Suppose improved seed has
been provided to you at some higher rate than the local seed, will you purchase it?
Yes= 2 No= 0
27.7 Crops should be sown at proper time but sometimes it becomes difficult to get labor
at peak season, Will you sow your crops at proper time even if you have to pay high
wages to laborers? Yes= 2 No= 0
27.8 Experts are of the opinion that green manuring is essential to maintain the fertility of
the soil and its effect lasts for several years. Will you do green manuring knowingly
that you have to sacrifice your crops for one season? Yes= 2 No= 0
27.9 Scientists at University, Hawassa have obtained Maize yield about 40 quintals per
hectare. Do you think that farmers can also do the same? Yes= 2 No= 0

123
28. To what degree do you agree on the following statements? (Rural women’s attitude
towards Development Agents)

SN Statements Measurement Scale

28.1 To bring about substantial Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly
agree Disagree
improvement in agricultural
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)
production , it is a necessary to
retain frequent contact with DAs
28.2 Discussing the agricultural Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly
agree Disagree
matters with DAs is merely a
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
waste of time
28.3 I am proud that, help and co- Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly
agree Disagree
operation from DAs is plentiful
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)
28.4 I think it is of no use to discuss Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly
agree Disagree
the agricultural matters to DAs,
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
because they are not interested in
women farmers
28.5 DAs give special consideration Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly
agree Disagree
to women farmers to improve
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)
our situation
28.6 DAs fail to recognize women as Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly
agree Disagree
farmers
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

124
V EXTENSION SERVICE RELATED FACTORS OF RURAL WOMEN
29. Did you have any contact with Development agent in your area? 1=Yes 0= No
30. If yes, frequency of contact?
Once in a week (4)
Once in two weeks (3)
Once in three weeks (2)
Once in four weeks (1)

31. If no, why? 1= No DA nearby 2 = No need for service

3 = Others (specify)
32. What types of service most of the time you are getting from DAs
1. Technical support
2. Theoretical information
3. Input Supply
4. Experience sharing
5. Others specify_____________________________.
33. Do you have access to credit? 1= Yes 0=No
34. Did you receive credit last year? 1= Yes 0=No

35. If yes, from where do you get the credit services?

1= Bank 2= NGO 3= Microfinance institute
4 = Local money lender 5 = Service cooperatives 6 = Others (specify)

36. If no, why? 1= Fear of inability to repay 4 = No credit services

2 =High interest rate 5 = No need of credit
3 =Lack of collateral 6 = Others (Specify)

125
37. For what purposes you have obtained the credit?
1= Purchase of industrial by-product 4= To fill up family requirement
2= Construction of dairy cattle house 5= To settle debts
3= Purchase of crossbreed dairy cow 6= For growing crops
7. Others

38. Have you ever participated in extension planning last year?

1=Yes 0 =No

39. If no, why?

1. Not invited to participate
2. No interest in the program
3. Others specify__________________________________

40. If yes, in what area of planning you have participated?

1. Evaluation of the past year achievement
2. Current Situation analysis
3. Problem identification
4. Setting alternative solution
5. Setting plan
6. Others specify, ______________________________
41. What was your contribution in extension planning?
1. Information supply
2. Need specified
3. Listener
4. Others specify____________________

42. Have you ever participated in extension training last year?

1=Yes 0=No

126
43. If yes, in what area of extension training you have participated? (put 9 mark on the space
provided)

43.3 Natural
43.1 Crop 43.2 Livestock 43.4 If
SN SN SN resource SN
production production other
management

43.1.1 General______ 43.2.1 General_______ 43.3.1 General_______ 43.4.1 ________

Sowing and
Feeding_____ Physical ________
43.1.2 planting_______ 43.2.2 43.3.2 43.4.2
conservation___
Weeding______ Management___ Biological ________
43.1.3 43.2.3 43.3.3 43.4.3
conservation___
Crop
Housing_______ Surveying
43.1.4 protection____ 43.2.4 43.3.4 43.4.4 ________
_______
Harvesting and
43.1.5 storing_______ 43.2.5 Health care____

44. How frequently did you get the training?

1. Once per month
2. Once in 3 month
3. Once per year
4. Others

45. If no, why?

1. Not invited to participate
2. No interest in the program
3. Others specify ___________________
46. Have you ever attended any farmers’ field day last year?
1=Yes 0=No

47. If no, why?

1. Not invited to participate
2. No interest in the program
3. Others specify___________________

127
48. Have you ever hosted, extension demonstration, or on farm experiments on your field last
year?
1. Yes 2. No

49. If not, why?

1. Not invited to do
2. Not interest in the program
3. Others specify________________________

50. Have you ever participated in extension exhibition last year?

1=Yes 0=No

51. If not, why?

1. Not invited to do
2. Not interest in the program
3. Others specify__________________________

128
VI CONSTRAINTS IN ACCESSING EXTENSION SERVICE BY WOMEN
FARMERS
52. Have you ever utilized any extension packages last year? 1= Yes 0= No
53. If yes, indicate the package that you have used below in the table.
SN Extension Package SN 54. Reason ♣ Alternative reason for not
program & utilized › for not utilizing

services provided utilized ♣

53.1 Crop package 54.1 1. Unavailability of input
2. Lack of money (cash)
53.2 Coffee package 54.2
3. Lack of down payment
53.3 Horticulture 54.3 4. Unable to repay the previous loan.
5. Lack of labour
53.4 Dairy package 54.4 6. Lack of interest to participate
53.5 Fattening 54.5 7. High input cost
8. Lack of credit
53.6 Poultry 54.6 9. Extension package is tedious
10. It is not profitable
11. Shortage of land
12. No extension contact
13. Lack of knowledge
14. Lack of guidance by DA
15. If others (specify)

› Package Utilized: 1= yes 0= No

55. If you have access to credit, have you ever faced any constraints on access of credit?
1= Yes 0= No
56. If yes, what is/are the main constraint(s)?
1. Unavailable on time
2. Unable to remit down payment
3. Lack of credit
4. Lack of collateral
5. High interest rate
6. If other specify___________________________________
57. What was the repayment period of credit you have taken?
1= Short term 2= Medium term 3= Long term

129
58. Have you ever faced constraints on access to package inputs (improved dairy cattle)?
1= Yes 0= No
59. If yes, what is/are the main constraint(s)?
1. Poor quality of breed
2. Insufficient delivery
3. Unavailable on time
4. Source from far distance
5. Less Extension support
6. If other specify___________________________________

60. Have you ever faced problems in contact with development agent?
1= Yes 0= No
61. If yes, what is the main problem?
1. Lack of credibility
2. Poor technical know how of DAs
3. Lack of interest to support farmers
4. Farmer selection biases
5. If other specify _________

62. Have you ever faced problem on participation of farmer organization (cooperatives)?
1= Yes 0= No
63. If yes, what is the main problem?
1. Lack of credibility in the past organization
2. Lack of money
3. Lack of in interest
4. Corruption
5. Poor capital progress
6. If other, specify_____________________

130
64. Have you ever faced with constraints on access of market?
1= Yes 0= No
65. If yes, what is/are the main constraint(s)?
1. Unable to get market in formation
2. Far distant of market place
3. Unable to get alternative market
4. Lack of transportation
5. High market tax
6. If other, specify_____________________

131
VII INFORMATION EXCHANGE AND ACTORS

66. Information source and its use pattern:

(Indicate how frequently you use the following sources to get information on dairy farming)

SN Information source Frequency of use

Always Sometimes Never
(2) (1) (0)
1 MOA Office

2 NGOs existing in the area

3 Farmers’ cooperatives

4 Peasant associations

5 Agricultural Development Agents

6 Neighbors/Friends

7 Religious institutions

8 Other farmers

9 Input supplier organizations

10 Training, Demonstration & Field

days

11 Leaflets and Folders

12 Rural radio program

13 Others (specify)

132
67. Importance of the information source:
(Indicate how you perceive the importance of the following sources to get information on
dairy farming)
SN Information source Importance
Very Somewhat Not
important important important
(2) (1) (0)
1 MOA Office

2 NGOs existing in the area

3 Farmers’ cooperatives

4 Peasant associations

5 Agricultural Development Agents

6 Neighbors/Friends

7 Religious institutions

8 Other farmers

9 Input supplier organizations

10 Training, Demonstration & Field

days

11 Leaflets and Folders

12 Rural radio program

13 Others (specify)

133
68. Closeness of information source:
(Indicate how close to you the following sources to get information on dairy farming)
SN Information source Closeness
Very close Somewhat close Not close
(2) (1) (0)
1 MOA Office

2 NGOs existing in the area

3 Farmers’ cooperatives

4 Peasant associations

5 Agricultural Development Agents

6 Neighbors/Friends

7 Religious institutions

8 Other farmers

9 Input supplier organizations

10 Training, Demonstration & Field

days

11 Leaflets and Folders

12 Rural radio program

13 Others (specify)

134
 69. Value of information
(Indicate how much valuable is the information from the following sources)
SN Information source Perceived value for information obtained
Very valuable Somewhat Not valuable
valuable
(2) (1) (0)
1 MOA Office

2 NGOs existing in the area

3 Farmers’ cooperatives

4 Peasant associations

5 Agricultural Development Agents

6 Neighbors/Friends

7 Religious institutions

8 Other farmers

9 Input supplier organizations

10 Training, Demonstration & Field

days

11 Leaflets and Folders

12 Rural radio program

13 Others (specify)

135
70. Knowledge test of dairy farming practices
SN Knowledge of dairy farming practices Measurement score
70.1 Name important dairy animals recommended in your area Nil = 0
One = 1
Two = 2
70.2 What is the daily maximum milk yield of Holstein Wrong = 0
Friesian breed Right = 1
70.3 Two way of conserve forage feed crops Nil = 0
One = 1
Two = 2
70.4 Name improved forage varieties recommended in your Nil = 0
area One = 1
Two = 2
Three = 3
70.5 Name the components of improved cattle housing Nil = 0
One = 1
Two = 2
Three = 3
Four= 4
70.6 Mention the advantage of Artificial insemination over Wrong = 0
Bull service Right = 1
70.7 Mention the advantage of Vaccination Nil = 0
One = 1
Two = 2
Three = 3
70.8 What are the two methods of improving the edibility of Nil = 0
crop residue such as hay, straw, etc. One = 1
Two = 2
70.9 For how long a new born calf should feed colostrums? Wrong = 0
Right = 1
70.10 Mention at least two factors that can delay the length of Nil = 0
heat period of a cow One = 1
Two = 2
Three = 3
70.11 What are the major disease transmitting ways? Mention Nil = 0
at least four One = 1
Two = 2
Three = 3
Four= 4
70.12 The subsequent control measures of internal parasites Nil = 0
affecting dairy cattle One = 1
Two = 2
Three = 3
Four= 4

136
 Appendix II The MLR Model Summary

Std. Error
Mode Adjusted of the
l R R Square R Square Estimate
1 .646(a) .417 .411 3.350
2 .726(b) .527 .516 3.035
3 .785(c) .616 .602 2.753
4 .822(d) .675 .660 2.546
5 .837(e) .701 .683 2.456
6 .846(f) .716 .695 2.408
7 .855(g) .730 .707 2.360

a Predictors: (Constant), communication skills

b Predictors: (Constant), communication skills, interpersonal trust
c Predictors: (Constant), communication skills, interpersonal trust, social participation
d Predictors: (Constant), communication skills, interpersonal trust, social participation, total annual income in
Birr
e Predictors: (Constant), communication skills, interpersonal trust, social participation, total annual income in
Birr, extension participation
f Predictors: (Constant), communication skills, interpersonal trust, social participation, total annual income in
Birr, extension participation, empathy of respondent
g Predictors: (Constant), communication skills, interpersonal trust, social participation, total annual income in
Birr, extension participation, empathy of respondent, access to credit

137
 Appendix III ANOVA Table

Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 707.188 1 707.188 63.007 .000(a)
Residual 987.712 88 11.224
Total 1694.900 89
2 Regression 893.722 2 446.861 48.525 .000(b)
Residual 801.178 87 9.209
Total 1694.900 89
3 Regression 1043.306 3 347.769 45.900 .000(c)
Residual 651.594 86 7.577
Total 1694.900 89
4 Regression 1143.978 4 285.994 44.125 .000(d)
Residual 550.922 85 6.481
Total 1694.900 89
5 Regression 1188.417 5 237.683 39.420 .000(e)
Residual 506.483 84 6.030
Total 1694.900 89
6 Regression 1213.510 6 202.252 34.872 .000(f)
Residual 481.390 83 5.800
Total 1694.900 89
7 Regression 1238.032 7 176.862 31.744 .000(g)
Residual 456.868 82 5.572
Total 1694.900 89

Predictors: (Constant), communication skills

b Predictors: (Constant), communication skills, interpersonal trust
c Predictors: (Constant), communication skills, interpersonal trust, social participation
d Predictors: (Constant), communication skills, interpersonal trust, social participation, total annual income in
Birr
e Predictors: (Constant), communication skills, interpersonal trust, social participation, total annual income in
Birr, extension participation
f Predictors: (Constant), communication skills, interpersonal trust, social participation, total annual income in
Birr, extension participation, empathy of respondent
g Predictors: (Constant), communication skills, interpersonal trust, social participation, total annual income in
Birr, extension participation, empathy of respondent, access to credit
h Dependent Variable: respondents knowledge of dairy farming

138
 Appendix IV The multiple correlation coefficients

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model Variables Std. t Sig.
B Error Beta
7 (Constant) -3.761 1.093 -3.441 .001
Communication skills .194 .046 .305 4.213 .000
Interpersonal trust .791 .196 .300 4.028 .000
Social participation .132 .046 .200 2.866 .005
Total annual income in
.000 .000 .177 2.945 .004
Birr
Extension participation .371 .153 .152 2.427 .017
Empathy of respondent .660 .293 .153 2.253 .027
Access to credit 1.765 .841 .147 2.098 .039
Dependent Variable: respondents knowledge of dairy farming

139
 Appendix V Excluded Variables

Partial
Model Variables Beta In t Sig. Correlation
Tolerance
7 Sharing of available
information with .078(g) 1.028 .307 .114 .568
others
Size of land holding
.086(g) 1.345 .182 .148 .790
in hectare
Information seeking
behavior of .064(g) .804 .424 .089 .515
respondent
Positiveness .067(g) .838 .404 .093 .520
Level of aspiration
-.016(g) -.260 .796 -.029 .865
of respondent

g Predictors in the Model: (Constant), communication skills, interpersonal trust, social participation, total annual
income in Birr, extension participation, empathy of respondent, access to credit
h Dependent Variable: respondents knowledge of dairy farming

140
 Woreda 76 PAs

1st stage 4 PAs purposively selected

PA-1 PA-2 PA-3 PA-4

2nd stage

FHH MHH FHH MHH FHH MHH FHH MHH

3rd stage PPS with purposive

inclusion of 10% of FHH

160 HHs

Appendix Figure 1 Sampling technique diagram

141