Skip to Main Content
 

Global Search Box

 
 
 
 

Files

File List


MASAMBUKA Final Edited Dissertation.pdf (2.23 MB)

ETD Abstract Container

Abstract Header

Agricultural communication: Whose voices, for who and for what? A case study of Malawian agricultural communication programs

Masambuka, Fallys
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0087-902X
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1555398450368817

Abstract Details

2019, Doctor of Philosophy, Ohio State University, Agricultural and Extension Education.
Agriculture constitutes a very important sector for many economies of sub-Saharan African countries. including Malawi. However, most of the countries in this region have historically experienced, and continue to experience, high levels of poverty due to low agricultural productivity. Limited access to information that guides farmers’ production decisions has been cited as a key constraint affecting agricultural production in these countries, including Malawi. As such, the Malawi government has recommended improving access to agricultural information as a means for increasing agricultural production. Increased technological advancement in communication has led to an increased use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), such as mobile phones and radio, by various agricultural organizations to deliver scientific information to farmers. However, little is known regarding farmers’ participation and involvement in these ICTs in terms of content and channel selection despite the country’s commitment to promoting farmer-led agricultural transformation.Therefore, this concurrent triangulation mixed methods study sought to explore the drivers of agricultural communication (AGCOM) in Malawi and the impact of AGCOM on farmers’ participation in agricultural development. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected using surveys, and semi-structured interviews were administered to 71 AGCOM officers working for different agricultural organizations in Malawi and 30 farmers. The findings indicated that the availability of funds, existing policies, organizational mission, and the agricultural calendar were the main factors that influenced development and dissemination of AGCOM. Additionally, it was indicated that AGCOM officers do not have perceived control over the communication process even though their role is to package and disseminate the information using various communication channels promoted by their organizations. Farmers also reported not having perceived control of AGCOM but valued having access to information on improved technologies and practices, and perceived AGCOM as an instructional and publicity tool. However, they expressed concerns over the lack of timeliness for disseminating information, since most of the farmers practice rain-fed agriculture and the inaccuracy of the information. The increased focus on positive experiences without highlighting disadvantages of the improved practices and technologies were among the factors cited as off-putting by the farmers because it makes them unaware of challenges they might face when implementing the information. Among other recommendations, this study recommends the need for deliberate efforts to ensure that farmers’ voices are captured in order to encourage their involvement in AGCOM. However, for this to be achieved, there is a need to revisit the agricultural policy so that clear mechanisms are established to ensure that the policies are consistent. The study revealed that while the Malawi government promotes farmer-led agricultural transformation, farmers are not provided with opportunities to share their innovations. This is evidenced by the current policies which stipulate that only scientifically-proven technologies should be disseminated in the country.Secondly, there is a need to have independent funding for AGCOM programs so that farmers’ needs and not project needs are prioritized. Lastly, there is a need to evaluate AGCOM training and education programs to ensure that AGCOM students are not only equipped with hands-on skills for using different communication channels as tools but that they are also able to use communication as a science for understanding people’s behavior.
Mary Rodriguez (Committee Co-Chair)
Emily Buck (Advisor)
Jera Niewoehner-Green (Committee Member)
208 p.
Agricultural Education
technology, improved technologies, adoption,ICTs, farmers,

Recommended Citations

Citations

  • Masambuka, F. (2019). Agricultural communication: Whose voices, for who and for what? A case study of Malawian agricultural communication programs [Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1555398450368817

    APA Style (7th edition)

  • Masambuka, Fallys . Agricultural communication: Whose voices, for who and for what? A case study of Malawian agricultural communication programs. 2019. Ohio State University, Doctoral dissertation. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center, http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1555398450368817.

    MLA Style (8th edition)

  • Masambuka, Fallys . "Agricultural communication: Whose voices, for who and for what? A case study of Malawian agricultural communication programs." Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 2019. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1555398450368817

    Chicago Manual of Style (17th edition)

osu1555398450368817
1,751
© 2019, some rights reserved.Creative Commons License Agricultural communication: Whose voices, for who and for what? A case study of Malawian agricultural communication programs by Fallys Masambuka is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Based on a work at etd.ohiolink.edu.
This open access ETD is published by The Ohio State University and OhioLINK.