Promoting interactivity through radio and ICTs
[News]
Source: ICT Update
by Josh Woodard & Dominic Otieno Omolo
ICTs can help researchers to interact with farmers. The challenge lies in finding a way of integrating traditional and new communication technologies such as mobile phone, radio and video services to send agricultural and market information to farmers.
It is important that agricultural researchers’ work is disseminated to as many end users as possible. ICTs are an important tool for doing this. Nowadays, different ICTs are used to communicate agricultural market information to farmers. Radio broadcasting is the more traditional information channel for farmers in most developing countries. But the popularity of mobile phone services and applications have been rising in recent years. Evidence from research shows the positive impact of using digital video for sharing agricultural information, and there is potential in the coming years for live streaming services for online platforms.
These technologies are mostly used separately, however, so an important question is how to combine mobile phone, radio, and video services in an integrated way to inform farmers about research-based production methods. Josh Woodard, project manager at the US-based non-profit organisation FHI 360, wrote a toolkit on interactive radio that is very closely tied to mobile services. ‘Any approach to knowledge sharing needs to be multi-faceted, rather than singular in nature,’ he says. ‘Therefore I think that mobile phones, radio and video all can play a very complementary role and support the reinforcement of messaging towards farmers.’
For decades now, radio has been a dominant source of information for farmers in much of sub-Saharan Africa, with an estimated reach of between 80% and 90% of households. ‘Yet for the most part,’ Woodard says, ‘traditional radio promotes a one-way flow of information from the broadcaster to the listener. This can be effective for the passive consumption of information, such as weather reports or price information, but is not necessarily the best medium to foster active learning, such as promoting changes in farming practices.’
Mobile chat platforms
By using new technologies that are closely related to mobile phone and internet it is possible to enhance the potential of radio as a powerful distribution channel beyond what had ever been possible. There are different ways radio stations can be interactive, like the facility of call-ins, call-outs, SMS, voice messages, interactive voice response, facilitated listening and web-based platforms. Mobile chat platforms such as Mxit, for example, present opportunities to facilitate listener-to-listener interaction. It allows one-to-one text messaging, along with group chats on web-enabled feature phones. ‘It can be worthwhile to support audience interaction with each other during the broadcasts,’ says Woodard.
Researchers should be participating in this kind of interaction. They can reach farmers and answer their questions, but by participating in broadcasts researchers can benefit from receiving new information directly from farmers. There was a call for more farmer involvement in cutting-edge research studies at the GCARD2 in Punta del Este, Uruguay (South America), for example. The chairperson of the Global Forum for Agricultural Research (GFAR), Monty Jones, said during the conference, ‘it is the farmers that are the centre of innovation. We must think with the farmers and not think for the farmers.’
Dominic Otieno Omolo, communications and knowledge management expert at GFAR, explains why. ‘Several research studies are done without including farmers, who in the final analysis are the intended beneficiaries of the research results. There are growing voices to address this disconnect. And community radio presents an excellent opportunity for mutual collaboration between agricultural research and development experts and farmers.’
Research actions
Omolo’s experience is that there has been fruitful interaction between farmers and researchers as far as information sharing and technology transfer is concerned. What have been lacking, according to him, are sustained and focused approaches that place the farmer at the centre of research actions. ‘More concrete interventions are needed in this direction,’ he says. ‘I personally think that it is also a question of capacity building and formation. Most knowledge institutes have recently started to incorporate communication in their curricula and hopefully the results of this will soon be seen.’
There are several good examples. One of GFAR’s constituent organisations, Foodnet Uganda, uses the radio as one of the means of communication to disseminate agricultural market price information. The African Farm Radio Research Initiative project launched in 2007 and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was implemented in Ghana, Malawi, Mali, Tanzania and Uganda. The project gathers, implements, evaluates and shares best practices for using radio‐based communication strategies to enhance food security in rural Africa. It also offers radio broadcasters capacity‐building and training services that aim to improve their programming for rural listeners.
The Organic Farmer has been actively involved in producing and disseminating ecologically sound information for farmers in Africa. In Kenya there is a radio programme that gives tips on organic farming and answers farmers’ questions. It airs on Kenya Broadcasting Corporation’s Kiswahili service every Thursday. And several years ago CTA produced five Rural Radio Resource Packs every year on a variety of topics related to agriculture and rural development that were re‐packaged and broadcast by local radio stations in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. A panel of experts from developing countries used the packs to submit material on diverse topics. The material was then compiled to produce CDs and brochures that were distributed among partner radio stations throughout Africa.
A step too far
Reaching small farmers in rural areas via live streaming initiatives through internet platforms is a step too far at the moment in most developing countries, but Woodard believes we may not be more than a few years away from seeing this. ‘Already I know of examples of farmers taking photos with their phones of crops and sending them to experts for advice on topics such as disease and pest control,’ he says. ‘As video enabled phones and mobile broadband become the norm more than the exception in many of these communities, I think that you will see experimentation with live streaming video to connect farmers to experts.’
In Ethiopia, for example, Digital Green – a leader in low-cost video broadcasting – and Farm Radio International explore ways to complement each others’ messaging services to farmers. ‘I think the reason why we often do not see all of these working in unison is that the skill sets do not always overlap,’ explains Woodard. ‘For example, you may have someone who knows radio really well, but nothing about video or mobile. That becomes a challenge in terms of staffing and capacity.’ Also, it can be difficult to coordinate all of these streams and their messaging, which can be intimidating for some practitioners.
Digital video in particular is advancing rapidly as a new tool to reach farmers. It all started with the launch of pocket camcorders like the Flip camera in 2007, and improvements in pico projector technology from around 2010 onwards have revolutionised how video can be used to disseminate knowledge to farmers. Prior to that, some organisations were hooking up televisions and DVD players to generators and driving them around rural communities to share videos. Now, they can literally put a pico projector in their pocket along with a small external speaker and create their own movie theatre anywhere by projecting onto a flat wall (or sheet).
Video projects
Research by organisations such as Agro-Insight and Digital Green shows that video does have a positive impact on yields and lowering the costs farmers incur when adopting new technology. The challenge with computer-based viewing is that the screen size is limited, so only a few farmers can watch at a time. The pico projectors can clearly project video from about one metre away – though this increasing all the time – onto a flat surface in a dimly lit setting. With a small external speaker, that is enough to share a video with about 30 seated people. Both the projector and speakers can be charged in advance and used in places without any access to electricity. And the purchase costs are under US$300, much less than the cost of a TV, DVD player, generator or the fuel that was used just a few years ago.
The camcorders built into mobile phones these days are of decent quality, and a few models even have built-in pico projectors. Woodard predicts that within the next few years there will probably be mobile phones with camcorders and pico projectors that are just as powerful as the camcorders and projectors sold on the market today. He has seen farmers using videos on mobile devices, but Woodard thinks that this is only useful if they have already seen the videos on a larger screen. ‘Otherwise, it is difficult to learn for the first time how to use an improved practice by watching it on a small mobile screen. Although with the expansion of mobile broadband, this might become more appealing as it would allow farmers to view videos on demand via the internet,’ he explains.
Including researchers
Video can certainly play an important role in helping to share information with smallholder farmers. Extension agents and development workers are creating their own extension videos with farmers with easy-to-use pocket camcorders. ‘We know from experience that in-person extension visits to farmers can be extremely effective, but they are also expensive. Video is the next best way to replicate that visual knowledge exchange, but at a fraction of the cost,’ says Woodard.
He would like researchers to participate with video and radio makers to guarantee that information communicated to farmers is of the highest quality. Agro-Insight, for example, has worked together with other researchers, such as the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. The organisation’s role tends to be a bit more hands-on regarding the production of videos, which has its benefits in terms of quality. ‘I think that the best examples of researcher involvement are in instances where they are developing videos together with local extension agents and farmers,’ says Woodard. ‘The researchers provide much needed content and accuracy, but the extension agents and farmers share in the storyboarding and production. When done well, this can be an inclusive process that increases local ownership and interest in the video content.’
By doing so researchers can be sure that they are creating videos that are relevant to their target audience (see http://ictforag.org/video/). However, video can be a powerful tool for communication, but it can also be detrimental if it is used to disseminate inaccurate information or techniques. ‘What I would like to see is more researchers involved in the development of messaging through content contribution and fact checking,’ explains Woodard. ‘Extension agents and other video content developers need quality and accurate information, which they may not always know on their own.’
Photo credit: Dustin Andres
Posted on 28/02/2013
Tweet
