Question 5: What are the methods for sourcing appropriate content to be delivered to farmers, what standards...
Question 5: What are the methods for sourcing appropriate content to be delivered to farmers, what standards should be followed when disseminating information to farmers, and who is best placed to manage quality assurance?
I will begin by saying that one mistake that we continue to make is ignoring content from farmers themselves - farmers' local knowlege and innovations (FLK/I). So before we jump into methods for sourcing technical/scientific content for farmers, I will like to suggest we also explore FLK/I.
If we agree that FLK/I could be useful for farmers, then we could start exploring some of the ways that ICTs could be used in sourcing this knowledge domain.
-Primarily, we could use face-to-face meeting with farmers to help identify FLK/I and "validate" it together with them.
-Mobile vans with the necessary recording equipments could be used to source content from farmers.
-Radio in combination with mobile phones could be used to source FLK/I from farmers. Radio "Phone-In" program in most parts of Africa is an excellent method. Currently, this innovation is only one-way - delivering technical information to farmers. It can also be used to allow farmers to share their local knowledge and innovations with researchers and development professionals. But in this case, since we are in need of this content, we can use "toll-free" numbers to allow farmers to share their knowledge without paying for it. That also could come from some of the partnnerships that we have discussed in the earlier questions.
-Also farmers could be trained with basic documenting tools so that while they are engaged in their local farming activities, they can also be recording these for researchers to use later in their research to improve these innovations.
And we need people who are trained and have the skills to source this type of content from farmers.
A very good point made by Benjamin.
Looking forward to others' thoughts on this.
I cannot agree more with Ben. local knowledge is critical, and ability to spread this knowledge and prevent its death by recording it through technology is also essential.
On a very close topic, I tend to believe that the myth that it might exist a standalone good content that could be pushed to farmers is a close to an utopia.
One of the reason of the success of helplines is related to the fact that farmers are getting answers from their questions, and not global information on a given topic. A sustainable and scalable approach should, imho, focus on setting up a process to build a base of content that is relevant to a group of farmers instead of defining apriori what is needed. Technology should support the connection between experts and farmers and provision of content more on-demand than apriori. It is vrey likely that what is useful for one farmer, is going to be useful for another one. So having a way to grow the content base is more important that focusing on having a content that fits all needs. In the best world, and related to the previous post, a system where farmers can both receive support when they need it, and provide supports to other when it is in their area of expertise is the ultimate solution. Obviously, building a knowledge base system that grow overtime also means that efficient search interface are required to enable farmers to take advantage of previously answered questions.
steph
Exactly, Stephane. That is the most interesting part of the mFarmer Initiative that I liked so much - the shared database of digital agricultural information. If the initiative can ensure that this content development does not follow the traditional ones by several international organizations and research institutes that are lying down idle, then I believe farmers will find it useful.
Again, Stephane! We need a dynamic database of agricultural information. Not only the growth of the database but efforts to make it up-to-date to meet the current information needs of farmers.
Ben
I think another question when considering sourcing content is what type of content? Is it information only, which expects farmers to assimilate that into their knowledge base? Or is the content knowledge?
Ben points out that knowledge from farmers is important to remember. Point taken, but I would argue that the bulk of content farmers need to improve their cropping techniques is from known sources including public and private extension services, R&D units (both private and public), and universities. One big challenge is that the content from these sources is in diverse formats. We have seen that several of the first m-extension services have faced the same challenge, trying to tackle moving this content into compatible digitized formats that can relatively easily be delivered via multiple "channels", including text messages, voice messages, call-ins to call centers staffed with AG-savvy staff, and even radio programs.
We are hoping that the shared AG content engine (part of the mFarmer initiative) now being tested in prototype by a few of these services proves useful. Roughly 70 percent of such AG content is useable across regions. The intent is to digitize the bulk of the AG content and share it across services. Services can then differentiate themselves by localizing the content, translating it into local languages and more. (If you want to learn more about this approach, see mid-way through this mFarmer intro webinar from 11/8/2011: http://vimeo.com/31808085 ).
Will this shared content database work well? The jury is still out.
Judy
Sure Judy!
My point is that utilizing farmers' local knowledge and innovations will help make the content coming from public and private extension services, R&D units (both private and public), and universities more relevant.
Most of the time we (donors, researchers, and extension workers) think we know what is best for the farmers but in reality, these farmers know what works best based on their years of working on these crops and animals.
While interviewing a cocoa extension service supervisor in Ghana in 2009, he cited an example where extension officer tried to transfer or share his technical knowledge of "planting in rows" with a local farmer. The approach is great and uesful to the farmer but its application makes it too complex for an individual farmer to use - remember Rogers Diffusion of Innovation.
Instead of using long ropes with planting distance marked on it, (with at least two required individuals to plant his maize farm), the farmer knows that by taking a step he is able to get the recommended distance and thereby reducing all the complex processes by the extension officer. That is a farmers' local innovation.
So what can we learn from that to improve content on planting?
So to tie it up with Judy's comment, there is the need to take this scientific/technical content and convert or repackage it for the farmer. It goes beyond language. But to successfully do that, we need to listen to the farmer and understand how he has been doing it all these years.
My experience with cotton farmers in Northern part of Ghana is that, they know what insecticide works best for their crops. But the Outgrower Company through its research will supply a different insecticide which the farmer will accept, take it to the market, sell it and use the money to buy what works for him.I am not sure who is the winner here though.
The issue of content is more complex on the ground than 'we' think.
Ben
Here is a mobile phone application in India that allows local farmers to post questions and for other farmers to provide answers to support peer-to-peer learning (Awaaz.De): http://awaaz.de/news/ and http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29582486/mAgri%20Working%20Group-%20Cape%20Town-%20Presentations/AwaazDe.pdf
Digital Green (www.digitalgreen.org ) also taps the power of peer-to-peer learning by using local farmers as "stars" in its AG learning videos.
Judy
The World Cocoa Foundation (WCF) in collaboration with International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) also has Video Viewing Club (VVC) in Ghana. Local farmers use these clubs to document their own practices and share with other farmers.
An example of sourcing content from farmers through ICTs.
Ben
Very good point Ben. I would like to make two comments:
1. I think its healthy to differentiate between feedback loop from the farmers on what info/ content was useful and relevant or what other type of info is required on the ground, AND actual user-generated content. With feedback actually being incredibly useful to increase the relevance of the service, content itself, content sourcing methods and understanding of the on-the-ground needs by the research units, the quality of user-generated content is a separate issue.
2. If you as a service provider take user-generated approach, its good to remember that the quality of the advice given by users to other users inevitably affects the percieved quality of the service itself. This brings us to the question of how quality assurance should be structured for user-generated model, so that it increases the value and doesn't become a bottle-neck for the scaling up of the user-generated model.