W Ill H I ”W " “W W. J I THS_ CGMM‘ MCXTJDK 3WD ABC??? E‘JE‘E :- AaH H”? it‘éf‘éUf ‘Aff EN EN SIG??? {Em-{Mi VELLE‘kGEJ: mg, ‘2 MEéTiiL STUE‘? wamsmwuw=' 1mm (,3 m r fii‘.‘s2’1?ffi&?~:§ 1988 MIWUHIIHIIWWII 3 1293 10 SSSSSS WWW“ ? Him” j Michigan State ' -~ University ABSTRACT COMMUNICATION AND ADOPTION OF AGRICULTURAL INNOVATIONS IN EIGHT INDIAN VILLAGEs: AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY By Thomas Vallamattam This is an experimental study of the functional role of communication in the process of adoption and/diffusion of agricultural innovations among farmers in eight Indian villages. The general hypothesis Of the study postulates a direct, positive relationship between communication and innovativenesg. In order to test this general hypOthesis a number of empirical hypotheses relating the various stages of the adOption process to various sources of communication are introduced. The hypotheses are supported on the whole although at a relatively low level of significance. The findings also show that hypotheses stating the relative importance of massflmedia at the awareness stage and of personal sources in the latter stages of the adoption process, as is generally true in the Western deveIOped nations, have failed to receive adequate support in the present study. This leads to the suggestion that physical and psychological availability of communication sources, especially of mass media, merits more attention and study in diffusion research in the developing nations of the world. COMMUNICATION AND ADOPTION OF AGRIOUDTURAL INNOVATIONS IN EIGHT INDIAN VILLAGES: AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY By Thomas Vallamattam A.THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF.ARTS Department of Sociology 1968 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to acknowledge all the persons involved in the UNESCO project, "Diffusion of Innovations in Rural Societies," especially Dr. Everett M. Rogers and Dr. Prodipto Roy for kindly permitting me to make use of the ”Indian Project” data for my thesis. Dr. Rogers, I gratefully add, has been the main source of much that has been said in the following pages. I extend my special thanks to late Dr. James Hundley, Dr. Christopher Sower, Dr. Hans Lee, and Anand Saxena for their aSSistance and cooperation. To Dr. Allen Beegle for his personal interest, valuable assistance and guidance I express my most sincere gratitude. 11 TABLEOFCONTENTS Chapter Page I.INTRODUCTION..................1 II. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES. . . . . . . 3 III. REVIENOFLITERATURE.............. 15 IV.DESIGN.....................26 V.FINDINGS....................36 VI.CONCLUSION...................1&6 REFERENCES...................1+9 111 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The study of the functional role of communication in the adoption and diffusion of improved agricultural practices has received ever increasing attention from rural sociologists during the past two decades. Why there is a relatively great time lag between the origin of new ideas and their diffusion in a social system is a question frequently posed by psycho- logists, sociologists, educators, and communication speci- alists. They are very much concerned about finding the best ways to communicate new ideas to potential adopters, and to *w:r~~r‘ W """*" h»... _.. _;-""‘ speed up the acceptance of new, improved practices. In the context of agricultural innovations, the problem naturally is centered around the adoption of improved farm practices, originating from all sorts of scientific research. Since the 1940's rural sociological research has produced an abundant harvest of very fruitful findings in the area of diffusion studies. Most of the studies were done in the United States or in similar developed countries. As a result of these studies a number of well-founded generalizations have been made in the context of the culture and socio- economic traditions of the Western industrialized nations. 1 2 But could these generalizations also be valid in the con- text of countries like India that are less developed econom- ically, traditional in societal values and norms, and are greatly different from the industrialized West in culture, level of education and and the like? Despite these dif- ferences could some of the generalizations made in the West be extended to these developing areas as well? This is a problem that has become the focus of diffusion research in recent years. The present study is designed to shed some light on this important problem. To be more precise, this study is an attempt to answer the following questions: What different sources of communica- «M .m ".34 ‘_ tion are generally utilized by North Indian farmers? Is it u r- ,. "J— ~~wfl d _, Q I‘m—“'& _” WWW possible that certain patterns of communication behavior 'J lare more generally suited, and therefore more fruitfully ‘ used, at particular stages of the adoption process? That is the 23mparative importance of government-sponsored change agencies? What role does mass media play in diffusing uni-F" innovation? And how do various sources of communication HMM-fl’d' ' correlate with the awareness, interest, and adoption stage ofdagricultural innovation adoption process? These are stimulating questions and we will be trying to answer them in this study. Answers to these questions are indeed crucial at arriving at principles of diffusion that are valid for the whole world of farmers, transcending their psychological, cultural, educational, and social differences. CHAPTER II CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES The main purpose Of this chapter is to delineate the meaning of the fundamental concepts involved in the present study, and to introduce the main hypotheses with whichwe will be dealing in the following chapters. A conceptual. clarification, such as the one presented in this chapter, we believe, provides a general theoretical framework for our present inquiry. Elements of Diffusion There are four crucial elements in the analysis of the diffusion Of innovations: (1) innovation, (2) communication, .- h.- 1, (3) social system, and (h) time.1 1. Innovation An innovation is an idea perceived as new by the indivi- dual. It really matters little, as far as human behavior is concerned, whether or not an idea is objectively new as measured by the amount of time elapsed since its first use or discovery. It is the newness of the idea to the individual 1 fl Cf. Rogers, Everett M., Diffusion of Innovations, rree Press Of Glencoe, New York, 1932, pp. 12-19. 3 4 and the individual's reaction to it that characterizes its innovativeness. In the present study we are primarily con- cerned with agricultural innovations. 2. Communication Diffusion is the process by which innovation spreads. The diff::ion process is the spread of a new idea from its source of invention to its ultimate users or adopters. The essence Of the diffusion process is the human interaction in which one person communicates a new idea, in our case a new agricultural practice, to another person. Thus the diffusion process consists of: (l) a new idea, (2) individual A who knows about the innovation, and (3) individual B who does not yet know about the innovation. Communication may be defined as the way in which informae tion and/or influence is spread.1 Communication_channels could be viewed as either institutionalized or non-J institutionalized. An institutionalized channel is defined as a group organized for the purpose Of the communication of information.2 In the context of agricultural innovations such an organization is primarily expected to disseminate knowledge and ideas about improved agricultural practices to farmers. Ageggs such as agricultural_extension officers, c" village level workers, county agents, food production lCf. Rogers, E. M., 92. g;§., p. 99. 2Of. Dasgupta, Satadal, "Communication and Innovation in Indian Villages“, Social Forces #3, 1965, p. 331. 5 assistants, and media such as farm Journals, extension 5% h—w bulletins and the like, do serve as institutionalized sources of communication in the diffusion process. The non-institutionalized channels consist Of peers, neighbors, relatives, friends, and commercial dealers. They are not organized for the purpose of the dissemination of informa- tion, although they may act as very important channels Of communication. Another classification, frequently used in the literature, is that of personal versus impersonal communications. Personal my “size. communications involve a direct face-to-face exchange between so—*_,____" i the communicator and the receiver. Impersonal communications do not involve a direct face-to-face exchange between the ‘v communicator and the receiver. Impersonal communications nearly always are spread via a mass communication medium. They function mainly as rapid, one-way, efficient dispensers ‘of information. Communication sources may also be classified according ..... fiflmw‘m' Law-Jul“ -T"’ to their degree of cosmopoliteness. Cosmopolite information -. "A!" “ ‘ ‘r‘ "' ‘ ‘ . i'-_ _ \‘m‘ “" ‘ 'l‘u~ ‘ about innovations comes from outside of the social system. If information about new ideas reaches the individual from sources inside of the social system, they are called localite ”M sources. MM”.-. 3. Social System A social system is defined as a population of individuals who are functionally differentiated and engaged in collective 6 problem-solving behavior. The social system with which we are concerned, in the present study, is that of the farmers in eight North Indian villages, each considered as a distinct social system. The members Of such a social system are individuals, although these individuals may represent formal or informal groups at different levels. Not all individuals in a social system play equivalent roles in diffusing innovations. One individual may tell only one other person about an innovation while another person will diffuse the new idea to many others. For example, individual A may tell not only individual B, but also C, D, E, and F about the innovation. The individuals like A in a social system, who Often tell many others about new ideas, are called Opinion leaders. Opinion leaders may be defined as those individuals from whom others seek information and advice. So far, only diffusion within a social system has been considered, but it is Obvious that the new idea must be invented or created within the system, or it must enter the system from an external source. An individual is said to be a cosmopolite if he received the new idea from a source outside of his social system. Cosmopoliteness is the degree . ,—---—- aw.- thEQ¥EQ an individual's orientation is external tO'a particular social system. '— ~“““ Opinion leaders are most often members of the social system in which they exert their influence. In some cases individuals with influence in the social system are 7 professional persons representing organizations external to the sOcial system. A change agent is a professional person who attempts to influence adoption decisions in a direction that he feels is desirable. #. Time What happens after individual B learns about a new idea from individual A? Under certain conditions B may decide to adopt the new idea. Adoption is a decision to continue full use Of an innovation. The adoption process is the mental process through which an individual passes from first hearing about an innovation to final adoption. It may be divided into dif- ferent stages. A division commonly used by rural sociologists is:l ”_fi 1. Awareness. At this stage the individuals is aware Of the new idea, but lacks detailed information about it. -~7;2. Interest. At this stage the individual becomes interested in the idea and seeks more information about it. 3. Evaluation. At this stage the individual makes a mental application of the new idea to his present and anticipated future situation and makes the decision either to try it or not. #. Trial. The individual at this stage uses the new practice on a small scale to validate its workability on his own farm. 5. Adoption. At this stage the individual uses the new practice on a full scale and incorporates it into his way of farming. 10f. Rogers, E0 Me, 920 Me, pp. 81-860 8 The adoption process differs from the diffusion process in that the adoption process deals with adoption of a new idea by one individual while the diffusion process deals {at ‘V-o‘H-‘HVW ”hm-unn- with the spread of new ideas in a social system. “t t”' \h' ‘3' ‘ 8.1““. u“! Farmers adopt practices at different times. Innovative- W ness is the degree to which an individual is relatively earlier in adopting new ideas than the other members of his social system. Adopter categories are the classifications of individuals within a social system on the basis of innova- tiveness. The distribution of farmers adopting a new idea by year of adoption generally has the shape of a normal curve. This characteristic Of the diffusion curve permits distributing farmers into four categories.1 The first to adopt a new practice are innovators. Those in the second category Of farmers to adopt a new practice are called early adopters. The majority of adopters fall into the third category. For some purposes this category may be divided into the early and late majority. The last farmers to try new practices may be referred to as late adopters or laggards. The categories set forth above are ideal types. Actually there are no pronounced breaks in the innovative- ness continuum among each of the categories. le. Rogers, E. M., 92. cit., pp. 168-171. Adoption of an Innovation 1 The paradigm Of the adoption of an innovation by an individual (Figure 1) contains three major divisions: (1) antecedents, (2) process, and (3) results. Antecedents are those factors present in the situation2 prior to the introduction of an innovation. They are of two major types: (1) the actor's identity, and (2) his perceptions of the situation. The actor's identity, which affects the adoption of innovations, is comprised of his sense of security, his dominant values, his mental ability and conceptual Skill, his social status, and his cosmOpoliteness. The actor's perception of the situation affects his adoption behavior. The social system's norms on innovative- ness serve aswincentives or restraints on his behavior. The economic constraints and incentives, and the characteristics of the unit ( farm, church, schOOl, etc.) also affect adop- tion behavior. \- Information sources play important roles.in.the adoption “I.“ process. This is true of every stage in the process of adoption and diffusion. 0-" ....... --""' (.n- The characteristics of the new practice, as perceived by the individual, do influence the adoption process. The main characteristics affecting the rate of adoption are: lor. Rogers, E. M., op. cit., p. 301. 2AdOption of a new idea by an individual is a type of action. According to Parsons and Shils (Toward a General Theory of Action, Cambridge, Mass., 1952, p. 56) an act consists of three basic elements: (1) an actor, (2) orient- ing to. (3) a situation. .oom .m .mwma ..M .2 .mmonm ovum one .msoapmbossH no sOamsmhaa ..z .m .mnowom* H Ohswam Ammosamsn .Hoosom .shmmv pass on» no moupmahopomnmso .n soapaoomsos madaanm0«sssaoo .m mo>apsoosd use oossapsoo hpdaandmaban .: mpsamnpmsoo Odsosoom .N hpawoaasoo .m , hpaaanapmasoo .N moosobdpm>ossa so Owensmbom opapdaem .H memos aopmhm Hedoom .H cosmssapsoo soapmbossH on» no imam moapmahopomhmso oe> bosom v. mmmoomm onamooe soapOOnOm /. x. 7” > >H HHH HH H a» /n\_ ,/ soapaood Adana soapmsaebm pmcnopsH amazenmzd m soapaoom \ xx 9/ >/ @/ mmosopaaomosmoo .m \. a» . m # . museum Hoaoom .: eodooooe H l m w x x Hmsomnoasanassomnom .N M M HHaxm Heapmoosoo \\ m mmosopaaomosmoo .H M W use madaanm House: .m eoaooooo_\\ n. R / moods .N ooecasooo . r i , moonsom sOHOOSHomsH muoaxsduhpansoom .a / vapsocH m.HOpo4 mausmmm mmmuomm mezmnmomazd s: u amgmwm ammoom 4 szmHsir . seeoHsHazH 24 am ona¢>ozzH 24 so onamome may so soHnemem ll realtive advantage, compatibility, complexity, divisibility, and communicability of the innovation.1 The conclusion of the adoption process is either adoption or rejection of the idea. An innovation may be adopted at the conclusion of the adoption process and may be (1) used continuously, or (2) rejected at a later date, a discontinuance. This is a brief outline of current research and theory that has been reported in the fields Of social psychology, sociological theory, and the traditions of diffusion research. Hypotheses l. The Variables The specific objective of the present study is to assess the relative importance of different communication sources as they are related to the diffusion of innovations among farmers in North India. The dependent variables of this study, therefore, are the awareness of, the interest in, and the adoption of improved agricultural practices. Communica- tion measures constitute the independent variables. They include agricultural radio program listening, newspaper um~fl , exposure, film exposure, and change agent contact. Radio . n .o a“). . -,. H... “figu- -- «v wr— ‘ Mung” rfOrums, leadership training, and literacy treatment constitute the control variables. lee Rogers, E0 M0, 930 9%., pp. 1214-1330 12 2. General Hypothesisl Innovativeness varies directly with communication. In other words social systems that are more exposed to all g 10 a. b. Ce d. 20 a. b. Co d. 30 a. b. 00 sorts of communication sources are more innovative. ""‘Vl- III-Nip... u M“ a...” 'mm'flwafi 3. Empirical Hypotheses2 Awareness of agricultural innovations varies directly with listening to radiO agricultural programs. @7' H Awareness of agricultural innovations varies directly with newspaper exposure. Awareness of agricultural innovations varies directly with film exposure. Awareness of agricultural innovations varies directly with change agent contact. «r: gnu-“v u Mam—nu «agar Ml. —'__,; / Interest in new agricultural practices varies directly with listening to radio agricultural programs. Interest in new agricultural practices varies directly with newspaper exposure. Interest in new agricultural practices varies directly with film exposure. Interest in new agricultural practices varies directly with change agent contact. Adoption Of agricultural innovations varies directly with listening to radio agricultural programs. AdOption of agricultural innovations varies directly with newspaper exposure. Adoption of agricultural innovations varies directly with film exposure. 1Rogers defines a general hypothesis as ”the postulated relationship between two conceptual variables." Rogers, E. M., 92' 912': P0 3090 2"The postulated relationship between two operational measures of conceptual variables," is called an empirical hypothesis. Rogers, E. Me, 920 Cite, p. 3090 13 d. Adoption of agricultural innovations varies directly with change agent contact. 4. a. Relationship between agricultural innovation awareness and the use of mass media will be higher than that of agricultural innovation awareness and change agent contact. b. Relationship between agricultural innovation interest and change agent contact will be higher than that of agricultural innovation interest and the use of mass media. c. 'Relationship between agricultural innovation adoption and change agent contact will be higher than that of agricultural innovation adoption and the use of mass media. The fourth empirical hypothesis is based upon the assumption that at the awareness stage themass media play W..-—» -. a more important role than change agent contact. But at ‘.1-n.¢_.pMJu-l'l‘l‘ ‘ ' W the interest and adoption stages it is assumed that change agents_constitute more important sources of communication than the impersonal mass media. Summary This chapter attempted to delineate the conceptual framework for this study of the adoption and diffusionkof innovations. The action theory of Parsons and Shils as adopted by Rogers provides a general frame of reference for the consideration of how innovations spread. This frame of reference suggests that adOption of a new idea by an indivi- dual is a type of action. This conception of adOption behavior implies that it is oriented toward attaining goals, it takes place in situations, and it is normatively oriented. The hypotheses that have been presented in the latter part 14 of this chapter arise out of this conceptual framework. For the study of communication variables as directly related \—..--——...r..«a .. . y... - star-Aehulm‘,m“‘w I ”my.” a"? to adoption and diffusion is central to the analysis of the W situational field. CHAFTER III REVIEW OF ELTERATUBE It is only since the l9h0's that diffusion became part of the mainstream of rural sociological research. Since then every diffusion researcher in this tradition has touched either directly or indirectly upon the functionaIWt role of communication in the process of diffusion and adop- giéfing _u M”. a” Charles R. Hoffer studied the adoption of farm practices by Michigan celery growers of Dutch descent in 1942.1 Although Hoffer's main interest was centered around the adoption of new celery-growing ideas, and not 0n,§9Wmthe~e ideas were communicated, yet the study has become a classic M.-. . wow «‘v a..." flu...» 1.4—...“ I H“. “‘Ib'o-vw .- "“vfimfl. for its use of an experimental design. Hoffer's experimental design included a ”control" sample and a "treatment" sample who received mailing of the bulletin in Dutch and English. From the study Hoffer came to the conclusion that the language of the literature did not have any considerable impact on adoption, and his respondents' values of frugality were a major barrier to the adoption of new practices. lHoffer, Charles R., Acceptance of Approved Farming Practices Among Farmers of Dutch Descent, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Special Bulletin 313, East Lansing, 1942. 15 16 In 1943 Ryan and Gross investigated the adoption of hybrid corn in Iowa.1 This research more than any other influenced the methods, findings, and interpretation of later studies in rural sociology diffusion research tradi- tion. The Ryan and Gross study showed that the typical farmer first heard of hybrid corn from salesmen, but neigh- bors were the most influential in leading to adoption. Salesmen were more important information source for early adopters, and neighbors were more important for late adopters. The first study in this area to utilize a sociometrio approach was that of Coleman (1946) in his analysis of the adoption of soil conservation practices by Illinois farmers.2 The importance of peer influences upon farmers' adoption was emphasized by Coleman's study.”mfl-n W Two important scholars in this tradition entered the field in the late 1940's; namely, Herbert F. Lionberger and Eugene A. Wilkening. Lionberger originally directed his research in Missouri toward the investigation of sources of farmflinfgrmationmused lRyan, Bryce and Gross, Neal C., "The Diffusion of Hybrid Seed Corn in Two Iowa Communities," Rgral Sociology 8, 15-24, 1943. 2Coleman, A. Lee, Some Aspects of Human Relations in Soil Consegygtion, Washington, D. C., U. S. D. A., B.A.E. unpublished report. 17 by low-income farmers.1 Lionberger later became more interested in tracing the importance of community norms, traditionalism-modernism, social status, and opinion leader- ship in the informal transmission of new ideas via word of mouth.2 While studying distinct stages in the adoption process, Lionberger observed that influence of information sources varied with different stages in the adoption process. “He” » found that at the awareness stage mass media were the most -wn-u-u-M ‘5‘ important sources of information. ,- - van-v- va-w ,1 v ‘9 “a . -- -‘.¢-. 'fl" Wilkening, contemporary of Lionberger, first studied adoption by North Carolina farmers and then by Wisconsin farmers.3 Wilkening's North Carolina studies were the first to utilize a social-psychological approach to determine relationships among attitudes, valueszand group attachments, and innovativeness. His efforts in Wisconsin have partic- ‘- ularly centered around the influence of the farm family on adoption decisions. Wilkening reported that various information sources“ are uSed to obtain different types of information. More Mm ‘L ~“:_fi-‘xrv‘0vl*!‘\ \ “ML“ Q g) lLionberger, Herbert F., Soupces and Use of Farm and t o w-I come Fa e s M ssou , Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bulletin 472, 1951. 2Lionberger, Herbert F., The Relation of Informal Social Groups to the Diffusion of Farm Information in a North-East Missouri Farm Community, Rural Sociology 19, 233-2h3, 1954- 3Wilkening, Eugene.A., Aggeptange o; Dgp;gvgg FEE! zrgggiggg, Raleigh, North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 98. Ref. No. #3, “Sources of Information for Improved Farm Practices,“ fig;§l_§29;glggx_158 10-30, 1950. 18 specifically the mass media are used primarily as source of .o—g-MM OW- 1W _..__( "first knowledge" "about agricultural innovations. Extension mm:~. agents are utilized to obtain the detailed instruction for a, “#1 putting practice into effect and to help in decision making. otherfifarmers, relatives, and neighbors too help considerably in the decision making process. George M. Beal (1958) studying various farm innovations in Iowa found that personal sources exercised a disprOpor- tionately larger influence at the evaluation or decision making stage where local legitimization was requisite for further action.1 , Regarding the relative importance of personal and impersonal communications at each stage in the adOption of 2, h-D weed spray, data were obtained by Beal and Ragers from 1h8 Iowa farmers (1958).2 The percentage of respondentsw mentioning a personal information source increases from 37% at the awareness stage to 50% at the interest stage, and 63% at the evaluation stage. Impersonal sources are more important than personal sources only at the awareness stage for 2,#-D weed spray. Similar patterns in the importance of personal and impersonal communications in the adoption process are shown 1Beal, George M., Infoxgation Sources in the Decision- Making nggess, Paper presented at the Rural Sociological Society, Pullman, Washington, 1958. 2Rogers, Everett M. and Wicky L. Meynene, Communication Sourges fog 2,h-Q weed Spray among Cglombign Peasants, Reprinted from Rural Sociology, Vol. 30, No. 2, June 1965, pp. 213-219. are? 19 in data obtained from 175 farmers from Pennsylvania by Copp and others (1958).1 The findings of Campbell (1959)2, Rogers and Leuthold (l962)3, and Rogers and Burdge (1961)“ show that cosmopolitecc sources of information are more important than localite ‘ ‘mmfi-‘W sources for relatively early adopters of innovation than later adopters. In recent years several U.S. rural sociologists have completed research studies on foreign countries using essen- tially similar methods to those found in the United States. Wilkening's study, "Communication and Acceptance of Recommended Farm Practices among Dairy Farmers of Northern Victoria“ (Australia, 1962) is wellknown.5 'In general the findings of this study support the findings mentioned above. From Lindstrom's study in Japan in 1958 it is clear that mass media play a very important role at the awareness 1Copp, James H. and others, The Function of Information ifi the Farm Practice Adoption Process, Rural Sociology 23, l ‘1579 19580 2Campbell, Herbert L., Factors Related to Differential Use of Information Sources, M. S. Thesis, Iowa State University, Ames. 1959- 3Rogers, Everett M. and Frank O. Leuthold, Demonstrators and the Diffusion of Fertilizer Practices, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bulletin 908, Wooster, Ohio, 1962. “Rogers, Everett fM., and Rabel J. Burdge, Muck Vegetable Growers: Diffusion of Innovations amon S ecialized Farmers, Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station Research Circular 95, Wooster, Ohio, 1961. 5Wilkening, Eugene A., Joan Tully, and Hartley Presser, Communication and Acc_ptance of WRecommended Farm Practices among Dairy Farmers of Northern WVictoria, Reprinted from Rural Sociology, Vol. 27, No. 2, June 1962. 20 stage.1 Yet influences leading to adoption come from trusted and reliable agents in the community who can find and con- vince those of influence among the people to try out the new practice. A.number of foreign researchers, often well-acquainted with rural sociological diffusion research trends in U. S. A. have done a number of fruitful studies in their home-countries. van den Bar in the Netherlands (1965) has a number of studies to his credit.2 The findings in general show that about three-quarters of the farmers first learn about the existence of new farm practices via mass communication.media, but these media have lost all their importance by the time the decision is actually made. Three-quarters of the farmers {i said that they go by what they hear and see in personal con:/// tact, largely a.matter of contact with other farmers. The progressive farmers, however, also occasionally decide to adopt new practices on the basis of discussions with exten- sion officers. Benvenuti's studies both in Italy and the Netherlands (1958) report findings similar to those of van den Bar.3 Martin B. McMillan's 1960 study of the sources of information and factors which influence farmers in adapting lLindstrom, David 3., Diffusion of Agricultural and Home Economics Practices in a Japanese Rural Community, 3315; W 239 171‘1839 19580 2van den Bar, Anne W., The Communication of New Farm Practices in the Netherlands, §2§iglogi§ Neegdangiga, 2, l-l8, 1965. 3Benvenuti, 3., Farming in Cultural Chagge,.Assen, van Gorcum, Netherlands, 19 2. 21 recommended practices in two New Zealand countries resulted 1 Face-to-face media had more in the following conclusions. effect on the farm practice score than any other factors. 95% of the farmers had received information directly from an agricultural specialist since they had started farming. Frank O. Leuthold' study of “Communication and Diffusion of Improved Farm Practices in Two Northern Saskatchewan Farm Communities (1965), Canada, showed that mass media in general and farm magazines in particular represent one of the most important sources of farm innovations.2 Only farm.dealers and other farmers are indicated as being more important sources. Another study done in Canada is by C. Jain in his “The Relation of Information Sources to the Farm Practice Adoption and Farmers' Characteristics in Waterloo County (1965).3 Magazines, peers, and bulletins were the main sources of ”first knowledge." At the interest stage informal sources “Mn..-"— played the most important role.“ Maximum influence was exerted by personal sources at the evaluation stage. 1McMillion, Martin B., The Sogrge of Irforrgtrog and Factor; rhigh Irrlggnge Egrggrg in égopring Begorrerdgd Pragtiggg in Era New Zealand nggtieg, Technical Publication 19, Canterbury Agricultural College, Christ Church, New Zealand, 1960. zLeuthold, Frank 0., Communigatiog and Dirmgigg o: oved Fa P 0 Two No he Saskatc ew Communities, Center for Community Studies Mimeo Report, Saskattoon, Saskatchewan, 1965. 3Jain, Navin Chand, The Bglarrgr of Information Sogrge Use to the Farr Prestige Adortion and Fargers' Characteristrgs in Waterloo Countz, M. S. Thesis, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada, 1965. La" " 22 Delbert T. Myron, studying Mexican fam communities in 1962, came to the following conclusion regarding the importance of mass media at the awareness stage of adoption process as generalized by American diffusion researchers.1 The generalization, says Myren, about the importance of mass media can be applied only to areas where these media simulate widely and where, equally important, they command attention and deal with questions of interest to farmers in comprehen- sible terms, and when the mass media system shares many of the goals, norms, and motivations of the different segments of the farm audiences. In the area in Mexico that Myren studied, it is reported, neither of the above conditions was adequately met. Paul J. Deutchman and Orlando Pals Borda in the study, "Communication and Adoption Patterns in an Andean Village“, (Columbia - 1962) report that the most manifest difference between communication channels in U. S. farm communities and Saucio (Andean Village) consisted in the means by which information was delivered, reflecting the paucity of 2 availability of mass media in the Colombia situation. luyren, Delbert '13., . H.:=-s_.:..-.-‘ Q~D 1-1on 40d. r-toabo’ t M , Paper presented at Rural Sociological SOOiOty, Washington, De Ce, 1962e 2Deutschmann, Paul J. and Pals Borda, Orlando, Cum-Act” an. ., :te.e- _. :9. Programme Interamericano de Informacion Popular, San Jose, COBt‘ 3108, 1962e 23 Only 1.2% of the informants were first informed via mass 'media. Vastly greater importance of 'word-of-mouth' as a source of information about innovations was evident in Saucio: 4“ per cent. 3. A. Rahim (1965) has done a number of studies on diffusion among Pakistan farmers.l In general his findings show that farmers lean heavily on personal information and advice in.making decisions regarding acceptance of new ideasr//, Inayatullah's 196“ study, “Communication and Innovation in a Pakistani Village" shows the following results.2 The ‘mass media played almost no role in diffusing of information about innovations in the area of agriculture. Most of the information.came from formal or informal personal media of communication, informal sources playing a greater role than formal media. India with its 550,000 villages provide a fertile ground for agricultural diggugion research in developing areas. There have been in th: recent past more than 70 studies done in India in this field. The following studiesideal directly with communication variables. lBahim, 8e As, C'W 'v‘_ 3 4. - . '. ' * V l i;e, Pakistan Academy for Rural , 33” Pakistan, 1965. Develonment,‘Comil 2Inayatullah, yang; -: ,.. oiov: a‘ Erllggg, Unpublished Paper, International Development Institute, East-West Center, Hawaii, 1964. 24 vasudeo B. Rahdukar studied a community development block in Maharastra State (1963).1 In this study the diffu- sion process showed a "I” pattern of communication. The farm information from the extension agencies and mass media first reaches the larger farmers who are the first adopters of the practice in a village. This information is later transmitted to the smaller farmers, who are late adopters of a new practice. B. N. Singh and P. N. Jha (1965) studied the utilization of sources of farm information.in relation to adoption of improved agricultural practices in a community development block in Sabour attached to Bihar Agricultural College.2 In general the non-institutionalized sources of information were rated high in the advanced stages of information. The village level worker was considered to be the most important source of information in all stages of adoption. Of the non-institutionalized sources, neighbors and friends, and village leaders were used in order of preference, as sources of information. Demonstration was the best channel, followed by exhibitions and films. In 1965 Satadal Dasgupta reported the following conclusions after doing research on “Communication and Innovation in Indian Vill‘ge.e I lRahudkar, Wasudeo B., Communication of Farm Innovations, in an Indian Community, I d Jan of c No k 23, 99-103 9 19 63s 28ingh, B. N. and Jha, P. N., Utilization of Sources of Farm Information in Relation to Adoption of Improved Agricul- tural Practices, 1 Journal of E ension Ed t on 33-42, 1965. 25 l. Institutionalized sources of information such as extension agents were utilized more by the innovators and early adapters than by the late adopters. 2. Non-institutionalized sources of information such as neighbors, relatives, and friends were more frequently used by late adopters than by the early adopters and innovators. 3. Innovators and early adopters obtained information more frequently from the farmers of other villages than did the late adopters. 4. Commercial dealers were reported as a source of information more by the early adapters and the innovators than by the late adopters. 5. Newspapers were reported as source of information by only a few innovators. Neither of the other two adopter categories reported them as a source of information. 6. The findings show that the farmers of higher economic status depend more on institutionalized agencies while the farmers of lower status utilize non- institutionalized sources, although there is equal use of “other farmers” and commercial dealers by all status groups. W The development of diffusion research in rural sociology was relatively slow in the 1930's and 1940's. But the number of studies in this tradition increased rapidly in the 1950's and early 1960's. Ryan and Gross's analysis of the diffusion of hybrid corn led directly to investigations of correlates of innovativeness, and especially communication sources at various stages in the adoption process. The literature reviewed in this chapter in the main is concerned with communication variables as they are related to adoption and diffusion process. ImBSuPtae Satadal, 9.20 2320’ PP- 336.3370 CHAPTER IV ESIG The present study is based on data collected from a k W-..“ larger communication study done in India. The original study was sponsored by the UNESCO under the supervision of Dr. Prodipto Boy of the National Institute of Community Deve10p- ment, Hyderabad, India.1 The broad objectives of the UNESCO project were: 1. To determine the impact of communication on the spread of selected agricultural and health practices. ”/ 2. To determine the factors affecting the acceptance of innovations. 3. To describe the total process of difrusion of innovations. The research p::3ect was an attempt to gather reasonably intensive data on selected villages, “experimentally" bring about diffusion of certain selected practices, and to study and evaluate the results. amiss In October 1963 Uttar Pradesh was chosen as the State in which the project should be located. The major reasons 1The present chapter is based on the preliminary report, "The Impact of Communication on Rural DevelOpment in India,“ by Dr. Prodipto Roy, National Institute of Community Development, Hyderabad, India, 1967. 26 27 for this selection were: (a) The propinquity of the NICD to Incknow, the State capital, which had facilities to implement all three of the experimental treatments, radio forum, leaderShip training, and literacy programs, effectively because (1) it has a Literacy House; (2) it has an All India Radio Station; (3) it has a host of Community Development Training Centers through which the leadership training pro- gram could effectively be organized. (b) Competent research investigators would be available because Lucknow University has well-known departments of Anthropology, Sociology, and Social Work. (c) The area is neither exceptionally well- developed nor backward and that would provide a reasonably representative sample area. Members of the research staff of the National Institute tentatively selected 24 villages from the Kakori and Chinhat, two adjoining blocks around Lucknow, in October 1963, on the basis of on-the-spot examination of block records. Additional information from knowledgeable persons in each of the 24 villages was gathered in order to make the final choices. In early 1964 8 villages were finally selected - 4 in each block. The villages selected are typical north Indian villages as to size, composition, norms, and ways of life. 0 at The research staff during the pre-baseline data collec- tion gathered a list of about 100 practices from which the final practices were selected. Four major criteria were used for the final selections: (a) Applicability in all 28 villages; (b) Suitable to be included in all the three communication treatments; (e) Salient to people in villages and agencies of change; (d) Adoption level 0 to 60 per cent with a potential for increasing by the end of the experiment. The final selection included 12 agricultural practices, 7 agricultural machinery items, 7 health practices, and 4 social education practices. W The interviewing for the baseline mrvey started during April 1964 and required almost three months to complete. A bilingual schedule (English and Hindi) was used for the interviewing. The survey was conducted to include all heads of households residing in the selected villages. A total of 702 respondents were thus interviewed. For one reason or another 10-15 per cent of the household heads could not be interviewed. W After a fairly lengthy period of training and prepara- tion the three field experiments were started in February 1965 and continued until March 1966. 1. Radio Treatment‘ Rural broadcasting is one way of teaching farmers. It is worked out from centrally located radio stations which reach a vast number of distant village people simultaneously, instructing them in new methods of agriculture. A radio forum, on the other hand, is a club of about 10-20 villagers 29 who wish to listen in an organized way to selected radio programs, to use such programs as a starting point for discussion among themselves, to increase their knowledge through such programs, and hopefully to adopt some of the practices learned through this process. In short, a radio forum is a listening cum-d1scussionpcum-action group of villagers. After the benchmark survey was over, two villages - Bhuhar and Atrauli - were selected for Radio Farm Formm treatment. It was not a surprise to find out that there were no radios in these villages. Nor were these villages ever exposed to radio listening by any public or private organizations. The broadcasts gave information on agricultural ideas and health practices to the listeners. The listeners, then, discussed the "pros“ and ”cons" of the new practices in the forum.and arrived at some conclusions. They made certain decisions regarding the trial and adoption of the practices discussed. The forum members in their informal meeting with their friends and neighbours not only place the contents of the broadcast before them, but also the opinions of the other members and the decisions taken in the group. Such meetings were the venue where newly acquired knowledge and ideas were transferred from well-informed persons to a secondary audience of less-informed famers. 30 2. Animation Treatment Animation is a method of intensified oral communica- tion on rural development, with the object of developing local leadership in this field. For this treatment, one brings 3-5 persons, representing different villages, to a training center at least for the period of two weeks. The director of the training center discusses with them what they can do about the development of their villages. Much stress is laid on the necessity of establishing a free atmosphere in this training center, where the whole group discusses village problems on an equal footing. In this way one attempts to break down the suspicion of the village people toward government officials and convince them of the important role they have to play in the development of their communities. When the participants of the training center return to their village, the villagers tend to be anxious to learn about what these selected participants have been exposed to, and they in turn can proceed to pass on their*newly acquired ideas. In other words, they play the role of opinion leaders to the village people at large. In order to maintain their ability to influence the village community, and to prevent them from falling back to old attitudes, the former participants of the leadership training centers are visited regularly by the center director. In the UNESCO project Dasdodi and Uttardhanua were the two villages selected for the animation treatment. 31 3. Literacy Treatment The literacy experiment for this project was organized in coordination with the “Literacy House,“ Lucknow. The program covered both the literate and illiterate people. For literate people reading forums were organized and Village Libraries were established. For illiterate people literacy classes were started. .At the end of these literacy classes, these groups were converted into "Reading Forums“. The objectives of organizing these adult literacy classes were not only to teach the villagers to read and write, but also to make them functionally literate; that is, to stimulate them to use reading and writing in their daily life. The village selected for literacy experiment were Barawan Khurd and Sikandarpur Khurd. Reading forums were held once a week in these villages to teach villagers more about modern agricultural practices, develop their interests, and persuade them to adOpt new practices. Each forum was led by a ”Toll Naik" (Group Leader). Wages Karimabad and Bahadurpur constituted the control villages. These villages were exposed to the regular block programs but not to the treatments as additional inputs in the form of communication experiments. §2£EIZEI The resurvoy interviewing was done between May and July 1966. A total of 567 interviews out of the 702 potential 32 interviewees were successfully completed. The attrition of about 20 per cent was largely due to nonpavailability of respondents. The data were analyzed at the computer laboratory at Michigan State University, East Lansing. In the comparative analysis, since agricultural innova- tions constituted the dependent variables, the respondents who cultivated no land were excluded. Further, respondents from whom complete data on other crucial variables were not available were excluded from the analysis. Table 1 shows the number of informants in the various samples. 0 t o D t s of R ev t V a e v” 1. Dependent Variables The agricultural innovation agareness indexgwas con- ,fiu,‘-‘-~‘ , .m. "mam. structed as the number of the following ten przctices that the respondent was aware of at the time of interviewing. The practices are: line sowing, Japanese method of paddy cultivation, use of green manure, ammonium.sulphate, modern plough, insecticides, improved paddy seeds, improved potato seeds, inoculation for animal diseases, and use of super- phosphate. The agricultural innovation interestwindex was constructed as the number of the ten practices:mentionedmabove in which the respondent was interested at the time of interviewing. The agricultural innovation adoption index was constructed as the number of the ten practices listed above which the respondent had adopted at the time of interviewing. 33 TABLE 1. Number of Informants in the various Samples Treatment Village Benchmark Resurvey Analytical Sample Barawan 139 109 92 Khurd Ldteracy Sikanderpur 39 37 33 Khurd Bhuhar 61 53 “1 Radio Fbrmms Atrauli 60 #2 39 Dasdodi 82 71 55 Leadership Training Uttardhanua 141 124 “102 Karimabad 80 51 4# Control Bahadurpur 100 80 57 Totals 702 567 #63 31+ 2. Independent Variables The radio agricultural listening index was constructed as the number of the following programs to which the respondent used to listen at the time of interviewing. The programs are: panohayatghar, radio farm forum, market report, and weather forecast. The newspaper exposure index was constructed as the number of the following three items to which the respondent answered affirmatively at the time of interviewing. The items are: respondent reads newspaper; respondent receives agricultural information from the newspaper; respondent receives health information from the newspaper. The film exposure index was constructed as the number of the following four types of films to which the respondent was exposed at the time of interviewing. The four types of films are: agricultural information films, health infome- tion films, extension films, and general films. The ‘51.?“39359‘3'5 contact~index was constructed as the number ofigzllowing agents whom the respondent had con- tacted at the time of interviewing. The change agents are: village level worker, block development officer, medical doctor, agricultural development officer, cooperative development officer, panchayat development officer, veterinary doctor, school teacher, and pradhan. The agricultural mass media exposure index was constructed as the number of the following mass media to which the respon- dent was exposed at the time of interviewing. The media are: radio, newspaper, and film. 35 We Using the indices mentioned above zero-order Pearsonian correlation coefficients were computed in order to test the empirical hypotheses. F test was applied to find out the significance level. The criterion for accepting the hypotheses was set at five per cent level of significance. m The UNESCO project was designed to determine the impact of radio forums, leadership training, and literacy programs on the spread of selected agricultural and health practices. With this in.mind a baseline study was done to establish the level of knowledge of, interest in, and adoption of selected agricultural and health practices. Then an experiment was conducted to examine the effect of the three communication treatments mentioned above on the knowledge, interest, and adoption of selected practices. In short, the research project included the study of (a) a complex of innovations, (b) three experimental variables, and (c) a complex of situation variables. CHAPTER V FINDINGS As a general hypothesis of this study we stated that there is a positive relationship between communication and adoption behavior. In order to test this general hypothesis we framed a number of empirical hypotheses, relating aware- ness, interest, and adoption stages of the adoption process to various communication variables. The purpose of this chapter is to present the statistical findings of the present study as they touch upon the various empirical hypotheses. In the latter part of this chapter a discussion of the findings will follow. W ‘afi Awareness of agricultural innovations varies directly with listening to radio agricultural pmgrm as b. Awareness of agricultural innovations varies directly with newspaper exposure. fc. Awareness of agricultural innovations varies directly with film exposure. a; Awareness of agricultural innovation varies directly with change agent contact. All four hypotheses, except hypothesis (a) in Bhuhar restudy, (c) in Bhuhar benchmark, and (d) in Bhuhar restudy, 36 3? receive support as is indicated in Table 2. When.the analysis is made in terms of all the eight villages com- bined the hypotheses are supported at 0.05 level of significance in the benchmark and the restudy. But in the village by village analysis there are a number of situations in which the four hypotheses do not receive the expected support at the 0.05 level of significance. This shows that although the findings in general support the general hypo- thesis, the magnitude of the relationship is not very high. H e s 2 a. Interest in agricultural innovations varies directly with listening to radio agricultural progravMSe b. Interest in agricultural innovations varies directly with newspaper exposure. c. Interest in agricultural innovations varies directly with film exposure. d. Interest in agricultural innovations varies directly with change agent contact. These four hypotheses too, with the exception of hype- thesis (a) in Barawan Khurd restudy, (c) in Bhuhar restudy, and (d) in Bhuhar benchmark, Barawan Khurd benchmark, and Uttardhanua restudy, receive statistical support in the direction expected. This is especially true when the data from all the eight villages are combined and analyzed. In such an analysis all the hypotheses receive support at 0.05 level of significance. But when the 0.05 level of significance is applied to the village by village analysis there are a few cases where the hypotheses fail to receive statistical 6.302 ends I .2.4 €380 seems owners .- 6.4.0 nsdneeefim .. 4m guesses u «a aesfiom u mm chicane 5E .. .mm .m 35:23»: a .S decide .. 4e fisgosem I am 2:6on seesaw; I .Hm .z Esau nuancesmufim u Mm Beam gossamm I am meanness aspasoflwe oseem u .H.4.m 2583. u 94 unease n mm no.oVa Z confinoensueoz noéhd .u 8:333: me: an Nod an an a: am am a: z 38 on. R. mm. mm. 8. am. am. an. am. am. we. .3. mm. mm. an. we. em. an. 432.4 .n an. am. 3. mm. an. an. 3. .94. fl. 3. me. 3. on. 3. mm. um. «I. mm. 6.4.0 .3 3. am. 3.. Md..- am. Mm. 3. an. fl. .3. 3. mm. as. an... mm. .3. Wm. mo: .um .m .n 3. mm. 3. mm. H. S. no. me. an. Hm. S. .3. «N. «a. ma. 3. nm. S. .5... .z .N mm. an. mm. 3. NA. mm. 3. fl. 3 3. on. .3. mm. .3. mu. 8. Mm... «a. .q.<.m .H mmam mmzmmmammmm ammam anamzmmsm 3350 5.3 someones 38m Hanson so: 3.533 38m .324 -384 w..." mowdddfiw mm B: um 84 4M 4Q Mm mm mesons; 44909 Noam EZHMD Noam Hmoa seasoned, soapsodssssoo eevoeHem spas meosohdsd soduebonsH 3535393 no easedocueou soapeaeahoo meanness!" negonoueN 3 Hang. 39 support, as is indicated in Table 3. This demonstrates that the positive relationship existing between agricultural innovation interest and communication variables is rather weak in the Indian context. Empirical Hypothesis 3 a. Adoption of agricultural innovations varies directly with listening to radio agricultural pregrams. b. Adoption of agricultural innovations varies directly with newspaper exposure. c. Adoption of agricultural innovations varies directly with film exposure. d. Adoption of agricultural innovations varies directly with change agent contact. The statistical findings reported in Table 4 support these hypotheses with very few exceptions. The exceptions are in the case of hypotheses (a) in Bahadurpur benchmark, (c) in Barawan Khurd benchmark, and (d) in Bhuhar benchmark and Sikanderpur Khurd benchmark. The results of the combined analysis of the eight villages support the hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance. This is true both in the bench- mark and restudy. But once again village by village analysis shows that the hypotheses do not receive support at the 0.05 level of significance in all cases. It gives further support to what we noted earlier, viz., that the relationship existing between communication and innovativeness is relatively weak in the villages we have studied. «So: use: 33353904 u 5.2.... 03300 use? 00:30 n 64.6 asfiseafim a 4m Engages u «a 350.com a mm 3%on 3E u .mm .m «saucepan»: a as 3088 u «a Masssosom u 2m onsmoawm seesaw; u .Nm .2 Egg Heansogxam u Mm 355” assaumm 3 mm 93033 3933393 38m n 6.1m «Gage u a... 923m u mm weave a condimefiunoz Stone .9 852.95 no: em «ca mm an as mm mm as 2 mm. mm. 3. mm. on. em. R. mm. an. an. .3. 3. mm. :m. N... am. mm. mm. .25.... .n mm. 3. on. 3.. warm»... 3. mm. an. R. 3. mm. 9. on. an. Am... mm. mm... 6.4.0 6 3. am. aw... am. am. mm. mm. 0m. mm. NM. 0:. S. S. mm. am. mm. gnaw. .mm .m .m am. mm. 3. mm. mm. MA. mm. 3. mm. mm. AM. an. MM. 3. am. 0m. mm. M... .mm .2 .m HMe WNe mNe WelOle “Ale loin-He mNe “Me Noe Hume “Me "Me Mlle O+~e Numel “Ne Illoue INMe eQe¢em eH mm am am am imm am mm am mm as... mm am mm am mm 2m mm am Honpsoo soap homnopdq caumm Honpsoo soap hosnopdq odcmm neadfi -334 m4 4m 90 mm 94 5H 40 mm .mm momwaad> meapsanm> .2909 53m szam0 Mooqm 382a moanmanm> soapmoandsaoo cepooaom and: pmohopsH soapmbossH Hehspasoanw< no mpsoaoaauooo sodpmaonnoo seasomnsom necnououoN .m mqm4a #1 dawns mums HanspHSOde< a .2.2.4 003000 £804 00830 u 6.46 nsfis0m§m a 4m 030334 a 4x 330% n 04 3803...... aim n .mm .m 4282093»: n a: 3083 a 4n Mhuanonom a 2m chamomxm nogmflzfiz u .Hm .z chasm Hsmndundxam I Mm wanna ndzdnwm n mm 003303 300300204 304m n 6.46 300.34 a a4 3:05 n mm no.0uvmn.n condanocn0unoz no.0nng .n conaanovnb no: no ~04 mm 00 :0 mm mm a: 2 R. mm. «0.00. am. 00. on. 9. mm. mm. mm. 00. 00. mm. mm. mm. mm. on. 6.2.4 .n 00. mm. $.06. NH. 3.. :0. NIH..- mm. «0. 00. 00. 0m. 40. on. mm. on. 3.10.46 .0 BMe #Ne WIN—Heme QNe OHe fine 3Me In—IHIOue me W3e mme “he m3e Che amid-LI “Me MIN-e eHm em em +~Ne She «mlNle fine Wide H+~e MIN-e “We we fie mJe fine “we Nme QMe NMe NWe “me eNm ez eN um. um. M38... mm. mm. mm. mm. 3. 00. .3. mm. 0m. 0m. Mm. mm. .44. mm. 6.4.4 .4 mm Em mm 2m mm Em mm Em mm Em 11mm Sm mm Sm mm 2m mm am God» soap Honpqoo :08424 moanopdq oaomm Honpnoo -48424 howuopaq oanmm 0.4 I mmwwHHd> 4m Eb Mm H< «M <9 mm mm moanaanm> 4¢Bba Mooqm Edmszo Mocqm Hmom<fi moanmanm> coapaoacssaoo ompooamm spa: :oapmou4 soundboan HmHSpadoanw< no mucmaoaguooo Soapmamnnoo nmacomnmmm HmoHOIOHmN .: mqmda 42 Empirical Hypothesis 4 a. Relationship between agricultural innovation aware- ness and the use of mass media will be higher than that of agricultural innovation awareness and change agent contact. b. Relationship between agricultural innovation interest and change agent contact will be higher than that of agricultural innovation interest and the use of maSS‘media. 0. Relationship between agricultural innovation adop- tion and change agent contact will be higher than that of agricultural innovation adoption and the use of mass media. In the combined analysis of all the eight villages, hypothesis (a) receives support in the benchmark study, as is indicated in Table 2. The mass media correlation coefficient is higher by 0.09 as compared to change agent contact correlation coefficient in the case of agricultural innovation awareness. But this is not the case in the restudy where the correlation coefficient between agricul- tural innovation awareness and change agent contact is 0.34 while that of agricultural innovation awareness and the use of mass media is only 0.30. In the village by village analysis too a similar discrepancy is noted. Hence we are forced to conclude that the hypothesis does not receive the expected support. As for hypotheses (b) and (c) what we noted above regarding hypothesis (a) holds true. There is hardly any consistency in the findings to support them as is evident from Tables 3 and 4. 43 Discussion The findings of this study assist us in defining the role of communication in the process of adoption and diffu- sion of agricultural innovations by farmers in a develop- ing area. In general the findings are in keeping with the derivations of social theory that claims a close relation- ship between communication and innovativeness. There is considerable evidence, although the relationship tends to be rather weak in some situations, that communication is closely related to innovativeness, in the present study. The evidence is conclusive when the analysis is made in terms of all the villages combined. When the various sources of communication are related to the awareness, interest, and adoption stages of the adOption process of innovations we fail to observe a consis- tent trend in the findings. This is especially striking since the present research is an experimental study. The control villages, Karimabad and Bhadurpur, for instance, do not appear to be significantly different on the order of variables or on the level of correlation from the treatment villages. Here we may note that the original experimental design conceived of the normal program as the control, and the treatment as additional inputs, in the form of communica- tion experiments, over and above the block programs. Hence some change could be expected in the control villages that would diminish in theory the difference between the control and treatment villages. But the absence of any consistent 44 and notable difference between the control villages and the treatment villages indicates that the experiments did not greatly affect the correlates of innovations. Hypothetically, the three experiments should have positively affected at least the independent variables connected with the experiment in these villages. For example in the villages where the radio forum experiment was conducted we would expect an increase in radio listen- ing to agricultural programs and hence a higher correlation between radio agricultural listening and various stages of adoption process. But this is not verified, as is evident from Tables 2, 3, and 4. In the benchmark in the radio villages, Bhuhar and Atrauli, the correlation coefficient between radio agricultural listening and agricultural innovation adoption is .33 and .36 respectively. And in the restudy .11 and .47. In Bhuhar there is a notable decrease while there is a considerable increase in Atrauli. This lack of consistency is found in the other treatment villages too where the other two experiments were conducted. This once again indicates that the experiments did not greatly affect the correlates of innovativeness. In conclusion it seems that in the Indian situation the communication variables by themselves are not very helpful in predicting, explaining, and accelerating adaption behavior. Perhaps further analysis of the vast data gathered in the UNESCO project would prove that background variables like education, income, farm size, and social Psychological 45 variables such as attitude toward change, achievement motivation, cosmopoliteness, and secularism, and organiza- tional variables may be more important factors of adOption process at this stage of develoPment in India. §ummagy The findings in general support the general hypothesis of this study relating communication to innovativeness. All the same we noted a lack of consistency while relating the various stages of the adoption process to different sources of communication. Hypothetically there should have been a marked difference in correlation between the control villages and the treatment villages; the experiments should have positively affected at least the independent variables connected with the experiments in the treatment villages. But the findings failed to support these expectations. CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION Generalizations based on the results of diffusion studies carried out during the past twenty years in Western deve10ped nations are being widely tested in our times in the developing areas of the world. The necessity of such research is felt all the more due to the fact that these generalizations are being widely used to bring about change in different parts of the develOping world and at times have failed to achieve the desired goals. The present study is an attempt to test a few well-grounded generalizations in the area of communication in the context of agricultural innovation diffusion process in North India. One of the central hypotheses resulting from studies of diffusion process in the United States of America, Australia, Holland, and such develoPed areas is this: At the awareness stage, mass media constitute the most frequent source of information about new ideas and practices. Another central hypothesis emerging from studies in the develOped West is the following: At the latter stages of the adaption process personal sources are more important. 46 47 The data presented in this study from eight north Indian villages do not support the generalizations stated above. It is true that there is statistical support for the general hypothesis relating communication variables in general to innovativeness. But the specific hypotheses contrasting mass media and change agent contact as related to various stages of adoption process did not receive the expected support. The reason for this, we believe, is the obvious fact that these generalizations emerge from the communication-saturated culture of highly literate industrial nations. In areas where the mass media are less intensive, or have no circulation, where the ability to utilize communica- tion sources, especially mass media, is less widespread, where people are not motivated to profit from change agents, such generalizations fail to receive adequate support, as is the case in our study. If the reason presented above is true, then the problem areas that follow merit more attention and study: Physical availability and psychological availability of the different sources of communication. The generalizations about the impact of communication channels, especially mass media, can be applied only in areas where these sources are easily available, and where, equally important, the farmers are psychologically and culturally disposed to make use of these sources. In the villages we studied in North India neither of these above conditions seems to be adequately present. 48 Although it is true that no basic generalizations have been challenged in this study because generalizations are always prefaced with ”other things being equal,” we would maintain that results such as presented in this study indicate serious limitations in the present theoretical scheme cover- ing communication variables in the context of diffusion process. Additional research in the so-called developing nations may help to specify the "other things,” that should be equal, especially the institutional and cultural dif- ferences, so that diffusion process theory could deve10p in the direction of universal principles. Further research may indeed prove that in spite of a great number of common charb acteristics shared by most of mankind, many of the present generalizations can be applied with confidence and with profit only in the areas where they have been developed. This should only encourage original research in the develop- ing areas to find generalizations for those areas which might be useful not only as guidelines for social and economic deve10pment but also to deepen the knowledge of society at large. REFERENCES l. Benvenuti, B., Fggming in Cultural Chggge, Assen, van Gorcum, Netherlands, 19 2. 2. Bohlen, J. M., The Adoption and Diffusion of Ideas in Agriculture, in Cu: Changing Society, Copp J. H. (864), Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 19 . 04 3. Bose, Santi Priya and Basu, Suni Kumar, Inflgence of ‘ Reference G u s on Ado tion Behavior of Farmers, Cultural Research Institute 2, 62-65, 1963. 4. Fliegel, Frederick C., Prodipto Roy, Lalit K. Sen, and Joseph E. Kivlin, Innovation in India, The Success or Failure of Agricultural Development Programs in 108 Indian Villages, National Institute of Community Deve10pment, Hyderabad, India, 1967. :23} Katz, Elihu, Integpegsonal Relations and Mass Communica- '\/ tions Studies in the Flow of Influence, Ph. D. Thesis, Columbia University, N. Y., 1956. 6. Loomis, Charles P., Rural Sociology, in Uses of Sagiglggy, Lazarsfeld P. F., Sewell W. H., and ’ Wilensky H. L. (eds.), Basic Books, New York, 1967. -¥; g”7. fMaamary, Samir M., Cross Cgltura; Comparison of Char- ‘ ‘\_//’ acteristics of AdoRters and Non-Adopters of Farmer Coogeratives among Villagers, M. A. Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1965. 8. Neurath, Paul M., Radio Farm Forum as a Tool of Change in Indian Villages, Economic Development and Cnltgral Change 10, 575-283, 1962. 9. Rogers, Everett M., Diffusion of Innovations, The Free ,.1 Press of Glencoe, New York, 19 2. 10. Rogers, Everett M., Mass Media Exposure and Modeggization among Colombian Peasants, Offprint from the Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 29, Winter 165-66. 49 50 11.. Roy, Prodipto, The Impact of Commgpications on Rupal ' DevelOpment in India, National Institute of ‘“/ .Community Development, Hyderabad. India, 1967' 2* 12. Singh, S. K., Communication and Diffusion Process Coptributing to the Adoption of Improved Farm Pgactices, M. S. Thesis, Agricultural College, Bhagalpur, India, 1962. 13. Welikala, George H. P., An Analysis of the Adoptiog of some Agricultgral, fiedicala Public Health, and 93:9perapive Practices in Six Selected Villages of Ce lon, M. A. Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1959. "IVIETNAM!NET