=
=
=
=
‘_
—
=
—
—
—
—
"
“‘
‘—.‘
=
=

 

JIll'l'il'lsﬂi't‘l’lt‘l'liﬂimilﬂﬂﬁliiilﬁﬂ‘il'liﬂliﬁlﬁit

3 1293 01051 5447

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

The Social Construction Of
Rice Post-Harvest Losses

presented by
Indera Ratna Irawati

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

MA degreein Sociology

7

 

Date March 31, 199“

 

0.7539 MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE ll RETURN BOX to romovothio ohookoutfrom your rooord.
TO AVOID FINES return on or odor. date duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WEE—j
LAT—Tl # J

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU II An Afﬂnnotivo Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
Wm:

 

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF
RICE POST-HARVEST LOSSES

By

Indera Ratna Irawati

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology

1994

ABSTRACT

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF
RICE POST-HARVEST LOSSES

by

Indera Ratna Irawati

This paper focuses on the problem of a lack of agreement in
measurement to be used in analyzing rice post-harvest losses. Social
construction theory is used to analyze the case of Bangladesh.

This paper use data from two sources: Martin Greeley's book entitled
Postharvest Losses. Technology, and Emploment (1987), and A.K.M.
Anwarul Haque et al.'s article entitled "Rice Post-harvest Practices and Loss
Estimates in Bangladesh: Threshing through Sundrying" that was published in
Agricultural Mechanization in Asia. Africa and Latin America. vol.22 no.1
1991.

The ﬁndings of this paper are that the researchers construct their own
measurements in rice post-harvest losses by based on various explanations of
loss operations/causes covered by estimates, methods of conducting research,
seasons in which research was conducted, loss estimation, and characteristics
of researchers. Another ﬁnding is that different interests of the researchers

inﬂuence them in constructing their measurements and explanations.

Dedicated to my parents

for their encouragement and understanding

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I gratefully acknowledge the support of the individuals who contributed
to this thesis and made it possible. In particular I wish to express my
appreciation to:

Dr. Lawrence Busch, my major professor, for his guidance, valuable
assistance, support, and understanding during the process of development this
thesis.

Dr. Christopher Vanderpool and Dr. Marilyn Aronoff, my guidance
committee, for their guidance, their helpﬁil suggestions and ideas in
developing this thesis.

Rusdibjono, MA, who give some advices in choosing the topic and

developing the thesis proposal.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables

Chapter 1.
1 .1 .

1.2.

Chapter 2.

2.1.

2.2.

Chapter 3.

3.1

3.2.

INTRODUCTION

The Social Construction of
Science and Technology
Measurement

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF
RICE POST-HARVEST LOSSES

Some Studies of
Rice Post-harvest Losses
Measurement of
Rice Post-harvest Losses

DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF
RICE POST-HARVEST LOSSES
IN BANGLADESH

. Description of

Rice Post-harvest Losses in Bangladesh
The Social Construction of
Rice Post-harvest Losses

iv

Page

12-13

13-15

15-18

19

20-28

28

3.2.1. The Lack of Agreement in Measurement
3.2.2. The Different Interests of Researchers

Chapter 4. CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

28-35
35-40

41-43

44-46

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Loss Operations /
Causes Covered by Estimates

Table 2. Methods of Conducting Research

Table 3. Seasons in Which Research was Conducted

Table 4. Loss Estimation

Table 5. Characteristics of Researchers

Page

20

21

23

24

26

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Social construction theory focuses on the interpretive process by which
phenomena are constructed by the members of a society. The sociologist's
concern is in how and why a phenomenon is deﬁned as a social problem.
From this perspective, the study of social problems is focused on the process
by which a set of conditions is deﬁned as a "social problem" among members
of a society, and the resulting claims which arise (Gusﬁeld 1984). For the
proponents of social constructionist theory, the problem-making process is
the main focus in understanding social problems. From this perspective, all
things in social construction theory are arbitrary. One aspect of this is
measurement. A problem occurs when there is no agreement about the
measures to be used.

This paper will discuss and analyze the various measurements used by
various researchers in analyzing n'ce post-harvest losses in Bangladesh. The
main reason for using Bangladesh as the case is that Bangladesh is a
developing country that was among the twenty principal producers of rice in
the world from 1970 until 1990 (UNCTAD Commodity Yearbook 1992).
Another reason is that numerous studies of rice post-harvest losses were
conducted by various researchers that produced various data and

interpretations in Bangladesh.

1.1. The Social Construction of Science and Technology

One branch of social construction theory comes from the sociology of
science. In the sociology of science, social construction has been selected to
stress the way that science is produced by individuals working together within
a certain cultural context (J agtenberg 1983). Trevor Pinch and Wiebe Bijker
argue that science and technology are socially constructed. They are a matter
of social negotiation, and they are socially produced in a variety of social
circumstances (Bijker et al. 1989). They further explain that all knowledge
and all knowledge claims are assumed as socially constructed. An
implication is that products of knowledge, and explanations of knowledge are
considered to be in the domain of the social world.

Pinch and Bijker underline three central key concepts of this approach:
interpretative ﬂexibility, closure, and relevant social groups (Bijker et al.
1989). These three key concepts are explained in detail in discussing two
approaches within social construction theory. The two approaches are the
Empirical Program of Relativism (EPOR) and the Social Construction of
Technology (SCOT). The EPOR is built on the sociology of scientiﬁc
knowledge, and the SCOT is developed by Bijker in the sociology of
technology.

In the EPOR, there are three stages that can be identiﬁed in a social
construction of scientiﬁc knowledge. The ﬁrst stage is the interpretative
ﬂexibility of scientiﬁc ﬁndings. Here the scientiﬁc ﬁndings can be interpreted
in various ways, or in other words, there is more than one interpretation
possible in the scientiﬁc ﬁndings. The second stage shows that the

interpretative ﬂexibility will disappear. A scientiﬁc consensus usually occurs

that is called the "tru " in any particular instance (Bijker et al. 1989). In this
stage, social mechanisms play an important role in limiting interpretative
ﬂexibility; they conclude controversies that emerge in the scientiﬁc ﬁndings.
The third stage connects the closure mechanism to the larger socio-cultural
environment. In the EPOR approach, Collins emphasizes the signiﬁcance of
controversies in the construction of scientiﬁc knowledge (Bijker et al. 1989).
The groups that get involved in a scientiﬁc controversy will come to a
consensus as the result of the controversy.

In SCOT, the process of development of a technological artifact is
described as an alternation of variation and selection (Bijker et al. 1989). This
approach concerns the problems and solutions shown by every artifact in a
speciﬁc time. A problem develops only when a social group deﬁnes
something as a problem. The key point is that all members of the social group
are concerned with a certain artifact and share the same set of meanings of
this artifact. In each problem, there are various solutions that can be
identiﬁed. This approach sees that in the development process, all kinds of
conﬂicts emerge: conﬂicting technical requirements by different social
groups, conﬂicting solutions to the same problems, and moral conﬂicts.

Having discussed the two approaches, Pinch and Bijker give a more
detailed explanation of the parallels between them. The ﬁrst stage is
interpretative ﬂexibility. In the ﬁrst stage of EPOR, the interpretative
ﬂexibility of scientiﬁc ﬁndings is shown. The SCOT demonstrates that
technological artifacts are culturally constructed and interpreted (Bijker et al.
1989). Here there is a ﬂexibility of deﬁning and interpreting the technological
artifacts, and also designing the technological artifacts as well. From this
point it is assumed that different social groups have different constructions,

interpretations, and designs of one technological artifact.

The second stage is closure and stabilization. The EPOR explains the
mechanism of the closure of debate, and the SCOT is concerned with the

stabilization of an artifact. In this explanation, Pinch and Bijker state that:

Closure occurs in science when a consensus emerges that the "truth"
has been winnowed from the various interpretations; it occurs in
technology when a consensus emerges that a problem arising during
the development of technology has been solved (Bijker et al. 1989, p.
12).

If the social groups which are engaged in designing and using the technology
decide that a problem is solved, they will stabilize the technology. Here the
outcome of the process is closure. One can say the similar way that closure is
reached if the stabilization of an artifact is established and the problems have
disappeared. From this point, Pinch and Bijker underline that different social
groups decide differently the deﬁnition of the problem and the achievement of
closure and stabilization. They ﬁrrther explain rhetorical closure as one
important point in this stage. They argue that in order to close the
controversies or debates on the technology, the important point to consider is
whether the social groups see the problems as solved. Another important
point is closure by redeﬁnition of the problem. Here, closure is reached while
the main problem is redeﬁned by the social groups involved in giving meaning
to the technological artifacts and solutions.

The last stage considered is the wider context. The main consideration
of this point is the relationship between a technological artifact and its wider
sociopolitical environment. The sociocultural and political situation of a social
group involved in construction a technological artifact forms its norms and
values which affect the meaning given to a technological artifact (Bijker et al.
1989,p.46)

Regarding the social construction of a technological artifact, Bruno
Latour also explains further how controversy occurs in the fact construction
process. In fact construction, scientists, engineers and politicians give us
information that leads us in the direction of the fact. This effort is partly
directed to get support because a fact cannot be constructed without any
support. Moreover, in understanding what the facts are, it is necessary to
understand who the people involved in fact construction.

In the fact construction process, fact builders face some problems.
They have to know how to convince other people, how to control other
people's behavior, how to gather sufﬁcient resources in one place in order to
convince others, and how to have the claim spread out in time and space
(Latour 1987). Latour further explains that people, especially the fact
builders, need others to help them transform their claims into a matter of fact.
The problem that occurs is how to ﬁnd these people. He suggests that the
fact builders need to state their claim in such a way that it fulﬁlls these
people's explicit interests. Even if these interests are explicit, the meanings of
them are may be differently understood and interpreted (Latour 1987). He

also gives a meaning of interest as mentioned below:

The name of interests are what lie in between actors and their goals,
thus creating a tension that will make actors select only what helps
them reach these goals among many possibilities (Latour 1987, p. 108).

In constructing a fact in science and technology, the fact builders
usually bring pictures, ﬁgures, numbers, and names into the text. This has
both a strength and a weakness. The strength lies, like a reference, in giving
the readers information about what a statement is tied to. The major weakness
is that the readers know where to pull if they wish to unravel the statement

(Latour 1987). Latour states that text must explain how and who should read

it, to whom it is talking, and anticipate the readers' response. A good text
should allow the readers to know where the ﬁgures, pictures, numbers,
names in the text come from.

As mentioned above, Latour also focuses his attention on the
controversies that occur in fact construction. He sees two important aspects
in explaining a controversy. The ﬁrst aspect is why an open controversy
closes, and the second aspect is a new controversy dealing with how the
controversy is closed. In the heat of controversy, the scientists, engineers, and
politicians may themselves explain why their opponents think otherwise
(Latour 1987).

From the description and explanation of the social construction theory
of science and technology above, it should be stressed that all aspects of
science and technology are socially negotiated. Science and technology as
facts are constructed in a collective process. One aspect is measurement. My
assumption here is that there is an interpretative ﬂexibility in measurement,
and initially there is no agreement on measurements to be used in science and

technology.
1.2. Measurement

Measurement has been deﬁned in a variety of ways. Campbell (1952),
as discussed by Cicourel, deﬁnes measurement as the assignment of numbers/
numerals to represent properties (Cicourel 1960). The deﬁnition proposed by
S. S. Stevens (1951) in Anderson et al.'s discussion mentions that
measurement is the assignment of numerals to objects or events according to

rules (Anderson et a1. 1983). He further states that numerals can be assigned

through various rules that direct one to various kinds of scales and
measurement.

In discussing measurement, social scientists are concerned with the
important distinction between measurement and theory. Anderson et al. argue
that there is no measurement without theory and every measurement implies
theory (Anderson et al. 1983). They emphasize that all good measurement has
a theoretical foundation. From this standpoint, it is clear that measurement
includes a theoretical domain and a domain represented by a particular
selected numerical relational system (Anderson et al. 1983, p. 233).

Regarding theory as a necessary aspect in measurement, sociology has
a problem with the lack of developed theory. Ideally, the measurement of
social phenomena requires the development of social theory, but it sometimes
cannot represent theories, experiments and observations (F eyerabend 1979).
A problem in measurement is that sociologists face a difﬁcult task in
developing measurements with high precision and reliability.

Measurement in sociology presupposes an understanding of society
from inside, or an understanding of the society's everyday life. The
understanding is changed as changes occur in the society's everyday life.
These changes are partly caused by the development of science and
technology. One form of the change is the formation of modern society. The
structure of modern society reﬂects the rationalization of everyday life
through its bureaucratic institutions. This universal phenomena can be seen
for most of the data that sociologists honor, as given, are largely of a product
of bureaucratically organized activities (Cicourel 1960).

The document or data produced is not only interpreted by one actor at
one time. It is possible for it to be reinterpreted by different actors at different

times. In other words the data is continually subject to the possibility of

reinterpretation, second thoughts or additional information (Cicourel 1960).
The problem that occurs here is that there is a big possibility that the
interpretations are different from different actors and different times for the
same data. It is partly caused by the unknown process of data production,
unknown factors operating in data selection, and unknown decisions made
before the data production.

In the sociology of science and technology, measurement is considered
as a basic research process. Measurement is used to give a description and
identiﬁcation about how the technology will be canied out, is being carried
out, or has been carried out (Pinch 1993). Therefore, it is important to
understand / know the construction process of measurement in order to get a
clear and comprehensive understanding about how a technology will perform
in the future.

The issue of measurement in this paper will focus on social
construction theory. I see that measurement is basically socially constructed.
The use of a certain number to represent and to measure a certain concept is
constructed by people who are engaged in developing an issue discussed. The
numbers and concepts are also designed by them. People have their own
ideas, perspectives and interpretations about the measurement of the issue
discussed.

In constructing the measurement, people produce their own
measurement and confront it with others. In confronting their measurement,
they struggle to convince others that their measurement is the best among
others. I see that in order to convince others, they try to give explanations
about how they produce their measurement and how important their
measurements are, about the reasons of producing their measurements, and

who they are.

In sociology of science and technology, the construction of a
measurement is one major important aspect. The measurement is also socially
constructed by people who are engaged and interested in research on science
and technology. One important process in the sociology of science and
technology is doing experiments about a certain technological artifact.
Experiment, as the way to verify, conﬁrm, or refute scientiﬁc theories is
treated as a process of argumentation and persuasion (Pinch 1993). Here, the
human actors who represent certain agencies play an important role in the
production of the agreement on a measurement in science and technology as a
technological artifact. They confront their own perspectives with others to get
an agreement about what measurement will be best used. This idea is parallel
with Knorr-Cetina's observation that the process of scientiﬁc production
involves a decision and negotiation process through which its results are
obtained (Knorr-Cetina 1983).

Measurement as a technological artifact has some forms. One of the
forms is data. Data is also socially constructed by various people. Therefore,
it can be interpreted in a variety of ways. One process in science and
technology is interpretation of data by various human agencies. There is a big
possibility of production of similarity and difference in data interpretation.
The similarities and differences are closely related to the interests and
commitments of the actors. They contest their interests in interpreting the data
that are based upon their perspectives and ideologies. It is apparent that
social and political issues are not separated from science and technology. In
science and technology, experimental processes and replications are always
found (Pinch 1993). The results of the replications are usually different from
the original ones. The major differences of replications of data depend upon

differences in the scientists' background assumptions and interests.

10

From this point of view, the various interpretations and perceptions for
such data become an important point to consider. Various interpretations and
perceptions occur because there are various actors with various theoretical
backgrounds, assumptions, interests, and perspectives involved in the
process of interpretation and perception. Of signiﬁcant interest to sociologists
is how such bureaucratic personnel interpret and act on the data (Cicourel
1960). Another cause of the difference of interpretation of data is different
types of actors who may have different structural and locational arrangements
in society. I think they have different status and roles officially in the society
and also different positions with respect to the center of power in society.
Therefore their interpretations and perceptions are expected to reﬂect or
express their social identities or characteristics, their status and roles, and
their position in relation to the center of power. Data and its interpretation are
not isolated from political reality. On this point, Rouse mentions that in order
to fully understand the scientiﬁc practices (such as values and aims), one
needs to evaluate their political signiﬁcance (Rouse 1987).

In larger scale, the importance of understanding power relations is seen
particularly in power relations between developing countries and developed
countries. In this view, the developing countries are dependent on the
developed countries in many aspects such as in science and technology.

The issue of measurement in science and technology is central to my
discussion of rice post-harvest losses. In my study I will describe and
analyze rice post-harvest losses from the perspective of social construction
theory. To describe and analyze it I will use the data of the rice post-harvest
losses produced by various agencies. They have differing data that are created

by differences in measurements and methodologies they use in producing

11

their data. They also have differing motives and interests in producing their
data.

CHAPTER 2
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF
RICE POST-HARVEST LOSSES

Rice post-harvest losses have become an issue discussed in various
ﬁelds and perspectives by many countries and agencies at both the national
and international levels. The important need to increase food production to
meet the requirements of a rapidly growing world population through
decreasing food losses is widely known. The increased awareness of this
issue has emerged since the world food crisis in the 1970's. In 1975, this
awareness was reﬂected in the resolution of the 7th Special Session of the
United Nations General Assembly which set a target to reduce post-harvest
loss by 50 percent by the year 1985.

In this paper, rice is chosen as the crop to be discussed. One reason for
choosing rice is that it is one of the most important food crops in the world,
and the major item in the diet of half the world's population. The availability
of an adequate supply of rice means more than providing for people's food
needs; rice has economic importance in national and international trade with
signiﬁcant political and social implications (Esmay et al. 197 9). Another
reason is that there is no staple food crop which more accurately reﬂects the
problems which these national and international bodies have addressed than
does rice (USDA 1980). FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) also

12

13

recorded that rice post-harvest losses are among the highest of the major
crops grown in developing countries, and documented the reduction of rice
post-harvest losses as one of its programs (FAO 1978). The description above
implies that the rice post-harvest losses issue is closely related to insuﬁicient
food production and inequality in food distribution among people, especially

in the developing countries.

2.1. Some Studies of Rice Post-harvest Loss_e§

Many studies of rice post-harvest losses have been conducted,
especially in developing countries. A study in West Africa was conducted by
the West Aﬁica Rice Development Association (WARDA) at the Office du
Niger in Mali in 1978—1980. The aim of this study was to assess the level of
technologies used and determine where intervention is most needed in order
to reduce post-harvest losses in West Aﬁica (Karnuanga 1981). The result of
this study shows that the percentage of rice post harvest losses is higher in the
official marketing channel (23.3%) compared to the farmers private marketing
channel (21 .4%).

In Indonesia, several studies of rice post-harvest losses have been
canied out by different institutions using different methodologies. It seems
that the results are not comparable to each other. Results of the F AO-BULOG
(the National Logistics Body) study in 1981 in East Java province showed
that quantitative losses in the rainy and dry seasons account for 12% and
11.3%, respectively. The Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture and JICA
(Japan International Cooperation Agency) (1981/ 1982) conducted a study on
rice post-harvest losses in four provinces. The results revealed that the

quantitative losses ranged from 12% to 21% and the qualitative losses

l4

ranged from 2% to 23%. In 1987 the Indonesian Central Bureau of Statistics
carried out a study in 15 provinces. It gave the amount of quantitative rice
losses at each step of post-harvest activities, and the total magnitude of
quantitative rice post-harvest losses was 22.01%. (Halirn et al. 1991). This
study indicated that a high loss exists in the harvesting, threshing, and milling
processes.

In Malaysia, a rice post-harvest loss study was conducted in the Krian/
Sungei Manik areas in 1982. The main goal of the study was to determine the
magnitude of losses at each step of the post-harvest system so that effective
control measures could be imposed to reduce the losses (Rohani et al. 1985).
In the cutting operation, losses were estimated at about 5.1%. The estimation
of losses in the threshing operation was from 9.1% to 18.5% with an average
of 13.7%. In the milling operation, a 6.7% and 3.1% reduction in head rice
yield were observed from the small and large mills, respectively (Rohani et al.
1985)

In Colombia, rice post-harvest losses in the ﬁeld, during processing of
clean, dry paddy to white rice and during marketing were analyzed in detail.
Field losses ranged from 2.5% to 8.2%, processing losses from 7% to 34%,
marketing losses were 0.11% to 0.28% at wholesale, 0.3% to 0.7% at retail
level (Castaneda 1982).

A national survey of rice post-harvest losses, conducted in the
Dominican Republic in March-Nov. 197 9, is described in Tropical Stored
Products Information (Boxall 1981). In this report, quality losses during
drying and milling were among the major factors investigated. The average
reduction in whole grain content on mechanical or sun drying was 8.06%, and

on milling was 2.33%. Losses on harvesting (mean 18.08% loss) and storage

15

(mean of 0.35% loss) were also surveyed, and related to economic
considerations.

In the Philippines, estimated rice post-harvest loss was 10% to 35%.
Causes of post-harvest losses include inefficient harvesting and drying
methods, poor processing techniques, inadequate storage and distribution, and
poor preparation or use of foods in the home (Spurgeon 1977). The
unsuitability of some of the new technology to reduce losses was also
discussed.

A review of the Science and Education Administration, United States
Department of Agriculture determined that the majority of rice losses occur
when harvested rough rice is transformed into edible white rice (Saunders
1980). This review argued that future intemational assistance efforts to
developing countries might be best focused to maximize loss reductions and

the conservation of rice already produced.

2.2. Measurement of Rice Post-harvest Losses

Many attempts have been made to make a reasonable and reliable
measurement of rice post-harvest losses, but it is very difficult to estimate rice
post-harvest losses with precision. Even though there is much serious work in
measuring rice post-harvest losses, there is still uncertainty as to the
magnitude of rice post-harvest losses due to the variation in situations being
assessed and of differences in methodology and defrnition. In general, the
measurement of rice loss denotes disappearance of rice and should be directly
measurable in economic, quantitative, qualitative, or nutritional terms (N AS
197 8). NAS (National Academy of Sciences) describes those four terms as

follows:

16

Economic loss is the reduction in monetary value of food as a result of
physical loss. Quantitative loss involves reduction in weight and,
therefore, can be readily deﬁned and valued. Qualitative loss, although
difficult to assess because it is frequently based on subjective
judgments, can oﬁen be described by comparison with local accepted
quality standards. Nutritional and germinative loss, which may be a
combination of loss of quantity and quality, are also difﬁcult to
measure (NAS 1978, p. 27).

The difﬁculty to estimate rice losses is also caused partly by the low accuracy
of loss-survey techniques, and the limitations of infening a speciﬁc and well
characterized loss situation. Another reason is that standard methodologies
for measuring and estimating loss are lacking for most kinds of food (NAS
197 8). Although estimation techniques and standard methodology exist, the
researcher must choose the estimation technique and methodology
appropriate for a given situation and use it. Another problem that occurs in
loss measurement is how much accuracy is necessary to make estimates that
are generally used (NAS 197 8). This depends upon the aims or objectives of
the estimation.

In measuring rice losses, it is very important to consider social and
cultural aspects of a given situation. There are social and cultural differences
in post-harvest activities among cultures such as steps conducted in post-
harvest practices. Even the perception of what constitutes a loss often varies
greatly among cultures (NAS 1978). Further, techniques of measurement and
information produced should be culturally and socially agreed upon by the
particular society.

Another aspect considered is differences in deﬁning post-harvest and
loss among cultures and agencies that conduct the research. One deﬁnition of

post-harvest is given by NAS. It states that:

17

The post-harvest period of time begins at separation of the food item
from the medium of immediate growth or production (Greeley 1987,

p. 58).

One deﬁnition of loss is a reduction in weight in the amount of food available
for consumption (NAS 197 8). Again, it is important to remember and
understand that cultural differences create location-speciﬁc and time-speciﬁc
deﬁnitions of loss. Loss estimation in a given situation should be formed and
constructed in order to be culturally appropriate and meaningful. In other
words, measurement in rice post-harvest losses is socially constructed. Only
then can analysis of the results be implemented in the form of decisions
regarding loss reduction.

From the description of rice post-harvest losses in some countries
above, one can see that all countries focus on the discussion of loss
estimations. The various loss estimations are partly caused by culturally
deﬁnitions of rice post-harvest losses given by each country, and various
methodologies and measurements used. In addition to loss estimation
discussions, each country has also its speciﬁc discussion that is considered
socially and culturally important. From this point, it is apparent that loss
estimations and speciﬁc discussions are constructed by each country that are
based upon its social and cultural situations. They are constructed in order to
be culturally meaningful for each country.

Differing from description of some countries above, the Science and
Education Administration, United States Department of Agriculture focuses
on the importance of technical international assistance efforts for the
developing countries. International assistance efforts can cause the
dependency of the recipient countries (in this case developing countries) on

the donor countries. This situation happens since the recipient countries get

18

all the elements of technology and they use a few local technologies and
skills. Assistance does not give an opportunity to the recipient countries to
choose the technology. The dependency has a lot of consequences, such as
the weakening of local science and technology capabilities, and the crippling
of local initiative and local adaptive possibilities (Althuis et al. 1982).

Another consequence that is closely related to the power relation is the loss of

local control over decisions concerning technology of the recipient countries.

CHAPTER 3
DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS
OF RICE POST-HARVEST LOSSES IN BANGLADESH

In Bangladesh, the agriculture sector is the most important sector of the
economy, providing almost two-thirds of GDP (Gross Domestic Product)
(Asean Economic Handbook 1987). Speciﬁcally, agriculture is dominated by
the production of rice. Rice is the biggest product among the principal crops
produced (Statistical Yearbook for Asian and the Paciﬁc 1992; Asean
Economic Handbook 1987 ). Based on a report of Bangladesh Rice Research
Institute in 1984, rice as the staple food in Bangladesh is cultivated on 89% of
the 11.5 million ha. of cultivable land (Haque et al. 1991).

In discussing and analyzing rice post-harvest losses in Bangladesh, I
will use data presented by Martin Greeley in his book entitled Postharvest
Losses, TecMologLand Employment. and a research report written by
A.K.M. Anwarul Haque, M. A. Quasem, and Jose R. Arboleda entitled "Rice
Post-harvest Practices and Loss Estimated in Bangladesh: Threshing through

Sundrying" that was published in Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa,
and Latin America, vol.22 no.1 1991.

19

3.1. Description of Rice Post-harvest Losses in Bangladesh

20

In this section, I will present some tables and a description of each

research project conducted on rice post-harvest losses.

Loss Operations / Causes Covered by Estimates

Table 1

 

Researcher

Before
Harvest

Cutting

Transport

Stacking

Winnowmg'

Soaking

Puboiling

Storage

Mill'

 

Bale

 

Samajpati
et a1

 

Hurley
et al.

 

Sarker

 

Karim &
Rashid

 

Molla

 

Ahmed
etal.

O

 

 

Haque
carer-

 

 

 

 

 

O

 

 

O

 

 

 

 

 

Source: developed from Greeley (1987) and Haque et al. (1991).

The rice post-harvest operations mentioned above are the practices

that are traditionally followed in Bangladesh. Table 1 shows post-harvest

operations that are estimated to be the causes of losses by researchers.

From this table, Bala, Karim & Rashid, and Molla estimate that the

drying operation is the principal cause of rice post-harvest losses in

Bangladesh. Bala states explicitly that loss is caused by the lack of drying

facilities. Samajpati et al. focus on storage and processing operations in

conducting their survey on rice post-harvest losses. They do not mention

clearly what the processing is. In my understanding, the processing operation

includes operations from cutting until milling. Hurley et al. covers operations

 

21

from before harvest until parboiling in estimating rice losses. In the rice post-
harvest technical project, Sarker identiﬁes drying and storage operations as
the causes of rice post-harvest losses. Differing from Sarker, Ahmed et al. in
their research point out cutting, transportation, stacking, threshing, parboiling,
and drying operations in determining the losses in rice post-harvest processes.
Haque et al. observe three post-harvest Operations, threshing, cleaning and
drying, to estimate the size and causes of rice losses.

From the description above it can be seen that each researcher
conducted different operations in their research in determining rice post-

harvest losses.

Table 2
Methods of conducting research

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Researcher Methods of Conducting Research
Bala Not given

Samajpati et al. Not given

Hurley et al. Faun-level research

Sarker Not- given

Karim & Rashid F ann-level research with questionnaire
Molla Farrn-level research with questionnaire
Ahmed et al. F arm-level research with questionnaire
Haque et al. Village-level research

 

Source: developed ﬁ'om Greeley (1987) and Haque et al. (1991).

Bala, Samajpati et al., and Sarker provide no information about how

they conduct their research (table 2). Further Samajpati et al. state that

 

22

because of the absence of farm-level experience, there is little that can be
useﬁilly said about their research results (Greeley 1987).

Hurley et al. in their farm-level research show that farmers have no
problem with rice loss. However, they argue that the farmers themselves are
the problem since they suffer from a lack of appreciation of the losses
currently being incurred (Greeley 1987).

Karim & Rashid, Molla, and Ahmed et al. conducted farm-level
research by using questionnaires. Karim & Rashid‘s research was in a village
where they were organizing an extension project to promote improved village
technology and where they had installed a rice drier. They argued that the rice
loss problem was important to solve and recommended the using of reducing
loss techniques. From 30 questionnaires, their research also shows that
farmers do not have any opinion about the losses. Molla conducted a study at
a government seed farm. In his study, two small samples were district-
speciﬁc and a large sample was a nationwide survey with between 5 and 15
replies from each district. Of the rest, only one estimate appears to involve
some loss measurement. The result of the study was that the estimation was a
guess because the background to the estimates was not known. From the
questionnaire used in the research entitled "Rice Drying Problem During
Rainy Season in Bangladesh", Ahmed et al. concluded that technical change
is not supported by the evidence.

There are three common features in research conducted by Sarker,
Karim & Rashid, Molla, and Ahmed et al. First, they were all planned
explicitly with the purpose of reducing losses. They were deliberately
cautious in the absence of reliable farm-level measurement of rice loss.
Second, they all addressed in detail the economic and institutional

considerations affecting farmer adoption of their techniques. Third, they

23

concluded that farmers were not very willing to use their techniques (Greeley
1987)

The last study, Haque et al., conducted village-level research in 35
villages ﬁom ﬁve areas. The selection was based upon accessibility,
cooperation of the farmers and representativeness of the village in the

cropping pattern and post-harvest practices (Haque et al.1991).

Table 3
Seasons in which research was conducted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Researcher Boro Aus Aman Note
(April - June) (July - Aug.) (Nov. - Dec.)

Bala o

Samajpati et al. Not given

Hurley et al. Not given

Sarker o o

Karim & o o

Rashid

Molla o o

Ahmed et al. 0 o

Haque et al. 0 o o

 

 

 

 

 

Source: developed from Greeley (1987) and Haque et al. (1991).

Rice in Bangladesh is grown and harvested during the boro (early
summer), aus (summer) and aman (winter) seasons. The boro and aus
seasons are deﬁned as the wet seasons, there is a lot of rain during these
seasons. In the aman season, the weather is cool and dry, no rain, and the
paddy and straw are already dried (Haque et al. 1991). There are differences
in the kind of lands used for planting and harvesting crops in these seasons.

Aman and early boro crops are harvested in dry lands while late boro and aus

 

24

crops are harvested in wet and ﬂooded ﬁelds (Haque et al. 1991, p. 53). The
boro crop was traditionally lowland grown using traditional irrigation
equipment or where water remains after the annual ﬂoods have diminished.
The aus crop is grown on highlands under rainfed conditions; it is also grown
on medium highland where ﬂooding provides the water and these cases it is
sown mixed with an aman crop (Greeley 1987).

From table 3, one can see that Bala conducted research in the aus
season. Samajpati et al. and Hurley et al. do not give information about when
they conducted their research. Sarker, Karim & Rashid, Molla, and Ahmed et
al. conducted their research in the boro and aus seasons. Haque et al. did their
study in boro, aus and aman seasons. The boro and aus seasons were chosen
as the time for conducting the research by most of the researchers. The reason
is that these two seasons were treated together in one harvesting season that

extends from April through the monsoon to September (Greeley 1987).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4
Loss Estimation
Researcher Loss Estimation Notes
(in percent)
Bala 30 ----- 50
Samajpati et al. 10 ----- 20
Hurley et al. 5 ----- 44
Sarker 30 Storage operation
10 ----- 25 Drying operation
Karim & Rashid 51 ---- 100
Molla 22.70
Ahmed et al. 0.82
Haque et al. 3.50 Aman season
3.10 Bore season
4.01 Aus season

 

 

 

 

Source: developed from Greeley (1987 ) and Haque et al. (1991).

25

As noted in table 4 above, Bala estimates that rice losses in post-
harvest operation are 30% to 50%. The second research group, Samajpati et
al., in their research proposal said that losses were 10%, and the research
report said they were 10% to 20%. In loss estimation, Hurley et al. said that
in relation to the estimates they believe that "very few of the ﬁgures have
actually been measured, and where they have been measured they are
conﬁned to a few years, a few places and a few varieties" (Greeley 1987).
They estimate the rice losses between 5% and 44%, but they do not state
where these measurements come ﬁom or what they were (Greeley 1987).
Differing from Hurley et al., Sarker divides loss estimation into two
operations. He estimated the rice loss in the storage operation was 30%, and
10% to 25% loss was caused by the lack of drying facilities. Karim & Rashid
mentioned that 70% of farmers lost the quality of their boro grain to the
extent of 51% to 100% (Greeley 1987). Molla estimated a 22.70% loss due to
the lack of drying facilities. Ahmed et al. in their research mentioned that rice
losses from post-harvest operations were very low (below 1%). Differing
from other researchers, Haque et al. consider operations and seasons in
determining loss estimation. They said that total losses in three operations
(threshing, cleaning and drying) were 3.50%, 3.10% and 4.01% for the aman,

boro and aus seasons respectively.

26

Table 5
Characteristics of Researchers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Researcher Characteristics

Bala engineer ; work on drying project ; lobbyist

Samajpati et al. engineer ; work on storage prgject ; lobbyist

Hurley et al. engineer ; work on drying project ; lobbyist

Sarker engineer ; work on drying project ; lobbyist

Karim & Rashid not given ; work on drying project

Molla not given ; work on drying project

Ahmed et al. not given

Haque et al. scientiﬁc officer on Rice Technical Division of B.R.R.I
(Bangladesh Rice Research Institute)

 

Source: developed from Greeley (1987) and Haque et al. (1991).

Bala, Samajpati et al., Hurley et al., and Sarker are engineers and
lobbyists. Lobbyists are a group of people who act for a special interest, who
try to inﬂuence others to take a desired action, and to urge others by
lobbying. As lobbyists, they persuaded others that the rice loss problem was
important and suggested that it is a crucial problem. As engineers, Bala,
Samajpati et al. and Sarker attempted to develop loss reducing post-harvest
techniques. They convinced themselves purely based on a research station
assessment of new techniques.

Bala worked on a drying project. He argued that steps must be taken in
order to solve the drying problem so that there is no rice produced that is
wasted. He recommended further research since the actual performance of
the drier he built differed from that predicted by theory. Samajpati et al.
worked on a storage project and they recommended use of their own

improved techniques. Hurley et al. also worked on a drying project. They

 

27

stated that the project was to develop paddy dryers for village use. They
would assist small farmers to save in total a large quantity of paddy each year
(Greeley 1987). Their original intent was to evaluate speciﬁc loss prevention
options that are related to the introduction of drying facilities. They also
suggested the importance of understanding the loss levels in traditional
systems. They see that traditional crop drying is predominantly women's work
and extension of drying facilities to men possibly constrains their adoption
because it is women who have more expertise concerning crop drying
requirements and would better appreciate the beneﬁt from efficient drying
facilities (Greeley 1987).

Sarker, Karim & Rashid, Molla, and Ahmed et al. were concerned
with the prevention of rice losses. Sarker mentions that proper grain drying
research would yield results which could rrrinimize the large loss of food and
seed grain every year in Bangladesh (Greeley 1987 ). Ahmed et al. focused
their research on the need for technical change in rice processing and on the
employment implications of the shift from the dheki (traditional rice husking
methods) to the custom mill. They argued that if levels of rice loss were
properly measured, they could be shown to be insigniﬁcant in determining the
rate and direction of technical change. This ﬁnding is developed empirically
in an explanation of why farm-level rice drying projects have failed and why
rice milling is being affected by technical change with serious consequences
for the wage labor opportunities of the poorest women. They emphasized the
effect upon the poorest women of the replacement of dheki technology by
custom milling and the need for intervention to develop alternative sources of
income (Greeley 1987).

In conducting research on rice post-harvest losses, Haque et al.

estimated the size and causes of losses. They also gave a description of the

28

post-harvest loss practices and a detailed measurement of losses in three
operation (threshing, cleaning, and drying). They suggest some methods to
reduce losses, and also recommended that to increase rice yield by reducing
post-harvest losses, the Bangladesh government should provide the necessary
inputs and training to the farmers (Haque et al. 1991). These suggestions

would not only increase rice yield but also would reduce post-harvest losses.

3.2. The Social Construction of Rice Post-harvest Losses

In discussing rice post-harvest losses, there is some confusion. The
confusion is not caused by where the research is conducted, nor is it a matter
of who is right and who is wrong. The ﬁrst confusion is caused by the lack or
agreement on deﬁnition and measurement used in studying rice post-harvest
losses. The second one is that there are different interests of researchers that

inﬂuence them in producing their data on rice post-harvest losses.

3.2.1. The Lack of Agreement in Measurement

In table 1, it can be seen that there are differences in determining the
causes of rice losses among the researchers. It can be said also that the
researchers create various deﬁnitions of rice post-harvest losses. From this
table, there is a similar feature from all researchers. They deﬁne the drying
operation as one cause/or the only cause of losses. They imply that rice loss is
deﬁned as drying operation loss.

In table 2, the researchers show their methods of conducting research.
It can be seen that they have different ways of doing their research. From this

table, some researchers give information about their research methods and

29

some of them do not mention their methods. From the researchers who give
an explanation about their methods, it can be seen that Hurley et al. and
Haque et al. do not mention in detail how they gather their data. Karim &
Rashid, Molla, and Ahmed et al. mention more detail about their methods and
ways of gathering their data. On the other hand, Bala, Samajpati et al. and
Sarker do not give any information about their methods in conducting the
research.

Table 3, shows that the researchers conducted research in different
seasons of the rice post-harvest operation. The season of conducting research
is important to consider since different times of post-harvest operations might
inﬂuence losses. The most signiﬁcant difference lies in the different climatic
conditions such as rainfall and temperature. From this table, Samajpati et al.
and Hurley et al. do not give information about when they conducted their
research, while the other researchers mention the seasons when they
conducted their research.

There are similar features in tables 2 and 3. Some researchers do not
give any information about the methods and the time (seasons) they
conducted research. There are some possible reasons for not giving
information. The ﬁrst one is that they might assume that the reader already
knows about the research methods and time they conducted research without
any explanation about them. They expect that ﬁom the research reports, the
readers know to whom they are directed. They might also assume that their
research reports clearly explain who their expected readers are. As Latour
states, the text has to explain how and by whom it should be read (Latour
1987 ). The second reason is the researchers do not want anyone to know
about their methods and time of conducting research. This reason can be

understood in Latour's perspective that one weakness of showing references

30

of a text is that the readers know where to "pull" it if they wish to unravel the
meaning of a text (Latour 1987 ). In this case, they might avoid the possibility
of unraveling their research by not giving any information about their methods
and time of doing the research. Another reason is that they assume that other
researchers use the same methods and do research at the same time as they
do. Therefore they do not have to give information about how and when they
conducting their research.

Another similar feature of tables 2 and 3 is that some researchers give
information about their various methods and time of conducting research.
They implicitly open a controversy about the various ways and times of doing
research on rice post-harvest losses by providing various research methods
and times. These various research methods and times need to be presented
and debated by various researchers. Furthermore, the controversy is directed
to get an accurate and acceptable method and time of doing research on rice
post-harvest losses.

In table 4, the researchers present various estimations of rice losses.
Some of the loss estimations are not comparable to other ones because the
estimations are highly varied. I see that, from this table, the amount of rice
losses ranged ﬁom 0.82% to 100%. The researchers also have different ways
of presenting their estimate of losses. Sarker gives a detailed explanation of
loss estimation for each post-harvest Operation. Haque et al. show their loss
estimation in different seasons of conducting research. In contrast, the other
researchers do not give any explanation of their loss estimation data.

In discussing various loss estimations, I relate the loss estimation (table
4) and the deﬁnition of rice post-harvest losses given by the researchers
(tablel). Bala, Karim & Rashid, and Molla produce a loss estimation for one

post-harvest operation (they deﬁne rice post-harvest loss as rice loss in the

31

drying operation). Sarker gives the loss estimations for each operation:
storage and drying operations. Samajpati et al., Hurley et al., and Ahmed et
al. make a loss estimation based on their deﬁnition of rice losses in 10, 8, and
6 post-harvest operations respectively. Differing from the researchers
mentioned before, Haque et al. make a loss estimation that is based upon
seasons of conducting research. From the explanation above, I think one
cannot compare the loss estimations produced by Bala, Karim & Rashid,
Molla, Sarker, and by Samajpati et al., Hurley et al., and Ahmed et al. The
reason is that the ﬁrst estimation is estimation for deﬁnitions of loss for one
operation, but the later one is estimation for deﬁnitions of loss for at least 6
operations. For example, Karim & Rashid make a loss estimation from 51%
to 100% for their deﬁnition of loss of one operation, while Ahmed et al.
mention a 0.82% loss estimation for 6 operations. In contrast, Haque et al.
make a more complicated loss estimation. Their estimations are not only
based upon post-harvest operations but also on seasons of conducting
research. Each estimation in each season shown in their data includes three
post-harvest operations. It is clear that the various estimations are insufficient
to decide which estimation can accurately measure rice losses in post-harvest
operations. The reasons are the loss estimations cannot be compared to each
other, and the researchers use different ways of producing their loss
estimation data.

From the explanation above in table 1, I see the researchers point to
different causes of rice losses or to different deﬁnitions of rice post-harvest
losses. In table 2 they conduct different methods of research on rice post-
harvest losses, and in table 3 they do research at different times or seasons.
Table 4 shows the different rice loss estimations that are produced by

different researchers. The various loss estimations are produced partly by

32

different rice post-harvest operations chosen in their research or different
deﬁnitions given, partly by different methods, and partly by different times of
conducting research.

It is apparent that the researchers construct various views of the
deﬁnition of rice post-harvest losses by designing their own methods and
measurement. They interpret rice loss differently based upon different post-
harvest operations, methods and times of conducting research. Furthermore,
they also construct various loss estimations that are based upon various
operations or deﬁnitions, methods, and times of conducting research.

One may argue, following Bijker and Pinch, that the researchers are on
the ﬁrst stage of EPOR and SCOT. The researchers have great interpretative
ﬂexibility in deﬁning and interpreting rice post-harvest losses as a
technological and scientiﬁc artifact. The ﬂexibility of deﬁning and
interpreting rice post-harvest losses is shown in various deﬁnitions of rice
loss given, methods and times of conducting research, and rice loss
estimation. They also design rice post-harvest losses as a technological
artifact by producing their scientiﬁc explanations: deﬁnitions of rice losses,
methods and times of conducting research, and loss estimation. In EPOR the
interpretative ﬂexibility of scientiﬁc ﬁndings is shown. In this case, research,
data produced, and explanations of rice post-harvest losses as scientiﬁc
ﬁndings that are ﬂexibly interpreted by various researchers are presented. In
SCOT, technological artifacts are culturally constructed and interpreted. Rice
post-harvest losses as a technological artifact is constructed and interpreted
by different researchers. Their constructions and interpretations are
inﬂuenced by their background as is partly shown by their different

characteristics which lead them to have different constructions,

33

interpretations, and designs of rice post-harvest loss as a technological
artifact.

Until now, the researchers, as Bijker and Pinch state, have not
achieved a consensus in their debate about the deﬁnition and estimation of
rice post-harvest losses. In analyzing the closure stage, the researchers debate
to each other through seminars and publication of their research reports. The
possible situations occur in the debate / controversy processes are given
followed. First, are they response to each other, and are they response
feedbacks from other researchers and public? Here, there is no explanation
about the communication process in the controversy. Second, some
researchers do not know exactly the farmer conditions and ﬁeld conditions in
conducting research in rice post-harvest losses. Some researchers do not
consider farmers as a social group involved most in the rice post-harvest
practices. Here, this condition cause other researchers who have more
information about ﬁed and farmer conditions assume that their measurements
are more reliable than others since they give ﬁeld evidence for their
measurements. Third, one cannot see the role of decision maker agents that
could be a mediator in this controversy. They are expected to give a
comprehensive consideration in producing their decisions, instead of a partial
consideration, such as technical, social considerations that are addressed by
some researchers. Fourth, the farmers as a target group in research of rice
post-harvest losses do not fully realize the problem occurs in rice post-harvest
losses. Therefore, they do not have an idea whether the problem is solved or
not. All situations show that the researchers see that the measurement
problem has not been solved. The problem of communication of controversy
process, the insufﬁcient scientiﬁc proof of rice post-harvest losses, the

absence of mediator agents, and a lack of similar idea and meaning of rice

34

post-harvest losses given by social groups involved in the controversy cause
the absence of closure of the controversy. In other words, there are no
mechanisms for the closure of their debate. Here the researchers have not
gotten into the second stage of EPOR and SCOT: closure and stabilization.

From Latour's perspective, the researchers construct rice post-harvest
losses as facts. The researchers are engaged in a controversy with competing
ideas about the deﬁnition and estimation of rice post-harvest losses that will
be used in Bangladesh. Rice post-harvest losses are interpreted differently by
each of the researchers. The researchers give various deﬁnitions of rice post-
harvest losses; they conduct research with various methods and at different
times, and they produce various loss estimations. The differences can be
caused by researchers‘ different theoretical backgrounds and assumptions
about rice losses. From this point, it is seen that the researchers that are from
different social groups, following Bijker and Pinch, have different
constructions, interpretations, and designs of rice post-harvest loss. In the
EPOR approach, the controversy that occurred among the researchers is
signiﬁcant in the construction of rice post-harvest loss as a scientiﬁc ﬁnding.
In the SCOT approach, some conﬂicts emerge in the process of development
of the rice post-harvest loss problem, such as conﬂict in technical
requirements of methodologies used and in production of loss estimations.

In this fact construction process, the researchers try to convince other
people that rice post-harvest loss is important. They convince people by
publishing their research reports, by introducing their equipment to the
farmers, by reporting a high degree of rice losses and so on. They also try to
fulﬁll the peoples' needs. For example, they try to improve the fanners' rice
production, to make the rice post-harvest operations easier by implementing

improved technology. They try to fulﬁll the researchers' needs by producing

35

the scientiﬁc ﬁndings of rice post-harvest losses through research. In order to
accomplish the engineers' need, they develop and produce the new loss
reducing techniques.

From the explanation above I see that there is a lack of agreement
about deﬁnitions and measurement of rice post-harvest losses. Therefore,
rice post-harvest losses as scientiﬁc products still need to be negotiated
among the researchers. The most important thing to be negotiated is

measurement.

3.2.2. The Different Interests of Researchers

In table 5, it can be seen that the researchers vary on several
characteristics. The characteristics of researchers are important to understand
and analyze. In order to get a complete understanding of the post-harvest loss
issue one needs to understand how it is produced and what are the
backgrounds of researchers who are engaged in this issue. Related to this
idea, Latour said that to understand a fact is to understand who the people
involved in fact building are (Latour 1987). Here, rice post-harvest loss is a
fact that needs to be understood by understanding the characteristics of the
researchers that conducted research in rice post-harvest losses. Rice post-
harvest losses can also be seen as a social phenomenon that needs to be
understood by examining the historical and ideological perspectives of the
researchers involved.

In discussing the researchers' different backgrounds, I start by relating
Table l and Table 5. In Table 1 one can see that the researchers deﬁne rice
losses differently among each other, while Table 5 describes various

characteristics of the researchers. Bala, Karim & Rashid, and Molla deﬁne

36

rice loss as rice loss in the drying operation. The deﬁnition given might be
inﬂuenced by their interest in the drying project. Samajpati et al. say that
processing and storage operations are causes of rice losses. In this case, I
think the operations include operations from cutting until milling. However,
they only say processing and storage as if the storage operation was a
separate operation ﬁom the processing operation. They intend to focus on the
storage operations as the main cause. Their intention might be related to their
interest as engineers who are engaged in a storage project. Hurley et al. and
Sarker state some rice post-harvest operations as causes of rice losses and
one of the operations is the drying operation. It is apparent that their
backgrounds as engineers in a drying project inﬂuence them in citing the
drying operation as one cause of rice losses. The researchers' interests and
backgrounds inﬂuence them in deﬁning rice losses and explaining the causes
of rice post-harvest losses in their research.

In explaining the importance of understanding different backgrounds
and interests of the researchers I focus my explanation on analysis of Tables
2, 4, and 5. From these tables one can see the researchers' different
perspectives in doing research and producing the explanation of rice post-
harvest losses.

Bala, Samajpati et al., Sarker, and Karim & Rashid all have similar
backgrounds as lobbyists and engineers. By doing research in drying and
storage projects, as engineers, they intend to improve loss reducing
techniques (especially drying and storage techniques) and recommend the
using of these techniques. The improvement of these techniques is assumed
as an appropriate way of solving the rice loss problem. This is based on their
argument that rice post-harvest losses are a crucial problem that must be

solved. From their research they found farmers to be indifferent to rice losses.

37

Furthermore, Saker and Karim & Rashid's research show that they lack
reliable farm-level measurement and farmers did not want to use their
techniques. Even though they already know that farmers do not see the
importance of the rice loss problem and of using their techniques, as lobbyists
they persuade farmers to use their techniques and others to "follow" their
argument. In order to convince others of the validity of their argument, they
show a high degree of rice losses in their research. It is apparent that they can
be grouped as interventionists.

Another researcher that can be grouped as an interventionist is Molla.
He does not give any information about who he is. He works on a drying
project at a government seed farm and is concerned with the prevention of
rice losses. Similar to other interventionists mentioned above, he shows a
relatively high degree of rice losses. The high degree of loss estimations have
been taken as evidence that rice post-harvest loss prevention programs must
be conducted. It implies the importance of the use of loss reducing techniques
and also of funding for the programs. In his research Molla realizes that there
is an absence of farm-level measurement of rice losses and the background of
the estimation produced is not known. Even though he does not have an
accurate estimation and explanation, he points to the importance of rice loss
as a problem and of rice loss prevention. I also see his perspective as an
interventionist one.

The next researchers are Hurley et al. They are lobbyists and also
engineers who work on a drying project. As engineers they are interested in
evaluating certain loss prevention technique options that are introduced in the
society studied. From their research, they wish to get a better understanding
of the loss level of traditional practices. They also show the importance of

understanding women farmers as a group of people who predominantly work

38

on drying operations and have a better evaluation of using drying facilities. As
lobbyists and engineers, Hurley et al. have a different perspective from the
interventionist researchers. They persuade others of the importance of the rice
post-harvest loss issue in Bangladesh, of improvement in the use of drying
techniques to reduce losses, and of social considerations in their perspective.
Their perspective considers not only the technical but also the social.

The following researchers I will discuss are Ahmed et al. In table 5,
there is no information about who they are. They focus their research on the
need for technical change and its consequences for employment (especially
change from the dheki to the custom mill). In their research they argue that
there is inadequate proof of the value of technical change, and even some
evidence that technical changes cause some serious social consequences with
respect to income of the poorest women. Their argument is strengthened by
the data produced that show a low degree of rice loss. From their research
they suggest the need of understanding the economic and institutional
considerations in analyzing adoption processes of the new techniques. From
the explanation above, I see that their interest is the social aspects of rice
post-harvest losses. They orient their interests, methods, and arguments to
social conditions as the main point of the rice post-harvest loss issue. It is
apparent that their perspective can be called socially-oriented.

Haque eta1., as scientiﬁc officers also have a speciﬁc characteristic.
They focus their research on rice post-harvest loss operations and estimation
of the size and causes of the rice losses. They give detailed explanations
about rice post-harvest operations, the methods used in their research, the
method used in measuring rice losses in every operation, effects of various
methods used in every operation and season on rice losses, and estimation of

rice losses. They also separate large farmers' and small farmers' practices in

39

rice post-harvest processes. Based on their research they give some
suggestions to the Bangladesh government about some efforts to increase rice
production and to eliminate rice losses. Haque et a1. try systematically to
explore all possible causes of rice loss, and to look for various ways to get a
good estimation of rice losses by considering various operations and times.
They discuss and analyze social aspects of rice post-harvest losses by giving
scientiﬁc explanation and proof that are necessarily required. It is apparent
that their explanation, arguments and interests show their perspective as
scientiﬁc.

As I mentioned in the beginning description of rice post-harvest losses,
this issue was deﬁned as a problem by intemational agencies (i.e., United
Nations General Assembly and Food and Agriculture Organization, and also
by a developed country (in this case: United States of America). It is seen
that, at ﬁrst, the rice post-harvest loss was constructed by western thought.
They constructed the importance of the rice post-harvest loss problem partly
based upon the importance of reducing loss and of increasing rice production,
especially in developing countries. They also see the importance of
supporting for funding, research, and development in rice post-harvest losses
in the developing countries.

From the explanation above, I think that the researchers and the
western people developed rice post-harvest loss ﬁndings as a scientiﬁc
practice. The way for the construction and control over the phenomenon is
seen as part of a network of power relations. The relations among the
researchers, their scientiﬁc practices, their country, other countries, and
international agencies illustrate the political character of scientiﬁc practices.

Scientiﬁc practices are not separated from politics.

40

Different groups have different interests and ideologies in constructing
rice post-harvest losses as a problem. They have different commitments to
people they work for since they represent their agencies‘ interests and
ideologies. All efforts in determining the deﬁnitions and estimations of rice

losses are directed to reach their own goals.

CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSION

The researchers construct the idea of rice post-harvest losses as a
problem that needs to be discussed. In the fact construction process, scientists
and engineers give information that leads them in the direction of the fact. In
this case, the researchers constructed rice post-harvest loss as a fact by giving
information such as statistical tables and scientiﬁc explanations. The main
problem with respect to rice post-harvest losses is measurement. They
construct various measurements by constructing deﬁnitions of rice post-
harvest losses, methods used in their research, times of conducting research,
and rice loss estimation. Their efforts in constructing measurements are
directed to achieve their goals by implementing their interests.

In constructing the measurements, they are in the interpretative
ﬂexibility stage in the EPOR and SCOT perspectives. In this stage, the
researchers consider their sociopolitical environment. It implies that each
deﬁnition or meaning of rice post-harvest losses given is inﬂuenced by their
values and interests. The researchers construct their own measurements
instead of developing an agreement among themselves. They have not
reached a consensus of the measurement, or in other words, they have not had

a closure of the measurement.

41

42

Regarding the researchers' interests, the scientiﬁc ﬁndings are basically
4directed to satisfy some important needs and wishes of groups. The scientiﬁc
ﬁndings, and needs and wishes are socially and politically deﬁned.

In the social construction theory of science and technology, the
development of technological controversy is considered to be one important
element. Here the social groups are faced by the fact that there is not just one
possible way of designing a technological artifact. The importance of studying
the social construction theory is basically to understand every social
phenomenon in the social context. The assumption of social construction
theory is that all social phenomenon are socially constructed. Ones cannot
fully understand a social phenomenon if they do not understand its social
context.

Some suggestions with respect to rice post-harvest losses are given
below. It is proposed that loss measurement procedures be standardized in
order to get a comparable measurement of rice post-harvest losses, from
observations that are conducted in different locations and times. The
measurement must be accurately measurable and deﬁned.

Decision makers should consider the social, cultural, economic and
technical considerations that are addressed by the people engaged in rice
post-harvest loss research. In making the decisions, they should also consider
various agents that have interests in the rice post-harvest loss issue. They are
government agents, private agents (for proﬁt and non-proﬁt agents), and the
public. Government agents, for example, they should cooperate with the
legislative branch. With respect to private agents, the sphere of business
inﬂuences the rice post-harvest loss partly in choosing directions for the
research and development programs, and supporting scientiﬁc research and

programs in universities. Non-proﬁt agents play an important role in scientiﬁc

43

and technological activities in giving ﬁnancial and expert support for
research. Public opinion contributes information for the executive and
legislative sphere about public interests and needs.

Another suggestion is further research questions. Are there any
differences in rice post-harvest loss explanations and ﬁndings in places with
the similar social and cultural backgrounds? Regarding the differences of loss
estimation produced, how do the countries handle and solve the rice loss
problems? Are there any speciﬁc ways to solve them? What are the social

impacts of implementation of the transferred new loss reducing equipment?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Andy B; Basilevsky, Alexander; and Hum, Derek P.J.
"Measurement: Theory and Techniques." In Handbook of Survey
Research, pp. 231 - 288. Edited by Peter H Rossi., James D Wright,
and Andy B Anderson. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc, 1983.

Althuis, Paul; and Vervurt Art. Technological Movements on A World Scale.
The Netherlands: Delft University Press, 1982.

"Bangladesh." Statistical Yearbook for Asian and the Paciﬁc. Bangkok:
Economic and Social Commission for Asian and the Paciﬁc, United
Nations Publications, 1992.

Bijker, Wiebe E; Hughes, Thomas P; and Pinch, Trevor. The Social
Construction of Technological Systems. Cambridge: The MIT Press,
1987.

Board on Science and Technology for International Development.
Commission on International Relations, National Research Council.
Posthgest Food Losses in DevelopingCountries. Washington, DC.:
National Academy of Sciences, 197 8.

Boxall, R. A; Gra, J. La; Martinez, E; and Martinez, J. "Post Harvest Losses
of Rice in the Dominican Republic." Tropical Stored Products
Information 42 ( 1981): 5-10.

Campbell, Norman. What is Science ?. New York: Dover, 1952.

44

45

Cicourel, Aaron V. Method and Measurement in Sociology. London: The
Free Press of Glencoe, 1964.

Esmay, Merle; Soemangat; Eriyatno; and Phillips, Allan. Rice Postproduction
Technology in the Tropics. Honolulu, Hawaii: The East-West Center,
1979.

"FAO Action Program for the Prevention of Food Loses Guidelines and
Procedures." FAO Bulletin. January 197 8.

Feyerabend, Paul. Against Method. London: Redwood Burn Limited
Trowbridge & Esher, 1979.

Greeley, Martin. Postharvest Losses. Technology. and Employment. The
Case of Rice in Bangladesh. Boulder: Westview Press, 1987.

Gusﬁeld, Joseph R. "On the side: Practical Action and Social Constructivism
in Social Problems Theory." In Studies in the Sociology of Social
Problems, edited by Joseph W. Scheinder., and John I. Kitsuse. Spur
Norwood: Alex Publishing Company, 1984.

Haque, Anwarul A. K. M ; Quasem, M. A. ; Choudhury, N. H. ; and , Jose R.
"Rice Post-harvest Practices and Loss Estimates in Bangladesh:
Threshing through Sundrying." AgricultLIraI Mechanization in Asia.
Aﬁica and Latin America 22 (l) (1991): 53-58.

"Indian Sub-Continent." Asean Economic Handbook. ﬁrst edition. London:
Euromonitor Publications Limited, 1987 .

Jagtenberg, Tom. The Social Construction of Science. Dordrecht: D. Reidel
Publishing Company, 1983.

Karnuanga, Mulmnba., and Spencer, Dunstan S. C. Losses of Rice in West
Aﬁica. The Case of the Office Du Niger in Mali. Monrovia: West
Aﬁica Rice Development Association, 1981.

Latour, Bruno. Science in Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1987 .

46

Pinch, Trevor. " "Testing - One, Two, Three Testingl": Toward a
Sociology of Testing." Science, Technology, and Human. Journ_al of

the Socieg for Social Study of Sciences. vol. 18 / no. 1 (Winter, 1993:
25-39).

"Rice, Paddy. Twenty Principal Producers in 1990." UNCTAD (United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development) Commodity
Yearbook 1991. New York: United Nations, 1992.

Rohani, M. Y; Norin, S. A. Shariffah; and Sarnsudin, A. "Post-Harvest
Losses of Paddy in the Krian / Sungei Manik Areas." MARDI
Research Bulletin. 1985, p. 148-154.

Rouse, Joseph. Knowledge and Power. Toward a Political Philosophy of
Science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987 .

 

Saunders, R. M; Mossman, A. P; Wasserman, T.; and Beagle, E. C. Ri_ce_
Postharvest Losses in Developing Countries. Oakland: Agricultural
Research (Western Region), Science and Education Administration, U.
S. Department of Agriculture, 1980.

Spurgeon, David. Hidden Harvest. A System Approach to Postharvest
Technology. Ottawa: International Development Research Center,
1976.

Stevens, S. S. "Mathematics, Measurement and Psychophysics." In
Measurement Deﬁnitions and Theory. edited by C. W. Churchman and
P. Ratoosh. New York: Wiley, 1951.

HICH

N STATE UN

ii iii!

12 53611

Ion
WW
3‘1

IV. LIBRARIES
WWWWWWW
515447