4M (— —.-.—-.4)—M"0 ‘HJJ'JA. -Ww Ilt' . n t a .- a a , r - . v v . v a .. w I.I'vIl M WWW..— -W——..-_.,— M.— WM .n‘n\¢-(.(IQ:1\\Ilyc.nv|y¢utllnn Ill. "an“ -.~nm. .\.I mvhl- . at. , 0|ri :4..- cunmxm Lu. annual:- u‘u .u Mumuuu . - m h .W‘Wk nu A 0‘ \~ - ~U-A‘MW ..- . n».- u...s~-.--—u-‘~~.~~.m\ Mun u~\~.--.nn~-.m.- ~\.c ~m‘\u‘\..« ~n. u u........ .‘hit‘-.. -.u..~.. ,u ”4 , “mm...“ 1a.. “nu.“ """§"'1293 00902 .4“. This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A Comparative Study of the Effectiveness of Agricultural Extension Work by Two Agencies In The Islamic Republic of Iran (State of Khorrassan) presented by Has san Aghel has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in AEE M%%/ Major Préfesml' / i Date / /fl 7 ‘ MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 l J LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE I a’.‘ {"5 '-—‘ I ,1 . H H . " ' " 114,4 1 MSU |s An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution c:\clrc\datedue.pm3p.' AICOMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION WORK BY TWO AGENCIES IN THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN (STATE OF KHORRASSAN) BY Hassan Aghel A DISSERTATION submitted to Michigan state University In partial fulfillment of the requirement For the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Agricultural & Extension Education 1991 ill: its i551] i911 ill; 6'77— 953x A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION WORK BY TWO AGENCIES IN THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN (STATE OF KHORRASSAN) BY Hassan Aghel ABSTRACT Agricultural extension in the Islamic Republic of Iran tend to suffer from problems of insufficient supervision and management, lack of coordinated linkages between extension agents, farmers, and researchers, and lack of communication and regular contact between extension agents and farmers. This study compared the activities of agricultural extension workers of the Department of Agriculture in the Ministry of Agriculture (Extension Agents) and rural development workers in the Department of Jihad of the Ministry of Jihad (Rural Development Personnel). The comparison examined information regarding the organization and function of agricultural extension services in the state of Khorrassan in relation to the development of agricultural production and innovations in the State of Khorrassan in the Islamic Republic of Iran (I.R.I) . The purposes and approaches of the two organizations were dissimilar in teaching methods and clients served. Rural Development Personnel concentrated on small-holder farmers and dry land farming as a result of the Rural Development organization's philosophy and objectives. Extension Agents also concentrated on larger scale farmers and farmers dealing with vegetables and horticulture. C01 special. to sire iners that i with at large ( melt to my ioice Coordination of local level agencies, mobilizing extension specialists, strengthening the knowledge and skills of the extension agents and rural development personnel can be effective to strengthening extension programs in state of Khorrassan. Farmers were not satisfied with either organization and received their information from others. The extent of farmer interaction with extension agents and rural development personnel was, to a large degree, unsatisfactory. Extension agents were divided between individual and group teaching methods. Rural development personnel gave high priority to group teaching methods. Mass media activities were the last choice for both agents. Linkages with agricultural research were minimal and too dependent on personal relationships between extensionists and researchers, rather than through the formal mechanisms used to coordinate the research and extension effort. Copyright by HASSAN AGHEL 1991 Dedicated to cherish the loving memory of my father, Shokrolah Aghel, to whom I stand in debt for my education and Knowledge; and whose last words light me to the path of higher education. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In the name of Allah (God) Most Gracious, Most Merciful Knowledge is a thing that can and should soar. If knowledge does not soar and produce learning for others, it hecomes insignificant. Transfer of knowledge promotes new tfirth, such as rain that has given growth to seeds. The question of how to give the rain in order to help the seed to grow remains with the will of All Mighty God: and God is always there who helps you, gives you direction and a straight path. This has happened in my education and in the preparation of this dissertation. During my studies at Michigan State University, Dr. Frank Bobbitt, who directed my study at the beginning, and Dr. Carroll H. Wamhoff, who took the responsibility and directed this dissertation (due to the extended absence of Dr Bobbitt) provided inspiration throughout this project. I pay sincere gratitude to both of them. I should gratefully mention Dr. Robert Wilkinson and Dr. Robert Hatfield who gave me encouragement and a positive attitude to finish. My thanks also to Dr. 0. Donald Meaders Who Gave attention and guidance to the objectives of the Study and proposal. ii Dia ch: ihl th: My thanks to Dr. Murari Suvedi, Mr. Delwar, Hossain Diane VerLinde, and Jackie Steeby for their help. I shall forever be grateful to my wife, Athena, and my children, Afsoneh and Sabourah, for helping with typing and who sacrificed the time which I otherwise would have had for them. My special thanks go to the head of the College of Agriculture at the University of Mashhad, Mr. Abrahiem Bazari, who really assisted in securing the facilities and personnel for the collection of the data through the state. I also give thanks to the management of the Extension Department, Rural Development Department, Personnel of the Agriculture Institute at the Shirvan, Rural Cooperative at Torbat, Ghahestan Sugar Factory management in Birjand, and Mr. Khajavey for their support and hospitality during the data collection. I also give thanks to Mr. Kabbirry, Mr. Shemshei, Mr. Rajah-Zadah and other staff of the college of Agriculture Wh° Participated in the collection of data, typing the Farsi instruments and copying- iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Need and Importance of the Study . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . Characteristics of Extension Education In the Islamic Republic of Iran . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER II STUDY BACKGROUND Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Extension Education Objectives . . . . . . . . . . Ministry of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . Ministry of Jihad . . . . . . . . . . . . . Role of Extension Directors . . District Directors . . . . . . . The Structure of Khorrassan Agriculture . . . . I o o a a o 0 Crop Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geography and Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil and Land . . . . . Organization and Staffing of The Two Agricultural Extension Departments in the State of Khorrassan (IRI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Extension department . . . . . . . . . . . Extension Personnel in the State of Khorrassan Extension Department . . . . . . . . . . . . Rural Development Department . . . . . . . . Constraints of Extension Work . . . . . . . Financial Resources and Salary Level of Extension and Rural Development Department . CHAPTER III REVIEWOFTHELITERATURE. '. . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical and Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . Extension Education and Community Development . . . . . . . . . . . . Similarities and Dissimilarities . . . . . . Theories and Concepts of Social Systems . . . . . Social Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv ix xiii H UlN\lO’\-l=- Hid 20 20 21 23 25 25 26 27 28 28 28 30 31 33 33 4O 41 44 46 47 48 Structure of the Social System . . Philosophy and Objectives of Agricultural Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Effectiveness of Extension Services . . . . . 57 Role of the Extension Agents . . . . . . . . 59 Motivation of the Extension Agents . . . . . 60 Historical Background of Extension Education . . 61 History of Extension Education In Iran . . . 63 Adoption and Diffusion of Agricultural Innovations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Relative advantage . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Complexity: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Trialability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 . 7O Observability . . . . . . . . Accessibility/ Availability . . . . . . . . . 70 . 7O Adoption . . . . . . . . . . Stages of Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Farm Information Dissemination . . . . . . . . . 72 Training and Teaching Methods of Agricultural Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 1. Mass Media: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 2. Group Methods: . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 3. Individual Teaching Methods: . . . . . . 77 Developmental Roles of Extension Education and Rural Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Communication and Linkages of Extension and Rural Development Services . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Farmers' Needs and Research . . . . . . . . . . 83 Research and Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Extension: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Linkage: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 {HAPTER IV METHODS AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Instrument Development . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Instrument Validity . . . . . . . . . 97 Instrument Reliability . . . . . . . . . . 98 Data Collection Procedures . . . . . . . . . . 100 Population and Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Administrators, Directors and Specialists . 103 Data Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . 105 PTER V. DATA ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 V 109 1 Description of Research Respondents . . . Respondents Group description . . . . . . . 109 Sharestan (District) Directors (Chief Administrators) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Personal Characteristics of the Survey Population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Educational level Rural Development Directors . . . . . . . . 111 Research Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Experience Characteristic of Directors (chief administrators) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Activities of Extension and Rural Development Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Farmers Characteristics . . . . 114 Farmers Age . . . . . . . Gender and Marital Status of Farmers . . . 115 . . 116 Type of Ownership and Income . . . . . Educational level of Farmers . . . . . . 117 Size of Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Age of Extension Agents. . . . . . . . 119 Age of Rural Development Personnel . . . . 119 Gender of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Marital status, Title position of the agents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Specialty of Extension agents and Rural Development Personnel. . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Educational Level of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 2 EXTENSION PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 . . . 124 Directors perception . . . . Directors perception in relation to teaching . 129 methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perception of Extension Agents and Rural Development Directors in Relation to the Importance of Subject Areas . . . . . . . . 133 Strengthening Agricultural Extension Programs Directors Perceptions . . . . . . . . . . Directors perception in Reaction to Time Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Directors Perceptions Provision of Assistance . 141 Directors, Extension Agents and Rural Development personnel, Perceptions Regarding the Future of Extension Activities and their Collaboration . 144 137 vi PART ART ART 3 Perception of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel in relation to teaching methods Preferred. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Extension Agents and Rural Development personnel priority Ranking of teaching Methods . . . . . . . 149 Agents perception on the Level of knowledge. . . . 150 Perception of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel in relation to area Of teaChing O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 153 Agents perceptions on the area of teaching . . . 154 Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Linkages with Agriculturally Related Organization 156 Perception of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel in Relation to Frequency of Contact with Research Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Perception related to months of Contact with the Research Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Extension Agents and Rural Developments Personnel Perceptions Regarding Provision of Assistance to Farmers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Agents Level of Knowledge of Research Center . . 163 Agents Training Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 4 FARMERS PERCEPTIONS Numbers of Contact With Extension Agents and Rural Developments personnel . . . . . . 167 Farmers Perception in Relation to Contact with Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel in 1988, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Farmers perception of Adoption of Information In Their Farm Practice . . . . . . . . . . 169 Farmers Perception of Areas Advice by Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 vii Farmers Perception in Relation to the Extension Education system. . . . . . . . Farmers perception of the Agents Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER SIX Summary - Conclusions - Recommendations Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Need for the stud . . . . . . . Purposes of the Study . . . . . . Objectives of the Study . . . . . Methods and Procedures . . . . Research Question Finding Study Finding Question 1: What were the personal characteristic of the survey population?. . . Study Finding Question 2: Was there a significant difference between the perception of Extension and Rural Development Directors regarding the purpose of Extension Education? . . . . . . . . . . . . . Study finding Question 3: Was there a significant difference between the perception of Extension and Rural Development Directors regarding the client serve? . . . . . . . . . Study finding Question 4: Was there a significant difference between the perception of Extension and Rural Development Directors regarding the teaching methods preferred and applied by the two department? . . . . . . Study finding Question 5: Was there a significant difference between the perception of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel regarding the teaching methods applied by the two department? . . . . . . . Study Finding Question 6: Was there a significant difference between the perception of Extension and Rural Development Directors regarding assistance to farmers especially? . Study finding Question 7: Was there difference between the perception of Extension Agents and Rural development Personnel regarding Provision of assistance to farmers? . . . viii 171 173 175 175 176 176 177 179 182 183 183 184 185 186 Study finding Question 8: Was there a difference between the perception of Extension Agents and Rural development Personnel regarding their linkage with agricultural related organization? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 Study Finding Question 9: Was there A difference between the Extension Agents and the Rural Development Personnel regarding their effectiveness? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' 187 Study finding Question 10: What were the perception of farmers in relation to contacts with the Extension Agents and Rural Development personnel? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Study finding Question 11: what were the perception of farmers in relation to activities of the two organization in State of Khorrassan? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Study finding Question 12: what were the perception of farmers in relation to linkages with the two organization in state of khorrassn? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Study finding Question 13: Was there difference between the perception of Extension and Rural Development Directors regarding their agents time allocation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Study finding Question 14: Was there a significant difference between the perception of two organization regarding ways in which the two department contribute to strengthen the extension efforts? . . . . . . . . . . . 192 Study finding Question 15: What were the perception of farmers in relation to the future of Agricultural Extension Education in state of Khorrassan? . . . . . . . . . .x. . 193 Study finding Question 16: was there a significant difference between the perception of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel regarding services given to the farmer? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Study finding Question 17: was there a significant difference between the perception of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel regarding their training needs? . . 194 ix Conclusions O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 195 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Recommendation For Future Research . . . . . . 1 . 203 NDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O a O O O O O O O O 205 Appendix A-1.--Perception of Extension Directors on the Purpose of Extension Education . . . . 206 Appendix A-2.--Perception of Extension Directors in the Purpose of Extension (clients served) 207 Appendix A-3.--Perception of Directors in Relation To Teaching Methods Prefer . . . . . . . . 208 Appendix A-4.--Directors Perception of Importance of Areas Preferred by Their Agencies. . . . . 210 Appendix A-5.--Mean and Standard Deviation of ' Directors Perception in Relation to Strengthening Agricultural Extension Systems in Khorrassan . . . . . . . . . 212 Appendix A-6.—-Directors Perception of their Agents in Relation to Provision of Assistance to farmers . . . 214 O O O O O O O O O O O O O Appendix A-7.--Perception of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Regarding the Importance of Extension Teaching Methods . . . . . . 215 Appendix A—8.--Mean and Standard Deviation of Agents Level of knowledge about Agricultural Subjects Areas . . 217 APPENDIX A-9.--Perception of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Regarding Areas of Teaching. . . 219 Appendix A-10.-- Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel perception of Linkages with Organizations . . . . . . . °.' . . . . 220 Appendix 11. Agents Perceptions Regarding Provision of Assistance to Farmers . . . . . 221 Appendix A-12.--Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Perception Regarding Training Needs . . 222 Appendix A-13.--Perception of Farmers in Relation With Area advice by Extension agents and Rural Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 NDIX B SURVEY INSTRUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 MAP OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN. . . . . . . . . . .261 MAP OF THE STATE OF KHORRASSAN. . . . . . . . . . . 262 NDIX C ESPONDENCE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 6 3 IOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 xi LIST OF TABLES Page Total Irrigated and Non-irrigated Crops Area with Average Yields in State of Khorrassan 1361-62 (1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Deployment of Staff of the Department of Agricultural Extension in 1988 in the State of Khorrassan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Deployment of Staff of the Department of Rural Development in 1988 in the State of Khorrassan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Sample Size, and The Rate of Response. . . . 109 Educational Level of Extension, Rural Development and Research Station Directors.. 112 Experience Characteristic of Extension, and Rural Development Directors in stat of Khorrassan . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 113 Activities of Extension and Rural Development Directors during 1988. . . . . . . . .. . . 114 Classification of Farmers According to their Age and Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Classification of Farmers according to Their Type of Ownership and Income . . . . . . 116 Classification of Farmers According to Their Educational Level . . . . . . . . . .. . . 117 Classification of Farmers According to Their Farm Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Characteristics of Agricultural Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel . .. .120 Characteristics of Agricultural Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel . . .121 xii 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Page Specialties of Agricultural Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel. . . . . . .122 Years of Extension profession of Agricultural Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 122 Educational Level of Agricultural Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel . . .123 The Result of Null Hypotheses in Relation to the Educational Purpose of Extension. . . 125 The Result of Analysis of Null Hypotheses in Relation to Clients Served. . . . . . .. . . 127 Perception of Extension Directors in the Purpose of Extension (clients served). . . 129 Perception of Directors in Relation to Teaching Methods Preferred. . . . . . . . . 131 The Results of Analysis of Null Hypotheses in Relation to Teaching Methods (Directors perception). . . . . . . . .. .. 132 Directors Perception in Relation of Important of Areas Preferred by Their Agencies. .. . .135 The Result of the Null Hypotheses in Relation to Subject Areas that Should be Known by the Agents (Directors Perception). . . . .. . . 136 Mean and Standard Deviation of Directors Perception in Relation to Strengthening Agricultural Extension System in Khorrassan. 138 The Result of Null Hypotheses in Relation to The Strengthening Extension Programs in Khorrassan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Extension & Rural Development Directors Perceptions Related to Time Spent for Activities (percent). . . . . . . . . . . . 141 The Result of Analysis of Null Hypotheses in Relation to Provision of Assistance to the Farmers.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Directors Perceptions of the Provision of Assistance to the Farmers . . . . . . . . . 143 xiii Page Perception of Directors and Agents on The Statement "Integration of Service Between The two Department". . . . . . . . . . . . 145 The Result of Analysis of Null Hypotheses in Relation to Teaching Methods Followed by the Two Agents. . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Extension Agents and Rural Development personnel Perceptions in Relation of Teaching Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Perceptions of Priority of Extension Teaching Activities by Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel. . . . . . 149 Mean and Standard Deviation of Agents Level of Knowledge. . . . . . . . . . . . 152 The Result of Analysis of Null Hypotheses in Relation to Level of Knowledge Between the Two Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Self Ranking Perception of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Regarding the Area they Most Gave Advice . . . . . . 154 The Result of Null Hypotheses in Relation to Linkages with Agricultural Colleges and Related Organization . . . . . . . . . 156 Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Perception of Linkages with Organizations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Perception of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Regarding their Linkage with Research Station. . . . . . . 159 Perception of Extension Agents and Rural Development personnel Regarding Their frequency of contacts with Research Stations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 The Result of Analysis of Null Hypotheses in Relation to Provision of Assistance to Farmers By the Two Agents. . . 161 Agents Perceptions Regarding provision of Assistance to farmers. . . . . . . . . . . . 163 xiv 5. w. W. n. Page Level of Awareness of Extension Agents and Rural development in relation to Research Centers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 164 The Result of Null Hypotheses in Relation to the Educational Needs of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel . . 165 Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Perception Regarding Training Needs.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Perception of Farmers in Relation to Number of Contacts with Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel. . . . . . . . . . . 168 Farmers Perception of Linkages With Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel. . .. 169 Farmer Perception of Adoption of Information In Their Farm Practice. . . . . . . . . . .. 170 Self Ranking of Farmers Perception Regarding the Area Advice By the Agents. . . . . . . . 171 Farmers Perception in Relation to the Extension Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 Farmers Perception in Relation to the Extension Contact in Percent. . . . . . . .. 173 Farmers Perception of Provision of Assistance by the Agents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 XV LIST OF FIGURES Page Organization Chart of the Extension Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 National Organizational Chart of Extension . . 36 National Organizational Chart of Rural Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 37 Rural Development Organization in Ostan (State).....................38 Jihad Agricultural Organization in Sharestan (District) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Agricultural System in its Environment. . . . 55 A Model to Generate and Distribute Farm Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Information Flow in Agricultural Extension.. . 74 Role of Agricultural Extension . . . . . . . 74 Extensionists’ Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Components of Extensionists’ Role Behavior Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 activ‘ Depar (Extel Depar IiEVelt level. the st (IRI) dwelt with later] CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Agricultural Extension has historically been perceived as a function of low status performed by poorly qualified and poorly equipped persons who deal with poor and frequently illiterate farmers in remote areas. This perception has been supported by facts: low salaries, unclear job descriptions, poor supervision of performance, and poor quality of work by Extension Personnel (World Bank 1985, p. 61) The primary concern of this study was to compare the tivities of agricultural extension workers of the partment of Agriculture in the Ministry of Agriculture xtension Agents) and rural development workers in the partment of Jihad of the Ministry of Jihad (Rural velopment Personnel). The comparison examined the velopment of agricultural production and innovations in / a State of Khorrassan in the Islamic Republic of Iran ZI). According to Axinn: The function of agricultural extension is to enhance learning among those who till the soil and tend the livestock of the world--learning those things they need to know in order to feed themselves and others (1988, p. 1). In I.R.I at the time of the study, extension educators eloped educational opportunities for those who could not tact educational centers on a regular basis. Extension erred also to the transfer of knowledge and information 1 from th populat organiz it involve Iran. (Le. M more re innovat Interna 2 from the research center or university to the general population for adoption. Extension was an educational cnganization for helping the people to help each other. At the time of the study, there were two organizations involved in extension education in the Islamic Republic of Iran. It was difficult to determine which organization (i.e. Ministry of Agriculture or the Ministry of Jihad) was more responsible for the dissemination of agricultural innovations in the Islamic Republic of Iran (Kayhan International, 1987). Issues concerning the field of agricultural extension in the Islamic Republic of Iran included: (1) Duplication of services and areas of responsibility in extension education between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Jihad. (2) Did Extension Agents or Rural Development Personnel systematically provide a two-way flow of communication between the research station and the farm community? (3) Were the extension education programs of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Program of the Ministry of Jihad serving different client groups of farmers (i.e. tenant, small, or large farmers)? (4) Should extension program emphases such as This at lgricu Departmen Khorrassa research titansio: 1| 3 distribution of supplies (e.g. new seeds, fertilizer, pesticides, seedlings, etc.) and publication of extension materials be continued or modified? What were the perceptions of farmers, Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel toward these activities? This study compared the performance of the Department :T‘Agriculture in the Ministry of Agriculture with the )epartment of Jihad in the Ministry of Jihad in the State of Khorrassan, the Islamic Republic of Iran. The focus of the research was on how the two organizations performed their extension functions in terms of the following issues: 1. Comparison of extension approaches by the two agencies. Comparison of the Jihad director’s and Extension director's perceptions with respect to each agency's purposes and expectations. Description and comparison of the two agencies’ roles in expanding knowledge and adoption of improved farm practices among farmers. Comparison of perceptions of effectiveness by farmers, Extension Agents, and Rural Development Personnel of the two agencies. l the rt involv revolt delive hinist carry.‘ hevek Jihad overlz h: slippm Organ terms Sazam ralatj demam iinist and en vork 1 team had it Credit 5me1 4 Statement of the Problem Due to the revolution in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the role of extension education and the organizations involved in extension education changed. Prior to the revolution, the Ministry of Agriculture was the major agency delivering extension services. After the revolution, the Ministry of Agriculture experienced significant problems in carrying out extension activities. The presence of Rural Development Personnel from another ministry (Ministry of Jihad Sazandaghi) in the same geographic areas caused an overlap of effort to serve farmers in terms of knowledge, support, resources, and credit. The Ministry of Jihad started as a small volunteer organization with the objective of supporting rural areas in terms of agriculture and rural development. Jihad Sazandeghi was created initially by highly motivated, relatively inexperienced young men and women. Due to the demand and the great need for rural development, the Ministry of Jihad was organized from this modest beginning, and emerged in 1980. In 1980, the two agencies began to provide extension work for rural development in the Islamic Republic of Iran, resulting in apparent duplication of services. This overlap led to competition, which reduced Extension Agents’ credibility and limited their ability to disseminate appropriate innovations to the farm community. The overlap reduce in in perfm petit: Repre: ixten: of Ru] this 1 import 0i thv 10v p1 about and rv 00m: be vn. bette; the h 5 reduced the ability of the Ministry of Agriculture to assist in improving research and production linkages With farmers. No reports have been written about the general performance of the two agencies. In 1987, there was a petition signed by over one hundred members of the House of Representatives to move the Department of Agricultural Extension in the Ministry of Agriculture to the Department of Rural Development in the Ministry of Jihad. However, this petition did not pass (Kayhan 1987, 12). National oil revenues led to a lower level of importance placed on agriculture, making a comparative study of the performance of extension work by the two agencies a low priority. As a result, regions had little information about the problems and successes of agricultural extension and rural development activities. In the absence of such a comparative study, planners and policy makers continued to he.uninformed regarding which extension strategies might be better suited to the State of Khorrassan. The answers to the following questions were vital: 1. What were the selected personal characteristics of the survey population? 2. What were the perceptions of Extension Agents, Rural Development Personnel and the farmers regarding the appropriateness of the current activities of the two agricultural extension approaches? Th °f the iinistr Mitiistr hears a teem 1| 6 To what extent did each of the two agencies work, with farmers, especially: a) small- holder farmers? b) large- holder farmers? How did the Extension Agents and the Rural Development Personnel from the two agencies perceive the effectiveness of their extension work? To what extent did each of the two agencies have linkages with the experiment station, input supply companies, or the universities for updating the skills and knowledge of the Extension Agents or rural development personnel? Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this study was to compare the activities f the extension service currently being offered by the inistry of Agriculture and the extension service of the inistry of Jihad in the State of Khorrassan during the ten ears after the revolution in the Islamic Republic of Iran. pecifically, the objectives of this study were to: 1. Describe and compare the agricultural extension approaches of the two agencies (i.e. Department of Agriculture in the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Jihad in the Ministry‘of Jihad) in terms of: Few 7 a. organization and staffing. b. provision of assistance to farmers. c. preparation of extension workers (educational level and subject areas such as farm machinery, pest control, horticulture, crop and soil, etc.) d. existing linkages with the research station, agricultural colleges, agricultural supplies and services such as the farm machinery organizations and cooperative agencies. e. types of extension activities and/or teaching methods followed. 2. Compare the perceptions of the directors of Jihad and Extension with respect to their own and each others' agency purposes and expectations. 3. Describe and compare the extent and the way in which the two agencies contribute to expanding the knowledge and adoption of improved farm practices among farmers. 4. Compare the perceptions of the farmers, Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel regarding their effectiveness of the extension service provided by the two agencies. Need and Importance of the study FOOd production continues to be of major importance in rest 1 count] problr contir lherei risen Sahara hverag reqnir rapid the de indie: develt 011! e1 8 most third world countries (particularly the poorer countries). Population growth remains as one of the main problems in the third world since population growth continually exceeds the growth of food production. Therefore, food imports in these developing countries have risen sharply. The food and agricultural situation in Sub- Saharan Africa and in Asia has deteriorated drastically. Average diets have fallen below minimum nutritional requirements. Food production has stagnated in the face of rapid growth in population. The number of hungry people in the developing countries has grown. Mellor (1988, p. 1) indicated that a half billion to one billion people in developing countries live in poverty so severe as to assault our ethical standards. He also indicated that: We must recognize that an employment-oriented strategy of development led by agriculture has substantial risks for developing countries. It means that large portions of their population are brought into the development process, consuming more food. That of course, is highly desirable. (Po 5) The agricultural sector of Iran experienced low growth rates since the 1979 Revolution. This has happened despite remarkable increases in the use of inputs such as fertilizer and farm machinery, and despite the POSt revolutionary gbvernment’s proclaimed emphasis on agricultural development and self sufficiency in food. The decline in agricultural JTOWth rates in recent years has been mostly accompanied by knrland productivity. The relatively low rainfalls erperi nay pa The or status played World of rev of in of nor square were E relati var br Within Unenpj areas) I vith 9 experienced in many parts of the country in early the 1980's nay partially account for the low yields in those years. The ongoing war and the uncertainty regarding the ownership status of many pieces of land after the Revolution also {flayed a role in these low yields. (Mojtahed & Esfahani, World Development 1982, 839) . While oil provided the bulk cm'revenue to the country, agriculture was the main source cm‘income for the Iranian population. Iran had a population cm'nearly 50 million (1987 Census), and an area of 267,000 square miles (1,623,930 square kilometers). Rural incomes were still extremely low in absolute terms and were low relative to urban incomes, especially during and after the war between Iraq and Iran. Economic inequity between and within regions was, in many cases, also substantial. Unemployment existed everywhere, particularly in rural areas, especially after the cease-fire in 1368/1989. During the war, The Islamic Republic of Iran was faced with the following problems: 1) A slow down in industrial and agricultural growth due to the cost of the war, estimated at 60 to 70 percent of the country’s income (Amirahmadi 1990, 67). 2) An increased level of unemployment particularly in the rural areas. 3) A greater concentration of industrial activities in Tehran and other large cities, with consequent problr iev01t atria intro latte: finanr Socia. Year r “We tail SECtor the ir exiii: aspect hWEVr 10 urban migration problems. 4) Low income in rural areas and a decrease of purchasing capacity due to high prices and unavailability of commodities. 5) Uneven income distribution between urban and rural areas. 6) Continued dependence on exports of unprocessed oil and minerals. (Kayhan Air Mail, October 4, 1989) The Islamic Republic of Iran tried to solve these problems in several ways during the ten years after the revolution. Attempts were strongly being made to increase agricultural income through changes of technologies and introduction of new crops, intensification of cropping patterns through irrigation, improvements in the supply of financial and marketing services, and investment in the social infrastructure. In addition to the above, during and after the eight Year war the IRI tried to develop the industrial sector to serve the agricultural and rural areas first (Kayhan Air Mail, May 17, 1989). The value added to the agricultural sector was very small due to the expansion and capacity of the industrial sector during the war. In general, the expansion of the industrial sector in terms of value added aSpects was quite impressive. other performance measures, however, told an opposite story: 1) The proportion of manufacturing employment in the that . suPTO: servr. this : 11 labor force remained at a small percentage of the labor force. This resulted in relatively low ability for the sector to create new employment. 2) A dualistic structure emerged in the country. On the one hand, there was an industrial sector and an urban area which enjoyed several types of incentives and privileges. On the other hand, there was a rural area with mostly small-scale farms with very low production, low quality, and poor income. 3) The industry and government offices were located in and around the capital, Tehran, and other large cities which created serious congestion, especially in Tehran. In general, Iranian government officials were convinced (that significant undertakings in rural development should be supported by efficient and effective agricultural extension ‘services. New information from this study would be useful to the ‘policy makers of both ministries. The new information would ‘include extension approaches, strengths weaknesses, the ‘farmers’ viewpoints, educational needs of the agents, the {purpose of extension, and linkages with the universities and other agricultural related organizations. The findings from this study should aid in future planning and the execution of effective programs for extension activities for the I 4 _—Wfése~,24=}{wr . people Th through certain aqricul The chef inform Adopter idOptio illicul ru pr iiricnl ot to on th Conant biting): 00 he Se 12 >eople of the State of Khorrassan. Definition of Terms The following definitions are utilized for terms used throughout this study. The definitions given here describe certain terms which were used in the discussion of agricultural education and agricultural extension in Iran. The defined terms will be helpful in understanding the information clearly and accurately. Adopter: One who accepts a new idea or practice. Adoption: The act of accepting an innovation. Agricultural Education: A formal program of instruction of rural life and advancement of proficient farming practices. Agricultural Extension: Organized activities for conveying (extending) technical information to farmers and others. The function of agricultural extension is to enhance learning among those who till the soil and tend the livestock, in order to feed themselves and others. Cbmmunication: The act of generating and assigning meaning by a communicator and a receiver. Diffusion: The process by which an innovation is communicated over time through channels among the members of a social system. This involves a sequence of events. t r t r ‘ r i Evtens 13 Extension Agent: Personnel of the Agricultural Extension Department under the Ministry of Agriculture, with operational responsibility for providing useful and practical information to people, especially to farmers. Rural Development Personnel: Personnel of the Rural Development Department in the Ministry of Jihad, with the operational responsibility for providing useful and practical information to rural areas and farmers. Farmer: A person who owns and/or operates a unit of land on which he/she can plant crops like corn, sugar beets, etc. Group: Two or more people who have special feelings of belonging together. Input: Something that delivers and is used to achieve a purpose. linkage: A cluster of channels connecting one subsystem with others in a social system and/or the outside world, or permanent channels of communication and mechanisms for cooperation between the institutions. lfinistry of Agriculture: The ministry was established to solve the farmers' (education, credit, marketing, equipment for mechanization) and peoples' food needs in terms of import or export of food and Organi a‘ Ostan: Percep er Researr Rt tl Role; 14 agricultural related equipment. Ministry of Jihad: The new ministry was established after the Islamic Revolution with the main purpose of rural development. Norms: The rules or standards developed in group associations which define what is right and proper. Organization: A stable social system organized for the attainment of a particular goal. Ostan: The largest subdivision of area in Iran. Perception: Personal inclinations to disregard some things, emphasize others, and interpret things one’s own way. Researcher: A scientist of the Institute of Agronomic Research, a university professor, a specialist in the research station. Role: A behavior pattern that individuals may exhibit to help achieve some purpose, or may be expected to follow because of the positions they hold, such as being a researcher, an agricultural extension worker or a farmer. Shahrestan: A subdivision of an Ostan; each shahrestan is divided into many counties. Social System: A set of interrelated units that engage in joint problem solving to accomplish a common goal. 7 Village: An area in which less than 5,000 inhabitants live. Sepah Tarvige: The Rural Development Peace Corps (Sepah Rials: fitters [Apart 15 Tarvige) which worked with the Extension Department before the revolution in 1979. Most of this group were graduates from general high school, led and supervised by college graduates from the agricultural colleges. Rials: The currency used in The Islamic Republic of Iran. Limitations of the Study Though the scope and methodology gave wide coverage of the state of Khorrassan’s agricultural system, the study had limitations. It covered essentially the perceptions of four population groups: organizational management personnel, field extension workers from the Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development Personnel from the Ministry of Jihad, and the farmers. The study focused on the comparative performance of extension work of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Rural Development. other limitations of the study were: 1. It only applied to the State of Khorrassan. 2. There was variation in the number of subjects. 3. It relied upon personal interview interpretation and data collection variables. 4. Statements presented by the target clients were used in this study to describe the problem for the state of Khorrassan. percv host agrir hnivr Educ: hints thrive hqrir titer two 1 39ng 16 5. The economic status of farmers were different. 6. The financial resources of both agencies varied. Characteristics of Extension Education In the Islamic Republic of Iran According to the 1987 census, between 50 percent and 60 percent of the Iranian population lived in rural areas. Most of them were involved in agricultural work or in‘ agricultural related fields. Agricultural colleges and universities operated under the Ministry of Higher Education, and agricultural high schools operated under the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Education. The university prepares extension specialists and, the Agricultural high school prepares extension personnel. Extension personnel were usually high school graduates and college graduates with B.s. degrees from the college of agriculture who usually served as the supervisors or specialists in the areas. Zamanipour, 1981, indicated that: In 1953, the present foundation and philosophy of extension work was introduced to Iran through the U.S. Point IV Program. This new program provided, for the first time, a means to extend the results for research conducted at the few existing experiment stations to the farmers in the villages (P- 23) In terms of historical background of agricultural extension in Iran it is necessary to look at Iran after the Second World War. At that time the country was experiencing two threats: 1) the potential fear of external military aggression, and 2) the possibility of internal revolution growl incre Since tech and 1 Irani vas r span: which means enter coll: Both teem revol Peepl ilprr lite} Trail conqp °°hnr Hart} for I Turn 17 growing out of subversion via a communist agrarian movement. The U.S. wished to keep Iran in the western camp by increasing its political stability through economic aid. Since Iran was faced with a shortage of educated manpower, technical aid was provided in the form of experts, advisors, and foreign training. At that time, the majority of the Iranian people were living in the rural areas, so attention was given to rural development. Two rural programs were sponsored by the Americans. One was community development, i which had been newly fashioned by American sociologists as a Q means of social reform. The other was agricultural I extension, which was an old product of American land-grant colleges and served as a means for agricultural progress. Both were instituted in Iran. The important ideology and technology were seen as means to combat the threat of revolution and to improve the living conditions of the rural people. It was expected that the multi-disciplinary approach to comprehensive development at the grass roots level would improve the welfare and increase the productivity of the people in the villages, thereby conquering both poverty and disaffection in Iran. In connection with this policy, in January of 1949 President Harry S. Truman of the United States launched a new program for providing technical assistance to the underdeveloped countries (Zamanipour, 1981)- Iran was one of the first countries to receive the tect Frog eve: of t ind: Sen inst Him‘ arri agrj exte Pri< Yea] in: def: inm 18 technical assistance under this new program. The Point IV Program, as it became known, soon established itself in every major city throughout Iran. The most significant part of the Point IV Program was agricultural extension which was indeed a unique program for Iran. The Iranian Extension Service dates from 1953 when the Point IV Program was instituted as a separate unit for extension within the Ministry of Agriculture. A team of American Extensionists arrived in Tehran in February of 1953 to begin the agricultural extension work (Zamanipour, 1981). The Islamic government of Iran put agricultural extension and agriculturalteducation as one of the Iniorities in the national development plans after the eight year war between Iraq and Iran ended in 1988. In the past, in spite of many attempts made by agricultural educators and the agricultural extensionists to improve food production, especially during the 19705, no progress was made. Hakimian H. (1988) indicated that: At the gates of the city, disposed of his land, deprived of his cultural identity and social framework, subjected to uncertainty and harassment for the whole of his life, he arrived, demoralized and exhausted, looking for streets paved with oil. And he was turned into a disguised beggar. This sums up the contribution of oil revenues to rural society in Iran.(pp. 218-227) Iran shifted from a food sufficient country to a food deficient country. many reasons, including improper and inadequate use of agricultural extension, may have caused this thou were Iran the reve agri prod resp its qrou heve cont econ envi Prod Cont vau ahen and 19 this shift. The production of major crops dropped. Even though agricultural extension and agricultural education were fully financed and controlled by the government of Iran, the situation was not corrected. Another reason for the drop in food production was a growing dependency on oil revenues, which led to a greater dependency on imported agricultural products and less emphasis on agricultural production. The effect of agricultural extension and the responsibility of extension dropped to the lowest level of its time. Effective linkages between and among the principal groups are critical elements in agricultural and rural development for Iran. Farmers must have access to a continuous supply of technology that fits their social, economic, political, cultural, religious, and physical environment if they are to increase and sustain their production. Researchers, on the other hand, must have continuous contact with producers so that they may be acquainted with their circumstances and needs. Extension agents, in this context, serve as a bridge between farmers and researchers or technology (Tchouamo, 1987). detaih “9am CHAPTER II STUDY BACKGROUND Location Khorrassan is the ninth state in the Islamic Republic of Iran; it is located in northeast Iran, south of the USSR, west of Afghanistan and northwest of Pakistan. Two mountain chains run from northwest to northeast (Hazarmasjed and Kapdagh) with the two highest peaks, Beenaloud and Aladagh, providing the main sources of underground water for agriculture. Due to its geographical location, the Iranian climate is characterized as dry. Khorrassan has a diverse climate because of the high elevation in the north and desert climate in the south. Approximately 10.2 percent of the total land in Khorrassan can be cultivated; 85 percent (26.6 million hectares) of the land is forest and pasture, and 4.8 percent (1.5 million hectares) is desert. Extension Education Objectives There were no formal, written documents available detailing objectives for agricultural extension organizations in Iran. The researcher conducted interviews 20 and dis an unde Mini—st: Di Office outline for tha 1| 21 and discussions with extension educators in Iran to develop an understanding of the objectives and mission. Ministry of Agriculture Discussions with the National Extension Organization Office in the Ministry of Agriculture in Tehran helped outline the following objectives for agricultural extension for that organization. 1. Develop educational linkages with the farmers in order to develop the agricultural sector and to contribute to rural society. 2. Introduce and recommend new agricultural crops and innovations to farmers for improvement of production and economic conditions of rural society. 3. Increase the efficiency of extension in reaching the farmers and disseminating the results of research work among them. 4. Encourage the implementation of soil conservation work in hilly and semi- hilly areas, the improvement of marginal land and the application of improved land use practices. 5. Improve farm crops by introduction, selection, and distribution of various 10. 11. 22 types of varieties suited to the different agro-climatic zones. In particular, promote the expansion of crops which are strategically important such as grain and corn. Pursue production optimums through planting and cultivation of high yielding crops, especially potatoes. Further improvement of water use through the adoption of better irrigation practices and irrigation schedules, ensuring the maximum benefit from this scarce and very expensive resource. Encourage timely and efficient protection of crop pests and diseases, either on an individual or on a collective basis. Increase the credibility of the Extension Department and Extension Agents among the farmers. Establish a system of agricultural education that can be adopted by the farmers in the rural areas, especially the small scale farmer. Improve wheat production (tons per acre). inc edu edu Con Edu sep ava In his fol 23 Ministry of Jihad The Ministry of Jihad had several sections which included both agricultural extension education and rural education. .At the time of the study, agricultural extension education was considered part of rural education. Consultation with the Director of Agriculture and Extension Education (Khorrassan) revealed a continuing discussion on separating the agricultural extension education section from the rural education section. There was no written document available about the actual policies of extension education. In discussion with the Director of Agriculture in Jihad, a mission was described for the Department which included the following statements: 1. Reduce migration from the rural areas to the urban areas. 2. Develop educational linkages with farmers in terms of development of the agricultural sector. 3. Introduce new ways of cooperative work by combining the small section land holder with the larger section land holder for better farming operations and mechanization. 4. Introduce and recommend new agricultural crops and innovations to farmers for improved economic conditions of rural 10. 11. 12. 24 society. Increase the efficiency of extension in reaching the farmers and disseminating the results of research work among them. Encourage the implementation of soil conservation works in hilly and semi- hilly areas. Improve dry land and forage crops by introduction, selection and distribution of types of varieties suited to the different agro-climatic zones in the state. Improve water supply and channels by adoption of paved channels and pipeline irrigation practices and schedules. Improve timely and efficient protection of crop pest and disease, especially in forage crops. Improve water resources by preparing the small dam in watershed to save the winter run off. Improve linkage of research and education with the actual needs of the farmers. Improve forage préduction. the Ce] 25 The Director of Extension Role The State Extension Director is the leader of extension in the state and is responsible for the state extension program. The duties also include administration of extension funds and the approval of all publications. The position is not as important as it should be. Because of the dramatic change in the department, several state directors changed jobs which resulted in a lack of efficient management. District Directors (Sharestan Extension Chief Administrators) The State is divided into seventeen sharestans (districts) for the purpose of supervision. In each sharestan, the agriculture district director is responsible for the coordination of the work of all district supervisor directors in terms of extension, crops and pesticides. The structure of Khorrassan Agriculture Traditionally, agriculture has been the major sector in the economy of the state of Khorrassan. According to a census done in 1361/ 1983, the area of agricultural land was 2,781,000 hectares, almost 18.5 percent of the total production land in Iran. Of these 2,781,000 hectares, about 1,905,000 hectares were under cultivation. Due to water availability, 744,000 hectares or(39.1 percent) were irrigated land and 1,161,000 hectares or 60.9 percent were US! 131 26 dry land farming. The uncultivated agricultural land was used mostly as rotation land (Akbar Abdul Hossein Zadeh, 1365/1987, 24). Crop Production Crop production constituted the major sub-sector of agriculture as shown in Table 1. A great variety of crops were grown in the state; the main varieties were wheat, barley, sugar beets, fruit trees (especially apple, pears and peaches), cotton, potatoes, grapes, tomatoes, melons, onion, and saffron. The data in Table 1 shows the average yields of major crops achieved in the period of 1361-1362 (1983-1984). Intensive cropping was generally associated with the availability of water for irrigation. The major non- irrigated crops were wheat, barley, and cereals. Irrigated cropping generally involved intensive use of land, labor, capital, and water, the application of mechanization and technology and management. On the other hand, dry land farming was characterized by low productivity, extensive use of land and labor, and wide fluctuations in production from year to year depending on the prevailing weather conditions and the rainfall in particular. *Ta hve G_ra Bar fer a m /o 27 *Table 1. Total Irrigated and Non-Irrigated Crops Area with Average Yields in the State of Khorrassan 1361-62 (1983) Area/Production Area/Production Crop Irrigated /in Dry land/in (Hectares)/tons (Hectares)/ton Grains (Wheat, 633,670/l,194,526 667,870 /277,228 Barley, Rice) Cereal 9,436/ 10,990 20,895/ 9,798 Industrial Crops 122,922/2,157,221 4,214 / 730 (Sugar Beet, Cotton, Oil Seed) Vegetables 106,200/1,593,410 84,117 /476,642 Potato & Onion 16,172/ 259,978 00,000 /000,000 Forage Crops 48,496/ 465,382 600 / 1,694 Fruit trees & 86,368/ 467,582 18,137 / 27,100 Forests Other Crop 17,962/ 3,353 3,220 / 769 Production * First Extension Bulletin of Khorrassan Agricultural Extension Department (1366)1989 Geography and Climate Khorrassan, the largest state in the Islamic Republic of Iran is located in the eastern part of Iran between 30", 21’ to 38", 17’ north and 55", 28’ to 51", 14’ east of Greenwich (see APPENDIX B for map). It has an area of 352,500 square kilometers; average length north to south is 750 kilometers and its average width (east to west) is 470 'dlometers. The area of the state is 31.3 million hectares, J5 of the total of Iran (Khorrassan First Extension iulletin, 1989). 0_ {IL l as ge are K poor mill: hectz fores hlanr Share “Ere sBier imDie sDecj Soil and Land Almost 9.2 million hectares (29 percent) are classified as good agricultural land, 4 million hectares (13 percent) are classified as average and 58 percent are classified as poor agricultural land. Uncultivated land accounts for 3.2 million hectares (10.2 percent). Almost 26.6 million hectares (85 percent are forests, pastures and mountains, ‘ L and 1.5 million hectares (4.8%) are desert and sand. Organization and Staffing of the Two Agricultural Extension Departments in the state of Khorrassan (IRI) Extension Department To carry out the activities of extension in the state of Khorrassan, the Department of Agriculture’s central headquarters consisted of a section of specialists (agronomy and seed production, soil, horticulture, plant protection, forestry, rural cooperative, veterinary, extension, program planning, mechanization, animal husbandry), and seventeen Sharestan (District) offices. All State Extension Directors and chief administrators were directly responsible to the State Agriculture Director. Their main job was to provide technical and scientific support to the field extension staff for the implementation of the agricultural extension program. Specialists and directors were expected to link between research and extension, but in reality there was little iii pee the ole res for sex ole in off age usu Bee bee her Dir tee: heah (he: 29 linkage. Each section in the central extension had a team of people including specialists in crops, animal production, pest control, fertilizer, forage, etc. The Sharestan Extension Chief Administrator represented the Department of Extension Education at the sharestan level along administrative boundaries and had the overall responsibility for all field extension activities. His main function was to accommodate the department’s field extension service in the area of their responsibility and maintain close contact with the farming population, providing training, guidance and advice to them on a day to day basis. The staff of each sharestan (District) agricultural office consisted of subject matter specialists and extension agents. The Directors or chief administrators of the extension office of the sharestan was also a specialist, usually in extension or another agriculturally related area. Because of strong beet production in the state, agricultural beet officers carried out special project work with the help of sugar beet factories. The subject matter specialists were not actually under the management of the Extension Directors, but they operated under their own specialist department. The subject matter specialists received technical support from the specialist sections at headquarters in Mashhad, the capital of the state. The subject matter specialists and supporting technicians operated on a district wide basis, and sometimes they also act and dish ado; one use acti and hhea 30 acted in a liaison capacity between the front line extension and the specialist section at the headquarters. Extension specialists and the chief administrator of the Extension Department in the sharestan devoted most of their time to extension, covering the coordination of planning and implementing the national extension programs and the activities of the extension personnel posted at the district level. The major extension activities for the year of 1988-89 were increasing irrigated wheat production by adopting new varieties of seeds, the use of fertilizer, practicing land preparation and practicing weed control by use of herbicides. The headquarters section was also actively involved in the preparation of Extension bulletins and radio and television programs about the production of wheat. It must be pointed out, however, that despite the new movement in the Extension Department, the coordination of planning and the implementation of the national extension programs in the sharestans were left to the agricultural directors who carried the main responsibility for implementing the extension program and were responsible to the Director of the State. Extension Personnel in the State of Khorrassan Extension Department The Department of Extension in 1988 was staffed by 94 Tat hgi 31 Extension Agents and 36 specialists. Their distribution, according to the list that was provided to the researcher, is presented in Table 2. The data in Table 2 shows 16 of the Extension Specialists (43.2 percent) and 17 of the Extension Agents (18 %) were working in the central office. Table 2. Deployment of Staff of the Department of Agricultural Extension in 1988 in the State of Khorrassan location Professional Extension Agents Male Female Male Female 1. Asfraean 2. Birjand 3. Bojnord 4. Dargaz 5. Ferdos 6. Kashmar 7. Konabad 8. Mashhad 1 9. Nishaboor 10. Ghenat 11. Guchan 12. Sabzevar 13. Shirvan 14. Tabas . 15. Torbat Haydariyh 16. Torbat Jam 17. Tyyebat - - 4 - 14 - 7 - 7 5 NH NHHHNHHHO‘HHHHN i 5 2 7 5 4 - 4 - 7 2 2 3 6 Total 36 1 94 - Rural Development Department The Rural DevelopmentDepartment in Jihad contained several sub-departments, such as Construction of Rural reas, Education, Rural Education, Health, Handcrafts, nimal and Fisheries, Irrigation & Water. Agricultural \uel Extension in Jihad contained 74 Extension Agents and N‘I—Dloww‘la‘m-bUND—I \J‘en'mw—w na/ 0 pr h i [v 32 11 specialists. Data in Table 3 shows the distribution of agents and specialists on the state. It should be mentioned that all of the directors and district directors in the sharestan were also specialists. Table 3. Deployment of Staff of the Department of Rural Development in 1988 in the State of Khorrassan Location Professional Extension Agents Male Female Male Female 1. Asfraean 0 ~ 5 - 2. Birjand 0 - 5 - 3. Bojnord 1 — 9 - 4. Dargaz 2 - 1 - 5. Ferdos 0 - 4 - 6. Kashmar 0 - 4 - 7. Konabad O - 7 - 8. Mashhad 2 - 14 - 9. Nishaboor 1 - 4 - ‘10. Ghaenat 1 - 2 - 11. Guchan 1 - 4 - 12. Sabzevar O - 2 - 13. Shirvan 1 - 3 - 14. Tabas 0 — 2 - 15. Torbat Haydariyh 0 - 7 - 16. Torbat Jam 1 - 0 - 17. Tyyebat 1 - 1 _ Total 11 - 74 - The number of staff varied from sharestan to sharestan (district to district) depending on the nature of agriculture and the number of farmers, the development of the district in terms of social and environment, the intensity of production, etc. The program objectives were highly influenced by gricultural policy under government control from the hot The hit its an o h r I h t' 33 capital. Extension program planning was centrally done and the state had little effect in the planning. Virtually all administrative staff, subject matter specialists, and agricultural sharestan directors (chief administrators) in the Extension Department held university degrees in extension or agriculturally related areas, while most of the agricultural Extension Agents had high school diplomas in agriculture or had attended training courses in major areas of management, pesticides, beekeeping, crops, fertilizers, and other agriculturally related areas during the year of 1988-89. Constraints of Extension Work The high ratio of farmers per field extension worker and the increased demand for extension advice imposed a great strain on the limited number of field extension agents as the farmers adopted new information or techniques. A study conducted in one part of Iran by Dr. Hoshang Irvany (1364/1986) showed the number of extension agents per farm household in the area of Baloochestan was 1/372 to 1/4,336. The average for the area was 1/2356. ( 1986, p. 106) Financial Resources and Salary Level of Extension and Rural Development Department A common concern was that the salary of the Extension gents and Rural Development Personnel was too low to ttract and hold well trained, competent individuals. Budget 34 allocations for the Department of Extension were made in both the regular (ordinary) cost of operation and program budget. The salaries in the Department of Extension for extension agents ranged from 35,000 rials to 76,700 rials ($ = 75 rials). The salaries for professional staff (specialists and directors) ranged from 47,000 rials to 84,600 rials. The salaries in the Rural Development Department for Rural Development Personnel ranged from 45,000 rials to 69,500 rials. The salaries for professional staff (specialists and directors) ranged from 64,000 to 110,000 rials. It should be mentioned that there was opportunity for extra income for the Extension Agents in the form of overtime. This sometimes reached an additional one- half of his/her salary per month. Thus, the income of Extension Agents could have been as much as 50 percent higher than that of Rural Development Personnel Personnel. 35 Fig-1 Organization Chart of the Extension Department Director of AgricUlture In State ’Specialist Assistant Director in state 4 Directors of EXtension in State _. r EXtension Mechani- Soil“Fer- Irri- Rural specialist zation tility gation youth Assistant Director of7 Extension specialists — ’i Draft Extension Horticulture Cr0p PrddUction Education specialist Specialist specialist 'Tractor Trainers Specialists Audio Visual Department Horticultural . - H,Trainer Audio Visual Offiter of ' Officer Film Extension Director :< Lfi of Shahrestan Department of Transportation _EXtension Officer Extension - Driver “ A Specialist * From the actual chart that was available in the extension department 36 Fig—2 Organization Chart in National Level of Extension I Ministry of Agriculture} Committee of Planning Organization Committee I Secretary of Crops J ’National Extension Director Administrator' Staff pec1a ist Advisor iv . i Staff Assistant Director Technical Assis- Assistant Director of Program tant Director + l Horticulture Crop _ Assistant Chief ( "“”‘ specialist Chief of sta Extension Budgets Personnel Extension Education ranspor— * Naieck Mohammady, Iran 1983 P. 272 (Principle 0 Facilities Control ' Publications Ag x 1 ition Rural Youth Extension) 37 Fig-3 National Organizational Chart of Rural Development Minister of Rural Development Central Committee Fommittee of Planning‘ Committee of Linkage of Agriculture Central Committee I Director of . Agriculture l LRural Education Director} LAssistant of Rural Education] sharestan Organi zation Committee l“ #J I Public Relations and information Committee of Research and Linkage F""“""_7P Department of Department of I Department Ol Audio visual L__————— Rural Education ___.____._J Organization Deparyment l Extension Section._ Publication relations Advertizing Rura Library Section I. h; -A 38 Fig-4 Rural Development Organization in Ostan (state) 1989 Planning L committee Central Committee J #A Coordination Committee Director of Agriculture Assistant Director ‘ Technical Assistant Director of Higher Training Applied Research & Assistant Education Director - l }4 Public Relations l l l _ , ,. Extension l Crops Research ‘ Logistic Finance "—‘——"' m Personnel MH— rGenetic Farm I Dry Landli l , Mechanization Machinery"*' , Soil and Water ‘Bulletins Audio Visual _ Soil Pre aration' lr v Fora e and Pasture Research on Irrigated Crop FM” \ 39 Fig-S Jihad Agricultural Organization in Sharestan (District) Central Committee ‘ Agricultural’Director of Sharestan [ r ’Rural‘Development l Rural Education .{Crop and‘Nater Planning Committee _A 'lOrganizational Committee Extension Communication Education Bulletins 'l . ’Director of' ehestan (county) i Animal & Education Rural Rural Rural : CrOp Fishery I Handcraft Education Development ‘ i t ' AUle Visual xtension l+----—-1 Assistant ' Director * . Extension Agent and—Specialistsl l Rural Technician] '——— am thl am PM Ab: Ag} PM 58( CHAPTER III REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This chapter contains a synthesis of selected research and literature that is applicable to the study. The theoretical foundation for this study emerged from the literature and research in agricultural extension education and adult education. In addition, information concerning previous studies was obtained by reviewing Dissertation Abstract International, the Current Index of Journals in Agricultural and Extension Education, the Education Index, Agricultural Extension Education Seminar/Conference proceedings, and Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) documents. The literature review is presented in the following sections: 1. Theoretical and conceptual framework for understanding the perception of extension and rural development. 2. Theories and concepts of social systems. 3. Philosophy and objectives of agricultural extension. 4. Historical background of extension education and the Iran extension system. 5. Adoption and diffusion of agricultural innovations. 6. Training and teaching methods of agricultural 4O T percep Person aqricu innova cultiv variet irriga t0 mov bl sma outsid alricu ll Islam there °f how I been p “hders adopti Platsc comPar 41 extension. 7. Communication and linkages of extension and rural development service. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework The theoretical framework of this study built upon the perceptions of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel as well as farmers. The primary objectives of agricultural extension work have been the dissemination of innovations to increase productivity through new methods of cultivation and mechanization, through the introduction of varieties of crops, fertilizer applications, method of irrigation, pesticide application, etc. The goal has been to move from the traditional type of farming, characterized by small volume land and trade (limited purchase of products outside the agricultural sector), to a new type of agriculture with strong links to the economy as a whole. With the introduction of this extension system into the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) during the last ten years, there was much disagreement among the organizations in terms of how and who should be supported. It is very important to understand how extension has been perceived by farmers. Decision-makers need to understand how other researchers perceive the process of adopting and diffusing innovations. Rivera, Seepersad and Pletsch (1988, p. 5 ) indicated that the usefulness of comparing agricultural extension systems has at least the follu comp. maki: ulti: and I 91W] 0f Gl socia hand idem haVe supp, From Deep; diff; Comp; 900d elist (193; asa 42 following four criteria: (a) the academic value of such comparisons, (b) their value in administrative decision making, (c) their relevance to policy makers, and (d) their ultimate benefit for farmers and the rural community. Ban and Hawkins (1988) also stated that: Interpret perception as the process by which we receive information or stimuli from our environment and transform its psychological awareness. Extension Agents cannot be expected to understand the complex psychology of human perceptions, but they should appreciate why people interpret their surroundings differently, and how these different perceptions influence their communication behavior.(p. 62) In general, people behave differently because they have grown up in different environments, received different types of education and have come from different economic and social backgrounds. When a person looks at his/her own hand, he/she can easily see that the ten fingers are not identical. There is a reason behind this; different fingers have different levels of responsibilities, based on their support and position, to accomplish their overall role. From this simple example, it is easily understood that people play different roles in different environments with different cultures and beliefs. Achievement requires comparison; if everything is the same, the comparison of good or bad cannot be explored. Researchers believe wrong exists in order for right to be perceived. Ban and Hawkins (1988) further identified general principles of perception as a process of five elements: 1 absolu Err. o—o-o_n—- Similai differ. the so. 43 1. People’s perception is relative rather than absolute: It is true that we may not be able to judge the exact weight or surface area of an object. We may be able to tell whether it is heavier or lighter, or larger or smaller than another similar object.... Perception of message will also be influenced by its surroundings. A circle surrounded by larger circles will look smaller than a circle of the same size which is surrounded by smaller circles. (p. 61) Similarly, extension activities are perceived by farmers differently based on their level of socio-economic status in the society. 2. People’s perception is selective: Our senses may, at any time, receive a veritable flood of stimuli from the environment around us. Hence an individual pays attention only to a selection of these stimuli. Several physical and psychological factors influence what he or she selects. Past experience also influences our selectivity as a way of providing an organized and structured set of experiences to influence our perceptions. (p. 61) 3. People’s perceptions are organized: We tend to structure our sensory experiences in ways which make sense to us. We try to convert the blooming, buzzing, and confusion into some meaningful order. One form of organization is into figure and ground. In a fraction of seconds our senses sort out visual and oral stimuli into figures which stand out from a background. Our interpretation of "figure" will often be determined by "ground". (P. 61) Hence, a picture of a man with a dirty face and hands standing in old clothes can be interpreted one way; yet when farmyard is added to the background the picture could be 'nterpreted in another way that the man is a hard-working farm! perc: diff: ARd t dEVei a9ri< lhicl the ( r1Ira: ad0p1 44 farmer. 4. People perceive what they want or are set to perceive: We perceive what we expect to perceive. Our mental expectations influence what we select and how we organize and interpret it. Expectation is an important perceptual concept that can be used by the person designing the communication to reduce the number of alternative interpretation given to stimulus. For example, the extension bulletin writer who states with a brief summary of his article will ’set' the reader to seek the key points in it. (p. 61) 5. Because of cognitive domain people's perceptions differ: One's individual perceptions will differ markedly from another,s in the same situation because of different cognitive styles. Our individual styles, our individual mental processes work in distinctly different ways depending on personality factors such as our tolerance for ambiguity, degree of open-and closed-mindedness, and authoritarianism. (p. 61) Extension Education and Community Development There have been many arguments between the researchers and educators about the description of extension and rural deve10pment. Extension in 1989 referred to more than agricultural extension. It was now a broad based concept which was also applicable to other sectors. In the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), and in most of the developing countries, people often perceive extension as rural development. Rural development was related to the adoption of improved technologies by the farmers. The ext tec edu liv dev bet thr aPl COll and bet we: in fro Per rea I‘llI‘ and 0th bet Edu tit dif 45 extension agents has a constant role to transfer those technologies to the final users in the rural areas through educational activities. In general, the higher standard of living of the rural community depends on agricultural development. DiFranco (1966, p.5) endorsed the differences between extension and community development. He said that throughout the world, in recent years, two distinct approaches to rural development have emerged: extension and community development. People everywhere were taking sides and promoting one over the other. They claimed that one was better than the other, depending on the one with which they were more familiar. This argument was disturbing to those in rural education; too much energy might be drained away from the real job of helping people to help themselves. Perhaps it is time to look at the two approaches to make a realistic comparison. There have been differences about the priorities for rural development and their definitions between the educator and officials in extension and in rural development. On the other hand, there are similarities and dissimilarities between the two organizations in the view of researchers and educators. To the researcher, Khorrassan agricultural extension education and rural development have some distinct differences, especially in their objectives and philosophy. It is difficult to ascertain these differences easily. org SOC edu imp dev res att Dev soc pro lit The Her has Dee 46 Similarities and Dissimilarities The Iranian extension services and Rural Development organization were created for the purpose of improving agricultural and community development through economic and social progress. In general, both organizations were educational; they organized activities based on the needs of rural people and used technical and research information on agriculture in an effort to help people help themselves. DiFranco 1966 (p. 19) indicated extension was perceived as an educational organization which dealt solely with agriculture and placed the emphasis on the individual for improving rural conditions for all people. Rural development was perceived as having multiple responsibilities for rural people in the rural areas. Extension Agents placed more emphasis on production and paid attention to the larger farmers. On the other hand Rural Development Personnel placed emphasis on the economic and social aspects of the community with broad integrated programs for the poor and small farmers. According to DiFranco ( 1966 19-20) Analyzing the differences and similarities between the principles of extension education and rural development was a hard task. The major and obvious similarity was that both approaches were interdisciplinary in nature. In both approaches the basic effort was educational, bringing desired change to the people. str dev gen- W The gem he fell mode SCie that 0the We then exit am the SYSt inte Comp With 47 In accordance with the description, rural development strategies emphasized agricultural extension, community development, and credit programs. Extension research generally involved comparisons of alternate communication forms with which to extend the message, e.g., individual and group meetings, demonstrations, radio, and so on. The community development programs used village level generalists to stimulate self-help projects and to facilitate the provision of social services according to the felt needs of local people. Theories and Concepts of Social Systems A system is an organized and complex whole. System models play a major role in today's social activity. Social scientists increasingly tend to use a system model in theorizing about the relationship of one section or part to other sections and to the function of the whole. Many scientists today believe that the systems approach will help them understand the organization as a subsystem. For example, a systems approach can be used to examine how agricultural extension in Iran functions as a subsystem of the total agricultural system. Hicks (1972, p. 46) defined system as a set of interrelated, interdependent, and interactive elements. This definition describes the omplexity of the whole system and all the relationships ithin it. Parsons (1964) pointed out that: H-fl'Hnnfn on two 48 System is the concept that refers both to a complex of interdependencies between parts, component, and processes that involve discernable regularities of relationships, and to a similar type of interdependency between such a complex and its surrounding environment. (p. 177) Loomis and Beegle (1957) described the social systems on two different levels. In the first place, 'social system may be considered a concrete or cooperative social structure such as a farm cooperative, an extension service, an agricultural research organization and agricultural training center..... these organizations are composed of persons who interact more with members than with nonmembers when operating to attain their objectives. second place, ’Social systems may be viewed as a more abstract unit, or one in which patterns of relationships prevail from generation to generation and from region to region. Viewed in this way, social systems consisting of elements or patterns that persist do not require that specific persons be considered as parts of the system.(p.4) Social Change There are several kind of changes, one of which is social change. Zaltman & Duncan 1977 indicated that: The most difficult conceptual issue in studying change is to adequately define social change. This definitional problem becomes apparent when we attempt to differentiate between change and non-change. Many things, perhaps all things, are always in some state of fluctuation; thus in some absolute sense " things are always changing." certainly when talking about human behavior one can make the case that most behavior fluctuates. (P- 5) Usually when people want to adopt new things or new 'deas, they change their behavior. Behavior depends on the vie SOC dif soc hat dif. ric] tee] Wrii 9X31 lhi: PAS: lac} 0th thc This WOr] 49 vision of each individual and his or her experiences in society. According to Loomis and Beegle (1958): What is conceived as a social change depends upon the observation point (more correctly called the point of reference), and the scope of ones vision. This may be illustrated by differences in conception of what is going on when a fire fighting crew deploys to get a large and fast moving forest fire under control. The view of the superintendent directing the fight from a helicopter is different from that of the individual fighter working on the ground near the fire. (p. 30) Social changes are viewed differently. Development has different meanings for each view. In the past Marx saw social changes much differently than did the capitalist nations. In the Islamic point of view, social changes are different from both of these doctrines. Some societies are rich in their social behavior but illiterate in their technological development or vice versa. Illiteracy has several meanings such as reading or writing, skills, social, moral, agriculture, etc). For example, the objective of a mechanic is to possess skills which are needed to fix or repair the tractor. There is a possibility that the good mechanic has skills to repair the machinery without having the skills to read or write. He obtained these skills over a period of time with continuous involvement with the machinery and tools needed for repair. This is a very common situation in developing and third world nations. Farmers may haVe the skill needed to raise crops, yet they may lack the ability to read and write. In gen pro How nut of ' coo req mec} 0f | real abil Opel com lac} mag; the °Per tesr they anti A(Jen Chan lhte 50 general, the objectives of farming is to increase production. This can be achieved over a period of time. However the farmer cannot visualize the content of the soil nutrient, the effects of irrigation and/or the germination of the seeds. It is very difficult for farmers to conceptualize all of the necessary activities which are required to raise crops over a short period of time as the mechanic can do. Farming is a process which has taken years of experience to perfect. For a farmer, the time needed to reach higher production can be reduced if he or she has the ability to read and write, as well as the skills needed to operate the farm machinery. Changes take place over time, especially in the farming community, because farmers may be illiterate in reading and lack the ability to understand information in newsletters, magazines, bulletins, and books. In addition they may lack the skills needed to apply the new methods of planting and operating the tractor. The slow rate of change may be the result of the fear of the farmers to adopt new innovations; they prefer to follow the old ways which produced anticipated and proven results. Farmers may have positive feelings toward the Extension Agents or Rural Development Personnel, but these feeling may change negatively or positively during different interactions. Lippitt (1973) defined change as: any planned or unplanned alteration in the status quo in an organism, situation, or process. He soc is occ tra gro COD r“?- I H sev r01 com 0f inp‘ wil til the Sew 51 further distinguished between planned change and organizational change in which the former is any 'intended, designed, or purposive attempt by an individual, group, organization, or larger social system to influence directly the status quo of itself, another organism or a situation’. (p. 37) Zaltman and Duncan (1977, pp. 7-8) indicated that social scientists noted two types of social change. The one is transmitted social change or "evolutionary change that occurs without deliberate guidance"; the other is transformed social change, which "occurs when individual groups or organizations change themselves or others through conscious actions or decisions. Structure of the Social System From the time the social scientist understands that several components of the social system play a significant role in a system, they try to find out the effect of each component and its importance in the system. The structure of a system contains boundaries, linkages, outputs and inputs. Today, it is expected that the electrical engineer will talk about the electrical system and its components and will understand precisely the effect of each component in the system. But in agricultural development, the complicated structure is not as easy to understand as the electrical system because the agricultural system deals with the human being. Development of agriculture in any area or in the state of Khorrassan is related to the linkages of several organizational components and their inputs. in Oil set Sir 52 Parsons (1964, p. 3) mentioned that the distribution of role-types within the social system and rules are from the point of View or the functioning of the social system, the primary mechanisms through which the essential functional prerequisites of the system are met. There is the same order of relationship between roles and functions relative to the system in a social system as there is between organs and functions in the organism. Anderson and Carter (1978, p. 10) indicated that a social system is a special order of It is a model of social organization that possesses system. That a distinctive total unity beyond its component parts. is, distinguished from its environment by a clearly defined boundary, and whose sub units are at least partially interrelated within relatively stable pattern of social order. Put even more simply, a social system is a bounded set of interrelated activities that together constitute a single entity. So, by definition of the social system, a system cannot be understood unless one has the complete perception about ;t. .All the program planners and development personnel need 0 understand the agricultural system properly in order to nprove the whole system. In order to understand the ricultural system, concerned individuals (administrators, searchers and extension educators, etc.) need a clear don about the existing social, cultural, economic, sical and religious environment of the nation. Th1 aci ant sy: thl am org an an: act noi till ca: 53 To understand the agricultural system, it is necessary to understand the subsystems and how they link together. The subsystems include research, extension education and activities, government policies, supplies and marketing, and others. The subject of this research was not about the system, but to gain a better understanding of the purpose of The system will not develop by itself, the two departments. The and the organization does not exist without a system. organization will be affected by its environmental factors which affect the way in which goals are met. If there are such factors, there is interaction between the organization and the environment around it. The interaction and activities between the organization and its environment is not a one way action. Both have effects on each other, but the amount of effect differs from one another, as in the case of extension and farmers. Agricultural development also depends upon other subsystems of the rural system, such as the social or the cultural. Axinn and Thorat (1972) and Axinn (1978) indicated that Any social system can be said to have six major functional components: Production, supply, marketing, governance, research and extension/education. Each component has subsystem(s) within it, with its own set of sub- component(s) and linkages. Each component also has linkages with outside systems. These outside linkages are with other units that are related in some way to that component’s function (p. 9 and p. 17). especially in rural In fact, in any social system, so be: thc co: wh li de ex ov in 54 social systems, the effectiveness of any one component has been related to the effectiveness of all other components; the effectiveness of the linkages between and among components can affect the activities of each component which, in turn, will affect higher production and better living in rural areas. In terms of agricultural development, for example, the two components of research and extension can affect the other and, as a result, affect the overall system of agriculture. Axinn (1978, p. 177) indicated that if the linkage between the extension/education component and the production component is such that information about agricultural innovations does not flow with sufficient efficiency and effectiveness, then the chances are that the production component will not take advantage of these innovations. Again, if researchers in the research component discover a high yielding variety, resistance to diseases and do not have sufficient linkage with the production component - either through an extension/education component or directly to pass on to the production component the information they have produced, than their contribution to the effectiveness of the total system is lessened. Figure 6 illustrates the agricultural social system in its environment according to Axinn and Thorat (1972) and Axinn (1978). 55 Production + Supply ] i Linkage Infrastructure Governance ducatio xtensio Research Social, Political, Economic, Cultural, Physical and Religious Environment 57’ Figure. 6: Agricultural system in its environment ( Adapted from Axinn and Thorat, 1972, p. 9 and Axinn, 1978, p.17) Philosophy and Objectives of Agricultural Extension The philosophy of extension is to help people identify their own problems, to provide practical research-based information that will help them overcome these problems, and to help people create and take advantage of their opportunities. Zamanipour (1981) endorsed the ide: that Extension, usually described as non-formal education, is an out of school system of education which adults and young people learn by doing. Pol Prc ext de\ The 391 car str has ext edu 0f inc and igr tho the 56 Extension service is a link between the people and the ever changing discoveries in the laboratories or in the field. To be more specific, it is a 'school of experience’ without classrooms or prescribed courses of study. Its curriculum is based on the need of the people it serves. Its students are people in the school of life. Its goal is to help the people attain a more satisfying farm, home, and/or community life. (pp. 35-36) The Technical Advisory Division Bureau for Programme Policy and Evaluation of United Nations Development Programme, (UNDP 1991, p.1) indicated that agricultural extension is primarily concerned with human resource development and technology transfer to rural households. These two elements are the basic building blocks of agricultural development. Improvements in one element cannot progress very far without improvements in the other. The entire extension process is fundamentally structured to bring about change. This educational process is predicated upon helping people improve their situation, based on their needs. Axinn (1988, p.1) indicated that extension is a service or system which farm people, through educational procedures, can improve methods and techniques of farming, increase the efficiency of production as well as income, better their levels of living, and lift the social and educational standards of rural life. The function of agricultural extension is to enhance learning among those who till the soil and tend the livestock of the world, learning those things they need to know in order to feed themselves and others. lei (ti: 57 Effectiveness of Extension Services In general, the attitude of the farming community toward extension activities and its effectiveness in the developing countries has been negative. Until now the extension agents has not had a significant influence over the rural development and economic growth of the farmers in Iran. (Rezwanfar, 1366/1988, p. 116) Rezwanfar's evaluations claim that the extension services have had a poor performance in helping the majority of the population of the country (Minot 1984. p, 21); extension services have served only a small proportion of farmers, those being the farmers who were already better off. Because of its objectives, the extension services have provided little help to the agricultural population as a whole. This view has grown among the Iranian policy makers and has led to a radically reduced extension budget after the Islamic Revolution. Rajabian (1363/1985, p.132) endorsed the negative effect of the budget reduction in extension activities. He compared the extension budget to the total budget; the extension budget was 1/100,000 of 700 billion tomans of the total budget. Shayesteh (1364/1986) also stated that the extension budget was reduced from 156 million to eight million toman in Iran during the years 1363-64 (1985-86). Needless to say, this decision by the government created dissatisfaction and annoyance among the existing staff and of m an EX CI" p1.- en' ao pr: COl ef1 ca] 19! (lei, ind 58 officers of the extension department in the Ministry of Agriculture. After 1364 (1986) the acute demand on agricultural production in Iran become more important to the Ministry, and it increased the budget sufficiently to reconstruct the extension program in the country. By adopting specialized crop production programs with achievable targets, the planners and the extension educators created a different environment for the extension department. Various activities such as distribution of fertilizers, plant protection measures, etc. were undertaken through the rural cooperative organizations in the rural community. All these efforts demonstrated that the extension system had the capability to rebuild its image. According to Swanson, 1990: Inadequate level of investment in public agricultural extension in many developing countries effectively limits agricultural development to the higher resources, commercial farmers who are more aggressive in accessing extension services. The consequence tends to be an increasing gap between rich and poor farmers, increased levels of poverty among many farm household, and more rapid rural to urban migration, even if employment opportunities are not readily available. Adequate financial support to public sector agricultural extension is indispensable in developing countries if the majority of small-scale farmers are to be brought into the development process.(p.25) Evaluating the impact of extension on agricultural development is difficult. Rutton and Hayami (1973, 120) indicated that evaluation of extension programs is ar fr th en de pe at the do r11] WI mat fir IRI bee hr in 0f 59 complicated by the fact that extension agents are not the only source of knowledge for the farmers; frequently they are only a marginal source. Farmers get information from friends and relatives, from skilled local farmers, etc., and this information is often very efficient in some social environments. The ultimate function of extension is to bring about desired change. Changes are expected to appear in a person's mind first, before visible changes occurred. Changes in this person's knowledge, changes in habits and attitudes, and changes in skills are basic to further change. Role of the Extension Agent In general, the role of the extension agents in developing countries and in IRI has been to teach people in rural areas how to raise their standard of living by their own efforts, using their own resources, manpower and materials, with minimum assistance from the government. Work with the rural farmers has been regarded as of first-rate importance in Extension and Rural Development in IRI. The Extension service in the state of Khorrassan has been an educational and technical organization. Agricultural extension services act by disseminating information among the rural people which was presumed to be of use in increasing agricultural productivity. Farmers re ex in ex in ii 60 should understand the extension services and their function of disseminating information. The extension agent can be an effective link to connect the farmers and the research services. Increasing agricultural production requires that the farmer have access to the skill and knowledge to use what science has discovered about soils, plants, animals and mechanization. When modern material inputs are produced and distributed among the farmers at reasonable prices and investment in agriculture becomes profitable, farmers are likely to be willing to use them. However, farmers must learn how to use the new materials and practices; this has been the responsibility of extension. Zamanipour (1981, pp. 35-36) indicated that most of the farmers in the rural area in Iran were illiterate; thus agricultural extension as non- formal education can play a vital role in teaching modern methods of agriculture to the farmers. Motivation of the Extension Agent Effective extension agents are needed. Many observers report that wages were frequently low; this provided an explanation for the lack of motivation and the apathy of many agents. There are several ways of motivating the extension agents. Zaltman and Duncan (1977, 207-209) indicated that direct financial incentives, indirect financial incentives, and nonfinancial incentives motivated the E the c rewar' nanag They 146) . West . and U1 agent: trans] notiva Alfie] Organ; the h: Rem: 61 the Extension Agents to work closely and effectively with the clientele. Providing fixed compensation, commissions, rewards and bonuses were the most common practices used by management. Ban and Hawkins (1985) indicated that: Each extension agent to be motivated fully must know clearly what his task is, and must consider it to be important for his farmers and realistic for himself. He is likely to lose this motivation if he is unable to complete a task in the time allotted or with the transport available.(p. 253) They also indicated that: It is logical for each extension agent to have his own opinion about the direction agricultural development should follow in his area. He will be strongly motivated to assist this development if the extension program works in the same direction.(p. 253) According to Minot (1984), quoted from Kabure (1979, 146) who evaluated the agricultural extension systems in six West African countries (Benin, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Togo, and Upper Volta), the under-compensation of the extension agents and the failure to provide them with a means of transportation were the main causes of their lack of motivation and the rapid turnover of agents. Historical Background of Extension Education According to the report of the Global Consultation on Agricultural Extension of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations edited by Swanson (1990), the historical roots of extension can be traced back to the Renaissance when there was a movement to relate education to he at 6C ca th Cd fi 39 th 8V be 88' an in: 5&1 to of re] 62 human life and the application of science to practical affairs. Different types of institutions have emerged to accomplish these goals. For example, agricultural societies can be traced to the early eighteenth century, followed by the formation of agricultural schools and colleges. The publication of agricultural books and periodicals can also be traced back to the same period, when farmers first began to organize and share ideas about improving agriculture. Ad hoc efforts to organize extension began in the mid-nineteenth century. These early efforts gradually evolved into several formal extension organizations which became established in the late 1800’s. In the past 100 years most countries in the world have established some type of extension system. These systems are dynamic organizations that reflect national goals, institutional arrangements, and changing needs of clients. In most countries, these extension organizations have the same basic function and purpose: apply practical knowledge to improve agricultural productivity and the quality of life of farm families. Swanson (1990) indicated in the FAO report that: In reflection of this historical development of extension, the success of public agricultural extension organizations can be attributed to several closely related factors. First, all systems need a continuing flow of practical knowledge and useful information that can be transmitted to farmers through appropriate educational programs. Second, extension performs best when working with organized groups of farmers who participate actively in extension programs and i i I ‘I‘ ‘ l.‘ l‘ ( 1 ‘I‘ II‘ I.\ c t t J 01 l e a e s e ll c u e 2 s r m 63 their development and provide continuing public support for extension. If major groups of farmers are not well organized, extension can play an instrumental role in the organizational development of these client groups and thereby increase their access to extension services. Third, a strong, public organization is generally built on formally enacted legislation, which provides the legal basis and mandate for extension and a continuing source of financial support. This perspective of the historical development of extension provides a useful background when considering extension's current role in agricultural development. (p. 9) History of Extension Education in Iran Sayed Ali Reza (1984) quoted from Nahjul Balagha; Imam Ali Iban Abu Talib indicated that God does not ask those people who don't know but asks those who are educated and have understanding for not educating those uneducated people. Malek Mmohammady 1362 (1983) quoted from Khajehnoory 1305 (1926) that in Iran thought should be given as to how the people can be educated about science and technology and reduce the emphasis on philosophy and literature. Today the roots of civilization, especially economic civilization, is based on the opportunity to gain knowledge in science and technology. So the people of Iran must be introduced to the modern science and technology in a tedious way. Malek-Mohammady 1362 (1983) reported that, in 1297 (1918), Falahat (Agriculture Department) was established. This did not have any extension role at the primary stage, but later on it introduced the new ways of agriculture and taught the farmers through establishing a de 8)! ye an fe an at we pl pa in fa in ma lid 9e fr kn 9X re. to to 64 demonstration plot. He indicated that agricultural extension in Iran gained tremendous progress during the years 1297 and 1326 (1918-1947). Until 1331/1953, extension approaches were conventional and did not introduce improved seed varieties, chemical fertilizers, or plant protection measures. Extension agents and farmers during the time mentioned did not actually look at pest problems or pest control. Vaccination of animals was unacceptable, and new planting practices did not take place. The farmers did as their fathers had done. From the year 1331 to 1342 (1953 to 1964), extension personnel actually contacted the farmers and transferred information and knowledge to them. The reaction of the farmers to Extension Personnel was very positive because the information prepared for the farmers was very modern. In 1964, the Shah’s revolution disturbed the farmers' management operation. During.1963, the Extension Department was getting help from the Rural Development Peace Corps (Sepah Tarvige). Most of this group were graduates from general high school, led and supervised by college graduates from the agricultural colleges who did not have adequate knowledge of agriculture. This created unhappiness for existing agricultural extension personnel. Job quality was reduced. Extension Agents were issuing coupons for farmers to get farm supplies such as fertilizers and pesticides or to participate in the distribution of land, then doing the act Mo! its the wee ide be in nor foc ear de\ vie att Far 65 actual job of education as they should be doing. Malak- Mbhammady (1988) stated that at this time, 1964, Iran, which until that time was self-sufficient in food production for its 20 million population, began to import. Also during these years, 1964 to 1978, the Extension Agents became weaker and weaker, and farmers did not accept extension ideas. During the revolution, this situation continued and became more visible than before. Najafy 1362(1985) indicated that "Over fifty percent of the Iranian population worked in rural areas, but they were not able to produce food for the other half of the population." From the points mentioned, Njafy also indicated that agricultural development in the near future in Iran did not have a bright view. Agriculture in Iran, with all the facilities and attention, has not played an efficient role for Iran. Farmers without a knowledge of the techniques and education misuse production equipment and facilities. Human forces in the agricultural sector create an agricultural production of low efficiency. Too many organizations with different responsibilities and with unclear programs and_objectives have been working in the rural areas. Najafy (1983) indicated the agriculture sector can be categorized as: -Having low efficiency of the labor force in the rural areas. -Individuals doing the organizational activities on their own. Ir to Pa pa Ex Ji re of 80 9X 9X sh. he the in 0f the it} St: to] 391 66 -Many organizations doing the same job. -Duplicating work at high cost -Having low linkage for rural program planning.(p.43) During the Islamic Revolution of Iran, the people of Iran worked with the members of Jihad for rural development to help farmers increase their agricultural production. Partially due to this participation by the people, and partially due to the above mentioned weaknesses of the Extension Department and other government organizations, the Jihad Organization became the Ministry of Jihad with the _responsibility of rural development through the improvement of agricultural production, infra structural development and socio-economic development. In 1990 the State Extension Director was the leader of extension in the state, and he was responsible for the state extension program. His position was not as important as it should have been because of the structure of the system. Major decisions were made by the central government rather than at the state level. The director's duties also included administration of extension funds and the approval of all publications. Because of the dramatic change in the department, the positions of the state directors have changed several times during the past ten years which affected the efficient management of the organization. The State has been divided into seventeen Sharestan (districts) for the purpose of supervision. In each sharestan, the agriculture district director has been responsible for the coord exten nanag tradi' prima: disse: produ. the fl 67 coordination of all work in the district in terms of extension activities such as crops production, pesticides management, etc. Adoption and Diffusion of Agricultural Innovations Over the past decade a number of criticisms of the traditional adoption/diffusion model have emerged. The primary objectives of agricultural extension is dissemination of innovations to increase agricultural production and productivity. Lamble (1984) expressed it in the following way: The major function of most extension practitioners is to facilitate the adoption of new ideas and practices by their clients. In order to be most effective in this role, we need an understanding of the processes and factors involved in the diffusion and adoption of innovations, of how new ideas and practices are communicated among . members of our client systems, and how they dec1de to adopt or reject these innovations of new ideas and predict the rate of adoption of new ideas and provides a basis for developing effective. strategies and planning successful exten51on programs. (p. 32) Lamble (1984) also indicated that the rate of adoption 0f innovations is influenced by at least five factors such as: 1) the type of communication or discussion involved in the adoption of the innovation; 2) the perceived attributes Of the innovation; 3) the use of the client system; 4) the nature of communication channels used; and 5) the extent of the extension practitioner’s effort. In Iran most of the innovations have been developed at the r. Becau; contrc actual adopt; and He 68 the research stations or imported from developed nations. Because research stations develop innovations in a controlled environment which can be very different from the actual situation, these innovations may not be suitable for adoption without further research in the actual field. Ban and Hawkins (1988) indicated that: Most agricultural research starts in a research station under carefully controlled conditions. The problems chosen for study can originate from scientific development, from a diagnosis of farmers problems or from a combination of both. It is seldom possible to apply research station findings directly onto farms because of differences in circumstances, capital and manpower. Therefore, adaptive research on experimental farms and in farmers' fields is also required in different regions to see if results differ significantly under varying conditions. (p. 29) Adoption and diffusion of agricultural innovations in the rural community depend to some degree on change, that is, introducing a new way of doing things that may complement, supplement or replace the old traditional way of 99tting things done. This new way of doing things -- new ideas or innovations -- may be a new practice such as using a new variety of wheat instead of the local variety or it may be a new technology such as hybrid seed variety. Much research has been done to determine the factors that are related to the acceptance of the innovations. Innovation is an idea perceived as new by the individual in the social system. Using the innovation requires a change in basic principles from the old practice or technology, and it al: the n: which intro: 1 ohm hccorc Rogers charac listec' “The parcel Values P“ ex; to the Tees 69 it also requires a change in basic beliefs on the part of the users. A good example of an innovation is weed-killers which were not used by the farmers in Iran until they were introduced by the extension agents. Adoption of an innovation depends upon its characteristics as perceived by the ultimate users. According to Rogers (1984), Lionberger (1982), Brown (1981), Rogers and Shoemaker (1971), an innovation has a number of characteristics. Below some of these characteristics are listed. Relative advantage: An innovation must be perceived as better than the idea it supersedes. For example, if gas/fuel is expensive and not readily available or if there are no roads to take tractors or machinery to the field, using equipment pulled by animal power has the relative advantage. QQEEQELQlllEy: The degree to which an innovation is perceived as consistent with the existing technologies, values, experiences, and needs of the potential adopters. For example, Iranian farmers prefer small engine sprayers t0 the larger sprayers used by tractors. QQEELQELEXL The degree to which an innovation is perceived as relatively difficult to understand and use. One of the reaso devel nachi: Proces innOVa (1982, resear p“due ralther there That s indiCa- 70 reasons the combine harvester was not readily adOpted in developing countries is the difficulty and complexity of the machine. Trialability: The degree to which an innovation may be tried a limited basis. For example, fertilizers can be tried on a small plot without risking the entire harvest. Observability: The degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others. The effects of using fertilizers in sugarbeet can easily be seen on its vegetative growth. Accessibility/Availability: The degree to which an There innovation is readily available with minimum effort. is little need for an extension agents to advise farmers to use fertilizer if that fertilizer is not available in the market. Adoption According to Rogers ( 1984) adoption is a mental process an individual passes from first hearing about an innovation to its final adoption. Lionberger and Gwin (1982, p. 62) indicate that there is no disagreement among researchers that thought-out adoption decisions are the product of a sequence of influences operating through time, rather than something that happens instantaneously. But there are arguments about just what the process is like-- what stages occur and in what order. Lionberger (1982) also indicated that : this (1983 I II II Il-‘QI’L I ll. -IChrlw..tnunusw T~ 71 At this stage the individual decides that the new It is practice is good enough for full scale use. reasoned that he is likely to continue full use until something new starts the cycle again.(1982, p. 62) Stages of Adoption Stages in the adoption process according to Rogers (1983) Linberger (1982), and Brown (1981) are: Awareness Stage The Awareness Stage begins at the point in time when the individual first finds out about some new practice or technology. At this stage, the individual lacks details concerning the way it works, how to use it, its costs and He/she knows little more than its name many people benefits. and the fact that it can be had. become aware of new ideas without much actual They are conscious effort on their part. ’bombarded’ by the idea via radio, television, farm magazines or conversations where the idea is mentioned by others. Interest Stage At the Interest Stage, the individual is actively seeking additional facts about the practice or technology. He/she wants to know what it is, how it works and what its potentialities are. Interest is in the cost factors and the time it will take to get one’s investment back if adopted. Evaluation Stage At the Evaluation Stage, the individual puts the new practice or technology through a mental trial. He/she applies all of the information gathered to his/her own situation. ’Can I do it?’ 'Do I Questions are asked such as, have the type of farm, the capital, the labor resources, the management skills to use this?’ ’If I do use it, will I be better off than with what I am now doing?’ After people have answered the above questions, many take into consideration the importance of this practice to themselves and/ or their families and they weigh the capital outlay against what else they might do with the same amount of money and the satisfactions they would get from these alternatives. Trial Stage An individual finishes the evaluation Fm fame: (level. Figur‘ dissei 72 stage by making the decision either to reject or accept the practice or technology. The majority of those who decide to accept any idea usually go through a Trial Stage where the individual can try out the practice in an experimental way to determine the answers to such questions as: ’How do I do it?’ ’How much do I use?’ ’How do I operate?’ ’How can I make it work best for me?’. Adoption Stage The final stage in the process is the Adoption Stage. This is characterized by a large scale and continued use of the idea and, most of all, by satisfaction on the part of the user. This doesn’t mean that an adopter will use a practice or technology forever, but he/she will tend to use it until something newer comes along to make him/her dissatisfied with it. It does mean that the user thinks he/she has a good thing and will make it a part of the ongoing program. (pp. 61-62) Farm Information Dissemination To understand how information is disseminated among the farmers, several issues which are related to innovation development and its understanding need to be studied. Figure 7 shows the four elements of the information dissemination system (Lionberger & Gwi, 1982) The function that must be performed in the total 1. operations. 2. The theory to practice continuum of development that must take place from the time that the basic science knowledge is developed until a portion of that is turned into a usable invention and put into use. 3. The social subsystems that must be developed and that must become properly linked to sustain the flow of information to potential users. The basic concepts that prescribe how the system 4. should run and for whom. (PP. 31-32). tin 01‘: an ex 73 A Model to Generate and Disseminate Agricultural Innovation. Functions That Must Be Padormad MTo-Pracflc. Innovation (Valldatlon) Oluamlnadon Integration . lnlomallon-Persuasion We. of Development (Research and Development) Reinloroement I Research . \. .. ...\... trying to “laid the lronliers ol float theories and add to basic aclanoa knowledge $5”th m \ . . Try to intervene in the scien- .\ g liflc process . \ a. lnvanl something potentially -\ ‘ trying lo apply scientific usplul .- WOW ‘0 hrmers’ problems 4. Test it locally to determine ll il- .\ -will work - --is leasible —-will fit in Wing ,0 9“ W0 ion ‘ out to tanner: S Disseminate the locally lasted knowledge Uaa 6. Put the locally validaled inlot- . mation to use Governance W10" . is best done with heavy input from tanner: Time Figure 7. A model to generate and distribute farm information. (Adapted from Lionberger & Gwin, 1982, 31). Figure 8 also gives a somewhat simplified picture of the role of agricultural extension. The extension organization obtains information from agricultural research and other related organizations. This information is used by management and extension specialists to instruct the extension agents on what they should tell farmers. Agricultural Research Agricultural Farm policy ( Social and Psychological Research Figure 8. Inf- Hawkins 1988, Lionberg to the role 0 gives a somewl aElricultural . °'- '~Y from the from Other im; Should study . carefully to EXtEnsiOn \ Bitens' 1 Trans .011 PrOI 74 Agricultural Research Agricultural Extension. . Extension i Farmer Farm Organization Agent policy Social and Psychological Research Figure 8. Information flow in agricultural extension (Ban & Hawkins 1988, 16) Lionberger and Gwin also have similar views in relation to the role of the agricultural extension agent Figure 9 gives a somewhat simplified picture of the role of agricultural extension. Farmers receive information not o;;y from the agricultural extension organizations but also from other important sources. The extension organization should study the farmers' information environment very :arefully to identify the gaps in the information received. ¥ Other Sources Farmer (Stock Agent, Experience tension bank, Agri-Bus- Knowledge 1: T \ iness Department of ension Process Agricultural nsmission of Research vledge Knowledge la \ l / ers x 3‘9. Role of agricultural extension (Ban and Hawkins, 31). I Group of Agricultural / ‘ According There musi research, studies a] farmers, ‘ be effect, interdisc‘ farmers a whether a subject in mining and Developm economic deve sustained eco agriculture 5 experienced s' achieved a no: i growth require knowledge and aspects of rel accumulates ti touch, taste, appreciate thl with the othe: with training touching, or by their flav Savile (1965) The know 75 According to Rivera and Scharm (1987): There must be increased emphasis upon farm research, with special attention to socio-economic studies and feedback from extension staff and farmers, this increased emphasis must, if it is to be effective, be accompanied by greater interdisciplinary collaboration among researchers, farmers and extension agents working in the field, whether at the village or district level, or as subject matter specialists ( p.73). Training and Teaching Methods of Agricultural Extension Development of agriculture is an integral part of economic development. Very few countries have experienced sustained economic development without growth of the agriculture sector. It is obvious that the countries having experienced significant growth in agriculture have also achieved a more rapidly growing economy. To achieve this growth required knowledge and experience. Accumulation of knowledge and development of understanding are important aspects of receiving extension advice. Knowledge accumulates through the five physical senses, sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell. For example, a blind person cannot appreciate the beauty of flowers, but his/her appreciation with the other four physical senses may be highly developed with training and practice. Thus, he/she learns to read by touching, or he/she learns to distinguish food and beverages by their flavor and smell without the need to see them. Savile (1965) indicated that: The knowledge an extension agent wishes to pass on ‘ is most I through 5 quickly u some inte interest They like recognize of his pr (c) They teacher and in 1 presente senses p the less practice of skill Extensio countries, sh because they percentage ar Savile (1965, methods can be cathode, grour Mass Media: Tl broadcasting : communication People not see include telev: etc. Group Methods Pimple from at Stages of aCCl meetings, gro' lethod demons 76 is most readily acquired when it is received through several of senses. People learn most quickly when, (a) They want to learn--if they have some interest or desire for learning and if this interest is retained throughout the lesson. (b) They like and trust the teacher--when they recognize the value of this teaching and sincerity of his purpose, and develop an affection for him. (c) They understand what is being taught--when the teacher teaches at a speed that they can follow and in language they can understand, the lesson is presented a variety of ways--making use of all the senses possible, and they actively take part in the lesson by questions and discussions and they practice until they acquire the necessary degree of skill. (pp. 46-47) Extension agents, especially those in developing countries, should have skills in several teaching methods, because they work with rural people of whom a large percentage are illiterate or have very little education. Savile (1965,pp 56-57) indicated that extension teaching methods can be classified into three groups: mass media methods, groups methods and the individual method. Mass Media: These methods can be applied through broadcasting and using news articles in the press. The mass communication channels are used to communicate with the people not seen and generally not personally known. They include television, radio, newspapers, bulletins, pamphlets, etc. Group Methods: These methods are generally used to advance people from awareness and interest to desire and the trial stages of accepting a new practice. They include general meetings, group discussions, result and demonstrations, method demonstrations, farm visits, conducted tours, and short courses of i Individual eachin extension teaching individual process. needed to persuade extension agents to and obtain his con need to adopt a ne include farm and h and telephone call Development ; The essential agents is to creat others develop edu on the part of the the point of puttir learn, nothing is e extension worker tr learn and to stimul produces the desire During the 195 Viewed rural devell the change in indi‘ "progressive". In responsive to econ) for increasing agr 77 short courses of instruction. Individual Teaching Methods: Although a great deal of extension teaching is done in groups, learning is always an individual process. Frequently, individual meetings are needed to persuade a farmer to adopt a new practice. The extension agents must know the farmer and his situation well and obtain his confidence before he can convince him of the need to adopt a new practice. These individual methods include farm and home visits, office call, personal contact and telephone calls. Developmental Role of Extension Education and Rural Development: The essential function of the extension agents is to create situations and an environment in which others develop educationally. Learning is an active process on the part of the learner. Unless he becomes interested to the point of putting forth mental and physical effort to learn, nothing is accomplished. It is the task of the extension worker to provide people with an opportunity to learn and to stimulate mental and physical activity that produces the desired learning. During the 19505 developed-and developing countries viewed rural development as "modernization" consisting of the change in individual attitudes from "traditional" to "progressive". In Iran the farmers are not usually esponsive to economic incentives and the changes required or increasing agricultural production. — While agricul productivity, exte through encouragin Hawkins (1988) ass agents have been t change farmers. T fertilizers, anima to change farmers their farms. Many process of changin in the communicati tell farmers, but farmers become mor situation is an im Tamers are a] subjects; if agents can deliver the int understand, farmers have proved in Irar positive way of tre educated farmers. Development Persona increasingly go fur lust help the cliei Communication is m ilplementation of ‘? 78 While agricultural research focuses on how to improve productivity, extensionists must accomplish their objectives through encouraging people to adopt innovations. Ban and Hawkins (1988) asserted that most agricultural extension agents have been trained by schools of agriculture in how to change farmers. They have learned about plant varieties, fertilizers, animal nutrition, etc. However, their task is to change farmers who subsequently may decide to change their farms. Many agents have not been trained in the process of changing farmers, that is, in adult education and in the communication process. They have been taught what to tell farmers, but not how to tell it to them so that the farmers become more capable farm managers. Changing this situation is an important goal of extension education. Farmers are always interested in talking about farming subjects; if agents and specialists have been prepared and can deliver the information in a way the farmers can understand, farmers can be benefitted. Demonstration plots have proved in Iran and in other parts of the world to be a positive way of transferring information to the poorly educated farmers. Extension educators’ and Rural evelopment Personals' educational orientation in Iran must 'ncreasingly go further than presenting just the facts; it ust help the client learn how to apply the new knowledge. ommunication is not enough; the farmer needs help on mplementation of the useful research knowledge within his system. This a Figure 10. Figure 10. Exte Carter ind solves the clien teaches the clie extensionist's re and willingness 1 extension system either supportivu Figure 11). 79 system. This aspect of an extensionist's role is shown in Figure 10. Agent Technician fi;;Probleu Figure 10. Extensionists’ Role ( Carter, 1985). Carter indicated that as a technician, the agent solves the client’s problems. As an extension agent, he teaches the client to solve his own problems. An extensionist's role behavior is influenced by his ability and willingness to work and also by the climate inside the extension system (Westermarck, 1987, p. 254). This can be either supportive, suppressive, or it can be ignored (see Figure 11). Mot Rol Ski m Components (w To talk bEtter living together in s are PrOdUced enviroMent‘ EXtehSic supply a Structul. communic baSic f8 agricult dEVelopm 0n infra the resp Motive ork Environment \ / Willingness / Role \\\\\\\\\\‘Positive Attitude \\\\\\\ ’///////////Toward Work g////AbilitY\\\\\\\\\ Skills Knowledge K , . Flgure 11. Components of Extensionists’ Role BehaVior Components (Westermark, 1984). To talk about training is to talk about learning for better living and understanding for discovering and working tOgether in such a way that goals are accomplished and goods are produced in an efficient way without damaging the environment. Axinn (1972) indicates that: Extension/education and research services, input SUPply and credit arrangement, marketing structures and price systems, as well as Communication and transport networks, are the basic features of infrastructure required for agricultural development. Although the private sector often has an important role in the. - development of such facilities, policy guidelines on infrastructural development and operation are the responsibility of the governance. (p. 3) Commu Minot (1 use of agricu even be a was training occu of agricultur not a "seamle system and a communication The prim agents has, and transfer Will not happ scientific or “in“ (1984) The Word Channels c°°perat deVEIOpm Linkage Universi eXtEIlSiQ Scientir iasefirch faI'mer In (level between agric the “Search have M been 81 communication and Linkages of Extension and Rural Development Services Minot (1984, p. 1) indicated that research without the use of agricultural extension is not of much use, and can even be a waste of resources. Often no dissemination or training occurs. In reality, the generation and diffusion of agricultural technology in many developing countries is not a "seamless process", but rather consists of a research system and a separate extension service with insufficient communication and interaction between them. The primary objectives of the agricultural extension agents has, historically, been dissemination of innovation and transfer of technology to increase productivity. This will not happen unless there is a linkage between the scientific organization and disseminating organization. Minot (1984) asserted that: The word "linkage" will refer to permanent channels of communications and mechanisms for cooperation between institutions in agricultural development, especially in developing nations. Linkage research institutions (ie. Michigan .State University) and extension agencies (cooperative extension) facilitate the flow of technical and scientific information and recommendations from research to extension, as well as the flow of. information from extension to research concerning farmer practices, constraints, and response to previous recommendations. (p. 12) In developing countries there is a weakness of linkages >etween agricultural research and extension. The effects of lhe research subsystem on the Iranian agricultural system ave not been observed for the past decade. The evidence of weak linke decrease i cotton), 2 general. Iranian i1 has been : agricultu: Axinn (19' and among The sepa inde inte agri Levi between t iildicatec‘ is v for exte wor} Who SW The dirECtorg Very 1ng need for Iranian the elite 82 weak linkages between the organizations is indicated by the decrease in production of major crops (i.e. sugarbeets and cotton), and the slow down in agricultural development in general. .Mojtahed and Esfahani (1987) indicated that Iranian investment in agricultural research and development has been significantly out. These shortcomings impeded agricultural growth in the early 19805. Axinn (1978) also stated the importance of linkages between He indicated that: (p. 839) and among the concerned organizations. The absence of adequate linkages among related but separate services often renders ineffective the independent service of each; and coordinated integrated programs are necessary to support rapid agricultural development. (p. 178) Lewis (1982) supported the need of strong linkages between the researcher and the extension agents. He indicated that: As we approach a new century with increased demand for new agricultural technology, research and extension needs to be recognized as a partnership working for a common goal, as envisioned by those who had the foresight to provide for this unique system.(p. 2) The researcher had the opportunity to speak with the search and extension directors in Iran about the nature of nkages they were maintaining with each other. Both the rectors (research and extension) expressed that they had y negligible linkages between them. They emphasized the d for linkages for the development of the country. rian extension history has shown the relationship between extension and research directors have gone through different both were with diff: Departmenl Ministers directed i The after 197 the resea extension administr them decr establisr The] share the rural den °h3nges 1 Willingn. departure: The r90011ngn each 0th in any 5 requires 83 different steps since the existence of the two departments; both were within the Department of Agriculture and separated with different administrative units. The Research Department in the State has high linkages with the Assistant Ministers of Research and deals exclusively with research directed by the Ministry, not by local needs. The cut of extension activity from the research unit after 1979 added to the uncertainty of how the results of the research were to reach the farmers. Because the extension and research subsystems were in separate administrative units, the amount of communication between them decreased, and it was more difficult than ever to establish linkages between the subsystems. There has been a willingness between the researcher to share the research results with the extension agents and the rural development personnel. This could take place if some :hanges were to occur between the organization policy and dllingness of the Extension and Rural Development epartments. Farmers’ Needs and Research The transfer of information and the adoption of :ommended new practices by farmers are strongly related to h other. The improvement of productivity of agriculture any agricultural society and in the state of Khorrassan tires the transfer of information and the adoption of recommend: extension quantitat. existing I needs of : research organizat very clea between t research With the 0f farmer Deve reSearch about the to The U1 dqri hum: to 1 bui: Imp] far resr :68! 19] has: VQr: 1““ One 84 recommended new practices by farmers. The demand for extension activities has grown both qualitatively and quantitatively, but there is strong evidence that the existing extension and research services cannot meet the needs of farmers. Interaction between extension and research shows certain weaknesses related to their It is organization and functioning between their linkages. very clear and important that the lack of effective linkage between the key organizations such as the agricultural research center, farmers, and social psychological research with the extension organization will affect the productivity of farmers. Research and Extension Development strategies in the field of agricultural research and extension have reflected the prevailing ideas about the process of social economic development. According to The United Nation Development Program (1991): Agricultural extension is primarily concerned with human resource development and technology transfer These two elements are basic to rural households. building blocks of Agricultural development. Improvement in one element cannot progress very far without improvement in the other. As economic research has shown, investment in agricultural research that is , technological change yields high returns on investment, comparable research on basic education and on extension has documented very positive returns on both types of educational investment.(p. 1) One of the most frequent criticisms of agricultural research in develc recommendations wh the small scale fa extension personne failure of farmers varieties as well institutions. Acc Eighty two pe felt that ext effort to leg technologies I that the new small holder: “911% Better commm personnel is USEfl relevance of rese; results to farmer: Akinbode (1981) 1: agents, and r as” extension agents ‘ researchers an d t scientific recogn Practical problem r esearohers and e 85 research in developing countries is that it does not produce recommendations which are useful to the farmer, especially the small scale farmer. This criticism comes both from extension personnel who often feel unfairly blamed for the failure of farmers to adopt "improved" methods and crop varieties as well as from outside evaluators of agricultural institutions. According to Fernandes (1982): Eighty two percent (82%) of research scientists felt that extension personnel made too little effort to learn about and transfer the technologies, and 75% of the extension agents felt that the new technology was not acceptable to small holders. (p. 62) Extension: Better communication between researchers and extension personnel is useful to the extent that it improves the relevance of research results or the diffusion of those results to farmers. According to the study by Lakoh and Akinbode (1981) in which they surveyed farmers, extension agents, and researchers in Sierra Leone, they found that the extension agents were a relatively minor source of ideas for researchers and that researchers seemed more concerned with scientific recognition than in working with the agents on practical problems. Actual communication between researchers and extension personnel was most frequently done through research reports and pamphlets, while face to face contact was generally at the request of the researcher. Researchers confirmed, at least verbally, the importance of communication witl they felt that th: coordinating body According to Roger Farmers stili that are wort often assumea developed in it is difficr will yield. faced with a developer of greater unce: adjust her/1 adOPter must Other indiviv the Ultimate is creating In an °r9ani desire is to move away from it. Wh is the amount and decision making p farmers in all ph (TIP), This reall than education, of compatible W ith t Presented in a ed n at received and 86 communication with feedback from extension personnel, but they felt that this was hindered by the absence of a formal coordinating body and poor means of communication. According to Rogers (1983): Farmers still develop agricultural innovations that are worthy of trial and used by others, it is often assumed that most of these innovations are developed in experiment stations. At this stage it is difficult to predict the kind of fruits they will yield. If the adopter of an innovation is faced with a degree of uncertainty, the inventor, developer of a new idea must cope with even greater uncertainty. She/he must understand and adjust her/his own problems (as an innovation adopter must do), but also the problems of various other individuals and organizations who will be the ultimate adopter of the innovation that she/he is creating (p. 140). In an organization such as agricultural research, the desire is to move toward greater rationality rather than away from it. What should be taken into consideration here is the amount and quality of information available to the decision making process and the direct involvement of farmers in all phases of the technology innovation process (TIP). This really requires the active participation, rather than education,of farmers. communication Instructional methods by extension agents should be compatible with the audience’s skills and should be presented in a way that the audience will understand and learn. The extension message is useless to farmers if it is not received and understood by them. There are ways to make something complica complicated thing the people who tra in a way that the} point for the Khor Development Persor farmers who have 1 in I-R-I., as wel. Problem. It is t interpret the mes thmugh the use 0 understood by the (1957); 9°mmUNicatic lthtmatiou {Milne}: in w}: 1nfc’rl'fiai‘ion °°mmuhicatic as researCh éttitudes 01 agricultural ext. getting helpful connecting link receivers of kno 1) Get the new k Interpret the k1- 87 something complicated and there are ways to make a complicated thing easy to understand. Extension Agents are the people who transfer the research results to the farmers in a way that they will understand. This is an important point for the Khorrassan Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel who are working with a group of farmers who have little or no education. Extension Agents in I.R.I., as well as elsewhere, are faced with this problem. It is the role of the Extension Agents to interpret the message or idea in several ways such as through the use of symbols or wording which can be understood by the farmers. According to Loomis and Beagle (1957): Communication refers to the manner in which information passes through social systems and the manner in which opinions and attitudes concerning information are formed or modified. Obviously, communication is related to all the elements such as research and experience. We know that the attitudes of individuals are shaped from interaction in social systems. (p. 47) Communication is essential to agricultural development; it is the vital bridge that carries the results of research from the laboratory or experiment station to the field. An agricultural extension agent has the responsibility of getting helpful information to the people. Extension is the connecting link between the sources of knowledge and the receivers of knowledge. To fulfill this, extension must 1) Get the new knowledge from a reliable source, 2) Interpret the knowledge so people will understand it and 3) Transmit the inter The role of r Khorrassan and in developed countrie There is often a < extension agent a1 because of an edur farmers. Axinn (: and stated that: The main fum cOrflmunicate ; reCOIflluendativ people into 1 useful infon (p. 1) Communicatio: decisions, and d Participants and attitudes are for Ennis (1961) should be Viewed that the ihformat There is no any giVen Social communication med svstem. Communic basic to the arti so ~ oral system and 88 Transmit the interpreted information to people. The role of communication in IRI, the State of Khorrassan and in developing countries differs from that of developed countries because the clients are not the same. There is often a distortion of the message between the extension agent and farmers in the developing countries because of an educational gap between the agents and the farmers. Axinn (1988) noted the importance of communication and stated that: The main function of the extension agent is to communicate agricultural research findings and recommendations to farm people or bring farm people into contact with sources of practical and useful information through organized group action. (P- 1) Communication is the process by which information, decisions, and directives are transmitted among participants and the ways in which knowledge, opinions, and attitudes are formed or modified by interaction. Ennis (1961) argued that any communication activity should be viewed as a social system. He also maintained that the information flow could be analyzed as a system. There is no doubt that understanding the dynamics of any given social system calls for a knowledge of the communication media, channels, and barriers within the System. Communication is said to be the primary process basic to the articulations of each of the elements of a social system and to the unity of the whole. Linka e Development developed nations between research 1950s many resear extension and the channels for the for the flow of n Universities and for farmers. th these kinds of ac Loomis (1965) ste Linkage is 1 least two 5, hat in 50m, be Viewed as Also Lionbe] as "Establishmem agencies, such a« 89 Linkage Development of agriculture in the U.S.A and other developed nations was not established without communication between research and the extension service. During the 19505 many researchers did some extension work, while the extension and the information services provided the main channels for the flow of the research to rural families and for the flow of new farm problems to the research workers. Universities and higher education centers provided courses for farmers. Khorrassan Extension education could look at these kinds of activities to assist its development too. Loomis (1965) stated that: Linkage is the process whereby the elements of at least two social systems come to be articulated so that in some ways and on some occaSions they may be viewed as a single system. (p. 16) Also Lionberger and Gwin (1982, p. 222) defined linkage as "Establishment of a connection between persons or agencies, such as between agricultural research and the farmers who can use their information". According to the World Bank, 1981: The process of one system establishing a bond or tie with another system may result in the forma- tion of larger systems through such linkages- Linkage is in many respects a corollary of boundary maintenance. Whereas the process of boundary maintenance refers to the limits set upon inter-system contact, the process of SYStemlc linkage refers to the organizational arrangements for (sub) system inter-dependencies. The most encouraging and, in the long run, the most important result of the Introduction of Training and of a dynamic and research In terms of : farmers and visit bank also indicat Direct, freq farmers and ‘ focus on tec recommendati VEWs’ regula SMS gives th production p such guestio to resolve f pressure is on the pract farmer. The emerging, (p. F__— 90 Training and visit. Extension is the development of a dynamic link between farmers, extension staff and research workers.(p. 8) In terms of frequent and systematic contact between farmers and visit extension workers (VEWs) system world bank also indicated: Direct, frequent and repeated contact between farmers and VEWs forces the extension service to focus on technically and financially feasible recommendations for improving farm production; the VEWs’ regular cOntact with research through the SMS gives them the opportunity to raise immediate production problems, and to respond effectively to such questions. SMS needs to work with researchers to resolve field problems. Through this sequence, pressure is placed upon researchers to concentrate on the practical field problems of the average farmer. There are signs that such a linkage is emerging.(p. 8) This study C survey. Accordin Survey resea the social S original dat large to obs Mailed quest Rural Development departments were were collected th schedule establis Development influenced by set studies in the ar CYDrus and Turkey Three differ Stu(iv: one for 1 Development agent °r9anizations. The three ix CHAPTER IV METHODS AND PROCEDURES This study could be categorized as a descriptive survey. According to Babbie (1983): Survey research is the best method available to the social scientist interested in collecting original data for describing a population too large to observe directly ( p. 209). Mailed questionnaires to the Extension Agents, the Rural Development Agents, and the Directors of the two departments were used to collect data. Data on the farmers were collected through personal interviews according to a schedule established by the researcher. Instrument Development Development of the research instrument was largely influenced by several researchers who conducted similar studies in the area or in related areas (FAO 1989) study in Cyprus and Turkey. Three different instruments were developed for this study: one for farmers, one for Extension and Rural Development agents, and one for the administrators of both organizations. The three instruments were developed and presented to a 91 panel of experts Department of A9] Michigan State U‘ College of Agric‘ and the director! Development were Farmer uestionnz The intervia five parts. Part I requ1 characteristics 1 Part II was related to the v: personnel indicat respondents eXpr1 Scale scoring wa: Neutral, 4: Agrev items. The scor; items. Part III wa: perceDtions of e' the effectivenes: the farmers . Th1 df‘ . We Pornt sca: 92 panel of experts consisting of professionals in the Department of Agricultural and Extension Education at Michigan State University. Two faculty members from the College of Agriculture at the University of Mashhad in Iran and the directors of the Department of Extension and Rural Development were also consulted. ‘Farmer Questionnaire The interview schedule for farmers was divided into five parts. Part I requested data on personal and situational characteristics selected for the study. Part II was designed to reflect farmers' perceptions related to the visits of Extension and Rural Development personnel indicative of activities with the farmers. The respondents expressed their opinions on a five point scale. Scale scoring was 1= Strongly Disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4= Agree, 5= Strongly Agree for positively stated items. The scoring was reversed for negatively stated items. Part III was developed to reflect the respondents' perceptions of extension purposes, and their perceptions of the effectiveness of collaboration between the agents and the farmers. The respondents expressed their opinions using a five point scale which was scored as described in Part II. Part IV was perceptions towar adoption of infor Conditions were It 2=no, 3=not sure) of each part of t persons, staff fr Most respondents - research, but vis who were helping situation. Direc by a lengthy disc by the usefulness instrument. Inte Provided throughc interviewer to gj did. Part IV ale Perceptions towar Part V Was deVelc toward the partic page and at the e was provided for elements selected 1 W The (irrestiop 93 Part IV was developed to reflect the respondents’ perceptions toward increases in knowledge and skill and the adoption of information provided by the two agencies. Conditions were measured on a three point scale (1=yes, 2=no, 3=not sure). Directions were given at the beginning of each part of the questionnaire by the interviewers (local persons, staff from College of Agriculture and Researcher ). Most respondents were not used to such an approach to research, but visits with the researcher and other personnel who were helping the researcher helped to ease the situation. Directions were explained and sometimes followed by a lengthy discussion. Often the respondent was convinced by the usefulness of the directions for the research instrument. Interview schedule instructions were also provided throughout, with the intent to encourage the interviewer to give or write comments, which most of them did. Part IV also was developed to reflect the respondents’ perceptions toward the extension program in the future. Part V was developed to reflect the respondents' perception toward the participation in extension programs. On the last page and at the end of each interview schedule, blank space was provided for comments and situational characteristics of elements selected for the study. The questionnaire for Extension Agents and Rural Development Pers« Part I reCIm indication of th1 comfortable, extv methods, linkage: designed mainly : perceptions towa: areas skills, te; The respond of scales: 1. A scall teachi: Opinio: comfor' uncomf Those - EXtens a 5 pg not in On the rESpon no ans Part II was their perception related to links Perceptions rela F____ 94 Development Personnel was divided into six parts. Part I requested data on personal characteristics, indication of the subject areas in which they were most comfortable, extension activities, extension teaching methods, linkages and areas of teaching. This part was designed mainly so that respondents reflected on their perceptions toward a set of statements related to subject areas skills, teaching methods, and areas of teaching. The respondents expressed their opinions on three types of scales: 1. Part A scale for comfortability in the area of teaching, in which the respondents expressed their opinions on a five point scale; (5=very comfortable, 4=comfortable, 3=neutral, 2=slightly uncomfortable, 1=uncomfortable). Those who responded on teaching methods and extension activities, expressed their opinions on a 5 point scale; a range of 1-5, in which 1 was not important, and 5 was very important. On the scale for subject areas taught, the respondents expressed their opinions with yes or no answers . II was designed so that the respondents recorded their perceptions toward a set of statements that were related to linkages between the two agencies as well as perceptions related to the future of the two departments. Those who respont scale (SD=Strongl agree, N=Neutral SA=Strongly Agrew Part III wa: their perception. Those who responl scale (0=none, 1: Part IV was Perceptions on responded eXpres (0=none, 1=litt1 Vwas deSigned s percePtions on 1 agricultura1 col and other Credit Station, farm 111a °r9aniZations, a land farming res resPonded exPre: 1=little' 2:501“ Part VI Was their 01311110113 E 95 Those who responded expressed their opinions on a five point scale (SD=Strong1y Disagree, D=Mainly Disagree but somewhat agree, N=Neutra1, A=Somewhat disagree but mainly agree, SA=Strongly Agree). Part III was designed so that the respondents reflected their perceptions relating to extension planning activities. Those who responded expressed their opinions on a five point scale (0=none, 1=little, 2=some, 3=much, 4=very much). Part IV was designed so that the respondents gave their perceptions on knowledge and training needs. Those who responded expressed their opinions on a five point scale of (0=none, 1=little, 2=some, 3=much, 4=very much). Part V was designed so that the respondents reflected their perceptions on linkages with other organizations such as agricultural colleges, research stations, agricultural banks and other credit institutions, rural development research station, farm machinery organizations, fertilizer organizations, animal research station, soil, forestry, dry land farming research station, and others. Those who responded expressed their opinions on a scale of (0=none, 1=little, 2=some, 3=much, 4=very much). Part VI was designed so that the respondents reflected their opinions and perceptions related to the effectiveness Of their work. Administrator 911: The questiov divided in six p: situation and th« was designed so ‘ on the expectati. objectives of eX‘ served. Respond. section on a fiv. D=Mainly disagre. ATree but somewh. expressed their . °f one to five ( Part III wa; respondents, perv activities such ‘ “mines. and ‘ Personnel. ReSp of one t° five ( Part IV was perception towar Those who respon s sale (1 = hot i‘ Part V Was . perceTition towar 96 Administrator Questionnaire The questionnaire for the director and managers was divided in six parts. Part I requested data on personal situation and the number of extension activities. Part II was designed so that the respondents gave their perceptions on the expectations of the department in 1) the purpose and objectives of extension activities; and 2) the clientele served. Respondents expressed their opinions for the first section on a five point scale (SD=Strongly Disagree, D=Main1y disagree but somewhat agree, N=Neutra1, A=Mainly Agree but somewhat disagree, SA=Strongly Agree). Respondents expressed their opinions for the second section on a scale of one to five (1=not very important to 5=great importance). Part III was designed in two parts to reflect respondents' perceptions toward the time spent on the activities such as administrative work, educational activities, and non-educational and non-program planning and teaching activities that were used by their extension personnel. Respondents expressed their opinions on a scale of one to five (1=not very important-5=great importance). Part IV was developed to learn the respondents’ Perception toward the importance of each teaching methods Those who responded expressed their opinions on a five point scale (1 = not important to 5 = very important Part V was designed to learn the respondents’ Perception toward the provision of assistance to farmers and perception relatr Those who respom scale (0=none, 1: much). Part VI was toward the subj er expressed their . important 5 = v« questionnaire am blank space to p; final Comments. Part VI req1 strengthening ex EXPIESSed their 1 1' A Seal. Streng. Which - Opinio] 97 perception related to effectiveness of their services. Those who responded expressed their opinions on a five point scale (0=none, 1=very little, 2=little, 3=much, 4=very much). Part VI was designed to learn the directors perception toward the subject areas covered. Those who responded expressed their opinions on‘a five point scale (1 = not important 5 = very important. The last page of the questionnaire and interview schedule instruments contained blank space to provide respondents an opportunity to make final comments. Part VI requested data on activities related to strengthening extension activities, those who responded expressed their perception on two types of scales: 1. A scale for departmental programs for strengthening extension activities in which the respondents expressed their opinions on a yes and no scale. 2. Those who responded on perception related to the planning activities, expressed their opinions on a 5 point scale; a range of SA = Strongly agree A = Agree N = Neutral D = Mainly disagree SD = Strongly disagree Instrument Validity According to L.R. Gay (1987): Validity is the degree to which a test measures what it is supposed to measure." Three types of validity were considered during the development of the instrument, such as construct, content validity and fact validity. The queStio developed before in EngliSh and t translation 0f t the staff in the Mashhad in Iran and content V31 version was est panel of experts from the Departm and graduate stur The appropriate . of the instrumen' Instrument Reliai According to Bab: Reliability measurement escription measurement age by aski reliable, t} birth certi: Also Babbie (198: Checking or creav only for informa1 L. 1" Gay (1987): The te no In ' {espect toe; 18 the degru measures w] 98 The questionnaires and interview schedule were developed before leaving for Iran. They were first prepared in English and then translated into Farsi. The final Farsi translation of the instruments was reviewed by a number of ithe staff in the College of Agriculture at the University of Mashhad in Iran and assessed for appropriateness, clarity and content validity. Content validity for the English version was established at Michigan State University by a panel of experts (graduate committee members), professors from the Department of Agricultural and Extension Education and graduate students in the Department (seminar format). The appropriate changes were made to increase the validity of the instrument. Instrument Reliability According to Babbi 1989; Reliability refers to the likelihood that a given measurement procedure will yield the same description of a given phenomenon, if the measurement is repeated. For example, estimating age by asking his or her friends would be less reliable, than asking the person or checking the birth certificate. (p. 127) Also Babbie (1983) mentioned that there are several ways of checking or creating reliable instruments such as -asking only for information relevant to the research. According to L.R. Gay (1987): The term means essentially the same thing with respect to measurement. Basically, reliability is the degree to which a test consistently measures whatever it measures. (p. 135) According to Gay Reliability consistentl more reliab can have th administrat same scores were re-adm The followi the reliability were field tester Five extension a. ten farmers were were similar to , reliability fer . coefficient for ‘ result was 0.80 . Personnel. For . for the instrume1 The instrum. to the small p0p1 not want to j 90p; Protest-spew.“s1 the collection ai 99 According to Gay: Reliability is the degree to which a test consistently measures whatever it measures. The more reliable a test is, the more confidence we can have that the scores obtained from the administration of the test are essentially the same scores that would be obtained if the test were re-administered (p. 135). The following factors were taken into consideration for the reliability of the instruments. The final instruments were field tested to obtain reliability of the responses. Five extension agents, five rural development personnel and ten farmers were used as a check on reliability. Two groups were similar to the population to be studied. The reliability for the instruments using Cronbachs' reliability coefficient for each section of instrument and average result was 0.80 for Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel. For farmers, the average reliability coefficient for the instrument was 0.86. The instrument for directors was not field tested due to the small population and the fact that the researcher did not want to jeopardize the loss of respondents through a pretest-post-test effect. The reliability was checked after the collection and the reliability coefficient were 0.75, 0.86, 0.91, and 0.95 and the average, 0.87. On the basis of the test and the results of some minor evisions in the area of activities and the subject areas, evisions in wording and item arrangement were made to the nstrument. Overall, the results of the responses indicated that the questio. and interview sci relation to the . Data were C4 20, 1990, using 1 questionnaires . were approved by Committee on Res: Mi°hiwan State u] the University 01 The researcl 29. 1989. Upon a the purpose of t} College and the l agriculture and 1 Purpose of the me discuss the purpc well as the Comte for distribution 100 that the questionnaire items were clear. The questionnaire and interview schedule were divided into different parts in relation to the objectives established. Data Collection Procedures Data were collected in Iran from January 15 to April 20, 1990, using the personal interview method and questionnaires. The questionnaire and interview schedule were approved by the advisory committee, the university Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHC) at Michigan State University, and the College of Agriculture in the University of Mashhad. The researcher traveled to Mashhad, Iran on November 29, 1989. Upon arriving in Iran, the researcher discussed the purpose of the study with the head of the Agricultural College and the Extension Director in the Department of Agriculture and the Rural Development Department. The purpose of the meetings was to secure their assistance, to discuss the purpose of the research and its objectives as well as the content of the questionnaires. Copies were made for distribution. Forty-seven questionnaires were mailed to extension agents and forty seven questionnaires were mailed 0 rural development personnel. The main offices of the Extension Department and Rural evelopment in Mashhad helped in this distribution. All uestionnaires were accompanied by cover letters and return envelopes. The were confidentia Thirty-four agents and twent rural developmen Hollow up lett the questionnair return their que questionnaires w three (8.3 96) fr researcher left 1990. FortV-four received from th respectively for little Concern a Gall (1933) note If may a s t° resPond, ~ I likely that could haVe reSpooning, responding There were fa E O Xtemsion ' rural 101 envelopes. The respondents were assured that their answers were confidential. Thirty-four questionnaires (72.3%) from extension agents and twenty-eight questionnaires (77.7%) from the rural development personnel were received by March 19, 1991. A follow up letter was mailed to those who did not return the questionnaires which requested that they complete and return their questionnaires. Another ten (21.3 %) questionnaires were received from the Extension Agents and three (8.3 %) from Rural Development Personnel before the researcher left Iran for the United States on April 29, 1990. Forty-four out of 47 and 31 out of 37 responses were received from the extension and Rural Development Personnel respectively for a total return rate of 90.4%. There was little concern about the 8.5% non-respondents. Borg and Gall (1983) noted: If only a small percentage of your subjects failed to respond, this question is not critical. If more than 20 percent are missing, however, it is very likely that most of the findings of the study could have been altered considerably if the non- responding group had returned the questionnaire and in a markedly different manner than the responding group (p. 434). Population and Sampling There were five distinct populations for the study: farmers, extension agents in department of Agricultural Extension, rural development personnel in rural Education department, rura directors. The sample within ea 4 page 109. m The State v all bakhshes (1c state office for activities in ea activities With F°“1‘ bakhshes t1 selECted, then 1 113W. One for randomly selects bakhshes were 1 j engaged in egric listed, A Samp] Proportionate1y In the case techniGilles Were State of Khorrae actual p°pulati¢ Tewraphic area face interViewS multistage saml 102 department, rural development directors and extension directors. The procedures used to establish trust and the sample within each of the populations are outlined in Table 4 page 109. Farmers The State was divided into four regions. A list of all bakhshes (local political units) was prepared from the state office for each region, asking both agencies for their activities in each bakhsh. The bakhshes that did not have activities with both departments were deleted from the list. Four bakhshes that were representative of the region were selected, then the total villages of the four bakhshes were listed. One fourth of the villages of each bakhsh were randomly selected. A total of 36 villages from the four bakhshes were listed. The total households that were engaged in agriculture in the 36 villages (10007) were listed. A sample of four hundred twenty six (426) was Proportionately selected using a random sampling chart. In the case of the contact farmers, several sampling techniques were studied to select a sample of farmers in the State of Khorrassan that would be representative of the actual population. The farmers were spreadout over a large geographic area and the data collection methods were face to face interviews and direct observation of the farmers. A multi-stage sampling technique was utilized to minimize the number of areas the sample would Four hundre four regions. I available, the f to their availal: was determined c Borg and Gall (1 necessary among When many r the study r is the best extent, the themselves group being sVetematic Mamie A list of a Agents was Colle Percent of the I seven out of 93 Ems“ and RI the sample Was C We The targe t Directors and fr administrators J, 103 number of areas that had to be visited and to insure that the sample would be representative of the farmer population. Four hundred and four farmers were interviewed from the four regions. For those villages for which lists were not available, the farmers were interviewed randomly according to their availability in the area. The size of the sample was determined on a basis of a standard recommendation of Borg and Gall (1983) who stressed that larger samples were necessary among other things under the following conditions: When many uncontrolled variables are present as in the study under such conditions, the larger sample is the best solution since it insures to some extent, that the uncontrolled variables will themselves be operating randomly for the different group being studied and therefore will not have a systematic effect upon the results. Agents A list of all Extension Agents and Rural Development Agents was collected from the two departments. Fifty percent of the population was randomly selected. Forty- seven out of 93 and 36 out of 72 were selected from Extension and Rural Development respectively. The size of the sample was determined before starting the sampling. Administrators Directors and S ecialists The target population for the study were all State Directors and four Assistant Directors. Thirty-nine chief administrators in Shahrestan (county) for both departments. Collected r accordance with statistical mea: deviation were < characteristics the Rural Develc Data were a analllVSiS packagr social sciencesj In order t. percePtien and 4 them: t-test an< alwha level of , differences . 104 Data Analysis Procedures Collected data was compiled, tabulated, and analyzed in accordance with the objectives of the study. Such statistical measures as number, percentage, mean, standard deviation were calculated for use in describing the characteristics of the farmers, the Extension Agents, and the Rural Development Personnel. Data were analyzed using STAT-PAC ( statistical analysis package) and SPSS/PC+(statistical package for social sciences) computer software programs. In order to compare similarities and differences of perception and attitude of two agencies and linkages between them, t-test and ANOVA were used throughout the study. An alpha level of 0.05 was used as the basis for finding differences. The resear: hypothesis made research questi< between two gror personnel; and 1 Rural Developmel W What were 1 survey popl Research uestir Was there a Perception Directors 1 EWUCation? W Was there a Perception Directors 1 R esearch West 1‘ Was there a pgrception lrectOrs 1 and appliec W Was there a per0epti°n meth°ds apt 105 Research Questions The research questions were developed, and several hypothesis made to answer the research questions. These research questions sought to determine the differences between two groups: a) Extension and Rural Development personnel; and b) Directors of Extension and Directors of Rural Development. Research Question 1 What were the Personal Characteristics of the survey population? Research Question 2 Was there a significant difference between the perception of the Extension and Rural Development Directors regarding the purpose of Extension Education? Research Question 3 Was there a significant difference between the perception of the Extension and Rural Development Directors regarding the client served? Research Question 4 Was there a significant difference between the perception of the Extension and Rural Development Directors regarding the teaching methods preferred and applied by the two departments? Research Question 5 Was there a significant difference between the Perception of the Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel regarding the teaching methods applied by the two departments? W Was there a perception Directors 1 especially‘ a 1 1 Research Questh Was there a the Extens. Personnel : farmers? W Was there ; Extension 4 regarding . °rganizati. W Was there . 0f Extensi. Personnel ; W What Were . t0 contact Deve10pmen. R esearch us 3 ti What Were . t° aetivit R esearch ueSti 106 Research Question 6 Was there a significant difference between the perception of the Extension and Rural Development Directors regarding assistance to farmers especially? a. Small farmers b. Large commercial farmers Research Question 7 Was there a difference between the perception of the Extension Agents and Rural development Personnel regarding Provision of assistance to farmers? Research Question 8 Was there a difference between the perception of Extension Agents and Rural development Personnel regarding their linkage with agricultural related organization? Research Question 9 Was there a difference between the perceptions of Extension Agents and the Rural Development Personnel regarding their effectiveness? Research Question 10 What were the perceptions of farmers in relation to contacts with the Extension Agents and Rural Development personnel? Research Question 11 What were the perceptions of farmers in relation to activities of the two organizations in the state of Khorrassan? Research Question 12 What were the perception of farmers in relation to linkages with the two organizations in the state of khorrassn? W Was there .' Extension a regarding ‘ Research Questir Was there . perception which the ' the extens Research Questi What were ‘ to the fut in the sta W Was there perception D6V810pmen the farmer W Was there percePtion DeveloPmen needs? 107 Research Question 13 Was there a difference between the perception of Extension and Rural development Directors regarding their agents time allocation? Research Question 14 Was there a significant difference between the perception of two organizations regarding ways in which the two department contribute to strengthen the extension efforts? Research Question 15 What were the perceptions of farmers in relation to the future of Agricultural Extension Education in the state of Khorrassan? Research Question 16 Was there a significant difference between the perception of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel regarding services given to the farmer? Research Question 17 Was there a significant difference between the perception of Extension Agents and Rural . . Development Personnel regarding their training needs? The purpose of this between two extensm presented and d U Descr perso Perce Direc each Types follo Provi depar Estab agric servi and c Compa agenc adopt Compa agent the e exten Compa Agent relat CHAPTER V DATA ANALYBIB purpose of this study was to examine the differences ween two extension organizations. The findings are presented and discussed in eight parts: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) Description of research respondents and selected personal characteristics of the survey population. Perception of the Directors of Extension and Directors of Rural Development with respect to each agency's purpose and expectations. Types of extension activities and teaching methods followed by the two departments. Provision of assistance to farmers by the two departments. Established linkages with the research station, agricultural college, agricultural supplies and services such as the farm machinery organization and cooperative agencies by the two departments. Comparison of the extent and way in which the two agencies contribute to expanding the knowledge and adoption of improved farm practices among farmers. Comparison of the perception of farmers, extension agents and rural development personnel regarding the effectiveness of the extension service extended by the two agencies. Comparison of the perceptions of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel in relation to their educational needs 108 4‘ Description 0: Chara Description of There were 4present the r farmers; 43 (8. Directors; 75 ( Development per research static Table 4, --Samp1 \ Category W Directors of Ex tension Devel°pment Extension Agent Rural Develo me \ W 1) Agricultlu 109 PART 1 Description of Research Respondents and Selected Personal Characteristics of the Survey Population Description of Research Respondents There were 528 cases in this study. Data in Table 4 present the respondents by category: 404 (76.5%) were farmers; 43 (8.1%) were Extension and Rural Development Directors; 75 (14.3%) were Extension Agents and Rural Development personnel, and 6 (1.1%) were directors of research stations and farm machinery organizations. Table 4.--Sample size, and the rate of response _ Popula- Sample Respond Percent Category tion Number Number (%) Farmer 10007 426 404 94.8 Directors of Ex- 23 23 23 100.0 tension Directors of Rural 22 22 20 90.9 Development Extension Agent 94 47 44 93.6 Rural Development 73 37 31 83.8 Personnel Director of Re- 9 9 6 66.7 search Station & Farm Machinery Organization Respondents Group Description 1) Agriculture Extension Agents from the Department of Agriculture (Tarviege). 2) Rural Devel Department 3) Directors c (county) 4) Directors: the Ostan l 5) Farmers frc For each gr important charac following subsections . W Ostan (Stat Dire°t°rs (Chiei The State EXtens the state and st Wrap. This I all layels . Dut eXtension funds W Sharestan, the o‘ f 01' the COQrdina 1n terms of QXte 110 2) Rural Development Personnel from the Rural Education Department of Jihad Sazandeghi (Amozash'h Rosta) 3) Directors of the two agencies in the Sharestan (county) 4) Directors and their assistants of the two agencies in the Ostan (state). 5) Farmers from the state. For each group mentioned above, a description of important characteristics has been presented in the following subsections. Directors of Extension and Rural Deve10pment Ostan (State) Directors and Sharestan (District) Directors (Chief Administrators) were included in the study. The State Extension Director was the leader of extension in the state and she/he was responsible for the state extension program. This person employed or recommended employment at all levels. Duties also included the administration of extension funds and approval of all publications. Sharestan (District) Directors (Chief Administrators] The State has been divided into seventeen Sharestan (districts) for the purpose of supervision. In each Sharestan, the district agriculture director was responsible for the coordination of the work of all district supervisors in terms of extension, crops, pesticides and other practices. Personal 0? Educational Lev: The data it Director responc diploma, one (4 18(78.3%) had 111 Extension Direct mm Data in Ta] 0f Rural Develol diplomas, five (42.1%) of the 1 degrees. W director re8p0nc of the Research 111 Personal Characteristics of the Survey Population. Educational Level The data in Table 5 show that of the 23 Extension Director respondents, one (4.3%) had a regular high school diploma, one (4.3%) had a college degree, over two thirds, 18(78.3%) had university degrees, and three (13%) of Extension Directors had Masters' Degrees. Rural Development Directors Data in Table 5 indicate that of nineteen respondents of Rural Development Directors, six (31.6%) had high school diplomas, five (26.3%) had college degrees, and eight (42.1%) of the Rural Development Directors had university degrees. Research Director Data in Table 5 show five (83.3%) of the research director respondents had Bachelor degrees, and one (16.7%) of the Research Directors had a Masters degree. Table 5.--Educa Directors Education Diploma College degree B. s 0 W. S. Total K erience Chen The data 1' directors (50%) Thirteen (72.23 chief a(llllinistz six (27.2: years of eXperj Rural DeVEIOpme Years. “Na (2 16 Years exPeri 112 Table 5.--Educational Level of Extension, Rural Development Directors Extension Rural Director Development Director Education No (%) No (%) Diploma 01 04.3 6 31.6 College degree 01 04.3 5 26.3 B.S. 18 78.3 8 42.1 M.S. 03 13.0 0 00.0 Total 23 100 19 100 Experience Characteristic of Director (Chief Administrator) The data in Table 6 shows one half of the extension directors (50%) had between one and five years' experience. Thirteen (72.2%) of the rural development directors and chief administrators had 1-5 years of experience. Six (27.2%) Extension Directors had between 6 to 15 years of experience in their jobs. Only five (27.8%) of the Rural Development Directors had experience between 6 to 10 years. Five (22.8%)of the Extension Directors had more than 16 years experience. Table 6.--Expe Development Di Years of Experience 1 - 5 6 -10 11-15 16-20 21-up Total Activities of Data in T in the year 19 respondents, 1‘ courses] works] Development . field day part and five (29.4 Over three fif (61.1%) were f (33.3%) were f Directors repo (46.4%) for ea the group tau and five (31.3 113 Table 6.--Experience Characteristic of Extension and Rural Development Directors in the state of Khorrassan. Extension Rural Years of Director Development Director Experience No (%) No (%) 1 - 5 11 50.0 13 72.2 6 -10 03 13.6 05 27.8 11-15 03 13.6 NA NA 16-20 04 18.2 NA NA 21-up 01 04.6 NA NA Total “2‘2— 100 Ts— 100 Activities of Extension and Rural Development Directors Data in Table 7 show the extension activities completed in the year 1988. Of the Extension and Rural development respondents, 18 (52.9%) participated in farm training courses/ workshop from Extension and 13 (38.2%) from Rural Development. Over three- fifths 11 (64.7%) of the farm field day participants were from the Extension Department, and five (29.4%) were from the Rural Development Department. Over three fifths of the radio listening group activities 11 (61.1%) were from the Rural Development Department and six (33.3%) were from the Extension Department. Both groups of Directors reported the same amount of farmer contact: 13 (46.4%) for each department. Over three fifths (62.5%) of the group tour activities were from Extension Directors, and five (31.3%) were from Rural Development Department. Table 7.--Acti Directors duri Activities Farm training Courses/worksh Farmers field Radio listenin group Farmer contact Group tours Farmegs Charac‘ Four hund: information ab 1) Perso 114 Table 7.--Activities of Extension and Rural Development Directors during 1988 Extension Rural Development Director Director N = 23 N = 20 Activities No (%) No (%) Farm training 18 58.6 13 41.94 Courses/workshop Farmers field days 11 68.8 05 31.20 Radio listening group 06 35.3 11 64.7 Farmer contacts 13 50.0 13 50.0 Group tours 10 66.6 05 33.4 Farmeps Characteristics Four hundred and four farmers responded and provided information about the following characteristics: 1) Personal characteristics. 2) Perception related to expectation and areas of advice. 3) Perception related to linkage with the Extension Department and Rural Development Department. 4) Perception of the future of extension activities. 5) Perception of the relative effectiveness of extension activities. Farmers’ Age Data in Table 8 demonstrate 220 (54.4%) of the farmers were fifty yea between the a between the ag years old. Gender and Mar Three hun population war from this popu (.5%) were sin Table 8.--Clast Age and Gender Characteristic: mg 29 years and 111 30-39 years ITO-49 years 50 years and o Gender Male Female Marital Status d 115' were fifty years of age and over. Sixty five (16.1%) were between the ages of 40 and 49. Seventy (17.33%) were between the ages of 30 and 39, and 49 (12.2%) were under 29 years old. Gender and Marital Status of Farmers Three hundred ninety nine (98.80 %) of the survey population were male, and five (1.20%) were female. Also, from this population, 402 (99.5%) were married and two (.5%) were single. Table 8.--Classification of Farmers According to Their Age and Gender Characteristics Number Percent Age 29 years and under 49 12.12 30-39 years 70 17.33 40-49 years 65 16.10 50 years and over 220 54.45 Total 404 100.00 Gender Male 399 98.80 Female 5 1.20 Total 404 100.00 Marital Status Married 402 99.50 Single 002 00.50 Total 404 100.00 Type of Owners Private 0 tenure in Iran Table 9 show t respondents di they rented. and rented far Regarding responded to t: (24.3%) of the sixty one (15.: tomans or less. farmers had an year. Table 9.--Clas of Ownership a Characteristic Ownership Own farm Rented farm Rent and own Income in 1.982 20,000 tomans o 21,000-40,000 t 41,000-60,000 t 61,000-80,000 t SLOW-100,000 100,000 tomans Cases Missing 116 Type of Ownership and Income Private ownership was the predominant feature of land tenure in Iran and in the state of Khorrassan, the data in Table 9 show that the majority 310 (79.2%) of the farmer respondents did own their farm and 64 (15.8 %) indicated they rented. Twenty (5.0 %) of the farmers had both owned and rented farming operations. Regarding income 403 (99.7%) of the surveyed population responded to this question. Data in Table 10 reveals that 98 (24.3%) of the farmers had income over 100,000.00 Tomans. Sixty one (15.1%) of the farmers had an income of 20,000 tomans or less. Two hundred forty four (60.4%) of the farmers had an income between 21,000 and 80,000 tomans per year. Table 9.--C1assification of Farmers According to Their Type of Ownership and Income Characteristics Number Percent Ownership Own farm 10 79-2 Rented farm 64 15:8 Rent and Own 20 5'0 Total 394 100-0 Income in 1989 20,000 tomans or less 61 15°10 21,000-40,000 tomans 68 15°80 41,000-60,000 tomans 78 19-30 61,ooo-eo,ooo tomans 56 13°90 81,000-1oo,ooo tomans 42 10°40 100,000 tomans or more 98 24°30 Cases Missing 1 '20 Total 404 100-0 Educational Le The educa 10 show that 2 education. F: able to read. had no educati educational 1e (23.8%) had an years, ten (3. to nine years college or B. Table 10. 01a Educational Le‘ Educational 1e No Education Just Reading 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-9 years 9-12 years College degree as. and up No Response mutate The data ' farmers 201 (4 Ninety eight (2 hectares, 50 ( 117 Educational Level of Farmers The educational level of farmers varied. Data in Table 10 show that 204 (50.70%) of the farmers did not have any education. Forty eight (11.8%) of the farmers were only able to read. The data show two hundred fifty two (62.5%) had no educational training. Thirty eight (9.4%) had an educational level of between one to three years. Ninety six (23.8%) had an educational level of between four to six years, ten (3.8%) had an educational level of between seven to nine years, and two (.5%) of the farmers had a two year college or B.S degree. Table 10. Classification of Farmers According to Their Educational Level Educational level Number Percent(%) No Education 204 50.70 Just Reading 48 11.80 1-3 years 38 19.40 4-6 years 96 23.80 7-9 years 16 3.80 9-12 years 0 00.00 College degree 1 .25 B.S. and up 1 .25 NO Response 0 .00 Total 404 100-00 w The data in Table 11 show that about one half of the farmers 201 (49.4% ) had farms up to five hectares in size. Ninety eight (24.3%) of the farms sizes were from six to ten hectares, 50 (12.4%) of farmers had farm from 11 to 20 hectares in S] 13 (3.2%) were Table 11. --C1a Farm size Category ”D to S Hectar 6-10 Hectares 11-20 Hectares 21-40 Hectares 41 Hectares or missing Extension EXtenSion Rural Develop: about 1) persc marital Status in the SerVice Station, 6) 81)}; organizmom 8 Forty Seve also selected a 118 hectares in size, 29 (7.2%) were from 21 to 40 hectares, and 13 (3.2%) were 40 hectares or larger in size. Table 11.--Classification of Farmers According to Their Farm Size Category Number Percent No (%) Up to 5 Hectares 201 49.4 6-10 Hectares 98 24.3 11-20 Hectares 50 12.4 21-40 Hectares 29 7.2 41 Hectares or more 13 3.2 missing 13 3.20 Total 404 100 Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Characteristics Extension Agents in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (Jihad) were asked to provide information about 1) personal characteristics such as ( age, gender, marital status, agency for whom they are working, position in the service, 2) personal competency , 3) activities, 4) methods of teaching used, 5) communication with research station, 6) subject area covered, 7) perception related to organization, 8) perception related to effectiveness of services, 9) need of training , 10) linkage with other Organizations. and 11) perception of effectiveness. Forty seven Extension Agents were selected as a sample for the study. Thirty- six Rural Development Personnel were also selected as a sample for the study. Forty four out of 47 (93.6%) of questionnaire 31 (86%) out respondents w of 26 and 44 ( largest with Data in respondents we twenty eight ( largest with 2 age group with Gender of Exte Data in T the Extension Development pe 119 47 (93.6%) of the Extension Agents responded to the questionnaire . From the Department of Rural Development, 31 (86%) out of 36 responded to the questionnaire . All respondents were male. Age of Extension Agents. Data in Table 12 illustrate that Extension Agents in the Department of Agriculture were mainly between the ages of 26 and 44 (70.5%), with the 26-29 group being the largest with twelve (27.3%). The smallest group was the 50 to 54 age group with two (4.5%). Age of Rural Development Personnel Data in Table 12 also indicated that Rural Development respondents were mainly between the ages of 26 and 34. twenty eight (80.4 %), with the 30-34 group being the largest with 22 (71.0%). The smallest group was the 35-39 age group with one (3.2%). Gender of Extension A ant and Rural Develo ment Personnel ___________________4L__________________JL_____———————— Data in Table 12 also illustrates that all 44 (100%) of the Extension Agents and all 31 (100%) of the Rural Development personnel were male. Table 12.--Cha Agents and Rur __‘——'— characteristic n_qg 25 years or yc 26-29 years 30-34 years 35-39 years 40-44 years 45-49 years 50-54 years 55 years or m Gender Male Data in '1 Extension Ager Personnel were single . Also 44 ( the Extension Development De 120 Table 12.——Characteristics of Agricultural Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Characteristics Extension Rural Development Agent Personnel No (%) No (%) Age 25 years or younger 6 13.6 2 6.4 26-29 years 12 27.3 6 9.4 30-34 years 5 11.4 22 71.0 35-39 years 4 9.1 1 3.2 40-44 years 10 22.7 0 NA 45-49 years 5 11.4 0 NA 50-54 years 2 4.5 0 NA 55 years or more 0 0.0 0 NA Gender Male 44 100 31 100 Female 0 0 0 0 Marital Status ,Title Position of the Agent. Data in Table 13 indicated that 43 (97.7%) of the Extension Agents and 31 (100%) of the Rural Development Personnel were married. Only one (2.3%) Extension Agent was single . Also 44 (58.6%) of the surveyed population were from the Extension Department and 31 (41.4%) were from Rural Development Department. Table 13.-~Cha and Rural Deve Characteristic Manta Stat 5 Married single Divorced TitlelPositior Extension Age Rural Develop Personnel Data in Extension Ager 17 (54.8%) Ru! general agricr Rural Dew extension and Agents. One 1 Personnel com; Agents respect of the Extensi Personnel had (19.4%) of the to this questi 121 Table 13.--Characteristics of Agricultural Extension Agent and Rural Development Personnel Characteristics Extension Rural Development Agent Personnel No (%) No (’6) Marital Status Married 43 97.7 31 100.0 Single 1 2.3 0 0.0 Divorced 0 0.0 0 0.0 TitlezPosition: Extension Agents & 44 58.6 31 041.4 Rural Development Personnel Specialty of Extension Agent and Rural Development. Data in Table 14 indicate that 37 (84%) of the Extension Agents had a specialty in general agriculture and 17 (54.8%) Rural Development Personnel had a specialty in general agriculture. Rural Development Personnel had more specialties in extension and farm machinery areas than the Extension AGents. One (3.2%) and three (9.7%) Rural Development Personnel compared to one (2.3%) and two (4.7%) Extension AGents respectively. The data also shows that four (9.1%) Of the Extension Agents and four (12.9%) Rural Development Personnel had specialties other than agriculture. Six (19.4%) of the Rural Development Personnel did not respond to this question. Table 14.--Sp¢ and Rural Dev: Specialty General Agric Extension Machinery other (social servi No Response Tot Data in Extension Age personnel res Profession" . Extension Ager 24 years compa Development Pe Table 15 . --Yea Extension Age: Years 1~4 years 5~9 years 10-14 years 15-19 years 20-24 years 25 years or m No response Tot 122 Table 14.--Specialties of Agricultural Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Specialty Extension Rural Development Agent Personnel No (%) No (%) General Agriculture 37 84.1 17 54.8 Extension 1 2.3 1 3.2 Machinery 2 4.5 3 9.7 Other 4 9.1 4 12.9 * (social services) No Response 0 0.0 6 19.4 Total 44 100 31 100 Data in Table 15 demonstrate that 44 (100%) of the Extension Agents and 25 (80.6%) of the Rural development personnel responded to the statement " Years in Extension Profession". Data in Table 16 show that 21 (47.7%) Extension Agents had experience in extension between 15 to 24 years compared to zero experience at that level by Rural Development Personnel. Table 15.—-Years of Extension Profession of Agricultural Extension Agent and Rural Development Personnel Years Extension Rural Agent Development No (%) No (%) 1-4 years 5 11.4 6 19-4 5-9 years 10 2.7 14 45.1 10-14 years 3 6.8 5 16-1 15-19 years 10 22~7 0 0'0 20-24 years 11 25.0 0 0-0 25 years or more 5 11.4 0 0-0 No response 0 0-0 6 19'4 Total 44 100 31 100 had two years degree. Thir diploma such sciences. Data in Personnel res other high so agriculture d Twelve (37.2%) Table 16.—~Edu Agent and the Group Category W B.S. in Genera Agriculture College degree B.S. in Farm Machinery Diploma in Agriculture other Diploma Mo Response Tot 123 Educational Level of Extension Agent and Rural Development Personnel Data in Table 16 show that the majority of Extension Agents 28 (68.6%) had an agricultural diploma, one (2.3%) had two years of college, and one (2.3%) had a University degree. Thirteen (29.5%) of the Extension Agents had other diploma such as marketing, social science and natural sciences. Data in Table 16 show that 19 Rural Development Personnel responded to this item. Fourteen (45.2%) had other high school diplomas. Only four (12.9%) had an agriculture diploma and one (3.2%) had a University degree. Twelve (37.2%) did not respond to this question. Table 16.--Educationa1 Level of the Agricultural Extension Agent and the Rural Development Personnel Group Extension Rural Category Agent Development No (%) No (%) B.S, in Extension 0 0.0 1 3.2 B.S. in General 0 0.0 O 0.0 Agriculture College degree 1 2.3 0 0.0 B.S. in Farm 1 2.3 0 0.0 Machinery Diploma in 28 63.6 4 12.9 Agriculture Other Diploma 13 29.5 14 45.2 38.7 No Response 1 2.3 12 Total 44 100 31 100 The hypo null hypothes between the hypotheses h analysis . D'rector Per The nul between the difference is the educatio The null determine whe purpose of ex Rural Develop The data (Extension an (agree and st there were no The statistic significant :5 the null hyp 124 PART 2 EXTENSION PURPOSE The hypotheses developed in chapter 4 were converted to null hypotheses in order to test the significant differences between the groups. In the following discussion, all hypotheses have been converted to their null hypotheses for analysis. Director Perception. The null hypothesis was used to test for differences between the two Directors and stated that there was no difference between the directors' perceptions and each of the educational purposes of extension. Ho: p1 = u2 The null hypotheses was tested using the t-test to determine whether differences between the educational purpose of extension and the perceptions of Extension and Rural Development Directors were statistically significant. The data in Appendix A-1 indicated that all directors, (Extension and Rural Development) positively supported (agree and strongly agree) the educational statements and there were no significant differences between the groups. The statistical result are summarized in Table 17. Since no significant differences between the two groups were detected the null hypotheses was accepted. Table 17 . "T114 Educational PI # There was no R = Reject til) Purpose of Ex 1. Coordina‘ 2. Transfer 3. Increase 4. Hands on 5. Assistan 6. Support 7. Assist f obtainin 8~ Help far help the 9' Link Ice 10. Increase 11' Support (Such a 12' Prepare 13. Assess t \ DireCtorsl PE Chants Serv The null The h¥pothes 1. Directors We: differemms I the extensiOI significant 1 tQSt from thE 125 Table 17.--The Result of Null Hypotheses in Relation to the Educational Purpose of Extension Ho = u1 = #2 There was no difference between the two Directors in the Educational purpose of extension R = Reject the null NR = Fail to reject the null Purpose of Extension Result of Ho 1. Coordination of needs and research NR 2. Transfer of technology and innovation NR 3. Increase knowledge and skills NR 4. Hands on Education NR 5. Assistance with training and visits NR 6. Support the people's growth and change NR 7. Assist farmers in NR obtaining improved inputs 8. Help farmers to NR help themselves 9. Link local organizations NR 10. Increase Production NR 11. Support free input facilities NR (such as fertilizers, equip. etc) 12. Prepare working facilities NR 13. Assess the needs of the farmers NR Directors’ Perception in Relation to Extension Purposes (Clients Served) The null hypothesis was used to test for significance. The hypothesis stated that there was no difference between the directors’ perception and each of the purposes of extension (clients served). Ho:p.1=u2 The mean judgements of Extension and Rural Development Directors were tested using the t-test to determine whether differences between the directors' perceptions and each of the extension purposes (clients served) were statistically significant between the two groups. The results of the t- test from the nine statements on extension purpose (clients served) prefe Appendix A-Z) found to diff clients serve Table 18. Th for all but f The five purp below. 126 served) preferred by the two directors were reported (see Appendix A-Z). Five statements of purpose of extension were found to differ significantly between the two groups on the clients served. The statistical results are summarized in Table 18. Therefore the null hypothesis was not rejected for all but five of the purposes of extension clients serve. The five purposes of extension (clients) which did differ significantly are presented in TABLE 19 and are discussed below. a: m:v;1’_ Table 18.--Th Relation to C There was n purpose of Ex R = Reject th Purpose of Ex 1. Servmg 1 scale far 2. Serving 5 scale far 3. Serving 1 farmers 4- Serving f growing c (:1 Serving f dealing w - Serving f dealing w - Serving h ' Serving f ' SerVing d m e Se items 0 x 127 Table 18.--The Result of Analysis of Null Hypotheses in Relation to Clients Served a = O .05 Ho = pi = #2 There was no difference between the two Directors in the purpose of Extension (clients served). R = Reject the null NR = Fail to reject the null Purpose of ExtenSion Result of Ho 1. Serving large R* scale farmers 2. Serving small R* scale farmers 3. Serving landless NR farmers 4. Serving farmers NR growing cash crops 5. Serving farmers NR dealing with forage 6. Serving farmers R* dealing with vegetables 7. Serving horticulture farmers R* 8. Serving farmers NR dealing with irrigation 9. serving dry land farmers R* Extension and Rural Development Directors responded to these items on a 5 point Likert type scale with: 5 = strongly agree 4 = agree 3 = neutral 2 = disagree 1= strongly disagree. *significant at 0 =5 .05 Data in Table 19 indicate both groups supported the statement "Serving large scale farmers". However, the Rural Development Directors judged these statement to be significantly less important with mean scores of 3.00 than the Extension differences w statement "Se Development D significantly the Extension differences w 0n the s vegetables cr practice to b score of 2.43 mean score of 0'00 level. Data in Directors jIId With horticul mean scores 0 with a mean s at the 0.00 1 0n the s farms", the E less Signific Development D differen Ce W 128 the Extension Director with mean scores of 3.77. The differences were significant at the 0.03 level. On the statement "Serving small scale farmers", the Rural Development Directors judged this purpose to be significantly more important with a mean score of 4.50 than the Extension Directors with a mean score of 3.65. The differences were significant at the 0.01 level. On the statement "Serving farmers dealing with vegetables crops", the Extension Directors judged this practice to be significantly more important, with a mean score of 2.43, than the Rural Development Directors with mean score of 1.40. The differences were significant at the 0.00 level. Data in Table 20 illustrate that the Extension Directors judged the statement, "Serving farmers dealing with horticulture ", as significantly more important, with a mean scores of 3.09, than the Rural Development Directors with a mean score of 1.7. The differences were significant at the 0.00 level. On the statement "Serving farmers dealing with dry land farms", the Extension Directors judged this practice to be less significant, with a mean score of 2.64, than the Rural Development Directors with mean score of 3.75. The difference were significant at the 0.02 level. Table 19 . T-Pe of Extens1on Statements 1 Serving 1 scale far 2. Serving 5 scale far 6. Serving f dealing w vegetable 7- Servingh culture f 9- Serving d farmers m these items c = Strongly 3 = neutral 1 = Strongly W he n o E The by the W The null determihe whe perceptions a departments . statemem;S 0n 129 Table 19.--Perception of Extension Director in the Purpose of Extension (clients served) Extension Rural deve— Directors lopment Dir - N = 23 N = 20 Mean Mean Statements S.D S.D DF t p 1. Serving large 3.77 3.00 40 1.95* 0.03 scale farmers 1.17 1,34 2. Serving small 3.65 4.50 41 2.25* 0.01 scale farmers 1.46 0.81 6. Serving farmers 2.43 1.40 41 3.11* 0.00 dealing with 1.35 0,58 vegetables 7. Serving horti- 3.09 1.70 41 3.81* 0.00 culture farmers 1.35 0.90 9. Serving dry land 2.64 3.75 40 2.23* 0.02 farmers 1.64 1.64 Extension and Rural Development Directors responded to these items on a 5 point Likert type scale with: 5 = strongly agree 4 = agree 3 neutral 2 = disagree 1 strongly disagree. *significant at a =5 .05 Director Perception in Relation to Teaching Methods The null hypotheses stated there was no difference between the mean judgement of each teaching method preferred by the two Directors. .09 E || 0.05 1 HO = #2 The null hypothesis was tested using the t-test to determine whether there were differences between directors perceptions and each of the teaching methods used by the two departments. The results of the t-test from the 17 statements on the teaching methods preferred by the two 130 directors are reported in Appendix A-3. Thirteen methods were found not to be significantly different between the two groups. The other four statements of teaching methods were found to differ significantly between Extension and Rural Development Directors on teaching methods. The four teaching methods which did differ significantly are presented in Table 20 and are discussed below. The statistical results are summarized in Table 21. Data in Table 20 indicate both groups did not support the statement "Importance of using newspapers ", as a _ teaching method. The Rural Development Directors judged these statements to be less significant with mean scores of 2.20 than the Extension Directors with mean scores of 2.7 with a significance level of 0.05. On the statement "Importance of using the telephone", as a teaching method, the Rural Development Director also judged this statement to be less significant with mean scores of 1.7 than the Extension Director with a mean score of 2.9 with a significance level of 0.00. On the statement "Importance of office calls as a teaching method", the Extension Directors judged this practice to be significantly more important, with a mean score of 3.5, than the Rural Development Director with a mean score of 2.2 with a significant level of 0.00. On the statement, "Importance of using group meetings as a teaching method", the Extension Directors judged this 131 practice to be significantly more important, with a mean score of 4.1, compared to the Rural Development Directors with a mean score of 3.6. The significant level was 0.03. Table 20. Perception of Directors in Relation to Teaching Methods Prefered Extension Rural development Director Director N = 23 N = 20 Mean Mean Teaching Method S.D S.D DF t p Importance of Using 2.7 2.20 41 1.70* 0.05 Newspapers as a Teach- 1.36 0.74 ing method. Importance of office 3.5 2.2 41 3.83* 0.00 call as a teaching 1.20 0.83 Method. Importance of using 2.9 1.7 41 3.44* 0.00 telephone as a- 1.30 0.78 teaching method. Group teaching method 4.1 3.6 41 1.98* 0.03 0.80 1.07 Extension and Rural Development Directors responded to these items on a 5 point Likert type scale with: 5 = Very important 4 = important 3 = neutral 2 = not important 1 = Not very important *significant at a =5 .05 132 Table 21. The Results of Analysis of Null Hypotheses in Relation to Teaching Methods( Directors perception) There was no difference between the two Directors in relation to teaching methods. R = Reject the null NR = Fail to reject the null Purpose of Extension Result of Ho Materials and media Importance of using Posters as a teach- ing method Importance of using T.V. as a teaching method Importance of using R* Newspapers as a teach- ing method Importance of using radio as a teaching Method Importance of showing Film as a teaching method Using fair exhibits NR as a teaching method Other teaching method (role play ,theater Individual methods Importance of farm visit as a teaching method Importance of office call R* as a teaching method Importance of using telephone R* as a teaching method 133 Table 21. Continued Purpose of Extension Result of Ho Using letters as a NR as a teaching method Group methods Important of ag expo NR as a teaching method Important of farmer NR classes as a teaching method Important of ag days NR as a teaching method Group teaching method R* Field trips NR Group projects NR as a teaching method * Significant differences were found. Extension and Rural Development Directors responded to these items on a 5 point Likert type scale with: 5 = strongly agree 4 = agree 3 = neutral 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly agree. *significant at a =5 .05 Perce tion of Extension A ents and Rural Develo ment Directors in Relation to the In ortance of Sub ect Areas There is no significant difference between the mean jUdgement on each subject areas preferred by the two directors (Extension and Rural Development). H0: u 1 = p 2 The hypothesis was tested using the t—test to determine Whether differences between the variables of subject areas Preferred by the two Directors were statistically Significant between the two groups (Extension and Rural 134 Development Directors). The results of the t-test from the 22 statements on the subject areas by the two directors are reported in Appendix A-4. Eight subject areas were found to differ significantly between the two groups. The eight subjects areas which gig differ significantly are presented in Table 22 and discussed below. The statistical results are summarized in Table 23. Therefore the null hypothesis was not rejected for all but thirteen of the subject areas. Data in Table 22 illustrate that the Extension Directors judged the subject areas "fertilizer, vegetables, and fruit trees", significantly more important with mean scores of 4.61 (fertilizer), 3.30 (vegetables), and 3.48 (fruit trees), than the Rural Development Directors with the mean score of 4.1 (fertilizer), 1.70 (vegetables), and 1.75 (fruit trees). The differences were significant at the 0.01 for fertilizer and 0.00 level for vegetables and fruit trees. On the subject areas, "dry land farming, tillage practice, tillage equipment, credit, and forage crops", Rural Development Directors judged these subject areas Significantly more important, with the mean score of 4.10( dry land farming), 4.45 (tillage practice), 4-55 (tillage equipment), 4.20 (credit), and 4.40 (forage creps). than the Extension Directors’ mean score of 3.00 (dry land farming), 3.83 (tillage practice), 4.17 (tillage equipment), 135 3.09 (credit), and 3.83 ( forage crops). The differences were significant at the 0.01 level for dry land farming, 0.04 level for tillage practice, 0.05 level for tillage equipment, 0.00 level for credit; for forage crops the differences were significant at the 0.03 level. Table 22.--Directors Perception in Relation of Importance of Areas Preferred by Their Agencies. Areas Groups No Mean S.D t p Dry land Group 1 23 3.00 1.22 farming Group 2 20 4.10 1.45 2.6* 0.01 Fertili- Group 1 23 4.61 0.57 zer. Group 2 20 4.10 0.77 2.43* 0.01 Vege- Group 1 23 3.30 0.90 5.01* 0.00 tables Group 2 20 1.70 1.20 Fruit Group 1 23 3.48 0.83 trees Group 2 20 1.75 1.22 5.37* 0.00 Tillage Group 1 23 3.83 1.27 practice Group 2 20 4.45 0.86 1.81* 0.04 Tillage Group 1 23 4.17 1.01 practice Group 2 20 4.65 0.79 1.70* 0.05 Credit Group 1 23 3.09 1.28 Group 2 20 4.20 1.08 2.98* 0.00 Forage crop Group 1 23 3.83 0.92 Group 2 20 4.40 0.92 2.00* 0.03 Group 1 = Extension Director Group 2 = Rural Development Director *Significant at a =3 .05 136 Table 23.--The Result of the Null Hypotheses in Relation to Subject Areas That Should be Known by the Agent (Directors’ Perception) a = 0.05 Ho = pi = p2 There was no difference between the mean judgment of subject areas preferred by the two agencies R = Reject the null NR= Fail to reject the Subject areas Statistical result Approved seeds NR Dry land farming R* Fertilizer. R* Pest control NR Herbicides NR Vegetable crops R* Fruit trees R* Soil management NR Tillage practice R* Planting equipment NR Field sprayers NR Harvesting equipment NR Tillage practice R* Animal breed NR Poultry breed NR Credit R* Market price NR Storage NR Packaging NR Farm cooperative NR R* Forage crop *significant at a s .05 137 Strengthening Agricultural Extension Programs new The null hypothesis was used to test for difference between the two directors and stated that : There is no difference between the Extension and Rural Development Directors perceptions and each of the variable on strengthening Agricultural Extension programs . Ho: p1 = #2 The null hypotheses was tested using the t—test to determine whether differences between the directors perceptions on each of the variables related to strengthening agricultural extension programs were statistically significant between the two groups. The results of the t-test from the 14 statements on strengthening agricultural extension programs by the two directors are reported in Appendix A-5. One statement on strengthening Agricultural Extension programs was found to differ significantly between the two groups. The one statement which did differ significantly is presented in Table 24 and discussed below. The statistical results are summarized in Table 25. Therefore the null hypothesis was not rejected for all but one of the variable on strengthening agricultural extension programs. One statement that was found to differ significantly between the two groups in relation to integration of services of the Extension Department and Rural Development Department is reported in Table 24. The data in Table 24 138 indicate the Rural Development Directors judged this action, "Integration of services of the Extension Department and Rural Development Department", to be more significant than Extension Directors with mean scores of 4.65 compared to Extension Directors with mean scores of 3.74. The differences were significant at the 0.00 level. Table 24.--Mean and standard Deviation of Directors Perception in Relation to Strengthening the Agricultural Extension System in Khorrassan Extension Rural Development Director Director N = 23 N = 20 Mean Mean Statement S.D DF S.D t p Integration of Services 3.87 41 4.65 2.98* 0.00 of the Extension 0.95 0.73 Department and Rural Development Department Directors responded to these statements on five point Likert type scale with 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = strongly agree *significant at a s 0.05 139 Table 25. The Result of Null Hypotheses in Relation to Strengthening Extension Programs in Khorrassan. a = 0.05 Ho = pl = #2 There was no difference between the mean judgment of strengthening by the two agencies R = Reject the null NR= Fail to reject the Statements The Result of Ho: Strong research extension linkage NR Integration of services of the Ext- R* ension Department and Rural Development Department Strengthening the research capacity NR to meet the needs of the farmers Strengthening the knowledge and NR skills of the extension personnel through in-service training. Mobilizing extension specialists NR to train field level workers. Strong evaluation and monitoring NR unit within the department Reducing the duplication of work NR between the Extension Department and Rural Development Department A coordination of local level NR agencies such as cooperatives, credit bank, extension and rural development. Decentralization of decision making NR (i.e. planning, implementation, and evaluation of extension programs) Involving local people in extension NR programming. Greater numbers of extension spec- NR ialists and field level personnel Strengthening the mobility (trans- NR portation) and communication facilities 140 Table 25. Continued Statements The Result of Ho Maintaining higher levels of com- -" mitment, dedication, and morale of staff by increasing their salary and facility specialists and field level personnel *significant at a s 0.05 Directors Perception in Reaction to Time Allocation Data presented in Table 26 indicate that the Extension Directors allocated on an average 22 percent of their time to planning activities compared to 32 percent of the Rural Development Directors. The t-test result shows a statistically significant difference between the two Directors at .01 level of probability. The Extension Directors on an average spent 56 percent of their time in educational activities while the Rural Development Directors spent 52 percent. The t-test results did not show a statistically significant difference between them. Data in Table 26 indicate that the Extension Directors allocated on an average 22 percent of their time to planning activities compared to 14 percent of the Rural Development Directors, The t-test result shows a statistically significant difference between the two Directors at .03 level of probability. 141 Table 26. Extension & Rural Development Directors Perceptions Related to Time Spent for Activities (percent) Extension Rural Director Development Director N =23 N= 20 Number Number Statement Mean Mean t p Time spent 23 19 for planning 22 32 2.27 0.01* activities Time spent for 22 20 0.59 0.28 educational 56 52 activities Time spent for 22 20 1.99 0.03* non educational 22 14 programs Extension and Rural Development Directors responded to these items on percent(%). *significant at a s 0.05 Directors Perceptions’on Provision of Assistance The problems of inadequate food production, environmental decline, and the lack of broad based agricultural development will not be solved without adequate investment in rural areas and people (Rajabian, 1364/1986, p. 132). In order to understand the adequacy of activities, the study findings on the perceptions of Extension and.Rural Development Directors regarding Provision of Assistance follow. 142 There was no significant difference between Directors perception and each of the activities regarding provision of assistance to the farmers. The hypothesis was tested using the t-test to determine whether differences between the Directors’ perceptions and each of the variables related to provision of assistance to the farmers were statistically significant between the two as - groups. The results of the t-test from six statements are reported in Appendix A-6. One statement of provision of assistance to the farmers was found to differ significantly between the two groups. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected for all but the statement," To what extent your agent prepares demonstration plots" The one statement which differs significantly is presented in Table 27 and discussed below. The statistical results are summarized in Table 28. Data in Table 27 indicate that Extension Directors judge the statement "To what extent your Extension agents prepare demonstration plots"’ to be significantly more important, with a mean score of 3.30, compared to Rural Development Directors with a mean scores of 2.85. 143 Table 27.-- Directors perceptions of the Provision of Assistance to the Farmers Statement Groups No Mean S.D t p ** Group 1 23 3.30 0.70 Statement Group 2 20 2.85 0.99 1.75* 0.04 Group 1 = Extension Director Group 2 = Rural Development Directors *significant at a s 0.05 **"To what extent do your Extension agents prepare demonstration plots" Table 28.-—The Result of Analysis of Null Hypotheses in Relation to Provision of Assistance to the Farmers a = 0.05 Ho = pl = u2 There was no difference between the mean judgment of the Extension Agent and Rural Development Directors R = Reject the null NR= Fail to reject the Statement Result of Ho 1. To what extent do your organization NR organized seminar that researcher present and demonstrate to farmers their latest finding. 2. To what extent do your Rural Agent NR develop written plans for each seminar or other training program. Statement. 3. To what extent does your Extension R* Agent prepare demonstration plots. 4. To what extent your Extension up agent Take farmers on some field trips or to visits to research station. 5. To what extent is the organization effective on solving farmers problems. NR 6. To what extent do you feel the organiza- tion is active, in the farmers educational needs NR *significant at a s 0.05 144 Directors. Extension Agent and Rural Development Personnel’s Perceptions Regarding the Future of Extension Activities and Their Collaboration There was no difference between the Directors and the Agents perception on each of the statements regarding strengthening the extension effort. a = 0.05 Ho = pi = #2 The hypothesis was tested using One way analysis of variance. Tukey procedures were used to examine whether differences in variable related to the future of extension activities " Integration of services of Extension and the Rural Development Department". The result of one- way analysis of variance with Tukey procedures in Table 29 indicated that there was a difference at the .05 level between the Directors and Agents. The result of the Tukey test showed that Rural Development Personnel (G1) judged this statement to be significantly more important with a mean score of 4.65 than the Extension Agent (G2)with a mean score 3.77. The Rural Development personnel (Gl) also judged this statement to be significantly more important, mean score 4.65 than the Extension Directors (G3), mean score (3.74). Also, there were significant differences between the Rural Development Directors (G4) and Extension Agents (G2). Rural Development Directors judged this statement to be significantly more important, mean score 4.65 than the Extension Agent,mean score 3.74. 145 Table 29.--Perception of Directors and Agents on the statement "Integration of service between the two department". Sum of Mean F p* Source D.F. Squares Squares .Ratio Between 4 25.45 6.36 . 4.96 .001 Within 119 152.64 1.28 Total 123 178.09 *P<.05. * Pairs of groups significantly different at the 0.05 level Mean Group G3 62 G1 G4 G5 3.74 G3 3.77 G2 4.65 Gl * * 4 o 55 G4 * l 4.83 G5 G1=Rural Development Personnel G2=Extension Agents l G3=Extension Directors G4= Rural Development Directors G5=Research Director PART 3 EXTENSION AGENTS AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT PERSONNEL Perce tions of Extension A ent and Rural Develo ment Personal in Relation to Teachin Methods Preferred Ho: There was no difference between the Extension Agents and Rural Development personnel’s perceptions on each of the teaching methods. HO: u 1 = u 2 The null hypothesis was tested using a t-test to determine whether differences between the variables on teaching methods were statistically significant between the 146 perceptions of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel. The results of the t-test from 20 statement on teaching method are reported in Appendix A—7. Two statements on teaching methods were found to differ significantly between the two groups. The statistical result are summarized in Table 30. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected for 18 of the 20 the teaching methods. The two extension teaching method which did differ significantly are presented in Table 31 and discussed below. 147 Table 30.--The Result of Analysis of Null Hypotheses in Relation to Teaching Methods preferred by the Two Agents a = 0.05 Ho = #1 = #2 There was no difference between the mean judgment of teaching methods followed by the two agencies R = Reject the null NR= Fail to reject the Teaching methods Extension & Rural Development agent Individual Methods Farm visits Office calls Letters/Not telephone Exhibits at agricultural shows Farmers' classes Field demonstrations Field days §§§§§§§ Group Meetings Tours/field trips Group projects %fi Materials and Media Live specimen & samples Leaflets and bulletins Pictorials/illustrations Television Newsletters Radio Films & slides Videos & films Posters & charts Manuals Other (Specify) §§§§§§§§§§§ *significant at a s 0.05 The two statements that were found to differ significantly between the Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel are reported in Table 31. Table 31 148 indicates that the statement "importance of office calls as a teaching method " is more important to the Extension Agents with a mean score of 4.0 than the Rural Development Directors with a mean score of 2.90. The level of significant was 0.00. The statement "importance of using live specimens and samples", was judged by the Extension Agents to be less significant, with a mean score of 3.95, than by the Rural Development Personnel with a mean score of 4.39. The level of significance was 0.02. The null hypotheses was rejected and alternative hypotheses that there was a significant difference between the Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel was accepted. Table 31. Extension Agents’ and Rural Development Personnel Perceptions in Relation to Teaching Methods. statement Extension Rural Develop- Agent ment personnel N = 44 N = 31 Mean Mean S.D S.D DF t p Office calls 4.00 2.90 71 4.71* 0.00 0.96 0.96 Live specimens 3,95 4.39 72 2.10 0.02 and samples 0.94 0.75 Agents responded to these items on a five(5) point Likert type scale: 1=SD=Strongly Disagree 2=D=Disagree 3=N=Neutral 4=A=Agree 5=SA=Strongly Agree *significant at a s 0.05 149 Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Priority Ranking of Teaching Methods Perceptions on the priority of extension teaching activities by the Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel are presented in Table 32. The data show that 19 (43.2%) of the Extension Agents gave high priority to individual teaching methods, compared to Rural Development Personnel where six (19.4%) felt a high priority should be given to individual teaching methods. On the group teaching methods Rural Development Personnel gave high priority 20 (64.5%) compared to the Extension Agents 19 (43.2%). Data also show both groups gave low ranking to Mass Media as a teaching methods. Also 19 (43.2%) of the Extension Agents gave high priority to group teaching methods. Table 32.--Perceptions of Priority of Extension Teaching Activities by Extension Agent and Rural Development Personnel ‘ Extension Rural Agent rank Development rank N = 44 N = 31 No No No No No No (%) (%) (%) (%) (’6) (’6) Teaching Methods 1* 2* 3* 1* 2* 3* Individual Teaching 19 13 12 06 14 11 43 30 27 19 45 36 Group Teaching 19 24 01 20 07 04 43 55 22 65 23 13 Mass Media 05 08 31 04 08 19 12 16 70 13 26 60 *1 = the highest and 3 = the lowest score. 150 Agents’ Perception on the Level of Knowledge There was no difference in level of Knowledge between the Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Perception on each of the areas Ho: p1 = p2 The null hypothesis was tested using the t-test to determine whether differences between the level of the knowledge were statistically significant between the Extension Agent and Rural Development Personnel on each of the areas related to level of knowledge. The results of the t-test from the 27 areas related to agriculture and agricultural extension are reported in Appendix A-8. Data indicate that of 27 statements, 16 were found not to be significantly different. Eleven subjects areas were found to differ significantly between the two groups. Therefore the null hypothesis was rejected for the 11 out of 27 of the areas. The 11 subjects areas which did differ significantly are presented in Table 33. The statistical results are summarized in Table 34. Data in Table 34 indicated that Extension Agents judged the area of crops production to be significantly different with a mean score of 2.86 compared to Rural Development Personnel with a mean score of 2.55. The difference was significant at the 0.03 level. Data in Table 33 also indicate that Extension Agents judged, pest control, animal production, and poultry production significantly different. The mean scores were 151 2.53 for pest control, 2.16 animal production, and 1.95 for poultry production compared to Rural Development Personnel with a mean score of 2.13 for pest control, 1.41 for animal production, and 1.57 for poultry production. Also data in Table 33 indicate that Extension Agents judged irrigation, rural cooperatives, bee keeping, animal health, institutional work, farm loan, and demonstration plots to be significantly different, with a mean score of 2.45 for Irrigation, 2.07 for cooperative extension, 2.09 for bee keeping, 2.90 for Animal health, 2.21 for institutional work, 2.60 for farm loan, and 2.90 for demonstration plot, compared to Rural Development with a mean score of 2.10 for irrigation, 1.64 for cooperative Extension, 1.53 for bee keeping, 2.39 for animal health, 1.77 for institutional work, 2.16 for farm loan, and 2.39 for Demonstration plots. The differences were significant at the 0.05 level for irrigation, 0.03 level for cooperative Extension, 0.00 level for beekeeping, 0.00 level for animal health, 0.02 level for institutional work, 0.02 level for farm loan, and 0.09 level for demonstration plots. 152 Table 33. Mean and Standard Deviation of Agent’s Level of Knowledge. No 2 tail Areas Agent Cases Mean S.D t p Crops G1 31 2.55 0.81 G2 43 2.86 0.41 2.17* .03 Pest- 61 31 2.13 0.85 control 62 43 2.53 0.59 2.43* .02 Animal G1 29 1.41 0.73 product 62 43 2.16 0.72 4.29* .00 Poultry 61 30 1.57 0.86 product G2 43 1.95 0.72 2.08* .04 Irriga- G1 31 2.10 0.75 tion ‘ 62 44 2.45 0.76 2.02* .05 Coopera- G1 31 1.64 0.75 tive Ext G2 43 2.07 0.88 2.16* .03 Bee G1 30 1.53 0.78 keeping G2 43 2.09 0.81 2.95* .00 Animal G1 31 2.39 0.76 health G2 34 2.90 0.72 3.00* .00 Institut- G1 31 1.77 0.76 ional job G2 43 2.21 0.74 2.46* .02 Farm G1 31 2.16 0.86 loan 62 43 2.60 0.69 2.45* .02 Demon- Gl 31 2.39 0.76 stration 62 44 2.90 0.72 3.00* .09 plots Extension agents and Rural Development personnel responded to these items on a 5 point Likert type scale with: 5 = very comfortable, 4 = comfortable, 3 = neutral, 2 = uncomfortable, 1 = very uncomfortable. 61 = Rural Development Personnel G2 = Extension Agents * The result of the t test indicated a statistically significant difference. 153 Table 34.--The Result of Analysis of Null Hypotheses in Relation to Level of Knowledge Between the Two Agents a = 0.05 Ho = p1 = p2 There was no difference between the mean judgment of area of skills by the Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel R = Reject the null NR= Fail to reject the Extension & Rural Development Areas Ho Crops R* Pest control R* Herbicide NR Animal production R* Poultry production R* Dry land farming NR Forage production NR Farm machinery NR Soil fertility NR Soil NR Marketing NR Irrigation R* Animal power NR Local equipment NR Farm management NR Cooperative extension R* Bee keeping R* Animal heath R* Tillage practice NR Adjustment of NR Equipment Institutional work R* Farm loan R* Farm equipment NR Rural cooperative NR Demonstration R* Plots *significant at as 0.05 Agents’ Perceptions on the Area of Teaching Data in Appendix A—9 indicate the perceptions of agents in relation to subjects covered by the two department. 154 Data in Table 35 show the rank order of eight subject areas where the Extension Agent and Rural Development Personnel most often give advice. According to data in Table 35, Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel almost had the same perception in relation to tillage practice; Rural Development Personnel also gave high rank to forage crops. Extension Agents ranked land leveling and using fertilizer higher. Table 35. Self Ranking Perception of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Regarding the Area in which they Most often Gave Advice Extension Rural Development Agents Personnel Areas Rank order Areas Rank order Tillage equipment Tillage practices Forage crops Planting equipment Using fertilizer Fertilizer Harvesting practice Approved seeds Tillage practices Land leveling Using fertilizer Using pesticides Irrigation Approved seeds Forage crop Soil fertility Fertilizer U'l-h-hehwUWNI-J Ulnbfi-waNl-J Perce tion of Extension A ents and Rural Develo ment Personnel in Relation to the Linka e w1th A riculturall Related Organizations Ho: There was no difference between the mean judgement Of Linkages of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel with each of the Agriculturally Related Organizations. 009 t H 155 The null hypothesis was tested using the t-test to determine whether differences between the variables of linkages were statistically significant between the Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel. The results of the t-test from the 13 statement on linkages with universities and agricultural organization by Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel were reported in Appendix A-10. From the data seven are found to differ significantly between the Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel. The statistical results are summarized in Table 36. The seven statements of linkages which did differ significantly are presented in Table 37 and discussed below. 156 Table 36. The Result of Null Hypotheses in Relation to Linkages with Agricultural Colleges and Related Organization a = 0.05 Ho = p1 = p2 There was no difference between the mean judgment of linkage by Extension Agent and Rural Development Personnel R = Reject the null NR= Fail to reject the Extension & Rural Development agent Organization Ho Linkage With Agricultural Colleges and Universities NR Agricultural Research Stations NR Agricultural Bank NR Credit Institutions NR Rural Development Research Station R* Farm Machinery Organizations NR Fertilizer agencies NR Pesticide Research Center R* Animal Research Center R* Soil Research Center R* Forestry Research Center NR Dry Land Farming Research Station R* Cooperative Organizations R* Other NR *significant at as 0.05 Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Linkages with Agriculturally Related Organization On the statement "linkages with Rural Development Research Station", the data in Table 37 indicate that Rural Development Personnel judged this linkages to be significantly more, with a mean score of 1.77, than Extension Agents with a mean score of .30. The differences were significant at the 0.00 level. Data in Table 37 also indicate that Extension Agents judged the linkages with the pesticide research center to be 157 significantly more, with a mean score of 1.66, than the Rural Development Personnel with a mean score of 0.82. The differences were significant at the 0.00 level. On the statement "linkages with Animal Research Center" ,data in Table 37 indicate that Extension Agents also judged this practice to be more significant, with mean scores of 1.25, than Rural Development Personnel with mean scores of 0.48. The differences were significant at the 0.00 level. Data in Table 37 show that Extension Agents also judged the statement "linkages with Soil Research Center", significantly more important, with a mean scores of 1.18 ,than the Rural Development Personnel with a mean score of 0.77. The differences were significant at the 0.02 level. Data in Table 37 indicate that Rural Development Personnel judged the "linkages with Dry land Farming Research Station" to be significantly more important than Extension Agents with a mean score of 1.68 compared to Extension Agents with a mean scores of 0.87. The differences was significant at the 0.00 level. Data in Table 37 also illustrate that the Extension Agents judged the statement "linkages with Rural Cooperative organizations", significantly more important, with a mean scores of 2.07 than the Rural Development Personnel with a mean score of 1.30. The difference was significant at the 0.00 level. 158 Table 37. Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Perception of Linkages with Organizations Extension Rural Agents Development N = 44 N = 31 Mean Mean Organization S.D S.D t p Rural Development 0.30 1.77 7.73* 0.00 Research Station 0.59 1.04 Pesticide Research 1.66 0.90 3.54* 0.00 Center 0.82 1.00 Animal Research ’ 1.25 0.48 4.03* 0.00 center 0.80 0.80 Soil Research Center 1.18 0.77 2.60* 0.02 0.78 0,91 Dry Land Farming 0.84 1.68 3.91* 0.00 Research Station 0.93 0.86 Cooperative 2.07 1.30 4.20* 0.00 Organization 0.72 0.82 Extension Agent and Rural Development Personnel responded to these items on four point Likert type scales with. 0 = No linkages l linkages *significant as 0.05 little linkages Excellent linkages 2 = good Perceptions of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel in Relation to Freguency of Contact with Research Centers Data in Table 38 show that from those who responded over one half of the Rural Development Personnel 14 (56.0%) and 20 (47.6%) of the Extension Agents indicated that they visited the research center every three months. 159 Table 38.--Perception of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Regarding their Linkage with the Research Station Extension Rural Agents Development Personnel Numbers of contact No (%) No (%) Once Every Three Months 20 (47.6) 14 (56.0) Once Every Six Months 03 (07.2) 04 (16.0) Once a Year 04 (09.2) 02 (08.0) None 15 (35.7) 05 (20.0) Extension Agents’ and Rural Development Personnel’s Perceptions Related to Months of C.Contact with the Research Station Data in Table 39 show that 20 (45.4%) Extension Agents and 14 (45.2%) Rural Development Personnel indicated that they visited the Research station once every three month. Also, 15 (20.0%) of the Extension Agent and five (16%) Rural Development Personnel indicated they did not visit the Research stations. Table 39.--Perceptions of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Regarding Their Frequency of Contact with Research Stations Category of contact Extension Rural Agent Development N= 44 N= 31 No (%) N0 (%) Once Every Three Months 20 (45.5) 14 (45.2) Once Every Six Months 03 (06.8) 10 (32.3) Once a Year 04 (09.1) 02 (06.5) None 15 (34.1) 05 (16-0) No response 02 (04.5) NA Total 44 (100) 31 (100) 160 Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel’s Perceptions Regarding Provision of Assistance to Farmers. Ho: There was no difference between the Extension Agent and Rural Development Personnel’s perception on each of the variable regarding provision of assistance to farmers. a = 0.05 Ho = p1 = p2 The null hypothesis was tested using the t-test to determine whether differences between the variable related to provision of assistance to farmers were statistically significant between the Extension Agent and Rural Development Personnel. The result of the t-test from the six practices which were related to provision of assistance to farmers are reported in Appendix A-11. Two statements were found not to be significantly different between the two groups. The statistical results are summarized in Table 40. Therefore, the null hypotheses were not rejected for all but four of the practices. The four practices which gig_diffe; Si nificantl are resented in Table 41 and discussed below. 161 Table 40. The Result of Analysis of Null Hypotheses in Relation to Provision of Assistance to Farmers Extension Agents and Rural Developments Personnel a = 0.05 HO = M1 = #2 There was no difference between the Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel's perception on each of the variables related to provision of assistance to farmers. R = Reject the null NR= Fail to reject the Statement Statistical Results l-Do you organize seminars NR which researchers present and demonstrate their latest findings to the farmers? 2-Do you develop written R* Plans for each seminar? 3-Do your develop demonstration R* plots for the farmers? 4-Did you have extension Classes for the farmers R* in 1989? 5-Did you take farmers For NR Field trips or visits To research stations in 1988? 6-Do you know about the number R* of research stations in the state? *significant as 0.05 Data in Table 41 indicate that Extension Agents significantly support all four practices which are discussed below. Practice one : Do you develop written plans for each seminar? Extension Agents judged this practice to be more 162 important with a mean score of 2.7, than the Rural Development Personnel with a mean score of 2.32. The difference was significant at the 0.04 level. Practice Two: Do you develop demonstration plots for the farmers? Extension Agents also judged this practice to be more important, with a mean score of 3.14, than the Rural Development Personnel with a mean score of 2.29. The difference was significant at the 0.00 level. Practice Three: Did you have an extension class in 1989? Extension Agents judged this practice more important, with a mean score of 2.77, than the Rural Development Personnel with a mean score of 2.14. The difference was significant at the 0.02 level. Practice Four: Do you know about research stations in the Ostan (state)? Extension Agents judged this practice more important, with a mean score of 2.50 than Rural Development Personnel with a mean score of 1.97. The difference was significant at the 0.03 level. 163 Table 41.--Agent Perceptions Regarding Provision of Assistance to Farmers Extension Rural Development Agents Personnel No No Mean Mean Statement S.D D.F S.D t p Do You Develop 44 73 31 1.74* 0.04 Written Plans 2.70 2.32 For Each Seminar 0.89 0.96 Do you develop 44 73 31 3.81* 0.00 demonstration plots 3.14 2.29 for the farmers 0.81 1.08 Did You Have 44 71 29 2.02* 0.02 Extension classes 2.77 2.14 for the farmers 1.22 1.14 in 1989 Do you know about 44 73 31 1.90* 0.03 research station 2.50 1.97 in state 1.22 1.12 * Agents respondent to these items on a 5 point Likert type scale with: 0 = None 1 = Little 2 = Some 3 = Much 4 = Very Much Degree of freedom = 73 *significant at as 0.05 Agent Level of Knowledge of Research Center Data in Table 42 indicate that Extension Agents were more aware of the research station in Ostan, with a mean score of 2.50, than Rural Development personnel with a mean score of 1.97. The difference was significant at the 0.03 level. 164 Table 42.--Level of Awareness of Extension Agent and Rural development in relation to Research Centers Level of awareness of agent Extension Rural Agent development N= 44 Personnel N = 31 Mean Mean Statement S.D S.D t p Are you informed 2.16 1.94 0.77 0.27 about the agricul- 1.26 1.16 tural research sta- tion in state Do you know the number 2.50 1.97 1.90* 0.03 of research stations 1.22 1,12 in the State Agents respondent to these items on a 5 point Likert type scale with: 0 None 1 = Little 2 = Some 3 Much 4 = Very Much DF = 73 *significant as 0.05 Agents’ Training Needs There was no difference between the Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel perception on each of the areas in which training was needed Ho: p1 = p2 The null hypothesis was tested using the t-test to determine whether differences between the variables on the educational needs were statistically significant between the perceptions of Extension Agents and Rural DevelOpment Personnel. The results of the t-test from the fifteen areas are reported in Appendix A-12. Ten statements on subject areas were found not to differ significantly between the two groups. The statistical results are summarized in Table 43. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected for five of 165 the areas. The ten subjects areas which did differ significantly are presented in Table 44 and are discussed below. Table 43.--The Result of Null Hypotheses in Relation to the Educational Needs of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel a = 0 .05 Ho = p1 = p2 There was no difference between the two groups in terms of Educational needs by the Extension Agent and Rural Development Personnel R = Reject the null NR = Fail to reject the null Tractor Skills NR Tractor Operation R* Primary Tillage NR Secondary Tillage NR Row Crop Planter NR Harvesting Equipment NR No Till Farm Operation R* Dry Land Machinery NR Post Harvesting Equipment NR Irrigation Equipment R* Pest Control Equipment NR Soil Conservation R* Animal Production .NR Marketing R* Management of Research R* plot *The results of t- test indicated a statistically significance. Data in Table 44 illustrate that the Rural Development Personnel were significantly different in relation to their perceptions of training needs. The areas which did differ significantly are discussed as follows. In regard to the statement " Do you need training in Irrigation", the Rural Development Persdnnel judged that training to be need more 166 significantly with a mean score of 2.65 when compared to Extension Agents with a mean score of 2.16. The difference was significant at the 0.03 level. On the statement, "Do you need training in Soil Conservation Equipment", Rural Development Personnel also judged the training to be more significant, with a mean score of 3.13, than did the Extension Agents with mean score of 2.50. The difference was significant at the 0.00 level. The statement " Do you need training in Marketing" was judged by Rural Development personnel to be needed more significantly, with a mean score of 3.00, than the Extension Agents with a mean score of 2.11. The difference was significant at the 0.00 level. On the statement " Do you need training in Management of Research plots" Rural Development Personnel judged this training to be significantly more needed, with a mean score of 2.97, than did the Extension Agents with a mean score of 2.16. The difference was significant at the 0.00 level. The areas which did not differ significantly were training needs in tractor skills, tractors operation, primary tillage, secondary tillage, row crop planter, harvesting equipment, no till farm operation, dry Land machinery, post harvesting equipment, pest control equipment, and animal production. 167 Table 44. Extension Agents’ and Rural Development Personnel Perceptions Regarding Training Needs Extension Rural Development Agent Personnel N = 44 N = 31 Mean Mean Area of training S.D S.D DF t p Irrigation 2.16 2.65 73 1.82* 0.03 Equipment 1.17 1.06 Soil Conservation 2.50 3.13 72 2.50* 0.00 Equipment 1.20 0.83 Marketing 2.11 3.00 73 3.69* 0.00 0.98 1.05 Management of 2.16 2.97 73 3.24* 0.00 Research Plot 1.09 1.00 Agents Responded to these items on a 4 point Likert type scale with: 0 =none 1 = Much 2 = Some *The results of t- test indicated a statistically significance. PART 4 FARMERS PERCEPTIONS Numbers of Contact With Extension A ents and Rural Development Personnel Over half 233 (58.25 %) of the farmers responded to this question. Data in Table 45 reveal that 180 (77.2 %) of respondents indicated that they had contact with Extension Agent more than once a year compared to 175 (85.6%) farmers which indicated that they had contact with Rural Development more than once a year. 168 Table 45.--Perception of Farmers in Relation to Number of Contacts with Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Extension Agent. ZRural Development Contacts Time No (%) No (%) Once in 6 months 036 (15.5) 027 (11.7) Once in 6-12 months 017 (07.3) 007 (03.7) More than once/year 180 (77.2) 175 (85.6) Total 233 100 209 100 Farmers Perception in Relation to Contact with Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel in 1988, Data in Table 46 shows that over half of the farmers (57.1 %) had contact with Extension Agents during the year of 1988, and over one half of farmers 208 (52.3%) also indicated that they had contacts with Rural Development Personnel. Almost one half 185 (48.1%) of farmers indicated that they had contact with both Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel during 1988. 4 Over two thirds of the farmers 346 (89.9%) responded negatively on the statement "Have you ever been asked by the Extension Agents to participate in the planing of extension activities in your area", compared to 355 (91.5%) farmers for Rural Development Personnel. 169 Table 46.--Farmers Perceptions of Linkages With Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Statement No Yes (%) No (%) Have contact with 402 230 (57.1) 172 (42.8) Extension agents in 1988 Have contact with Rural Development Personnel in 1988 398 208 (52.3) 190 (47.7) Have contact with both agents In 1988 390 185 (47.4) 205 (52.6) Have you ever been asked by the Exten- sion Agents to Parti- 382 036 (09.4) 346 (90.6) cipate in the plan- ning of Extension Activities. Have you ever been asked by the Rural 388 033 (08.5) 355 (91.5) Development Personnel to participate in the planning of extension activities. Activities were use- ful when participant- 065 047 (72.3) 018 (27.7) in Extension Planning *Farmers responded to the linkage perception items on a yes and no type scale. Farmersl Perceptions of Adoption of Information In Their Farm Practice Data in Table 47 indicated that the majority of respondents 322 (81.9%) of the farmers obtained information they are using on their farms from others sudh as neighbors, parents, etc. Only 31 (7.9%) of the farmers responded that the information they were using was learned from Extension 170 Agent and 21 (5.3%) from Rural Development Personnel. Only 19 (4.8%) of the farmers responded that the information they are using came from both departments. Table 47. Farmer Perception of Adoption of Information In Their Farm Practice Groups Numbers (%) Extension Agent 031 07.9 Rural Development 021 05.3 Personnel Others 322 81.9 Both 019 04.8 Farmers Perception of Areas of Advice by Extension Agent and Rural Development Personnel The data in Appendix A-l3 indicate the 21 areas in which the Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel most often gave advice. Table 48 summarizes the main areas where advice was given by Extension Agents and Rural Development personnel. Data in Table 48 indicate that Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel gave the same level of service in the areas of crops production, seeds variety and were different in the areas of using pesticides and herbicides. 0n the subject of soil conservation, Extension Agents ranked fifth compared to Rural Development Personnel which ranked dry land farming fifth. 171 Table 48.--Self Given Ranking of Farmers’ Perception Regarding the Area of Advice By the Agents Extension Rural Development Agents personnel Areas Rank order Rank order Crops, seeds and fertilizer 1 1 Use of pesticides 2 2 Use of herbicides 3 4 Farm machinery 4 3 Soil conservation 5 - Dry land farming - 5 Farmers’ Perceptions in Relation to the Extension Education System. Data in Table 49 shows 322 (80.9%) of the farmers strongly agreed or agreed on the statement, "collaboration between agencies is important". Almost three-fourth 283 (71.3%) of the farmers also strongly agree or agree with on the statement " collaboration between Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel is vital to agricultural development". Also, 317 (79.8 %) of the farmers strongly agree or agree on the statement "combining of the two departments is vital to agricultural development". 172 Table 49. Farmers Perceptions in Relation to the Extension Programs. N=404 61* 62* 63* (%) (%) (%) Statements NO no no no Collaboration between 398 14.9 4.3 80.9 agencies is important 59 17 322 Collaboration is Vital to Agricul- 397 21.6 7.1 71.3 tural Development 86 28 283 Combining the two Departments is vital to Agricultural 397 14.6 5.5 79.8 Development 58 22 317 * G1= strongly disagree to disagree * G2= Neutral * G3= agree to strongly agree Farmers’ Perceptions in Relation to the Extension Contact The data in Table 50 indicate that farmers had a negative perception about the number of visits of the Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel. Two thirds, 296 (74.8%), of the farmers strongly disagreed with the statement, " Rural Development visits me regularly". Also over two third 305 (77.0 %) of the farmers strongly disagreed and disagreed with the statement "the Extension agent visits me regularly". The majority of farmers strongly agree or agree that Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel were “rare fish to catch". 173 Table 50. Farmers Perception of the Extension Agents and Rural development Personnel Contact in Percentage. N=404 61* 62* G3* (%) (%) (%) Statements No No No No Rural Development Per- 396 74.8 6.6 18.7 sonnel visits me 296 26 74 regularly Extension Agent 396 77.0 6.3 16.7 visits me regularly 305 25 66 Extension Agent is a 395 14.5 8.3 77.2 rare fish to catch 57 33 305 Rural Development personnel is a rare 395 17.5 6.8 75.7 fish to catch 69 27 299 * Gl= strongly disagree to disagree * G2= Neutral * G3= agree to strongly agree Farmers' Perceptions of the Agents’ Effectiveness Data in Table 51 indicate that 93 (51.1 %) of the farmers believe that none of the organizations (Extension and Rural Development Organization) shared updated information. On the statement "Which Agency’s field personnel do you consider more competent in solving your problems", almost half 195 (49.5 %) of the farmers indicated neither agents are more competent. Also on the statement " which agency provides better answers to your needs", over one half 231 (58.4 %) indicated neither. On the statement, " which agency do you 174 prefer to visit more frequently", 125 (31.7 %) indicated that they preferred to be visited by the Extension Agents, and 85 (21.6 %) indicated that they preferred to be by visit Rural Development Personnel. Eighty two (20.8 %) indicated that they preferred to be visited by both agents, and 102 (25.9 %) indicated that they preferred neither. Table 51. Farmers Perceptions of the Provision of Assistance by the Agents Statement G1 oz GB G4 Numbers No No No No Respond (%) (%) (%) (%) Which agency shares 182 42 34 13 93 more updated information? 23 19 07 51 Which agency's field 398 76 64 63 195 Personnel do you consider 19 16 16 49 more competent in solving your farm problems? Which agency has more 397 79 86 24 208 has more frequent 20 22 06 52 contact with you? Which agency has helped 398 82 52 33 231 you more to solve your 21 13 08 58 farm problems? Which agency provides 399 78 57 31 233 better answers to your 20 14 08 53 needs? Which agency do you prefer 394 125 85 82 12% to visit more frequently? 32 22 21 CI = Extension agents 62 = Rural Development personnel 62 = both agents G4 = neither of the agents CHAPTER SIX Summary - Conclusions - Recommendations Summary This chapter reviews the purpose and objectives of the study, summarizes the major findings and draws conclusions, and recommendations. Need for the study: For a decade there was uncertainty about decision making for agricultural development in I.R.I. Too much investment of manpower and planning for agricultural development had not produced good results in some areas. The agricultural sector of Iran had experienced low growth rates since the 1979 Revolution. (Mojtahadi and Esfahani, 1982) There have been continuous decreases in the production of certain food crops such as potato, sugar beets, cotton, soybean, etc. Officially, decreases have been attributed to: 1. Uncertainty of governmental policy on ownership of land. 2. Unavailability of input supply and resources (due to war and black market. 3. Lack of technical information for farmers 4. Lack of single technical support organizational structure. 5. Insufficient supervision and management 175 176 6. Multiple tasks of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel. 7. Inadequate incentives in the form of status, training and upward mobility to the Extension Agent and Rural Development Personnel 8. Lack of coverage and regular contact between Extension Agents or Rural Development Personnel and farmers. 9. Lack of coordination and linkage between extension research and farmers. 10. Lack of sufficient farm income for farmers. This study contributes knowledge that can be applied to situations that are of concern to the State of Khorrassan in organizations (Agricultural Extension and Rural Development and research centers) that have responsibility for planning of agricultural extension for rural agricultural development. Purposes of the Study: The purpose of this study was to compare the activities of two agricultural extension services currently offered by two ministries (Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Jihad) in the State of Khorrassan. Objectives of the Study: The objective of the study were to: 1. Describe and compare the agricultural extension approaches of the two agencies (Department of Agriculture in the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Department of Jihad in 177 the Ministry of Jihad) in terms of: a. 4. characteristics of organization and staffing. purposes and types of extension activities and/or teaching methods followed. preparation of extension workers (such as educational level and subject areas such as farm machinery, pest control, horticulture, crop and soil, etc.) established linkages with the research station, agricultural colleges, agricultural supplies and services such as the farm machinery organization and cooperative agencies. provision of assistance to farmers. To compare the perceptions of the directors of Jihad and Extension with respect to their own and each others' agency purposes and expectations. Describe and compare the extent and the way in which the two agencies contribute to expanding the knowledge and adoption of improved farm practices among farmers. Compare the perceptions of the farmers, extension agents and rural development personnel regarding the effectiveness of the extension service extended by the two agencies. Methods and Procedures: Opinions were sought about the 178 linkage between farmers and Extension Agents, Rural Development Personnel, and Extension Agents with research centers, educationalorganizations (universities and colleges of agriculture) and the support organizations such as farm machinery organization, fertilizer distribution centers, and rural cooperatives. Opinions were also sought regarding teaching methods preferred, area of teaching, and purpose of extension, as well as opinions about collaboration and combining the two ministries. Extension Directors, Rural Development Directors, Extension Agents, Rural Development Personnel, and farmers were selected for the survey population in the State of Khorrassan in IRI. Mailed questionnaires and interview schedules were used to collect information. Data were collected in Iran from January 15 to April 20, 1990. Content validity of the instruments was established by a panel of experts. The final instruments were field tested to obtain reliability of the responses. Five extension agents, five rural development personnel and ten farmers were used as a check on reliability. Based on the field test results, minor revision were made on the final instrument. The measurement of perceptions was primarily used to provide information about the research questions. Data collected from the sample population were compiled, tabulated and analyzed in accordance with the objectives of 179 the study. Such statistical measures as number, percentage, mean, and standard deviation were calculated. ANOVA and t- tests were used to compare similarities and differences of perception and attitudes between the two organizations. An alpha level of .05 was used as a basis for rejecting any null hypothesis. . Study Finding Question : What were the Personal Characteristics of the survey population? Almost three-fourths (71%) of the Extension Agents were 26 to 44 years of age. Eighty percent of the Rural Development Personnel were 26 to 44 years old compared to six percent in the age group 25 years and younger and only three percent of the Rural Development Personnel were between 35 to 39 years old. All the Rural Development Personnel were male and married. More than one-half (54%) of the farmers were 50 years and over and 99 percent of them were male. Education: More than three-fourths (78%) of Extension Directors and more than two-fifths (42%) of Rural Development Directors had bachelor’s degrees. The majority (64%) of the Extension Agents held high school diplomas in agriculture and only five percent had BS degrees. More than two-fifths (45%) of the Rural Development Personnel had High school diplomas in areas other than agriculture. More than three-fifths (63%) of the farmers had no formal education Compared to 23 percent who had 4-6 years of education; nine 180 percent had 1-3 years, and only four percent had 7-9 years of school education. The results showed that there was a high percentage of illiteracy among farmers in the rural community. Directors of Extension placed more emphasis on office calls and group teaching methods than did the Rural Development Department. Office calls were preferred by Extension Agents whereas demonstration methods were preferred by Rural Development Personnel. Experience and Activities: One-half (50%) of Extension Directors and the majority (72%) of Rural Development Directors had experience of between one to five years. The majority (58%) of farm training courses/ workshop activities during 1988 were held by Extension Directors while 42 % were held by Rural Development Directors. The highest proportion (69%) of farm field day activities were offered by Extension Directors, while 31 percent were held by Rural Development Directors. The majority (65%) of radio listening groups were organized by Rural Development compared to 35 percent Organized by Extension Directors. In terms of group tour activities, the major proportion (57%) was organized by Extension Directors compared to 33 Percent by Rural Development Directors. Both groups of directors were similar in farmer contacts (50%). Specialty and Years in Extension Profession: The majority 181 (84%) of Extension Agents had specialties in general agricultur and 55 % of Rural Development Personnel had specialties in general agriculture. Over three-fifth of the Extension Agents had agricultural diplomas, and 45% of the Rural Development Personnel had diplomas in social science 'or marketing besides agriculture. Almost one-half (48%) of the Extension Agents had 15 to 24 years experience in the extension profession. More than one half (55%) of the Rural Development Personnel had Bachelor degrees in general agriculture, compared to three percent of the Extension Agents. About 10 percent of Rural Development personnel held specialties in farm machinery, and 13 percent had specialties in areas other than agriculture. Most of the Rural Development Personnel (65%) had one to nine years of experience in the Extension profession. Subject Area Advise : A significant difference was found on subject areas between the Extension Directors and Rural Development Directors. Extension Directors gave more support on subject areas such as "fertilizer, growing vegetables, and fruit trees" than the Rural Development Directors. On the other hand Rural Development Directors conferred high priority on subject areas such as dry land farming, tillage practice, tillage equipment, credit, market Price, and farm cooperative. Rural Development Directors jUdged these subject areas significantly more important than did the Extension Directors. 182 How comfortable were Extension Agents and Rural Development personnel in Agpicultural subjects? Extension Agents judged the areas of crops, pest control, animal production, poultry production, irrigation, cooperative extension, beekeeping, institutional work, farm loan, and demonstration plot to be more significantly related to skills and understanding of the farmers than did Rural Development Personnel. Ranking of Knowledge and Skills by Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Extension Agents put more emphasis on demonstration plot, crop production, animal health, tillage practice, farm loan, pest control, irrigation, forage production, dry land farming, and farm management, while Rural Development Personnel put more emphasis on forage production, crop production, tillage practice, demonstration plots, animal health, dry land farming, pest control, farm loan, irrigation, and farm management. Land ownership, size of farm, and incomes: One-half (50%) of the farmers had a farm size of from one to five hectares. Almost four-fifths (79%) of the farmers had their own farm. The majority (65%) of farmers had an income of between 20,000 to 80,000 tomans per year. Study Finding Question 2: Was there a significant difference between the perception of Extension and Rural Development Directors regarding the purpose of Extension Education? There were no significant differences on the 183 educational statement, self direction, support services, and need assessment. Extension Directors and Rural Development Directors were similar in their educational perceptions of the extension programs. Study finding Question 3: Was there a significant difference between the perception of Extension and Rural Development Directors regarding the client served? Significant differences were found in the five statements in the client section. Extension Directors indicated more support with the statements: 1) Serving large scale farmers; 2) Serving farmers dealing with vegetables; and 3) Serving farmers dealing with horticulture than did Rural Development Directors. On the other hand Rural Development Directors addressed more support to the statements " Serving small scale farmers". The Rural Development Directors gave greater emphasis to serving dry land farmers than did the Extension Directors. Study finding Question 4: Was there a significant difference between the perception of Extension and Rural Development Directors regarding the teaching methods preferred and applied by the two department? The Rural Development Directors paid less attention to the statements, "Importance of using newspapers as a teaching method", and "Importance of using the telephone as a teaching method" than did the Extension Directors. A significant difference was found between Extension 184 Directors and Rural Development Directors on the statement, "Importance of office calls as a teaching method." The Extension Directors judged this practice to be more important than Rural Development Directors. On the statements, "Importance of using telephone as a teaching method", and "importance of group teaching methods" Extension Directors supported both statement. Study finding Question 5: Was there a significant difference between the perception of Extension Agent and Rural Development Personnel regarding the teaching methods applied by the two department? Eighteen teaching methods out of twenty, such as "farm visits, using letters, agricultural exhibits, farmers classes, field demonstrations, group meeting, field trips, group projects, leaflets, pictorialillustrations, using T.V, newsletters, radio, films and slides, videos, posters and charts, manuals, and others (role play and theater)" were supported by the two directors. Significant difference was not found between the two directors. Extension Agents judged the practice of office calls to be significantly more important than did Rural Development Personnel. Rural Development Personnel judged the statement "using live specimens and samples as a teaching methods" to be more significant than did Extension Agents. W The highest proportion (43%) of the Extension Agents conferred high priority to individual, while Rural 185 Development Personnel gave high priority (65%) to group teaching methods. Both groups gave low priority to mass media teaching activities, (70%) for Extension and (59%) for Rural Development. Study Finding Question 6: Was there a significant difference between the perception of Extension and Rural Development Directors regarding assistance to farmers especially: a. small scale farmers? b. large scale farmers? The Rural Development Directors emphasized serving small scale farmers, whereas the Extension Directors emphasized serving large scale farmers. The Extension Directors judged the statement "Serving farmers dealing with horticulture", and "Serving farmers dealing with vegetables crops", to be significantly more important than did the Rural Development Directors. Regarding the statement "Serving farmers dealing with dry land farms", Extension Directors judged this practice to be less significant than did the Rural Development Directors. Study finding Question 7: Was there a difference between the perception of Extension Agents and Rural development Personnel regarding Provision of assistance to farmers? Extension Agents significantly supported the statements concerning the provision of assistance to the farmers compared to Rural Development Personnel. The statements were 1) "Do you develop written plans for each seminar, 2) 186 Do you develop demonstration plots for the farmers, 3) To what extent do your extension activities educate the farmers, 4) Did you have extension class in 1988, and 5) Do you know about the number of research stations in the state. Study finding Question 8: Was there a difference between the perception of Extension Agents and Rural development Personnel regarding their linkage with agricultural related organization? ' Each of the respondent groups were asked questions to determine their perceptions about the linkages with agricultural organizations and related agencies. In addition, they were asked to identify how often such interaction/linkage took place and the frequency of their linkages with the university and research center. Linkage with the organization On a scale from none to very strong linkages in the statement, Do you have linkages with the university and college of agriculture? Extension Agent and Rural Development Personnel indicated that they had very weak linkages. There were no significance differences between the two groups. Both groups also indicated that they had few linkages with agricultural banks and credit institutions, farm machinery organizations, fertilizer agencies, and forestry research centers, and there were no significant differences 187 between the two groups. Regarding the statement, Do you have linkages with rural development research centers?. Extension Agents judged this statement less significant than did Rural Development Personnel. On the statements, do you have linkages with the pesticide research center?, do you have linkages with the animal research centers?, and do you have linkages with the soil research centers", Extension Agents judged these statements more significant than did Rural Development Personnel. There were significant differences on the linkages with dry land farming research station. Rural Development Personnel judged the statement more significant than did the Extension Agents. Extension Agents indicated that they had significantly more linkages with rural cooperative organizations than the Rural Development Personnel. Study Finding Question 9: Was there A difference between the Extension Agents and the Rural Development Personnel regarding their effectiveness? Nearly one-half of the Extension Agents (45%) and Rural Development Personnel (45%) indicated that they visited farmers every three months. Study finding Question 10: What were the perceptions of farmers in relation to contacts with the Extension Agents and Rural Development personnel? 188 Farmers indicated that they had more contact with the Extension Agents than with the Rural Development Personnel. Over two-thirds of the farmers responded negatively on the statement, " Have you ever been asked by the agent to participate in the planning of extension activities in your area?. Ninety percent answered negatively for Extension Agents and 92 % answered negatively for Rural Development Personnel. Study finding Question 11: What were the perceptions of farmers in relation to activities of the two organizations in state of Khorrassan? Farmers indicated that Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel gave the same service on the areas of crops, seeds variety, fertilizer, and pesticides. The majority of farmers (82%) indicated that information they were using on their farms came from sources other than the extension agencies such as neighbors and parents. Only 31 (8%) and 21 (5%) of the farmers responded that the information they were using was learned from Extension Agents or Rural Development Personnel. Only 19 (5%) of the farmers responded that the information they were using was from both departments. Over three-fifths (67%) of the farmers disagreed that the seminars and demonstrations of the Rural Development were better than that of the Extension Agents. About one- fifth (22%) of the farmers mentioned that they preferred to 189 be visited by Rural Development Personnel compared to 32% of the farmers who indicated that they preferred not to be visited by either of the agents. Over one-half (58%) of the farmers also answered that neither of the agencies solved their farm problems, and 52 percent of the farmers answered that neither of the agents had frequent contact with them. Also 51 percent of the respondent farmers answered that neither of the agents shared more updated information than the other. Almost three-fourths (74%) of the farmers disagreed that Rural Development Personnel visited them regularly and 77% of the farmers agreed that the Extension Agents are a rare fish to catch. On the other hand 76% of the farmers agreed that Rural Development Personnel are rare fish to catch. About two-fifths (43%) of the farmers disagreed that Extension Agents recommend practices not available in the area while 38% of the farmers disagreed that Rural Development Personnel recommend practices not available in the area. More than 80 percent of the farmers disagreed that both agents have deVeloped better demonstration plots. Three- fourths (75%) of the farmers disagreed on the statement " that both agents are trying to help to solve farmer problems". 190 About one half (45 %) of the farmers indicated that they had contact with both agencies. Over one-half of the farmers responded (59 %) that both agencies gave the same services. Three- fifths (60.5%) of the farmers reported that both services were necessary for them. Over one-half (52.0%) of the farmers did have contact with Rural Development Personnel during the year 1988. Over four-fifths (85 %) of the farmers had contacts more than once a year with Rural Development Personnel. Over one-half (57 %) of the farmers also indicated that they had contact with Extension Agents during 1988, and four fifths (77 %) of the respondents indicated that they did have contact with Extension Agents more than once a year. Seventy eight percent of the farmers indicated that they received advice for crop production such as seeds and fertilizer from Extension Agents compared to 69 % of farmers who indicated that they got advice from Rural Development Personnel. Study finding Question 1 : What were the perception of farmers in relation to linkages with the two organizations in the state of Khorrassn? One half of the farmers indicated that they had contact with both agencies during the year of 1988; 57.9 percent for Extension Agents and 52.3 percents for Rural Development Personnel. 191 Over four-fifth of the farmers strongly agreed with the statement, "collaboration between agencies is important". Almost three-fourth of the farmers also strongly agreed that the " collaboration is vital to agricultural development". Farmers also strongly agreed (80 %) with the statement " combining the two departments is vital to agricultural development". Farmers agreed that availability of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel is rare, farmers gave a negative perception about the regular visits of the Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel. Over three fourths 79 % of the farmers strongly disagreed with the statement, " Rural Development Personnel visit me regularly." The majority of farmers (77.0 % ) strongly disagreed with the statement, "Extension Agents visit me regularly". Study finding Question 13: Was there difference between the perception of Extension and Rural development Directors regarding their agents time allocation? Rural Development Directors judged the statement, "time spent for planning activities" to be significantly more important than did the Rural Development Personnel. Extension Directors judged the statement, " time spent for non educational activities" to be significantly more important than Rural Development Directors. Overall, there were no statistically significant 192 differences in perception between the Directors of Extension and Rural Development toward the provision of assistant of the field worker’s to the farmers. However, there was a statistically significant difference in perception between the Directors of Extension and Rural Development in relation to their field worker’s preparation of demonstration plots. Study finding Question £ 14: Was there significant difference between the perception of two organization regarding ways in which the two department contribute to strengthen the extension efforts? Directors perception. There was no significant difference between Extension and Rural Development Directors when comparing their judgments of the importance of the thirteen statements which were related to strengthening extension programs in the state of Korrassan. There was, however, a significant difference in their judgments on the statement, "Integration of services of the Extension Department and Rural Development Department." Rural Development Directors feel this was more significant than did Extension Directors. Significant differences were found on the statement, "Integration of services of the Extension and Rural Development Department", between the Extension Directors and Rural Development Personnel and between the Rural Development Directors and Extension Agents. The results showed that Rural Development Personnel significantly supported the statement from Extension Agent. Also there were significant differences between the Rural Development 193 Directors and Extension Agents on the statement, "integration of two departments is vital to agricultural development." The result showed that Rural Development Directors supported the statement significantly more than the Extension Agents. Study finding Question g 15: What were the perception of farmers in relation to the future of Agricultural Extension Education in state of Khorrassan? Over four-fifths (81 %) of farmers strongly agreed on the statement, "collaboration between agencies is important". Also over three fifths (71 %) of the farmers strongly agreed that the "collaboration is vital to agricultural development". The majority of farmers (80 %) strongly agreed with the statement "combining of the two departments is vital to agricultural development". Over one third (35 %) of the farmers agreed that the best extension teaching method were seminars and (31 %) mentioned films and slides. One half (51 %) of the farmers agreed that the best Rural Development Personnel teaching method was showing films and slides and (25 %) mentioned demonstration plots. Study finding Question 16: Was there a significant difference between the perception of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel regarding services given to the farmer? Over three- fifths (69 %) of Rural Development indicated that they did advise farmers on crop production 194 such as seeds and fertilizer. Regarding the area of teaching, over three- fourths of the Extension Agents indicated that they advised the farmers in the areas of approved seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, tillage equipment, planting equipment, fertilizer equipment, harvesting equipments, tillage practices, storage and post harvesting practices, forage crop, irrigation, land leveling,farm management, and soil fertility, compared to three— fourths of Rural Development which indicated that they advised the farmers in the areas of tillage equipments, planting equipment, tillage practices, and forage crops. Study finding Question 17: Was there a significant difference between the perception of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel regarding their training needs? Regarding the training needs Rural Development Personnel were significantly different in relation to their perception of training needs. On the statements " Do you need training in Irrigation", " Do you need training in soil conservation Equipment", " Do you need training in marketing", and "Do you need training in Management of Research plots"Rural Development Personnel judged this training to be significantly more needed. 195 Conclusions The following conclusions were drawn based on the data found in the research: 1. The Rural Development Department Personnel were younger in\age than personnel in the Extension Department. In the case of farmers, data show that most of them were over 50 years old. 2. The Extension Directors and Agents had more experience than did the Rural Development Directors and Agents. Data revealed that during 1988 the Extension Department had more extension activities than did the Rural Development Department. Extension Agents believed that the Rural Development Department was getting more attention from the national government. 3. The majority of Extension Agents believed they were performing effective and efficient work with the farmers. Similar feelings were shown among the Rural Development Department. But over two-thirds of the farmers responded negatively to the effectiveness of both the departments. The majority of the farmers indicated that they were receiving agricultural information from sources other than the two departments. Parents, neighbors, salesman, etc, were viewed as reliable sources of information. 4. Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel perceived that collaboration between the two departments was 196 important. The Rural Development Department placed more emphasis on obtaining collaboration and coordination between the two departments. Such linkages between the groups were perceived to be a means for improving services to the*** farmers. This is a reaffirmation of conclusion drawn by many researchers in other countries ( UNDP, 1991; Axinn & throrat, 1972; Axinn, 1978; Minot, 1984; Loomis, 1965; Lionberger & Gwin, 1982). There was disagreement between the two Departments in terms of joining the two departments into one. Rural Development Directors and Personnel supported the concept of combining the two Departments. 5. Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel indicated that the Extension Department and Rural Development Department were not collaborating and coordinating their program efforts. 6. In terms of educational purposes, there were no significant differences between the two departments. But in terms of cliental served there was a significant difference between the two departments. The Extension Department put more emphasis on agricultural production involving large scale farmers and the Rural Development Department put more emphasis on the small scale farming communities. This is a reaffirmation of conclusions drawn by other researchers in other countries ( DiFranco, 1966). The Extension Department emphasized horticultural activities more, while the Rural Development Department dealt more with dry land farmers. 197 7. The results indicated that farmers were getting their useful information from sources other than those of Extension services. This is a reaffirmation of conclusion drawn by scholars in other countries about the other sources of information that farmers can have ( lionberger & Gwin 1988; Ban & hawkins 1988). Farmers indicated that Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel had low contact and low concern about the farmers' needs. Overall, the farmers were not satisfied with the Extension and Rural Development services in the State of Khorrassan. 8. Data indicated that there was no significant difference between the two departments in terms of teaching methods. Both departments put negative value on newspapers, telephone, and newsletters as means to convey extension to the people. 9. It is concluded that the Rural Development Department preferred to apply more hands on education methods compared to the more theoretical approaches preferred in Extension teaching. The Extension Department preferred individual teaching methods, whereas Rural Development preferred group teaching methods. Mass media methods were not used by either department. The groups prefer to teach different subjects. 10. It appeared from the data that Extension Agents felt they had more expertise in most of the production practices than did Rural Development Personnel. 198 11. Findings showed that, in general, there was no significant difference when self-ranking the area of advice to the clientele between the two departments' agents. But the Rural Development Department put more emphasis on forage production, and the Extension Agents emphasized use of fertilizers and land leveling. This was in agreement with DiFranco (1966) finding relative to the study of Some— aspects of extension worke. Farmers provided perceptions which were similar regarding the areas of advice received from the two departments. 12. In terms of time allocation, the Rural Development Directors put more time in program planning than did Extension Directors, but there were no significant differences in time allocation for educational activities. Findings showed Extension Directors perceived that the agents spend more time in non-educational activities, such as collecting census data, input supplies, etc. 13. Most of the farmers mentioned that agents from both agencies visited them at least once a year. While both Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel indicated they visited the farmers every three months. There was no consistency between the perceptions of farmers, Extension Agents, and Rural Development Personnel in this regard. 14. Both Extension and Rural Development Departments indicated that they had negligible linkages with the educational and research organizations. This is a 199 reaffirmation of the conclusion drawn by scholars in other countries.(Axinn, 1987). 15. A majority of Extension Agents indicated that they advised the farmers in more of the subjects areas compared to the Rural Development Personnel. 16. Farmers perceptions in relation to contact with the two departments indicated a larger number of the farmers were visited by Extension Agents than by Rural Development Personnel. This is a reaffirmation of conclusions drawn by scholars in other countries. (UNDP, 1991). 17. A majority of the farmers (90 %) indicated that they have never been asked to participate in program planning by the Extension Agents or Rural Development Personnel. They felt that it is very important for them to know about the programs developed for them by the government. 18. Data indicated that 49.4% of the owners had 1 to 5 hectares of land, which is very small for employment of modern technology in agricultural farming. This is a reaffirmation of conclusions drawn by other researcher in others countries (world Bank, 1984). 19. The majority of the farmers indicated that merging the two departments to one would be a pre-requisite for future agricultural development in Iran. Farmers indicated that both groups were providing duplicated services as did the Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel. 200 Recommendations In this section there are several recommendations which are readily recognized from the finding and conclusions of this study. 1. Working with the same community and doing the same job among the rural people and serving different groups of the farmers developed negative attitudes in the rural society especially when the majority of the farmers are illiterate. The activities of the two extension groups divided the rural people into pro-extension or anti extension groups or pro—rural development or anti rural development, and created obstruction and negativism among the agents which reduces the effectiveness of the two department activities among the farmers. Joining the two departments can be an effective and proper action for agricultural development in State of Khorrassan. One of the recommendations for the improvement of agricultural development regards the linkages between the researcher organizations and the groups studied. Action should be taken to strengthen institutional linkages between the extension system and the agricultural related organizations. A range of the alternatives could help in improving linkages between the agricultural organizations of Korrassan. One of the alternatives which should be considered, is selection of a committee which includes staff 201 of the college of agriculture, staff of research centers, staff of Extension Department and Rural Development Department with representative farmers for joint planning. Before establishing such a committee, it is important to look at alternative models or systems within other sectors of Khorrassan, and other countries outside of Iran if necessary. To improve linkages and relation ships between the Extension and Rural Development Department the use of committees can be a vehicle. Expectations should be kept modest at the beginning so that mutual trust among the committee members can be enhanced. Another activity which would improve linkages is in the area of planning and conducting on-farm trials. In order to develop and sustain effective linkages among Extension Agents, Rural Development Personnel, and researchers, the current policies, if necessary, should be reviewed and modified if needed. The modification should result in getting the trials carried out in a joint manner between farmers and Extension Agents in that geographical area. Frequent workshops in which Extension Agents, researchers, and Rural Development Personnel are equally able to present and discuss immediate concerns related to their institutions and roles should be conducted. 2. To increase the level of role consensus between the Extension and Rural Development organizations in the 202 State of Khorrassan, the current organizational structure should be evaluated and the position descriptions for the two organizations should be re-evaluated in order to eliminate the duplication of tasks, as well as to clearly provide strength and responsibilities for the two organizations. 3. The findings emphasize that small farmers are the majority and an important in the State of Khorrassan. Therefore these farmers should be given adequate technical and communication support 2. which are essential for increasing agricultural productivity and production. Cooperative farming may be the main way of solving these serious problems. 4. A training program should be developed for Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel in the State of Khorrassan that would include training in: personnel management, extension program planning, program evaluation, program development, public relations, soil conservation, marketing, cooperative activities and agricultural subjects. 5. All the extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel were male. Involvement of women in extension activities is one of the important criteria in rural development. One half of the total population are women. So both departments should emphasize the recruitment of-women 203 in extension activities. 6. A Majority of the farmers were illiterate in the State of Khorrassan. Mass literacy programs should be introduced to increase the level of understanding of the farmers. 7. Because of the advanced age of the farmers, and a movement by the young people from rural areas to cities, a shortage of farm labor will unfold in the near future. therefore, extension agents and Rural development personnel should takes necessary steps to engage young people in farming. Recommendation For Future Research The list below is recommended for future research: 1. Replicate the study in other states to provide further evaluation information to draw generalizations about the two departments and activities. 2. Conduct a study assessing the relationship between job satisfaction and training needs, management roles, and effectiveness of their field worker and Agents. 3. Conduct research on organizational effectiveness in relation to the availability of supply and inputs of agricultural goods (such as fertilizer, equipment, pesticides, etc.). 204 4. Conduct a research assessing the impact of training programs on the performance of Extension administrators and Rural Development administrators. 205 1- .3;"; “I A. APPENDICES -A 206 Appendix A-l.--Perception of Extensionn Directors on the Purpose of Extension Education Extension Rural Development Directors Directors N = 23 N = 20 Mean Mean Statements S.D S.D t p 1. Coordination of 4.1 4.0 0.27 0.39 needs and research 0.8 1.1 2. Transfer of techno- 4.8 4.8 0.44 0.33 logy and innovations 0.6 0.4 3. Increase knowledge 4.9 4.8 0.52 0.31 and skills 0.4 0.4 4. Hands on Education 4.6 4.7 0.71 0.25 0.7 0.6 5. Assistance with 4.5 4.8 1.55 0.06 training and visits 0.8 0.5 6. Support the people’s 4.7 4.6 0.48 0.32 growth and change 0.6 0.7 7. Assist farmers in 4.7 4.8 0.47 0.32 training improved inputs 0.8 0.5 8. Help farmers to 4.4 4.4 0.32 0.37 help themselves 0.7 1.0 9. Link local organ- 3.9 4.1 0.50 0.31 izations 1.2 1.3 10. Increase Production 4.6 4.8 0.65 0.26 1.1 0.5 11. Support free input 1.8 1.8 0-08 0-47 facilities 1.2 0.9 12. Prepare working 3.0 3.3 0.57 0.30 facilities 1.5 1.3 13. Assess the needs 3.8 4.1 0.64 0-29 of the farmers 1.2 1.0 Directors responded to these items on a 5 point Likert tYPE scale with: 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neutral, 2 - disagree, 1 = strongly agree. 207 Appendix A-2.--Perception of Extension Directors in the Purpose of Extension (clients served) Extension Rural Deve- Directors lopment Dir N = 23 N = 20 Mean Mean Statements S.D S.D t p 1. Serving large 3.77 40 3.00 1.95* 0.03 scale farmers 1.17 1,34 2. Serving small 3.65 41 4.50 2.25* 0.01 scale farmers 1.46 0.81 3. Serving landless 1.91 40 1.80 0.31 0.38 farmers 1.12 1.08 4. Serving farmers 3.87 41 3.40 1.13 0.13 growing cash crops 1.23 1.43 5. Serving farmers 3.61 41 4.20 1.62 0.05 dealing with forage 1.34 0.93 6. Serving farmers 2.43 41 1.40 3.11* 0.00 dealing with vegeta- 1.35 0.58 bles 7. Serving 3.09 41 1.70 3.81* 0.00 horticulture farmers 1.35 0.90 8. Serving farmers 4.43 41 4.35 0.36 0.36 dealing with 0.77 0.73 irrigation lands 9. serving dry land 2.64 40 3.75 2.23* 0.02 farmers 1.64 1-64 Extension and Rural Development Directors responded to these items on a 5 point Likert type scale With: 5 = strongly agree 3 = neutral 1 = strongly disagree. 4 = agree 2 = disagree 208 Appendix A-3.--Perception of Directors in Relation To Teaching Methods Prefer Extension Rural Development Director Director N = 23 N = 20 Mean Mean Teaching Method S.D DF S.D t p Materials and media Importance of Using 3.61 41 3.8 0.63 0.27 Posters as a Teach- 1.17 0.68 ing methods Importance of Using 4.2 41 3.8 0.94 0.32 T.V. as a Teaching 1.07 1.15 methods Importance of Using 2.7 41 2.20 1.70* 0.05 Newspapers as a 1.36 0.74 teaching methods Importance of using 4.2 41 4.20 0.08 0.47 radio as a teaching 0.94 1.00 Methods Showing film as a 4.61 41 4.60 '0.04 0.48 teaching methods 0.71 0.6 methods Using Fair Exhibits 3.91 41 3.50 1.26 0.11 as a Teaching methods 1.10 1.2 Other teaching method 4.30 17 4.6 0.67 0.26 (role play ,theater 0.75 0.5 Individual methods Importance of farm 4.50 40 4.6 0.64 0.27 visit as a teaching 0.77 0.7 Importance of office 3.5 40 2.2 3.83* 0.00 call as a teaching 1.20 0.83 Methods Importance of using 2.9 41 1.7 3.44* 0.00 telephone as a 1.30 0.78 teaching methods 209 Appendix A-3.--Continued. Extension Rural development Director Director N = 23 N = 20 Mean Mean Teaching Method S.D DF S.D t p Using letters as 2.9 41 2.4 1.66 0.06 a Teaching methods 1.52 0.92 Group methods Using ag expo as a 4.1 41 3.65 1.24 0.11 teaching methods 1.02 1.55 Using farmer classes 4.4 41 4.60 0.46 0.32 as a teaching 0.68 0.55 methods Using ag days as a 3.65 41 3.10 1.56 0.07 teaching methods 1.18 1.34 Group Teaching 4.1 41 3.6 1.98* 0.03 0.80 1.07 Field Trips as a 4.4 41 4.4 0.50 0.48 teaching methods 0.71 0.66 Group Projects as a 4.2 41 4.1 0.56 0.29 teaching methods 0.90 1.05 * Significant differences were found. which perception of teaching method were significantly different were: Extension and Rural Development Directors responded to these items on a 5 point Likert type scale with: 5 = strongly agree 4 = agree 3 = neutral 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly agree. 210 Appendix A-4.--Directors Perception of Importance of Areas Preferred by Their Agencies. Groups No Mean S . D t p Approved Group 1 23 4.65 0.56 seeds. Group 2 20 4.85 0.48 11.2 0.12 Dry land Grouprl 23 3.00 1122 farming Group 2 20 4.10 1145 2.6* 0.01 Fertili- Group 1. 23 4.61. 0.57 zer. Group 2 20 4.10 0.77 2.43* 0.01 Pest Group 1 23 4.35 0.76 Control Group 2 20 4.10 1109 0.85 0.30 Herbici- Group 1 23 4.00 0.93 des Group 2 20 4.10 1.22 0.30 0.40 Vege- Group 1 23 3.30 0.90 5.01 0.00 tables Group 2 20 1.70 1.20 Fruit Group 1 23 3.48 0.83 trees Group 2 .20 1.75 1122 5.37* 0.00 Soil man- Group 1 23 3.78 1406 agement Group 2 20 4.00 1.22 0.61 0.28 Tillage Group 1 23 3.83 1n27 Practice Group 2 20 4.45 0.86 1.81* 0.04 Planting Group 1 23 3.87 1131 equipment Group 2 20 4.30 1n05 1127 0.11 Field Group 1 23 3.74 1.22 Sprayers Group 2 20 3.80 1.46 0.16 0.43 Harvesting Group 1 23 4.04 1,08 equipment Group 2 20 4.15 1.15 0.31 0.38 Tillage Group 1, 23 4.17 1»01 Practice .Group 2 20 4.65 0.79 1.70* 0.05 Animal Group 1 23 3.91 1.21 breed Group 2 20 3.65 1.59 0.60 0.28 Appendix A-4.--Continued 211 Poultry breed credit Market price Storage packaging Farm cooperative Forage crop Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group NH NH NH NH NH 1 2 23 20 23 20 23 20 23 20 23 20 23 20 23 20 0.31 0.00 Group 1 = Extension Director Group 2 = Rural Development Director . . *The results of the t—test indicated a stat1st1cally significant difference. 212 Appendix A-5.--Mean and Standard Deviation of Directors Perception in Relation to Strengthening Agricultural Extension Systems in Khorrassan Extension Rural development Director Director Mean Mean 2-tai1 Statement S.D S.D t p Statement 1 4.56 4.20 1.23 0.23 0.90 1.06 Statement 2 3.74 4.65 -3.14* 0.00 1.14 0.67 Statement 3 4.61 4.45 0.11 0.58 0.78 1.10 Statement 4 4.78 4.80 -0.11 0.91 0.52 0.52 statement 5 4.78 4,90 -0.89 0.38 0.52 0.31 Statement 6 4.44 4.45 -0.05 0.96 1.08 0.83 Statement 7 4.39 4.85 -1.18 0.08 1.03 0.49 Statement 8 4.61 4.75 —0.64 0.52 0.84 0.55 Statement 9 4.78 4.65 0.73 0.47 0.42 0.75 Statement 10 4.70 4.65 0.20 0.84 0.64 0.88 Statement 11 4.61 4.75 0.67 0-50 0.78 0.55 Extension and Rural Development Directors responded to these items on a 5 point Likert type scale w1th: 5 = Strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neutral, 2 = disagree, 1 = Strongly agree. Statements: 213 Statements of Appendix A-S. Statement Statement Statement Statement Statement Statement Statement Statement Statement Statement Statement 1. Strong research extension linkage. 2. Integration of services of the Extension Department and Rural Development Department. 3. Strengthening the research capacity to meet the needs of the farmers. 4. Strengthening the knowledge and skills of the extension personnel through in service training. ‘5. Mobilizing extension specialists to train field level workers. 6. Reducing the duplication of work between Extension Department and Rural Development Department. 7. A coordination of local level agencies such as cooperatives, credit bank, extension and rural development.Decentralization of decision making (i.e. planning, implementation, and evaluation of extension programs. 8. Involving local people in extension programming. 9. Greater number of extension specialists and field level personnel. 10. Strengthening the mobility (transportation) and communication facilities. 11. Maintaining higher levels of commitment, dedication, and morale of staff by increa51ng their salary and facility spec1alists and f1e1d level personnel. 214 Appendix A-6.--Directors Perception of their Agents in Relation to Provision of Assistance to farmers Statate- 2-tail ment Groups No Mean S.D t P **1- Group1* 23 2.00 1.17 Group2* 20 2.55 1.19 -1.53 0.13 **2— Groupl 23 2.48 1.59 Group2 20 2.95 1.00 -1.14 0.26 **3- Groupl 23 3.30 0.70 Group2 20 2.85 0.99 1.75* 0.09 **4- Groupl 23 3.13 0.92 Group2 20 3.15 0.67 -0.08 0.94 **5— Groupl 23 3.04 0.98 Group2 20 3.35 0.81 -1.11 0.27 **6- Groupl 23 3.21 0.95 Group2 20 3.20 0.70 00.07 0.95 *Group 1 = Extension Director *Group 2= Rural Development Director **Statement 1. To what extent your organization organize seminar at which researcher present and demonstrate to the farmers their latest finding. **Statement 2. To what extend do your Rural Develop Personnel or Extension Agents developed written plans for each seminar or other training program. **Statement 3. To what extent do your Extension Agents or Rural Development personnel prepare demonstration plot. **Statement 4. To what extent do your Extension Agents or Rural Development Personnel take farmers on f1eld trips or to visit research station. **Statement 5. To what extent is the organization effective in solving farmers problems. **Statement 6. To what extent do you feel the organization is active in farmers educational needs. 215 Appendix A-7.--Perception of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Regarding the Importance of Extension Teaching Methods Extension-Agent Rural Development Method Mean Mean DF 8 . D S . D t p Individual Methods Farm visits 72 4.56 4.53 0.11 0.45 0.82 1 06 Office calls 72 4.00 2.90 4.71* 0.00 0.96 0.98 Letters/not tel- 72 3.30 2.93 1.27 1.03 ephone 1.12 1.66 Group Methods Exhibits at Agri- 72 3.86 3.73 0.55 0.30 culture shows 1.04 0.93 Farmers’ classes 72 4.23 4.47 1.28 0.10 0.82 0.72 Field 72 4.34 433 0.03 0.48 demonstrations 0.98 0.98 Field days 71 3.57 3.34 0.22 0.25 Group meetings 72 4.09 4.13 0.19 0.42 Tours/field trips 72 4.32 4.37 0.26 0.40 Group projects 72 3.86 3.67 0.53 0.52 Materials and Media. Live specimen & 72 3.95 4.39 2.10* 0.02 samples 0,94 0.75 Leaflets and 73 4.14 4.29 0.83 0.29 bulletins 0.62 0.77 Pictorials/ 73 4.00 3.97 0.15 0.44 Illustrations 0.98 0.82 Appendix A-7. 216 Continued perception of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Regarding the Importance of Extension Teaching Methods Extension-Agent Rural Development Method Mean Mean DF S.D S.D t p Television 73 3.80 4.00 0.82 0.30 1.16 0.88 News letters 73 3.52 3.26 1.09 0.14 1.12 0.88 Radio 73 3.64 3.58 0.23 0.41 1.19 0.71 Films & Slides 73 4.30 4.23 0.37 0.36 0.87 0.66 Videos & Films 73 4.14 4.16 0.11 0.46 (Cinema) 1.10 0.77 Posters & Charts 73 2.84 2.71 0.53 0.30 1.11 0.92 Manuals 73 3.43 3.52 0.40 0.35 1.16 0.88 Other (Specify) Agents responded to these items on a five(5) point likert type scale with: 3=N=Neutral 4=A=Agree * Significant at &=0.05 1=SD=Strongly Disagree 2= =Disagree 5=SA=Strongly Agree 217 Appendix A-8.--Mean and Standard Deviation of Agents Level of knowledge about Agricultural Subjects Areas NO Area Agent Cases Mean S.D t. p Crops Gl 31 2.55 0.81 G2 43 2.86 0.41 2.17* .03 Pest- Gl 31 2.13 0.85 control G2 43 2.53 0.59 2.43* .02 Herbicide GI 31 2.00 0.89 product GZ 44 2.07 0.79 0.35 .73 Animal GI 29 1.41 0.73 product oz 43 2.16 0.72 4.29* .00 Poultry G1 30 1.57 0.86 product 62 43 1.95 0.72 2.08* .04 Dry land 61 30 2.37 ~ 0.81 farming 62 43 2.32 0.84 0.21 .84 Forage c1 31 2.68 0.70 product G2 43 2.44 0.79 1.32 .19 Farm 61 31 2.32 0.87 machinery oz 44 2.14 0.82 0.94 .35 Soil G1 30 1.97 0.81 fertility c2 43 2.02 0.80 0.30 .77 Soil G1 30 1.50 0.63 GZ 43 1.63 0.82 0.72 .47 Marketing G1 31 1.48 0.68 62 43 1.67 0.72 1.16 .25 Irriga- Gl 31 2.10 0.75 tion G2 44 2.45 0.76 2.02* .05 Animal G1 30 1.47 0.73 Power GZ 43 1.72 0.88 1.30 .20 Local 01 31 1.71 0.78 equipment 62 43 1.79 0.86 0.41 .68 218 Appendix A-8.—-Continued No Area Agent Cases Mean S.D t p Farm G1 31 2.16 0.90 manage- 62 42 2.26 0.77 0.52 .61 ment Coopera- 61 31 1.64 0.75 tive Ext G2 43 2.07 0.88 2.16* .03 Bee Gl 30 1.53 0.78 keeping 62 43 2.09 0.81 2.95* .00 Animal G1 31 2.39 0.76 health G2 34 2 90 0.72 3.00* .00 Tillage Cl 31 2.55 0.77 practice G2 43 2.63 0.73 0.45 .65 Adjust- 61 31 2.10 0.87 ment G2 43 2.19 0.73 0.48 .63 Institio- G1 31 1.77 0.76 nal work G2 43 2.21 0.74 2.46* .02 Farm G1 31 2.16 0.86 loan G2 43 2.60 0.69 2.45* .02 Farm 61 31 1.77 0.81 equipment G2 44 1.82 0.84 0.23 .82 coop- G1 31 1.68 0.79 rative 62 44 1.66 0.81 0.10 .92 Demon- G1 31 2.39 0.76 stration G2 44 2 90 0.72 3.00* .09 plots Extension agents and Rural Development personnel responded to these items on a 5 point Likert type scale with: 5 — very comfortable, uncomfort able, = comfortable, very uncomfortable. neutral, 2: *The results of the t-test indicated a statistically significant difference. 219 APPENDIX A-9.--Perception of Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Regarding Areas of Teaching. Extension Rural Development Agent Personnel N = 44 N=3l Areas Yes Yes No/(%) No/(%) Approved seeds 39/88.6 22/71.0 Dry land farming 27/61.4 18/58.1 Use of fertilizers 41/93.2 23/74.2 Use of pesticides 41/93.2 21/67.7 Use of herbicides 38/86.4 20/64.5 New varieties of 18/46.9 03/09.7 vegetables New varieties of 26/59.1 04/16.1 Fruit trees Improvement of 28/63.6 20/65.5 Soil management Tillage equipment 41/93.2 27/87.1 Planting equipment 37/84.1 25/80.6 Fertilizer 39/88.1 23/74.2 Harvesting equipment 36/81.8 23/74.2 Tillage practices 43/97.7 26/83.9 Improved animal breeds 28/37.3 03/16.1 Improved poultry breeds 21/28.0 02/06.5 Institutional credit 13/29.0 O8/25.8 Market price 14/31.8 03/06.8 Storage and post harvest practices 37/84.1 14/45.2 Packaging and trans- portation 12/27.3 07/22.6 Farm cooperative 24/54.5 09/29.0 Forage crop 39/88.6 26/83.9 Beekeeping 32/72.7 05/16.1 Rural handcrafts 11/25.0 02/06.5 Irrigation 41/93.2 22/71.0 Land leveling 42/93.2 21/67.7 Farm management 37/95.5 21/67.7 Soil fertility 39/88.l 22/71.o Others(silk worm, cotton,and...etc) 09/20.5 O4/12-9 220 Appendix A-10.-- Extension Agent and Rural Development Personnel perception of Linkages with Organizations Extension Rural Agent Development N = 44 N = 31 Mean MEAN Organization category S.D S.D t p Linkage with agricultural 0.68 0.90 1.16 0.13 College and universities 0.85 0.82 Agricultural research 1.27 1.23 0.24 o.40 station 0.69 1.01 Agricultural bank 1.41 1.45 0.22 0.41 0.78 0.98 Credit institutions 0.86 1.06 0.91 0.32 0.89 0.98 Rural Development research 0.30 1.77 7.73* 0.00 station 0.59 1.04 Farm Machinery Organizations 0.98 1.10 0.59 0.28 0.87 0.82 Fertilizer agencies 1.27 1.60 1.50 0.07 1.10 0.87 Pesticide research center 1.66 0.90 3.54* 0.00 0.82 1.00 Animal research center 1.25 0.48 4.03* 0.00 0.80 0.80 Soil research center 1.18 0.77 2.60* 0.02 Forestry research center 0.84 0.58 1.32 0.09 0.85 0.79 Dry land farming research 0.84 1.68 3.91* 0.00 station 0.93 0.86 Cooperative organizations 2.07 1.30 4.20* 0.00 Other 1.50 1.75 0.28 0.39 221 Appendix 11. Agent Perceptions Regarding Provision of Assistance to Farmers Extension Rural Development Agents Personnel N = 44 N =31 Mean Mean Statement S.D S.D t p Do you organize seminars 2.59 2.68 0.36 0,36 at which researcher 1.05 0.96 searchers present and demonstrate their latest findings to the farmers Do you develop written 2.70 2.32 1.74* 0.04 plans for each seminar 0.89 0.96 Do your develop 3.14 2.29 3.81* 0.00 demonstration plots 0.81 1.08 ‘ for The farmers Did you Have extension 2.77 2.14 2.02* 0.02 extension classes For 1.22 1.14 the farmers in 1989 Did you take farmers for 1.93 2.13 0.74 0.26 field trips or visits the 1.18 1.10 the research stations in 1989 Do you know about research station 2.50 1.97 1.90* 0.03 the state 1.22 1.12 Agents respondent to these items on a 5 point Likert type scale with: 0 = None 1 = Little 2 = Some 3 = Much 4 = Very Much DF = 73 *significant differences were found. 222 Appendix A-12.--Extension Agents and Rural Development Personnel Perception Regarding Training Needs Extension Rural Development Agents Personnel N = N = 31 Mean Mean Area of training S.D S.D DF t p Tractor skills 2.40 2.77 73 1.43 0.8 1.09 1.04 Tractor operation 2.25 2.71 73 1.56 0.06 1.33 1.08 Primary tillage 2.41 2.71 73 1.10 0.14 1.24 1.02 Secondary tillage 2.36 2.71 73 1.34 0.09 1.21 0.89 Row crop planter 2.50 2.90 73 1.50 0.07 1.52 0.96 Harvesting 2.57 2.77 73 0.78 0.28 equipment 1.10 1.13 No tilt farm 1.77 2.29 73 1.59 0.07 operation 1.49 1.40 Dry land machinery 2.23 2.68 73 1.65 0.05 1.54 1.00 Post harvesting 2.09 2.32 73 0.94 0.32 equipment 0.95 1.12 Irrigation 2.16 2.65 73 1.82* 0.03 equipment 1.17 1.06 Pest control 2.55 2.77 73 0.82 0.29 equipment 1.34 0.87 Soil conservation 2.50 3.13 12 2.50* 0.00 equipment 1.20 0.83 Animal production 2.30 2.71 73 1.56 0.05 223 Appendix A-12. continued Marketing 2.11 3.00 73 3.69* 0.00 0.98 1.05 Management of 2.16 2.97 73 3.24* 0.00 research plot 1.09 1.00 *The results of the t-test indicated a statistically significant difference. Appendix A-13.--Perception of Farmers in Relation With Area advice by Extension agent and Rural Development Extension ‘Rural Agent Development Responded Responded Area Number ‘YeS/(%) Number YES/(%) Crop,Seed 233 183/78.5 214 147/68.7 Fertilizer Farm Machinery 228 049/21.5 214 048/22.4 Soil con- 227 034/15.0 213 020/ 9.4 servation Soil Fertility 228 033/14.5 214 026/12.1 Marketing of 228 009/ 3.9 214 008/ 3.8 ag Production Dry land 228 024/10.5 213 028/13.2 Farming Use of 229 134/59.8 216 077/35.6 Pesticides Use Of 228 07l/31.1 216 040/18.5 Herbicides New Varieties 227 009/04.0 216 007/03.2 of vegetables New Varie- 228 034/14.9 216 GOG/02.8 ties of trees Bee Keeping 228 003/01.3 216 007/03.2 Hand Crafts 228 006/02.6 215 DIS/07.0 Food Pro- 228 DOS/02.2 216 008/03.7 cessing 224 APPENDIX B SURVEY INSTRUMENTS 225 Questionnaire For Director and Manager This questionnaire is designed to assess the director and manager of the research station, extension agencies, and rural development department in their expectations of their agencies in the development of agricultural mechanization in the state of Khorrassan in The Islamic Republic of Iran. Part I A. Background Information: Please write appropriate answers on the lines provided for each of the following: 1. What is your title or position . 2. Highest level of education 3. How many years you have been in this position? 4. How long have you been working in an extension relatedjob ? 5. To which agency do you belong? a) Department of agriculture? b) Jihad Sazandeghi c) others 6. Number of extension or rural development personnel in your department? 7. Have you received any special training related to your personal job? YES NO If yes, could you specify: a. b. c. 8. How many of the following group extension activities were completed during the past year? Group activities comlrted appropriatg_ngmbgr Farmer training courses /workshop Farmers' field days Radio listening group Farmer contacts Group tours other (please specify) Part II. Purpose of the Department: Please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement on the following statements, using the scale below. 9. The purpose of the Extension work of my department is: a. transfer of technology and inno- SA A N D SD vations from the research station to the farmers b. to support people's growth and SA A N D SD change. 0. to assist farmers in obtaining SA A N D SD improved inputs such as seed, fertilizer, pesticides, etc. d. to enable farmers to help them- SA A N D SD selves. 1226 e. to link people with local organ- SA A N D SD izational and institutional resources. f. to increase farmers' knowledge SA A N D SD and skills on approved farming practices. 9. to increase farmers' production SA A N D SD and income. H. to prepare free input facility. SA A N D SD I. to prepare Working facility. SA A N D SD J. need assessment SA A N D SD k. to link research and farmers needa SA A N D SD L. to educate farmers by doing SA A N D SD M. to educate farmer by T&V SA A N D SD N. others (specify) SA A N D SD 10. Clientele Served: Please specify the primary group or groups that your organization serves and indicate the relative importance. If more than one group, please indicate the approximate division of time and effort (as a percentage) that your organization devoted to each group. Little Vary Importance Importance 1 2 3 4 5 a. Larger Commercial Farmers b. Smaller Commercial Farmers c. Landless Farmer d. Farmers growing industrial crops(sugar beet, cotton, corn, e. Farmers dealing with ____ fora crops (corn, alfalfa) F. farmers dealing with cereal crops f. Farmers dealing with irrigated land. 9. dry land farming. Part III. Expectations of the department : Based on your perceptions, what percentage of time do you expect Your agents to spend on the following act1v1t1es? 11. Extension Planning and Support Activities: Conducting needs assessment, program planning, Preparing reports, in-service training, program evaluation and other related activ1t1es. 227’ 12. Educational Activities: Implementing educational programs such as providing information and technical assistance to clients, conducting on farm visits, demonstrations, educationalmeetings, field days and other educational activities. % 13. Non-educational Activities: Carrying out non-educational activities such as; regulatory work, data collection (e.g. conducting agricultural census, crop forecasting), settling local disputes, work on other governmental programs and servicing local government. % % ’vTotal 100 Part IV. Teaching methods. 14. Please indicate the importance of each of the following teaching methods that should be used by your personnel. Circle the appropriate number that reflects the relative importance of each method. Adaptation of the following materials and media: not important very important Extension Posters 1......2......3......4......5 Television 1......2......3......4......5 News paper articles 1......2......3......4......5 Exhibits at the fairs l......2......3......4......S Newsletters 1......2. ..... 3......4......5 Radio 1......2......3......4......5 Film 1......2......3......4......5 Other (Please specify) l......2......3......4......5 Part IV. Teaching methods continued Individual methods: Farm visits l......2......3......4......5 Office call l......2......3......4......5 Letters/notes 1......2......3......4......5 Telephone 1......2......3......4......5 Group methods: Exhibits at agricultural 1......2......3......4......5 Farmers classes 1......2......3......4......5 Field days 1......2......3......4......5 Group meetings 1......2......3......4......5 Tours/field trips 1......2......3......4......5 Group projects 1......2......3......4......5 Part V. Perce tions Related to Provision of assistant to the Farmers Please circle a number from 0 through 4 on the scale to the right of each item. 0 = None 1 = Little 2 = Some 3 = Much 4 = Very Much 15. To what extent does your department 0 l 2 3 4 organize seminars at which researchers pre- sent and demonstrate to the farmers their latest findings? 16. To what extent do your field workers 0 1. 2 3 ‘4 develop plans for each seminar or other training programs? 228 17. To what extent do your field workers 0 l 2 3 4 prepare demonstration plots for the farmers? 18. To what extent do your field workers 0 1 2 3 4 take farmers on field trips or to visit research stations? 19. To what extent do you think your 0 l 2 3 4 department is helpful in solving the farmers problems? 20. To what extent do you feel that 0 1 2 3 4 your department meets the educational needs of the farmers? Part VI. Fvnectetinns of the department concerninn the subiect area coverage: 21. Please indicate the importance of each of the following subject areas in your department. Circle the appropriate number that reflects the relative importance of each method. not important very important a. approved seed varieties b. dry land farming of crops c. using fertilizer d. using pesticides e. using herbicides f. new varieties of vegetables 9. new varieties of fruit trees h. improved soil management 1. tillage equipment j. planting equipment k. fertilizer equipment 1. harvesting equipment m. tillage practices n. improved animal breeds 0. improved poultry breeds p. institutional credit q. marketing r. storage and post harvest 8. packaging, processing and t. transportat u. farm cooperative v. forage crop practices Part VII. Strengthening Extension Efforts: ' ' ' 'ties 22. Many factors influence the performance of extension act1v1 , such as new well they are paid, mobility, the ava1lab111ty of teach1ng aids. In this section we would like to know the management style 1n YOur organization. ' . Yes No a. Are there any written and distributed evaluation procedures and criteria? HDJF‘HFJFJHIHF‘HDJFJHDJPJHOJF‘HDdF‘H NloNSNEJh)Nloh3NIOBDNIVBJMBJKSMIOKJN wl»h)UtthU(AhawthJUIdh’WIJUJwtdhlw e-e:>¢-e.e.54>¢-a-e-ec-e-e-easb.e.b¢>e mcnu1mcnuumtnuvmtnuumtnu1mtnu1mtnunm b. Is there an annual written evaluation on each staff? C. Are field personnel notified of eval- uation results? 229 d. Are supervisors instructed on how to observe performance and provide counseling? e. Is pay distributed on a merit basis? f. Does a considerable range of salary exist based solely on performance? 9. Does extra training result in higher pay for the same job? h. Are promotions based on performance? 1. Are supervisors encouraged to recognize ' b? excellent work on the 30 j. Does the system provide informal feedback to personnel on poor performance? k. Does the system provide for written reprimands? 1. Does the system provide for punishment such as loss of pay or demotion? 23. Please give careful thought about your own experience and current work and mark the one that best expresses your opinion for each of the following: Mainly agree but somewhat disagree SA = Strongly agree A = = Mainly disagree but somewhat agree N = Neutral SD = Strongly disagree In order to strengthen the extension efforts of your department, there is a need for: a. Strong research extension linkage SA A N D SD b. Integration of services of the Ext- SA A N D SD ension Department and Rural Development Department c. Strengthening the research capacity SA A N D SD to meet the needs of the farmers d. Strengthening the knowledge and SA A N D SD skills of the extension personnel through in service training. e. Mobilizing extension specialists SA A N D SD to train field level workers. f. strong evaluation and monitoring SA A N D SD unit within the department 9- Reducing the duplication of work SA A N D SD between Extension Department and Rural Development Department h. A coordination of local level . SA A N D SD agencies such as cooperatives, credit bank, extension and rural development. 230 i. Decentralization of decision making SA A N D SD (i.e. planning, implementation, and evaluation of extension programs) j. Involving local people in extension SA A N D SD programming. k. Greater number of extension spec- SA A N D SD ialists and field level personnel 1. Strengthening the mobility (trans- SA A N D SD portation) and communication facilities m. Maintaining higher levels of com- SA A N D SD mitment, dedication, and morale of staff by increasing their salary and facility 24. I would appreciate any final comments or suggestions that you would like to make. Please use the space below for this purpose. Thank you for your willingness to share your opinion about the cooperation and activities of the two agricultural extension services 231. Farmers Questionnaire This interview schedule is designed to compare the farmers’ participation in extension activities, and the relationship between the organization that are involved in the development and dissemination of agricultural mechanization and innovation in IRI in the State of Khorrassan. Part I General Information: Please write appropriate answer on the line provided for each of the following: 1. Age of the respondents years 2. Sex: Male Female 3. Marital Status: 4. Highest level of education 5. Size of Farm (in Hectares) 6. Type of Ownership: Do you own your own farm? Do you rent your farm? 7.(Option) Estimated income for 1989 (check one) 20,000 ore less tomans 21,000--040,000 tomans 41,000--060,000 tomans 61,000--080,000 tomans 81,000--100,000 tomans 100,000 __or up Part II. Expectations from the visits of the Extension and Rural Development Agents: 8. Have you had any contact with the extension worker during the last year (1989) Yes No (go to Ques. 9) If yes how often did you have contact with him/her? Less than once in six months Once in six to twelve months More than once per year 9. Have you had any contact with the rural development worker during the last year (1989)? Yes No (go to Ques. 10) If yes how often did you have contact with him/her? a. Less than once in six months b. Once in six to twelve months c. More than once per year 10. If the answer of question 8 was yes, in which of the following areas does the extension agent give advice and direction to you?: (Please check as appropriate) yes No a. Crop production related categories such as seeds, fertilizer, plants, etc. b. Farm equipment and machinery. c. Soil conservation. d. Soil fertility. _ e. Marketing of agricultural production. f. Dry land farming. g. Using pesticides. h. Using herbicides. 1. New varieties of vegetables. j. New varieties of fruit trees k. Bee Keeping 11. 232 Hand crafts Fruit storage and processing Transportation Post harvest activities Animal husbandry Land preparation Packaging Others (please specify) If the answer to question 9 was yes, Development Personnel give advice and direction as appropriate). a. 12. Do If yes do the two a HHHH HHHH Crop production related categories such as fertilizer,plant, etc. Farm equipment and machinery. Soil conservation. Soil fertility. Marketing of agricultural production Dry land farming. Using pesticides. Using herbicides. New varieties of vegetables. New varieties of fruit trees Bee Keeping Hand crafts Fruit storage and processing Transportation Post harvest activities Animal husbandry Land preparation Packaging Others (please specify) you have contact both agents? Yes Yes 0 If yes were both services necessary for you? No Yes Yes seeds, Z O gents give the same services N 13. which agency shares more updated information and new technology with you ? a. Rural Development Personnel b. Extension Agent _ c. both d. Neither 13a. Which agency field personnel do you consider are more solving your farm problem? a. Rural development personnel t b. Extension agen th c. Bo l 13b. Which Ill?! 5.; (.0 O 2 hi 0. d. Neither Extension agent Both Neither 0 Extension agent Both Neither ch agency has helped more, to solve your farm Rural development personnel agency has more frequent contact with you? a. Rural development personnel does the Rural to you: (please check No competent in problem? 13d. Which 13e. Which Part III. .233 agency provides better answers to your needs? Rural deve10pment personnel Extension agent Both Neither agency do you prefer to visit more frequently? Rural development personnel Extension agent Both Neither Percetion related to future of Extension Education Please circle the best answer from the following questions. Give careful thought about your own experience and current work. Use the following directions: SD-Strongly Disagree A-Mainly Agree but some what disagree D-Mainly Disagree but SA-Strongly Agree but some what agree N-Neutral l4. Collaboration between Exten- sion Agents,Rural development, and Farmers is very important for agricultural development 15. Seminars/demonstration act- ivities organized by extension personnel from the Department of Agriculture are more benifi- cial than those organized by the rural development personnel from Jihad Sazandeghi SD D N A SA SD D N A SA 16. Seminars/demonstration act- .SD D N A SA ivities organized by rural deve- . lopment personnel from the Depart- . ment are more beneficial than those. organized by the extension agent. . 1?. Collaboration between the .SD D N A SA Extension Agents and Rural Devel- . opment personnel is a prerequisite . to agricultural development. . 18. Combining the two departments .SD D N A SA into one department is a prere- . quesite to agricultural development. 19. The extension agent from .SD D N A SA the Department of Agriculture . visits me regularly. . 20. The Rural Development Per- .SD D N A SA sonnel visits me regularly. . 21. The Extension agent is a rare .SD D N A SA fish to catch. 22. The Rural development person- .SD D N nel is a rare fish to catch. . 234 23. For communication, the Agri- .SD D N A SA cultural Extension Agent prepares . information. and resources, dev- . elops demonstration plots to bet- ter understanding. . 24. For communication, the Rural .SD D N A SA Development Personnel prepares . information, and resources, dev- . elops demonstration plots to bet- . ter understanding. . Part IV. Perceptions Related to the Content of the Extension Message 25. The Extension Agent shares . SD D N A SA information on new technology . that is suitable for the farmers . of this area. 26. Rural Development Personnel . SD D N A SA shares information on new techno- . logy that is suitable for the . farmers of this area. . 27. The Extension Agents are in . SD D N A SA the area, and attempt to help us . to find solutions to our farm prob- . lems. 28. Rural development personnel . SD D N A SA are in the area and attempt to . help us to find solutions to . our farm problems. . 29. Extension Agents recommend . SD D N A SA new practices which are not avail- . able in our area. . 30. Rural Development Personnel . SD D N A SA from Jihad recommend new practices . which are not available . 31. The best way that the Ex- . tension personnel use to teach- farmers is. a. Films and slides . SD D N A SA b. Distributing Pamphlets . SD D N A SA c. Posters . SD D N A SA d. Demonstration plot . SD D N A SA e. Seminars . . SD D N A SA f. Field Trips to the Extension . SD D N A SA Station. . 32. The best way that the Rural . Development Personnel use to teach- . farmers is: - a. Films and slides . SD D N A g: b. Distributing Pamphlets . SD D N 2 SA c. Posters . :3 g g A SA 0 0 n lOt 0 d Demonstratio p SD D N A SA e. Seminars ° 1235 f. Field trips to the extension . SD D N A SA station. Part V Perceptions of participation and effectiveness 33. Have you ever been asked by the Extension Agent to participate in planning of extension activities. Yes No Not sure 34. Have you ever been asked by the Rural Development Personnel to participate in the planning of extension activities in your area? Yes No Not sure 35. If the answer to questions 39 or 40 were yes, did you find the activity useful? Yes No Not sure 36. Information you used on your farm (until now) has been provided by: Extension Agent Rural Development Personnel Others (neighbors, relatives, etc.) Thank you for your willingness to share your opinion about the cooperation and activities of the two organizations. If you have any. final comments or suggestions, I would appreciate it if you would write them in the space below. .236 Questionnaire For Extension Agent and Rural Development This instrument is prepared to assess the extension agents and rural development personnel effectiveness of their agricultural extension work in the I.R. of Iran. Part I: General Information: A. Please write the appropriate answer on the line provided for each of the following questions. 1) Age of the respondent years 2) Sex (male , female) 3) Marital status. 4) To which agency do you belong a) Department of agriculture extension? b) Jihad Sazandeghi 5) Your title or position 6) Area of specialization 7) Number of years of service 8) Number of farms in the area of your responsibility 9) Your highest level of education /training 10) Number of Villages you are serving Part II. Area of skills. 11) In which area are you most comfortable in dealing with the farmers? Please rank your expertise/skills using the following scale: 5 = Very comfortable 2 = Slightly uncomfortable. 4 = Comfortable 1 = Uncomfortable. 3 = Neutral a. crop production b. pest control c. herbicides d. animal husbandry e. poultry f. dry land farming g. forage crops h. farm machinery 1. soil fertilization j. soil management k. marketing of the farm crops 1. irrigation m. efficient use of animal power n. efficient use of local equipment 0. farm management p. cooperative organization q. bee keeping r. veterinarian 3. land preparation t. machinery adjustment u. post harvest practices v. solving non-educational problems w. solving the farmers financial problems x. solving the farmers equipmental needs y. doing cooperative work z. plot demonstrations aa. others (please specify) Part III. Activities and teaching methods . 12) For each of the following activities, please estimate on an average, how man extension activities completed each year. Activities Average Number Completed l I l l 237' Annually Per Office a. Individual farmer home visits b. Office visits by clients c. Group educational meetings d. On farm demonstrations e. Farm field days f. Other individual activities(please specify) 13. Please indicate the importance of each of the following extension methods that are used by you. Circle the appropriate number that reflects the relative importance you place on each method. Individual method Little Great Importance Importance Farm visits 1 2 3 4 5 office call 1 2 3 4 5 letters/notes 1 2 3 4 5 telephone 1 2 3 4 5 Group methods exhibits at agricultural shows 1 2 3 4 5 farmers classes 1 2 3 4 5 field demonstrations l 2 3 4 5 field days 1 2 3 4 5 group meeting 1 2 3 4 S tours/field trips 1 2 3 4 5 group projects 1 2 3 4 5 Wain live specimens &samples 1 2 3 4 5 leaf & bulletins l 2 3 4 5 pictorial/illustrated l 2 3 4 5 television 1 2 3 4 5 News letters 1 2 3 4 5 Radio 1 2 3 4 5 Films & slides 1 2 3 4 5 video & films (cinema) 1 2 3 4 5 posters & charts 1 2 3 4 5 manuals 1 2 3 4 5 Other (please specify) 1 2 3 4 5 Area of extension covered by the agency: 14. Which of the following subject areas are covered by you. §E§i§2§.é£§é§ Do you cover this area? Yes No approve seed variety dry land farming using animal fertilizer using pesticides using herbicides varieties of vegetables varieties of fruit trees management of soil conservation primary tillage equipment planting equipment secondary equipment harvesting equipment land preparation animal breeding poultry breeding vii institutional credit marketing post harvest practices packaging and transportation c00perative extension forage planning bee keeping handcrafts irrigation land leveling farm management soil fertility others (please specify) Part II. Perceptions Related to Organization Linkages. Please read each of the following statements and mark the one that best expresses your opinion for each of the following: N 0) Q SD= Strongly disagree D=Mainly Disagree but somewhat agree N= Neutral A=Mainly Agree but somewhat disagree SA=Strongly agree. SD D N A SA 15. Collaboration between agricultural Extension, and the Department of Rural Development is vital. 16. Joining of the department of Rural Development with the extension department is pre requisite for agricultural development. 17. There is a high degree of cooperation between extension services and rural development personnel in Jihad? 18. Extension agent knows to develop demonstration plot. 19. Rural development personnel Know to develop demonstration plot. Part III. Perceptions related to Extension activities Please circle a number from 0 through 4 on the scale to the right of each item. 0 = None 1 = Little 2 = Some 3 = Much 4 = Very Much 20. Do you organize seminars at which researcher 0 l 2 3 4 present and demonstrate to the farmers their latest findings? 21. Do you develop written plans for each 0 1 2 3 4 seminar or other training program? 22. Are you informed about the agricultural 0 l 2 3 4 research in the state? 0 1 2 3 4 23. Do you Prepare demonstration plot for the farmers? 239 24. Do you take farmers on some field trips 0 1 2 3 4 or to visit research stations? 25. Do you know about the number of research 0 1 2 3 4 stations in the state? 26. To what extent do your extension 0 1 2 3 4 activities educate the farmers? 27. Did you have extension classes for 0 1 2 3 4 farmers during 1989? Part IV Knowledge and Training about Mechanization & innovation: To what extent do you need more knowledge and/or training in the following subject? 61 =None G2 =little G3 = Some G4 = Much GS = Very much Gl G2 G3 G4 G5 28. Tractor service 29. Tractor operation 30. Primary tillage AND Secondary tillage 31. Secondary tillage 32. No tilled farming 33. Row crop planter 34. Field sprayers 35. Dry land farming 36. Harvesting equipment 37. Post harvesting ______ _____ 38. Irrigation __ __ 39. Pest control 40. Soil conservation 41. Animal production 42. Marketing 43. Others (specify ) 44. (Please rank the priority that you give to each type of extension activity. Give rank in percentage form.) . £é££_2£92£ EQLLQEEEAQQ Individual Group. Mass media activities 45. Do you visit the farm which you are responsible for better production? . a. Once every month d. Once in 8-12 months b. Once in 2-3 months e. Once in over 12 months c. Once in 4-8 months Part V Linkages With Other Organizations: 46. How would you rate your working relationships with the following agencies? Please circle your answers based on the following scale: little linkages no Linkages 1 . excellent linkages good linkages 3 NC a. Agricultural college/ university . Agricultural research station c. Agricultural bank . Credit institutions e. Rural development station 0‘ Do NNNNN UNUUU 00000 HHHHH .240 f. Farm machinery organization/dealership g. Fertilizer agencies h. Pesticide research center 1. Animal research center j. Soil research laboratory k. Forestry research station 1. Dry land farming research station m. Cooperative organization n. Others (Please Specify) ooooooooo HHHHHHHHH NMNNNNNMN wwwwwwwwu 47. How frequently do you have linkage with the university and college of agriculture? a. once every month b. once every 6 month c. once a year d. none H! 48) How often do you communicate with the research/experiment station? a. once every three month b. once every six month c. once a year d. none It seems that both the Extension Agents and the Rural Development Personnel give services to the farmers. Please give your frank Opinion to the following questions: 49. Which agency (Extension or Rural Development) shares more updated information and new technologies with the farmers? a. Rural Development Personnel b. Extension Agents C. Both D. Neither 50. Which agency (Extension or Rural Development) develops more effective demonstration plots? a. Rural Development Personnel b. Extension Agents c. Both d. Neither . , 51. Which agency is able to provide information which the farmers are able to understand and which is useful to them? a. Rural Development Personnel b. Extension Agents c. Both . Neither 52. Which agency develops more training programs for the development of the agents personal skills? a. Rural Development Personnel b. Extension Agents c. Both d. Neither 53. What suggestions would you offer in order to strengthen the . extension services for the farmers in this region? Please list as many as you think are important. Thank you for your willingness to share your opinion about the . cooperation and activities of the two agricultural extension serV1ces. I would appreciate it, if you have any final comments or suggestions, if you would write them in the space below. 241 .. Jul—u: a. a _ Q .( ‘0 a k; "1"”. 'I‘W" ) :"I .J‘ "62.3 _ 3"” 5"" ~ I a . ' . . ’ “ . . ‘ . o< _ - oL‘k ct-‘a-‘J-‘JL-J‘w-e 3r : daJ:\—- c0! 9"” e , e 0" " BV‘PJ‘I‘JIILLUJ‘JJofi Ur“; uHJa—JJ‘) 295-? “xv-IL U'IJ'" \L‘J JPoo-ooooeoeoO“J?‘,e‘>--‘ 00......“ooeeoeoeoJf(‘r———f\‘—¢I~',-‘ / I ";o t" d .- ._____._,,)J_,:.. L}; J.» 2...... , y JL—JJ" -l JJJLJLfi . uJ‘ ooaasoooeeoo‘ijLch-f-‘ o o o o e e e o e o o o U’kw “JVM -1 J‘.’ o e o o o e o a o o a o “3‘06 «ku- Ubf -Y 000' u‘%91#§—.S“J} J‘.'—~.-A a.oesoeoerX-figkvéagg'oLJJé-‘ u . . g. . - . —__-—.:_.'.:S.o ‘L-J-TJT J" U'LO'L-‘J ".—:.. J .4» | w -( O I I o o .e‘ 9" ....Q .0". J - °"‘ "' : \" 3...}.qu oév‘n‘la:.0~rvg'o-” “*J-JJ .qn—g-gd J o “ ’t J‘g‘.").. ’ " U51“... - . 3' 1...: (1)!) (“rs-'5'“. ) “~59": s1 - . . ' u b.» VJ‘JJBB' -9- ;U‘Qa -4. b #UJc‘f 92"" -c. a ‘0 “kl-”“10 'C géfiufl b...‘.‘. ’C. 491—) aka-Jab -J “pi-L: JL. .3 .\_'.f-.. 3"...»- gJJvé—H:~v\u'ut.L -J 9.1.; UJK'.‘ ' J . w - . .‘ " - J. I I “IL;"‘L' \r"¢ U).*J .‘Ju J HHHHHHH ' -- \ r4"- VL .c\'.‘.w,'_'_. iuflau... -3 \HHHHII 242 e—JW-t -¢ laugh; ’ wa-‘Lfi. -9: u,‘q,.-';,.Jv o‘er‘J-l 9...) gafioaLlep 'L qufiubaéheki: ‘L c...:\.a,.J‘.:.~c. 1,.»- ufiaTL‘ - .9 out“: va‘J‘JL-g-b - 5 U‘JL—‘S J al- lug. -J oj‘oL—L‘ .LLgJUCiJ ., ugh; 9L» Jfifbc‘ «.1 LJ-T. 93...“: , UWU ud‘“ 95-5-33“: ,3 3h.“ 3.,- v‘r‘v‘r‘A‘r'W '11 '-'- rb‘mvwa‘u HH i_._,\:.:w°g...t,.)..2,.¢ ,- Jwt-Aam ck J»; was. glee-.131 fiakoJlatJn’Jéux 0"»: V‘s-3‘33" vii?" 0530‘): "’9‘ afihhwbuh‘ (”Vi-op ‘4‘: w ) fiat-4,1. HR“? ‘5)” N UML}: 93’1”)!" 9"fo ~M‘u.w 0" H U“, ‘Jh—elfl‘. “*J‘fdau-L—‘Jy U‘J‘ng“‘L“JJJ .a—qJ ~‘-‘ t-r- Jr“ “-5 H‘u’r" UJ‘F‘J» ..........(.....‘-......3.....\ «Jyjhsafi, o t r x i \ JEJziaJJQJJwfiJ‘aa 0 t 1' x \ 'utiévyigsizu . 1 v x x at: ° ‘ l ‘ u—flas'éb-‘u‘a o t 1’ x 1 opgtfiuboV—au 9‘,“ .- t Y i \ .31-Judy)! . t -.- x 3 ”ruby-.05.: o t 1' x \ #‘JxJJ‘Jy 0 i '.‘ 7 1 95);.3Léux- ”L...— . t Y i ) u—‘y-(ub-v-D‘: , Q a r 3 a"? '\.:.-.....,-‘-,.. . f T t | map-mi- J-yu— 243 ,4 “H Fonz—:1! 5'“. db. .0 o e a e 0‘. o e e e are e o 0‘ e o e 0‘ H" db?- ULJP o t f ‘ ‘ r—‘qj'é‘yfii'O-I‘" ‘ ° 1 r 1 1 Wan" «hi—wi'wkd O '1. 4 . u. up . t . Y ‘ ‘ JL—n—‘kJ’c~ x452" ‘ 4‘“ ‘ . re 4 A .- . 1 r 1 1 d—vX-‘J Hui-L4 . 1 1' 1 1 33+: r-UéA: . 1 r 1 1 Ja‘ee-J'HV-B‘ . t r 1 1 I)“: uh‘fitsj‘OJu-l (4.4L; JAYJLW ),'..J J“... Jo‘awkatfio‘rh oer-Bewis‘xk seek/M“ -14 J“. 0L “I. 0 NJ.“ Jack‘s—5’s a \r 4x5: :5“ (:2: -'~r‘ £uM‘°":"." '94- : J‘JJ’J.“Y."’. 4.9,)» ‘5“:- J" “it :‘1' | e .* (.' 1 3? c.-..:..1..:t:o.i.: L’s-1‘33; RJU‘J . «weaken-4 5;-v\;;.o,,..;I.-.:..1 ‘_._-._,_‘.‘ uni-7‘ 0 JE‘ ~.‘-""“‘"L”§Iy 'x-‘v-‘eub‘w‘: JLLéJh:¢.,,I. gr) ~JAOJL1V .'.,._‘\. ¢;Eg§.~_'.\. L__.,._‘\JJ~.‘:J~:..:‘J.;L,+.L “‘Jflgkg—L WJ'canoJLT o...- L__.,..1.,.,1}; c1,1- 2.9-3"”? L3" ”_‘L-tg‘JLifl «MEL “Jury-“4 “1‘47; J15 J-b; 4.124;... uni—J “Leggy: IIHIHHIHHHHIIII lilllllilllllllllill 244 0: RT 0 ' . W) a“ “a? “"9: 4' IHHH HHIIH “ADV-G—b J‘d-ae',‘ 'KL‘JLJ .311— . 4L; ..(0- 0 a 0 'V:"'— J’L'J‘: Wm :lhn—o «V‘JJJ‘w-efieo—«sw‘ ‘~~—.~:L.:~.--'-'U—‘uo--v”u-'-J ’ 4"J‘"‘S"1 “"" Jug-n ‘5 9"“‘4‘2" “L35 “th‘a‘r‘ze um "-"4‘: .—'-- - so 055‘“)? WUU'M" C55)" 9 D . "(i-I 4.9.3 c—JL. . N ' hlJU» 4":- MJL' diocese-J4 .8 sis-ou- 3.1 I J" J‘BJ'L-J‘u-r vhf-5A: (1:4: 9"” on Pl” - H 5A A N D 50 cwlfd'u ‘0‘ R N 9 so URL—(OJ‘A‘,JL" GLéL-g-e-‘(hfi -‘Y G—.——J gnu-3',“ .F'Js JfiL-J‘ . 42—9: .x-“JL-J's—z- nicUS..-‘-c: an} 9"“ an o-‘UuL-e shire-1* SA A [Y D 59 o ga‘a +—-:-. via-e o-‘x-l uk-‘fi.~i~‘~’-r-.- 1a; 9‘4' vii-‘45 we; ' ‘1-~-1 1 era-:4 vi-u-r .4233 9‘13;JJI:‘“-r-? 453.31.31.11 ole": weir ' '-’:-~ -1 - 3A '4 N D so ° dial 1: 1K ‘0. o 5...):- J-b-,-‘.JJ: “%vv : (PM . . dupe-i” -'J—3céeu'5.t&a~:vo.) 4» 4.39 196-'9 5":4- -.-‘.--: wer- ' ‘4'“ *4: -° -' gfi.‘ g-U-¢_sJJ 3.. ”Ln ~;J of :6;) (IQ-"'1‘ -‘ ‘ I .. ‘ ‘. 1; _ 0’ O" D ." + 4' ‘ | O ' I I“. JV‘JLJ U‘dw’|fl’d )J, ‘42—'2" u)? feruLM-LféaLJ-Jk... #8513” vaanJ-‘q . .( ' o .' o a .‘ ‘. i f r Y i O ”JUHL‘ :hJavJ'x'J‘rJ'SJ‘L)JL-\, qr ‘ vH-‘z’a‘ e'ixu-(JJ-rk-w-e‘ Le a» sad-1 1 .312..th An“: .r'i- , o H“ 141110 245 r r +T~‘:W;‘/~_§JJL¢T-‘J b‘J;'—'.‘Hu.u-o~a-‘. r Show" _L.‘ -_:.1J,iu,;.;;1f,u_.£J-1Lx-,1L1_n ‘“ ‘ u’ erT O Y Junta ‘3... éyJJizt-J. allay..-” 4 II. - -'~"*‘4 w—v JIM—4' \J‘r VJ.”1JLIJX 1v JLVAJ-“ 1'10 111* ’1 41 «ugwwt iL'JJ «_J-JJJ-L vL”... JJJ’fihzflhne—‘J bJ-JJJJIJ"! VL,.;J:.Y:9\»)L3I~J‘&. .» surging-t.» .Le 0.91?) J—a-JJ‘J ‘r‘r- uv'—r- JEV¢~_JJ u~¢+JJ~aorL4.J‘J J,-..'J-,a,-L . .I—__‘ QJ‘JG-X*-L C‘" #1.}. “1‘4. '21-1!‘ -‘ \ __ ._ __ _ _ -_.S' 92,334. tvj .L-k'uuek-‘x—L-n awoke—'54 1 c__-15 .L,‘...~1. -n __— _— 1.11., .1... "—-v: —— 3.1.1 {_- Ania-234‘. — "_ — NJBL-JLM-L-‘b-n —— _— —- J;‘-'.~‘-JL‘—.'. L'f' _. _ __ 031.1134, -r‘ —_ _ :‘_‘¢".J_ c ‘ .N‘ U _ ‘ .- -r‘ at» at; _l. " —— —— ‘—fva‘UJ|-l-'L’\I'-J\Lh -(. 9].”.‘4 -(1 w‘v‘fih ~11 ‘v-b -(r . 4L: vxTJLépJufl-LAJJ; 'UL-JJLJ.}.\_.— -g( . new“. 10.11,, ,daQJJWe 75'... stray, '\_st.' Q‘c'~.~5‘ Jv'l' 854.0“: cu u-‘J—J“r"‘5' ‘I‘vth‘g'l‘ (ILLL‘ “12.5 QJHJJ 0.;_.A.‘>J.- uab'g‘jivul an-J C ‘ 4f}; 0 L‘ JJL'J W” "'\-'J‘ ov-LJ‘JJ." a—TJ+.;'..:._L_'J.';,JJ JJ‘, ‘J‘J‘Lrt -(1 JL‘L‘LI‘ JLQOL‘J—I __ 1;...“ 1,. _. )Lf'oLyxtlLAJ... ,L-‘é. J\—,-' egg-AA. .H'Jou-‘fl; P‘r‘ : (awn—3 *— . .’ . \' .. g D. . o . I 0 w: bqu.'.‘ ‘J- é-J‘QJL‘J w. o. J 'J‘: ”QTH 9*” -1v .3 ‘l'Lt-Jd4é; rafivéS-M’Jhbfigzlwuwl’p.w u—J¢LJ‘G:S “J .9 glue—2" ‘LO'o'JP: iv]. 33.5%. ‘\ J-L— 4....4 \z—pf)"‘fi M... 4%.- " ' ”by: $2,131. “I .. c: 1 1 1 . ”wt-s -u..:..-y..l,u..c.;u1.- 3.11 1' 1 1 . vtr‘r‘u" 1’91. '- ‘9' 1' 1 1 e “kg“U‘ °"’ 1' .1 1 . “Wm->9": "°' 1 1 1 e J‘JL’Pru‘f‘IL -“' 1 1 1 . “ML-3vH-‘v-‘15r‘t -c 1 1 1 e . Jw-o‘IJ-HJ‘IVL - c 1' 1 1 o -"T:Hv‘~«~'-‘3é~=)5‘r‘- - c". - 1' 1 i 1 a Jar”: var‘eewf‘xh -; 1' 1 1 a 4““ ”L" “Wis?“ '3 Y' 1 1 e 0J'¢e°m"}sb"e '5 1' 1 1 a wash" ° ' ' 35‘1”"4‘ 1' 1 1 a git—iv a“ O‘JL—A' ou- ‘- 1 1 g . JQU o;‘JV.u-U ) ’11,}; ‘1’ «”4in .5512! qwa‘ak 05‘6‘ 4.9!: -(A ——.L:-a1-.,-» __' ,u. .31.. . - ‘0. an n ' ce-ir‘v ‘J-r'aa’ .«zw‘:""f'- r-‘-'" ' o . . ' | I. who”) ”fish‘s: .33.)".- JE-b :: '- :':’ o'.‘J' f": f) \:f:- 6.. b.- y 0 #:J juz.n gut-1:. “5.." A ull.’ ’5 J:L_'.¢ “31:, ..JJ ‘J a". ba-‘L-J—LS “3.2—J . . . .1 ‘ 1K 1 .gaiL-Jh-fh (Vi; LIL)" ;L!"LJ"'I **r r 4‘ .. . O o I I.‘ . . .‘ . ' '0 . ' .3. A .0. —-0 CI... ‘ ‘ _ . " J”) J so" 'U' . . O O ‘J‘ ..,- v u.r J v ’J/ .V r'Jer-r 247 ( J.’—}\—JL.—>\ L'V' 5.1.1!) __LJ-L.r1_._: _._ ..r . . . . ( .. . . .. ‘—~: wan“ rc‘ii-Lfairl .«w-o—Jr‘; u-vL/L ‘.—-.~5 J-‘fi-JH-e u; -U-" LS”: 9"" " -‘-' :9" - (‘43 :a-.-. _‘ .:‘l’.L‘.a.'\'Jq m‘ ( Jngl— shad, be); OJ‘J‘) gLfl—ghé -.1 ' D4695; \L‘Mdlp‘JJ-DJJIJJIJuL—‘J‘fl Jar—5 .JJslr‘l Qty: " Ja-‘JL—Jk... w-..._n C—w‘ ‘J‘ _" c: -‘-.' fire-x (II 53-; o";- @711 J'n-wf‘ix( fli'v-Wek 61" 9M 1 09”,” at . A}: "J JJ; 0' W J ‘1‘- .-‘.p. a.“ t-f-Ir' ‘1" ' 5" 242° -~.< ("an - -'" OLJL':"\.~‘-L-:: j—v‘e‘song—iJE-‘d-J—Hw u‘flv-‘Lqé-‘H‘e- -0T ' h—V‘J-‘Hrkfi‘ fibghuls‘aS-Mk «pi—o'aJG-ry'fifikrf‘g'w .1_v‘a u..1-.,L;,L,_'.1,<\,_S: ,JlLFWL; 4:12,..- uJflaJ‘uLLJs “-1 - rut—‘9 J1»;- d—b‘bi‘ Ute—4‘:- at: Jr. 248 d“ .. v—~+'--': " . -'~— I. a...’ ant—2.). ‘ r... .J:oJ'.: VJ;...,U'J:-.a..-.|JL _.L"'.,u,-.o.ai‘_r_.|,£..';f.{ 57‘ ‘—‘ L‘.‘ L_ ‘ b J ,.p t-IHJ JdéUaJ;fJu ..'.J‘\—-JL'_qu'J-\—'. d¢~: “J” L' 1.! 1 "P FLUL-JJ‘J'L‘4.5bnoJ—LJJJ1‘4—fifi‘I-J ""1 .I ”'1' ..-_...'¢‘_: “gr-ssh!) l: J:‘s‘_o-—; .vl. 'qJK- .vh‘..'~v‘..‘. ‘ Jl-tp' JJ ”UL—LhoJJ‘JuLauh—‘wulp‘d . -lea "7;. LJ'_-:...-'!_\_ abekt+ «J‘s $14.4.“ iv“ . 'J v. u _ . . I - c . ———___ h-u-ndo vy—‘b—‘(Jq‘JJJL—H—T . a - .N L . ( .. . J h—v- LDJJJ:L-.'_J_ht1: {‘7’“! L:._a¢——‘.JJJLH— Y |...-_.JL.=- LJL.’ -53-. u;,_-L'." NJ; 4J‘J‘_.-' ( J." JJLalana‘ s. —_ ' _L-_...,_‘.IJ-.-J‘.. LU‘-..’ ”1" .".'...1 1 'n‘ J ’8’ -1- 1 ’ " . _. .', J ‘.u -'~ " ' _JJ JJ'_ -¢ ‘... c.) ‘..' 4"" J. “9”wa \ J_..; .44 1‘. '-.‘.'|nt_-.a.‘l....u’ JL—“. 4...;JJ-14L U.L.Je...‘c._‘.w'-_v.‘;] ————<-U‘ __(- (\— OLjL-L-r.‘ \r1yj JJJLJJJJ:J'thdFjJU‘-tr J‘J—A zo—JI-hfi'J-é L4 \‘an;;T u-‘Jr‘ a PC“ a‘wL'J 45.-‘2‘- u M—Yf Jun—5b: '4‘)“ ask—“v :1"; ‘— a J‘Jc'fu’u' U L' ““r J ‘r‘ u‘);:‘-'5J'*JJ\-J‘rt-' ————— 0‘): L'JkuJ-z' ”rs‘tu-‘n'dcdj‘u ( 40...“; UN) A: JL-v 249 oJ‘JI J»; pug...) _________—- ‘i‘HMU\-,-JJO+-'~jwu-——w' D‘JJJJJ.JJL:J\,.~J‘J.~_.‘J.:‘LUJJ . A—‘LJ .92-bar'- ‘0'"; J5'—-,-0 J—V- ‘5-"-""J-'-"-$D c,_;!:.¢.i:lJ‘-*L|._3.I\~:3\:JJ_D J~——-:-'--u L4“, Juggwaunpyghhn I’d-Elks” m ‘ **“JL‘ b‘J‘J‘J" m},€;|u'» .4 “'55-'- 99. «39,-=5: 04‘; Juan .an 5‘ A H D‘ so . . - .. .. g‘;gH4.éh~fi,J\ W~6L¢ 5.3 A H O In '—_—l‘,’~.,4‘,.fdra.“( fir ' . -a";~"L~1‘J-a‘i.a:\-"~J|-U‘,( .. an A .1 D 30 J:J_-j‘tJuL-'\qI-‘A-‘JJJQL2\I‘LL| 0w,¢51:54’,-J>(J1&,,‘_- {1" 5'5"" ‘v‘sF'JO‘J):\—‘5~c'.$( a. r .J——:- "4 x - ’fJJ‘o—H'LUJ‘JJ'FJ-J'r( "' .m A - I) M . GL‘LL‘Jr‘f9LHLJL ‘3,,UY¢J,-y-=v\-\U>‘ Ov‘r"q.l‘,-( : - 'HfiLJLé-JLJLJ.‘JJ; 3;. A H D so ‘3,,L5¢7,.~0L) IJ¢er\__J‘F( 6 3A A N D so Q‘J,g\_—'—‘a.¢b¢Laaua|a( : c .519?»/,.. 4;“.143‘) SA A M n 5» J'r'9‘ht‘u-‘r‘rflz‘t t - Ufi-‘u-z --~.-.r«--'—-( a 9UJ..: L-‘LL’J‘? __-‘.-_- Lg: $5.13.. ( J JJZ/‘KJJ‘L-ififx" , ~J}¥,Jfirjibiw‘”u'—Ii 3 . . 4.54.345». ,LaJ‘..( J In 8% 250 . .r 1! Jr: °|JJ5\_ aga‘aw,,—_\ . 0J,(\bb:éiu1lgg—;ApL—= QLJl. «3";1- cJJ'L o:J'.a.'.'.,.-‘. KL! «aa.—«vi: 0“?!" ~-‘-—i JI‘J'V‘ ~09‘wuée-‘WLVHJ‘WJ J,_-',— «J‘JU '.‘J"' o:J' J". .fg‘. Ja “Ja if...) gkLL’é‘A-Ffbag.‘ . 4.1"... ' ~———' 'fq— ,1..- L’ \__‘ 'r... "U ' G—h‘uJai ' ‘ V ‘ l —- — — —- — JL-v‘Ju'l‘JJJb‘:5——-— .a;'__p.-."J,. A _ _ ._ _ _ uL-apju'fiqu'EUS— . In IQ; D — — — ._ _ ijJ‘JLr'Ub—y— .gJ|.a:u;J,L;f -— — — ,— _ uu‘gng~..'u:‘Jal£ QU‘JV'JJI flJdLa'qJ-S .sfi'J-pfiI—‘U ._ _ _ _ ._ u—uldi‘FYW‘séhnw \:.J.".'.‘..I....."' \:..'-4‘~"' ..L..',|.aJJl‘....;,_.4|d,.'a . .'.u t .. -( -—- c—— — — _— ‘l—l'”- I'M‘.w‘”:L. __— . a:$....- -".:.‘.'JJ:. . . . - r .. .r — _— _ _ _. v—J‘th—S:Ml J‘JJJL- __— .xJ'JuJ"'u}__-.:.Lgui,n.l:. — _. ._ _ _. 0,..— $ULJ'J‘an‘hJ-L'J— .x;._a . .. .r __ ,gl'JUJHLJJJ'wl. _— __ ._ _ _ ._ ...:J‘J.1Jl‘r.as“,'"wL£ _ _ ._ _ ._ . 40"er- ”22,131.— : oJU‘, oLJLe‘JLL'." . ”-9.3 .‘lel‘L..L.|JJ—ul_tcLJLW:,JEJ|uJJJ;.¢-JL~tqf'-‘,ko~¢¢,:k . J’sfdra J'a' JI‘OI‘jkl’ 1 J-U:u:..u‘.4le': thuhflng(_“ _: “but,” bJUka:‘.‘JJJ\:.BJa-: - .' U";“w‘v'a"“’-’W JL'1“LJ‘J . Duer'.a,a.L_-'L-| J. 251 : J-L‘: ,—‘j_-1ub,E—H __ lea‘Jfiig‘J-‘Jr‘ubbkl. o‘r-q)" J‘r’"tl"f§'*’i"‘05;:17-(“4-h7“ JL‘J' $.44 K'Jtfl—fi'fi‘: ‘,.'.L.: JV; er1~$w -‘="';'v4:'2uu~( —_—— xl‘x‘f‘bfiqu‘J43UJféU: avg-TMJUJE_‘Y Fuyehu|ufiwchL‘ 0,1... 44.- - 0153\gb1'14‘J-I’éub‘15’ - “in” Or-L—fiuHLJ-L-‘éir74H—w 0a,"... ~-:=L “-4—! t \_.h J's—.avba”. ”L; g” “loll; gl‘i'hll..~7JJ ",-‘a.L—: 9L}..— ' ‘Vl-J if" 4"” ”my, ~1c‘-:J‘a-‘r-' nun-5 emf-yew . If" I- t . .f“ l V i- \ ”aha o t o t r x i _ e.g.,: ‘ ( V V 1 I—ath o t r 1 \bci/‘JJ-Quulv—‘JUV—yufldfi o ( r t \ ubL-fiéhlkbU-‘QJL; - t v x \ ,_..»IJ o ( T ! 1 ,uvuu . t r ‘ 1 (#UJJJLW),S.JJ:'_ dab—35‘ 4L4” —* - ( v t ‘ uJJN-‘uyup‘J-J‘MJ-L. - 1 r t x ,t'JSJ..°..-5.~ ‘J_,' o ( v I } u‘aakLuL'J'aakh‘ 0 t r v 1 H:5'uu-_.I \r—‘D-f J ‘w—‘u _— a t r t \ uggu’JLefiakJou...‘ \ o ( x 'x \ u;~“_‘.'-...L,_‘JS .22: . of. . ‘ \’ ‘ ‘ )J-‘L‘A'JU‘I-b| r . . o ( r t \ u’h “Lou-MN. ' v o ( v ‘ i “422,.- u”) J'"JL a I r x \ .r'u' JV ‘3». J ‘r' 252 :éL-D' Q’Fk‘Lw‘w'F‘rk -u‘-e“—-’ L‘Q‘) *‘Ofilvs—e huh—bh-J‘JLFet/I’JI of; ""’-‘=L""(w\vb' L'LJ Ev. . . (Sq-Ls. \ I" - F— S. Y “J " ‘t- U‘ht- Y \r—L‘-t hulJ ( Y 1‘. \ . UUJl'np—L: oLJLaJI.L-1,#t_‘. -Ju{v "a“~ {:54ka g ‘5’, ”(15‘ «JJ J’sgufig ' “*Maxl.’ ( r f | - 3L1JW:JJOI-Jk.gg.ulo.yl:_) 1 «JD ~\:J.J',JLJL...‘ ,a-J'JJ...‘ 45—w at, Ewes. J5; 'dr'k‘p l F ( 1 . .- k-‘oLfi- aneu- ‘5'-L"o.,t_‘y E .wab‘JyugL; due; 94.: 4.. .Lfé: 1 \- 1‘ i - ‘—-‘o‘-J‘- 9.9:;- ‘JW'éh—u ‘V'C'U' u‘J'nr' JJ"'"J aunu! J-“J" ‘3" “a“: “:4 653' ' "f- -~'- '.-':- ca 5;: “3.5:“ coal—45.5!) “IL-4;. IJ'JJ‘th-y x ( " ‘ ‘ ' o___- ',-;._-'g,..L-:.-.‘I!_-..L.,. ( T ¥ l . L__' ULJnga-le—i a}'.l..‘.‘a.,t,,r, %JLNQ‘J: L'.’ 9.:J'J.‘ 3."... :3J ~-__' ' ‘ .014 11.2.1...” Jaw hLd.(u;byr'.a"-'JJJlgLJ\-\L‘J'I':|_ ,..~,.-....; x -- .. .,. .. .1". JAN.- tit-*(Jvi'éL-‘H'r .‘aJrr-r-H‘c ga:-,-.-ko.‘~.‘,,a+-"-‘ 01:1”: UM-“ _JJyUJJ‘JJ‘JJ' IJ‘._' .ngéJ. g‘aF‘JQZLgJJ ~-_..J‘;JTLL.' . \—-' | 4.9:: (‘V‘JlF‘ t “var-5(9- - l r x ‘ 4.5.24.1t4UJi....—5." . ( r t v HJ-‘J'JJ- v 0 K T 1 l iH—‘ghafJ'thl... v a ( r t 1 Gu1r;Jfr.J‘lJu'—-‘- c. . ‘ r x \ L_,_'.’J.'1J‘cal'~:_‘.. .:. . - l - I ( V ‘ \ JJ—.~+.JLDL.J:_ \ O ( Y Y \ aye—JJJ.~4an¢.J\:_ E vi ‘ 4 .r. \|.|»"i ‘[§»Ew “F ‘\w 1 1 1 1 “Val—‘51.- a 1 1 1 1 JLJ.‘UL,...:' a 1 1 1 1 H‘Jflgw3_ J . 1 1' 1 1 [£91.]..- J 1 1 1 1 L-‘Juo’;~—u- l 1 1 1 I J'JJJ1;~_~; i 1 1 1 1 “Jua1gL_,._‘, 1 1 1 1 whisk-g 1 1 1 1 -, $7,... ¢a.-.:,1..'1_.L H'J,fi.n~gfi.h,'é 0...: 1 1 _ 1 1 JB,J->,uL&ou&¢=—-i 1 1 1 1 .waqbi'ow- t 1 ' 1 1 1 ' 4.4.41-1 1 1 1 1 - «Nd 453.11. 1554f.” .21..-.5 . of o. ' ' JJchwar‘qb who, JJVULx‘, ngVLJJ 4210' JUL-'51:..1 1 oy—J’fiu.‘ é‘g'v‘v'.’ 94:.OJL1og—ob Jfiaoéé‘lfi J30 JJ‘JJ:.., .__.._:L .23.; ”'4... ULJ c...‘,.'r.: .03-L... U'.JL.JJ~:..,J- gun—uh} “'JJ . H)v':aJ,—'.o'u|afij'l,¢p|J-L; ‘o . - 03.01"”! Jr"("1.~*w‘lia“.~*4‘v1-UJ‘ Y JJ‘449JL; 9131.,4uumutns 1551—”- .L'-,.;' d." u ba-‘LJ L-,&J;‘U- ~- 1’ JJ‘aaqu; ' —— —- -o'-'v‘-’;'~’w\.’u'a'“a‘-".r"-'-:a weru— 1r 9&UJjL-ufi. ',,J‘-'J").I-'° JJ'SKJ‘ ”guy/'1»); 41., égaéé‘J’, 1.1.. .. '. ‘ . ‘ y’J\‘- . “~34: ‘0 a --v Jr’:f 3.4"} 'JJ‘JLv-‘T 1))" ,4“ ”erlnLJ|_‘_‘J’JJ.:,:’_':’;.'~_J,J";\Y_ : ? JJ‘J J2... J,‘o¢.&‘J~J 254 1 .91, ::,Jf.:~.i..'¢.°'.'_.u2.- 'L-J|U_ - fl‘A-c .. .-..JLu' ;.'_"_.:, :-.'..—'L_‘ 9151.. #0. {JJ J-‘Jl—"J:JJ -, U—v’u «(#:f l-.:._—'L..' OLJLh—L‘_ "r-‘J'l u—“ 1a..‘a‘-—-“v-5--u‘ ngffa.‘ 7"”. .f I- u—‘ 'BQLJLh.‘ k1- C u'w-nr ‘J'Jab a Lap—U— ' 41.- HJL.‘:JL‘-_-.;L "I 1 'JIJ.I‘L.A".~.'J.L'J‘J tau, \J" .1 3,. 9‘4: , op - ~ .. f .1.J|.1,, .ll.§'a*.q‘JJyr-L u‘J..I:J‘J C I. . .f _ I . "nu-q 1141.“— arm-r Uk-JW‘NIF: -I 15 — "_: JKL-ubjwir, nggL .--._,.:'.:,-.ua,L-L \LLI . Hurlilogfihéuab, u;;.c.1,~~,J—'1. .LVy... ~U‘-'-u-‘-‘- s13 &&&FJ“,J.~L‘JJU—tiba vD "L-r'" fl \i—JLL-Gu:‘\’&~L‘J;5-=5EJJ - . JJE-u-‘e’ - 5.; L...'..|J JAOJJ ¢_ - -)-(‘)'L~‘.‘;U'L‘ #‘IJJ-UJ‘_JJ‘ ”Lo-1L. 111'! 0'4,” 5U2EubIr-’- 1.- /- .. 1.6L: PEI-“a" 9'1““- wij-J»; 41.3.3.3 o‘r‘i—‘v- .. - ab:L':uUJ'v‘z'-~:JJ*'*" _ . u-I . . \— :.r aa.—.5. '53“ :w‘.——" '- 4 L—Vf Jul? over ..1.....,1La oJ‘Jijr .351- uJ:J 1. .u.1.-_-,1:,-.._,..- ,--_ - or” .‘adr‘JL'g'J: J “fr-‘7: JL’ JJV‘Jk‘J—F‘V" ‘ O ._ .1 awu'a'“ (av-":2- ~2- _ J,r_f1,_;1u'.;J-1..1g_. 61" JD OLJL Wub‘f’ _ . _ r 1 f JJJ:1.1;W,JLL.r-|”a. QJJ:\;( diLa .L'o-L'Jldé'fi'”. Tusk-41..» gnaw“ _ uJJ:\-'.:IJ'J5 Q:- 6. J . VJ"...L'J.,J gUt-w J’;;L- C W}, SL ‘1 ..m A 5‘ A ..,....,1....,:...- P» Jaws-~— 4)): UYM: My 9" ‘5". ‘ " ‘ K D s.) N D SD —J—v\-,u'-v‘J—;£;pb guy-b3, 6,03“... J - 4H) PiLJ:*--" 1‘ 0 SD FJLJ'Jrfigw-thogtcé"..- J. 3.15-an, ad‘- Jfl— ...oa'aA-h' . 95W?“ O'..L—J)K ‘0’ I.» d.—...3L; JJ:1JL 51".», 0.3.: L “54- ":L,J.§J a u‘)‘ "“1: h-w 5'53 L—“w—‘w' “u-x "f . 6"" ’ m; ‘3)"; (“W“) b~Ly ’gJ)( «~13 ‘1".b w'J‘Q a.— L I“. lfiJ—WU-Q'P,u—r'cb~‘v’)dua’k(u*-q-Fw’o u‘ m J) JJJUUU" 0': wimp-Zr "ob'fiub-boajak' :WGLVU: 4.9.2.3 n—b— x5 é‘lk— Lib} J»... uto-c au- rib-1'54- (mi-w Levi-M" W ..1.,|4 JL.....omJQ59-,._1 a...” a,.....u..:...-..z,.-y .-...J/ "'"J’u’ Jab-'u-é—Y -. . ...,,gL—.:J,a.a,:r-v on o. Jt(‘.~ ~)'Jd)’l.(dk..t~ {JW w) "10"pOJl1B' 6 Her-ob" ) “v‘ '45 17' (......1, Jig. ,....‘2,~ '13“) 1111 "—GUL d-T,a(wl~='1-v A'o'»: at» 1 - 0391'? 1- 5 1:39.15: 11 oLy-JJ'P A- ‘-°- Cal-91'.» *1.._..— 0915".“ Edna?» A1-———— YLQQLgJI}. 1.1-__— 256 51'4“)“ an: to} ‘1'“ an! “' 93L” ‘5‘)‘43‘9‘9'3 tau-4 . ~53“ ( u" ) «cs-1° JL- ,4 aggL‘S or ‘- ...—L30: r3 L!” LT-A Man 9,5,! tub. L—‘ofialup hula-r59 .S' r— U ”PJ'PQZ) ,.. _ «’- . . 956-319 L. 333'}: 3‘0“."u— ” JL— ,J burg: ' ' “—9- «tomb-:8: Hr" ) 65' JL')-' '8»: “H- a:- L ‘— ‘2’ (V (”’34) k ,1. ale-3|; 0 '&3L at”. 3,“! .,.,L:L. nap bu'én- ‘ v59 1“ 0L “—3”: LJgfifiJ .414: “Ni-‘- a— J‘-:" ”LJ‘JW LuvL-“J‘J‘mu' “ordfib‘rfi-‘vr'lfi and-‘- A .19-VS?" -\ . (“fafiifa‘b era-fl...“ £9.51" BU) awhtu,am§!fia 4::— _u:’.'_ 0),O‘¢(0 ..,¢. ,:..¢.....:,-, ,1,¢...:JI _— —— «ww- a»! m3»- . ...—— ...—__— ‘kflbefi‘b 9,-3.3... v _— _— .5115 Mob 4,- ,a- a, —- _— a):‘-‘-‘~'-‘-‘:- w‘u‘fiv 4ra-‘- _., -—-—— ---— 9““53 *rfi- C ———- ——-- ivéuTé‘n-J“JW-‘ Jrai- : ...—__— ..._..——- Wabjhama er ’0- C _— ..._—— a).- aue «Ln-2,5 a,- ,4— a _— ....—- ale”... an, atom}, a, ,4... 5 --—-'" ‘5)".945 4" fi- ; -—'-— éb—a:cv‘-'--'-Ir,aa- J ——-.-—"="?‘9-"5)"‘" 9 Ufl'ut'u‘ ‘J‘ J"- 9' Will! .55,uf¢. YP-JAhG-qerJ—s ___.. (aunt; um) ,.....I...=,.- a :5“ u'J-BL-JL» :ar adébréj'éf'Jfi “rt-'3- ‘ J‘f-V'Rfi-H (av-’w'i'e‘b ¢,.:..,L,.:I.s.,.!f°u1._s ) «kw =4»: 53‘4“; ‘L‘ .,;, “mm an «I» r‘ ”-4” «uwuuw- una- ... SL5 at“... 4,.- ,4.- y SlSW’u‘Lb-Dr ,4... c. flab-(9“w «11:5: 43, 13— 4' llllllls. lllllll N495} 4" )4- E __— ...‘leJisnL. J’- ’J- u‘. . ————-~b‘av':*"¢)'-‘-r-: :51" 4r )J- v _- afiada a,- ,a- J ...—__— o...) 0.», (“fl-‘0’... ‘3')“- J- ...h. 257 juau'éafr-Jlaauh| a, ,a... C 1.3-Qua} ”LBJ "r :4- i U).- ~Ae abut}: 4»- :4- 4 65‘,»- ..., «Wank-4r :4- 5 U)“ 1") Jr J-‘- J \r'b'ucv'é‘ 4:- fi- 5: QWuJ‘kG,J‘JiUb4 Jr)a_ ,- ~ “hr-n)": J» Jr:*- é *‘Pfiv1é‘5fllu'gfrfi- 9' HHIIIIII: :U2"'" ‘r:-‘- J — an) 041' "“75“ J:- fi— 1' —- wuu‘c—‘Ip- Luv M ‘r ,.._ 5 (.AJLI u,TJ&-'ISLJ ) {09%- a Hilllllllll u'L? (us-“JL-‘H ur'duu' mi 9‘“ av) arr-U. ‘- ‘-‘- U-H' . H)“ . —— r» —- ,..—L ~‘---' 612‘: (5" L-‘ d‘x'ék'fi'ni 2‘ VT~'-‘ %v‘nl“ ‘ H‘ —— r’l ._..t_-..-.t.,.-,., Jam... mu“. I, HIE“,- L1_-.1.-..=....t,,,fi 2:; —-o‘; ' .uL‘QQI-u', .01—s, an; J=L- ;-‘-« 0.9,, 5! LHJa—NJ— u aka-...!» fi—u- Ami" 9L- ,a L; I. ‘, quah “$35!. oh 5,...3." «DJL‘S'JH‘ ar-Jv 94;fi—' v ,'¢w_ c. 1.5.1.5 may: gnu-... ...;I,:..L_-,b~ mri‘érlf u, "'&j\— 6L“? ar—CA" IJ‘nLgOJ‘J' a} - __v ’J 1" — v r'*"e-r‘ - -=' vb: L-' L ,2.— (J-ufi- 41» or ‘4 325“" ar) an" H5 Hf; u'a—‘j'— 4L... or __U‘ Q’L‘! co} ‘)““ U'” " :‘f— V IJF§_ c. .‘ifv-Jl-abéd‘fi: 431m9‘5—i- J’ )6 fi—‘w ‘) L; M! 5‘ 4H“ ‘Yc Jaill— M...» {gr—Ch" , Jun-flea" or— v ,af— v (‘JV— :— 258 mw'l-A‘ L'- al-JU MUM-I i-o-v-r'y.‘ anar)‘ '3'!“ " *1: J»)‘- etc-a.- 0: --'~" " u)0a‘°'or- v ’6’.- v (L5H- £- gpLafi-‘m 4.3—o “$40,155,, LJ-ujt- ale.) DI 9'45“ \f. hike-3‘4 Jam—Q “...; 6,-.3!‘ “1‘59.“ 9;- v . :‘.r-' f: * ”JO-0‘ :— e. ..f ...—‘1. gig. .,,,,’ ....t.,..;. abjec.” ‘,,,.=.vs,s....t,,.'m-‘ ¢ ’44: 0.9: a;- .,=~L U WWwfi‘fib: ”.mfi-‘JDMJ 4.1,» drug-59*...” “and, 9.3 .a ...-at. Hvbw-sn 5.5-ow,“ u 469?»; -o «La-9" "m" . “4:4,. ,3... H .99. 't...» u “' W‘ 35' uh '53 $1 A N D a) 4'6?!- Mr: :9} ‘2'“ march “39790 -\ 6 ~°—-‘ .3,qu Jfl- a» J' «fash- 3“ ‘ N 0 SD OIL-536.3%!” *3va 6"?” 3‘3!- affirm; 93¢”) “b‘ “r 03‘ h-‘v' ab")! an) 9'“ ' '“Jt- “we or u-‘vb Gut): “U“:- ‘3 SA A u a 5:: H36” “b0‘ “‘2': fi’v- 6:":9-4 v u-U- 9+ ¢-—-'-'J"2'~ J8.“- aL-e- er JL—‘ok, up... 1: ..,::. ”nu-.3 a, "rut-‘5 no; 9‘4' or u-‘~‘-= . ., , e. " 5A A N n so --‘L-o-e an” : any ‘:‘°‘ we” at w-‘P-‘A ‘ a”... «5".‘5 4.5,...“ “big-3"..." .J'u'ag'. 5;. A u D so HJ3L-J‘OLJL-Jv~o‘-J‘-voedrua'dfi -‘--‘ a‘x' 9'!" 4n» r' Jbu‘ér‘w 15“ * U 0 SD JUJ'D‘*°:- dint-'5 co) 9"" a” -Yb . ii. hdj‘va any} .35": 259 SA A N D so )L‘(J" 0"“914 ”(£5L ”Lt-I- U)’ —T‘ i-{v- ~JJ'L1 “fir/,Uj’u' SA A N O . 5° u-“- J— 'A‘ «uu’c‘o; u'a‘ a, —vr é-‘Jé'T~ "1L bale—1 ‘°" ‘ ” 9 so ‘—-'u*‘-~$s"- gum— «4 mm b' LOT‘V “Lad! 5A A N D so ‘;!:',ar data” 103, J‘E'u-«u' 2—1" ‘rv-‘o (55'5“- :‘4-‘55‘ "-U ugh! a; . I . 0: fl wwwvr'w‘ . ‘; “AIL-N114," 94"“- 3’0 n N 9 $0 ‘2'“ :9; O‘MK‘ L29": J‘ifi‘é-«a -T-.\ {-4.3 fjvtqlb _, all-75‘ "L; .5J'),L;‘ CD: ,1 u—«Jv— pwnuy‘ c—e b Gael-s LAP-f 41".an SH /1' N D SD .15 ”(4.3-L. "‘43)- :9-‘(2 J13“ ' ~—T ‘ 56.41.; .sLJ,‘A._..,:.,a ”'VBL'.“ oh?“ d ' “tug" ..r‘t‘fu‘w )31'4'.'1}:“;‘v-‘.‘ -“;-n‘~5 .‘x—w Lr-‘vjr‘ wk" ~ 3‘ V545 r‘ ,st‘; r:- .-.._.: $9 k N D SD 4——.-L.~~=vb“¥‘ «ml—‘5')“ Loud-=5 cr—YY w new 423‘ dummy «(c3992 ”Ung 0!;- ..\ 5” A N D SD L51 ‘_._L".: ..um. gh‘fln‘ ”5.051.. 4L.» 1')” —Y A CL“ :9 Lg" LQ‘JL‘ JJ.“ o‘jxu-(t—‘lx ‘( ' 91.1.“... Sfi H‘ N 9 SD 9., ..;I.._,..;L-.,..‘,;._,,m.)l_,l D,_H 5D '1. - . . . . JJ‘J O‘,-rL-( d;_5l—<¢>K_nc.n,).\ SD 'Mijwzt7k'a )J “(AJJL-JLR 0’4. 1, . . . 1. _ n(. . J)‘Ju‘)£‘-‘(JJ£"1 '5‘ - 1 5...§,¢-3 a: “by-5n " '. rs J..." .... -,- .dJ-ii-J-sc ~\1,..°‘_.,-6 ,;er ~6r. oM-Gb 9.5}, -56 AL] Ju>lcéd OW -{oz . 41.—:22-65 JyU—é-q o \l q “:1;r-"4¢ éjq-cgca-ql. Our-:5 “7° 2'55!- '3 ~$‘_;;;y-aa Cfifl‘ a-Eb wag F609 CL J)! -96 {:7- ‘§-9b Jlfr‘JJé-o9c <§;499N;J J 8,5- 4; Lfiybww‘lal Lint. .-F‘“. UfiofiC—Q’. A 5=u' ub~ 0‘2," “LwoL-‘J” OL-U ~’ 6.3”” WM} T9,. our: JJHOKJrL LI (J‘Yajfia ”.311...” OI JI 45 crash: ‘ugjrcul 43.1.555- /..\J.;’ Q‘JJJL“) ‘59:..191... 4“:qu 270 h _.___ ._ .Jt._-. - ‘ . § \ ...- .. _ (BJU LL) “4:554, """""""" c“): Mu/IZI: \_ u—JL‘: «... -‘A._...é “Lag...” lg C...LCA.¢._>L..1 '21 all—kt.» JD..C~:3~;:‘)UTAL UJJJT) {L W QJNJO«&L¢1IJJJQL%I O-L‘Lr-Ej-rf hwrwI’AgIlJ—zwa L‘JLTGJH‘: )‘JL" ‘0 tJ“"'""*LJOL~J-" LIL-“'IJJL‘J'J:L:< Ct‘f'fiuflJJ‘TJLée-IL'JJL‘ “tr; ’k—r__..I-L..01L5JI545_.L~4_:6NI.,J_.‘ILQ.J'I45__5J r. L f. JJbOEJIO...‘ «......I )IMJFOJIJ C'-\.I1c.I;.L..hg:YI,L_aJASJ}.4JIJU...Z)J.—L_.Jz~.t_..rl.>JI65LJWLAS 455‘... 1 \yy'o J51} 1VUL¥(§;J;.J>J.H4I'IJ dJJ)I—L:4J.ELJIJU-)JTC.JULASJ . ,JJyJL “.4544 271 BIBLIOGRAPHY Amirahmadi, Hooshang. ( 1990) Revolution and Economic Transition The Iranian Experience. State University of New York press. Anderson, E.Ralph & Carter, E-Irl. (1974) Human Behavior in the Social Environment. Aldine publishing company Chicago. Anderson, E.Ralph & Carter, E-Irl. (1978) Human Behavior in the Social Environment. Aldine publishing company Chicago Axinn, G.H. (1978) New Strategies for Rural Development East Lansing MI: Rural Life Associates. Axinn, G.H. & Thorat, S. (1972) Modernizing World Agriculture- A Comparative Study of Agricultural Extension Education System. New york: Prager. Axinn, G. H. (1988) Guide to Approaches to Agricultural Extension. Rome: Food & Agricultural Organization of the United Nation (FAO). Babbie, E. (1983) The Practice of Social Research. (3rd ed). Belmont, Ca: Wadswarth Publication Co. Bhola, H. S and Alis, R .J . (1973) Research in Diffusion of Educational Innovations. Report with an agenda. Bloomington, school. Bateson, N. (1984) Data Construction in Social Surveys- Contemporary Social Research Series. London: George Allen and Unwin Publ, Ltd. Blackburn, Donald. J. (1984) Extension Handbook. University of Guelph, Canada. Bonine, E. Michael & Keddle Nikki. ( 1981) Continuity and Change in Modern Iran. State Univer51ty of New York Press Albany Borg, W. R, and . Gall, M. D . ( 1983) Educational ‘ Research. and Introduction (4th ed.) New York: Longman. 272 Brown, Lawrence. A. (1981) Innovation Diffusion: A new Perspective. New York: Methuen. Daniel benor, james Q. Harrison ,and Michale Baxter. (1977) Agricultural Extension: Training and Visit System. Washington, D.C. Difranco, Joseph. ( 1966) Some Aspects Of Extension Work. Volume II. Inter American Institute of Agricultural Sciences of the O.A.S. Turrialba, Coasta Rica. Derek, Rowntree. (1981) Statistics Without Tears. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. Esfahani, Hadis. (1977) Agricultural policy and performance in Iran. The post revolutionary experience. The Middle East Journal. volNo 31. N04. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. (1976) Training for agricultural development. Rome. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. (1976) Global Consultation on Agricultural Extension. Rome. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. (1974) Extension Teaching Methods. Rome. Glass, V. Gene & Hopkins, D. Kenneth. (1984) Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology. Prentice- Hall, Inc., Englewood cliffs, New Jersey 07632. Hakimian, Hassan. (1988) The impact of the 1970 5’ Oil Boom on Iranian Agriculture. The Journal of Peasant Studies. Hicks, H. G. (1972) The Management of Organizations: a Systems and Human Approach . New York: McGrow-Hill Book Co. Houle, O. Cyril. (1972) The Design of Education . Jossey. Bass-Inc. Houle, O. Cyril. ( 1986)‘ The Design of Education . Jossey Bass-Inc. 273 Irvany, Hoshang 1364. (1986) Proportion of Extension Agents to Farmers in East Hammon Province in Blochestan Iran. Second National Seminar on Extension Education. Ministry of Agriculture. Islamic Republic of Iran. 1986. Jones, E. Gwyn. ( 1986) Investing in Rural Extension: Strategies and Goals. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London and New York. Karami, Ezatollah. ( 1987) The Rural Services Centers in Iran: A Formative Evaluation. Kayhan International. (DEC, 12) Lamble, Wayne. (1984) Diffusion and Adoption of Innovations. In Blackburn, Donald J. (Eds.), Extension Handbook. University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Lionberger, Herbet F. and Gwin Paul H. (1982) Communication Strategies: A Guide for Agricultural Change Agents. Danville, IL: The Interstate Printer. and publishers, inc. Loomis, C. p. (1960 ) Social system. New York: Van Nostrand. Reinhold. Loomis, C. p., & Beegle, J. A. (1950) Rural Social Systems. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Loomis, C. p., & Beegle, J.A. (1957) Rural social systems. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Loomis, C.p., & Loomis, Z. K. (1965) Modern social theories. Newyouk: Van Nostrand-Reinhold. Lowell N, Lewis. ( 1982) The Collaborative Role of Research and Extension. California Agriculture, March and April 12. Malak Mohamady, E. (1988) Extension Education . Tehran Iran Crenter for University publication. Mansory, Masoud. 1363 (1984) Integration of Technology and Credit in Iranian Rural Agriculture . Second National Seminar on Extension Education Ministry of Agriculture. Islamic Republic of Iran. Marriam, B. and Simpson, L. Edwin. ( 1989) A gpide to Research for Educators and Transfers of Adults. 274 Mellor, W. John. ( 1988) Agricultural Development in the Third World. The Food, Development,Foreign Assistance, and Trade. Nexus International Food Policy, Research Institute. Ministry of Finnanc . (1985) Census of Islamic Republic of Iran. Ministry Finance Islamic Republic of Iran Minot, Nicholes. ( 1984) Linkages Between Agricultural Research and Extension in Developing Countries, Unpublished paper, Agricultural Economics Department, Michigan State University. Mojtahedi, Ahmad and Esfahani, Hadis. ( 1982) Agricultural policy and Performance in Iran: The post revolutionary' experience: The Middle East journa . vol No. 31. No. 4. Morris, Joan M. and Johanson Doyle Paul. (1985) Thinking Machines and Creativity. The Journal Of Creative Behavior. Volume 19 Number 4. Mostagani, Mohammad Hossain. (1980) Way of Bringing People for Cooperation. Ministry of Trade, Central Cooperative of Iran. Najafy, Yadullah. 1362 (1983) Planning a Committee for Helping Extension. First National seminar on Extension Education. Ministry of Agriculture. Islamic Republic of Iran. Nikkir, Keddie and Eric Hooglund. (1986) The Iranian Revolution and The Islamic Republic. Syracuse University Press. (NPAC), Michigan State University. (1955) National Project in Agricultural Communication. Wells Hall. Michigan State University (NPAC october 1955 Volume 1 No 5) Nyrop, Rechard. F. ( 1987) Iran a Country Study The American University, Washington D.C. Parsons, T. (1964) The Social System. The free press of Glencoe. New York: collier- Macmillan, LTD. Rajabian, Mahmoud. 1364 (1985) The Roal of politic in effective Agricultural Extension Program. Second Extension Seminar in Agricultural Extension. Ministry of Agriculture Extension Department. Tehran, Iran. 275 Ratch Ford, C. B. (1958) Western Reagin Seminar pf Extension Supervision. University of. Rezvanfar, Ahmad. 1366 (1988). Rural Development, Extension EDucation. Agent. Fourth Extension seminar. Oromieah College of Agriculture 1366(1988). Islamic Republic of Iran. Rice, E .B. (1971) Extension in the Andes: An Evaluation of Official Use Assistance to Agricultural Extension Services in Central and South Amepica. AID Evaluation paper no. 3, Washington D.C. Rivera, M. William & pletsch. H. Doglas. ( 1988) Foundation and Emergency practices in Extensions Black Burn, D.J. (Ed). Comparative Agricultural Extension systems: Guelph ontario. Rivera, M. William & Schram,G, Susan. ( 1987) Agricultural Extension World Wide: Issues. Practices and Emerging Priorities. Groom Helm, London. New York. Sydney. Roling, Niels. ( 1987) Extension Science, Information Systems in Agricultural Development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rogers, Everett M. ( 1983) Diffusion of Innovation. New yorK: Free Press. Rogers, Everett M. (1976) Communication Development: Critical perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Rogers, E.M. ( 1983) Diffusion of Innovation 3rd Ed. New York, The Free Press, Macmillan Publishing Co. Rogers, E. M. and F. F. Shoemaker (1971) Communication of Innovation. Colier Macmillan Publishers, London. Rutton, W. V and Hayami, Y. (1973). Technology Transfer and Agricultural Development. Technology and Culture. 14:2 (april 1973) v.120. Sivaraman, B. (1987) Promoting Rural Employment Through Agricultural Development. Indian Farming. Vol. 28, New Delhi. Sood, R. C. (1978). Effective Agricultural Extension for Rural Development. Indian Farming. Vol. 28, New Delhi, Oct/Nov. 276 Schultz, T. W. 1. (1964) Transforming Traditional Agriculture. Yale University press. Swanson, E. Burton. (1990) Report of the Global Consultation on Agricultural Extension. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Swanson, E. Burton. (1984) Agricultural Extension: A ggference Manual. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations Rome. Stavis, B. (1979) Agricultural Extension for Small Farmers. MSU Rural Development Series. East Lansing Michigan. Tachouamo, R. Issace. (1987) Perception by farmers, Extension Agents and Researchers of linkages Among and Between Organizations in the Development and Dissemination of Agricultural Organization in Cameroon. Unpublished Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1987. Turabian, Kate L. (1973) A Manual For Writers of Term Papers, Thesis, and Dissertations (4th Ed.) The University of Chicago Press. UNDP, (1991) Agricultural Extension Programme Advisory Note . United Nations Development Programme, New York. UNDP, (United Nations Development Programme). (1991) Agricultural Extension. Technical Advisory Division, Bureau for Programme policy and Evaluation. UNDP New York. United State Department of Agriculture. (1968) Report of the Joint USDA-NASULGC Study Committee on Cooperative Extension. A people and a Spirit. Colorado State University. Vanden Ban, A. W & Hawkins, S. (1988) Introduction to Extension Education. Burnt M111(Essex), Logman Vanden Ban, A. W & Hawkins, S. (1985) .Agricultural Extension. Longman scientiflc and Technology. John Willy & sons,inc,New york. Vicker, Ray. (1977) Growing Pains. Despite its Oil Money, Iran' 5 Economy Suffers From Many shortages. The Wall Street Journal. Vol XCVI NO 70. 277 Westemarck, Harri. (1987) An Evaluation of the Extension, Motive Attitude and Rule in Advisory Work in Four Nordic Countries. Acta Agric Scanf. 37: 251-227. World Bank Washington, D.C. U. S.A. Agricultural Research and Extension. ( 1985) An Evaluation of the World Bank's Experience. World Bank, Washington, D.C., U.S.A Yaghmaie, Farhad et a1. (1989) "Understanding Khorrassan Agricultural Environment". Ghandom. First Extension Bulletin of Khorrassan Agricultural. Extension Department (1386)1989 Agricultural Extension Department Mashhad Iran Zaltman, G, & Duncan, R. (1977) Strategies for Planned Change. New York: John Willey and sons. Zamanipour, Assadollah. ( 1981) A Study of Recommendations for Agricultural Education and Extension in Iran, 1950-1975. Unpublished Dissertation, Michigan State University. ... . ‘ . x......... . . 4 . .1. . .',~_§~ 4 {ELEV ‘JJJ.’ '