t .5. . an“...

1..
Ramon
.. .. .
a. .w
u fflmmflg
, fifiarfl. ..
n In. ‘E

.:
23.". ,i _ .
ufithhaz
3:5. .
m 4.11. n:
1.13.3.4.“ 1
.13”... awhxfl .
“Mafia—«Mn .5
“a a. t. A»
2:3...«i5vnfl.
rfic..\..., .
. unfit-ho e A .
unanvucé:

Lif‘. .7:

 

 

"Wuhan”?

r a.
‘13.].‘3‘ ‘17.:

0.... 1.7....2... .A . y t
.. 5:94:11.)

:1;
L 3:215... u ?. 9.}...133
1H9:).$.211'..&tlhhnill..fl:

 

mefi

3
1005

SHOQVOQI

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

AN EXAMINATION OF THE REGIONAL ADVISORY
COUNCILS OF THE NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL
RESEARCH INSTITUTE (INIA) OF URUGUAY:

A CASE STUDY OF “INIA LA ESTANZUELA” RESEARCH
STATION

presented by
ERNESTO RESTAINO GALUP

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

M. 8. degree in AGRICULTURAL AND
EXTENSION EDUCATION

Major Professor’s Signature

H/q/03

Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/ClRC/DaIeDue.p65-p.15

An Examination of the Regional Advisory Councils of the
National Agricultural Research Institute (INIA) of Uruguay:
A Case Study of “INIA La Estanzuela” Research Station

By

Ernesto Restaino Galup

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agriculture Natural Resources
Education and Communication Systems

2003

ABSTRACT

An Examination of the Regional Advisory Councils of the National
Agricultural Research Institute (INIA) of Uruguay:
A Case Study of “INIA La Estanzuela” Research Station

By

Ernesto Restaino Galup

The National Agricultural Research Institute (INIA) is a public non-
governmental, agricultural research institution located in Uruguay. The Law
creating INIA specifies the installation of Regional Advisory Councils (RAC) as a
participatory and collaborative mechanism to involve stakeholders in the planning
and prioritization of agriculture research agenga. RAC members represent
farmers, and agricultural organizations. This study was conducted to assess the
perception of RAC members and research staff as to their participation in this
system. This study followed a combination of mail survey and personal interviews
to ascertain the perceptions of RAC members and research staff about RAC
members’ selection, representation, linkages, major perceived barriers, major
areas of responsibilities, and relevance of the councils. Findings indicate that the
RAC are relevant instruments in guiding research and in providing linkages. A
large representation of major stakeholders was reported. Lack of operational
guidelines prior to joining the councils, broad meeting objectives, lack of prior
knowledge of meeting purposes, and lack of timely communication were reported
as major procedural barriers. Confusion regarding membership status,
involvement of young people, and length of services of council members in the

various functions was also reported as weaknesses.

DEDICATION

To my parents, for their life of hard work and sacrifice
to support my education.
To my wife Daniela, for her love, unconditional support, encouragement,
and for sharing her life with me.
To my loving, creative and little crazy children, Silvina and Joaquin, for being

my source of energy and constant motivation.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My deep appreciation and thanks are expresed to Dr. Murari Suvedi, who
served as my academic advisor, for his guidance and valuable teaching.

Many thanks are extended to Dr. Manuel Chavez and Dr. Frank Brewer,
members of my committee, for their support and constructive suggestions.

I owe a deep gratitude to Dr. Joe Levine, for his friendship, guidance,
valuable encouragement, and empowerment. Thanks, Joe!

Many thanks are expressed to all the farmers, stakeholders and INIA
researchers that participated in this study; to Ms. Benedetto, Mr. Vergara, Pam
Bartholomew, and Linda Swain for their important help in this study.

I wish to thank to my organization, lNlA, for this opportunity of professional
development, permitted by the valuable financial support of lNlA/IDB project.

Special thanks are extended to the Tinker Field Research Grant of the
Latin American and Caribbean Studies for granting this study the travel cost to
conduct the data collection in Uruguay.

My gratitude is extended to the Office of the Vice President for Research
and Graduate Studies and to the Graduate School, for awarding this research
with the Research Enhancement Award.

Finally, my deepest gratitude is extended to Dr. Israel Cuéllar, Director of
the Julian Samora Research Institute, for providing me with an instrumental and
very timely assistantship allowing the conclusion of my Master of Science

degree, and providing me also with a powerful, and rich work experience.

Table of Content

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter I .................................................. 1
Introduction - _ 1
1.1 Overview of Uruguay .......................................................................... 3
1.2 The National Agricultural Research Institute (INIA) ............................. 6
1.3 The Regional Advisory Councils ......................................................... 7
1.4 Problem Background .......................................................................... 9
1.5 Problem Statement ........................................................................... 11
1.6 Research Questions ......................................................................... 12
1.7 Importance of the Study .................................................................... 13
1.8 Definition of Terms ............................................................................ 14

Chapter II ............ 16
Literature Review .............................. 16
2.1 Agricultural Sector of Uruguay .......................................................... 16
2.2 The Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR) ............................ 22

a) History ......................................................................................... 24
b) The present .................................................................................. 25
2.3 The National Agricultural Research Institute (INIA) ........................... 37
a) Institutional background .............................................................. 37
b) The National Agricultural Research Institute creation ................... 38
c) INIA structure and internal organization ....................................... 39
2.4 INIA La Estanzuela Research Station of INIA ................................... 45
2.5 The Regional Advisory Councils of INIA ............................................ 49
2.6 The Use of Advisory Councils in Agriculture ...................................... 52
a) Major functions of the advisory councils in agriculture .................. 56
b) Membership and representations at the advisory councils ........... 57
0) Advisory council functioning ......................................................... 58
2.7 Stakeholder Participation in Agricultural Research ............................ 61
2.8 The Concept of Clientele ................................................................... 62
2.9 Team and Group Dynamics .............................................................. 63

Chapter III 65
Methodology 65
3.1 Research Design .............................................................................. 66
3.2 Research Questions ......................................................................... 67

 

 

 

3.3 Population and Sample ..................................................................... 68
3.4 Instrumentation ................................................................................. 69
a) Questionnaire development ......................................................... 69
b) Survey implementation ................................................................. 74
c) Semi-structured interviews ........................................................... 77
3.5 Data Analysis .................................................................................... 78
3.6 Limitations of the Study ..................................................................... 80
Chapter IV .................................. 81
Results 81
4.1 Regional Advisory Councils Members’ Profiles ................................. 83
a) Age .............................................................................................. 84
b) Gender ......................................................................................... 84
c) Major occupation .......................................................................... 85
d) Formal educational level .............................................................. 86
e) Living location .............................................................................. 86
f) Current membership status .......................................................... 87
9) Major reason for no longer participating in the RAC or WG .......... 88
h) Year when members start participating ........................................ 89
i) Major commodity production of members .................................... 91
4.2 INIA La Estanzuela Research Staff Profile ........................................ 92
a) Age .............................................................................................. 93
b) Gender ......................................................................................... 93
c) Graduate degree .......................................................................... 94
d) Participation at the RAC /WG meetings ...................................... 95
4.3 Councils Member Selection .............................................................. 95
a) Selection process ......................................................................... 95
b) Members suggestions regarding selection process ...................... 97
4.4 Linkages with Farmer Organizations ................................................. 98
a) RAC and WG member’s actual representation ............................. 99
b) lNlA’s research staff perception about members
representation ................................................................................... 99
c) RAC / WG member perception about representation ................. 100
cl) Differences in the perceived opinion between RAC and WG ...... 102
9) Differences in the perceived idea by membership status ............ 103
4.5 Perception Regarding Procedures Used with the Councils ............. 104

vi

4.6

4.7

4.8
4.9

4.10
4.11
4.12

4.13

4.14
4.15

a) Invitation process ....................................................................... 104

b) Opinion about information before attending the meetings .......... 105
c) Opinion about satisfaction with INIA support .............................. 107
d) Opinion about satisfaction with the procedures used during the

meetings ................................................................................... 109
9) Major weakness in meetings ...................................................... 110

Council Members Opinion about Perceived Barriers, Meeting

Interaction and Received Guidelines ........................................ 112
a) Instructions and guidelines for meetings .................................... 112
b) Interaction between RAC/WG members and research staff ....... 113
c) Opinion about time and growth in technical expertise ................ 115
d) Major barriers ............................................................................. 115
INIA Research Staff Opinion about Perceived Parriers, Meeting
Interaction and Received Guidelines .............................................. 117
a) Instructions and guidelines for meetings .................................... 117
b) Interaction between RACNVG and Research staff ...................... 118
c) Opinion about amount of time to express ideas during

meetings ................................................................................... 119
d) Major barriers ............................................................................. 120
Comparison of Perceived Opinions, Council Members vs. INIA ...... 120
Perception about Relevance of the RAC/WG .................................. 122
a) Responsibilities of the RAC councils .......................................... 122
b) Responsibilities of the WG councils ........................................... 125
c) Importance of RAC/WG opinion for INIA .................................... 128
Contribution as a RACNVG Member for Selected Areas. ................ 129
Familiarity with the System Before Participation .............................. 130
Time and Frequency of Meetings Suggested .................................. 131
a) Appropriated months of the year ................................................ 132
b) Frequency of meetings ............................................................... 133
Invitation Process ............................................................................ 135
a) RACNVG members .................................................................... 135
b) lNlA’s internal convocation process ........................................... 136
c) Timing and follow-up for RAC/WG invitation .............................. 137
Importance of Established Norms for the RAC/WG ......................... 139
Analysis of Others Comments ......................................................... 141

vii

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER V. ........ - - - - - - ................................................... 146
Summary, Conclusions and Implications .............................................. 146
5.1 Summary ........................................................................................ 146
5.2 Conclusion and Implications ........................................................... 148
a) Advisory Council members’ profile ............................................. 149
b) Council members’ selection process and linkages with major
farmer/agricultural organizations. ................................................... 150
c) Perceptions regarding the methodology/procedures used by INIA
with the advisory councils. ............................................................. 151
- d) Major barriers affecting the advisory councils performance ........ 154
e) Areas of concern of the advisory councils work .......................... 155
f) Relevance of the advisory councils opinions .............................. 156
9) General reflections ..................................................................... 157
5.3 Recommendation for Future Research ........................................... 159
Appendix A - - .............................................. 161
Sample Population and Instruments ................................................ 161
Appendix B ...... - - ................................................. 162
UCRIHS Approval ........................................................................... 162
Appendix C ............................................................................. 166
Pre-Ietter RAC and WG members ................................................... 166
Pre-Ietter INIA Research Staff ......................................................... 167
Cover Letter RACNVG members ...... - ............................................... 168
Cover Letter INIA Research Staff .................................................... 169
First Follow Up Reminder ................................................................ 170
Replacement Letter Follow Up ........................................................ 171
Verbal Consent Form for Interviews ................................................ 172
Interviews Questions ....................................................................... 173
RAC and WG survey QuestionnairelNlA Research Staff Survey
Questionnaire ................................................................................. 1 74
INIA Research Staff Survey Questionnaire ..................................... 184
Appendix D ............ 192
Research question correspondence between samples populations 192
Appendix E ................ 193
Major farmer organizations and agricultural institutions reported ..... 193
Group of Farmers ............................................................................ 193
Appendix F...-.-. ----- - - - ............................ 194
Late and earlier respondents comparison ....................................... 194
Bibliography ...................... 203

viii

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Products and percentage of contribution of the Uruguayan total

exports for year 2000 ................................................................................. 18
Table 2.2 Number of farms and other demographic indicators. .................................... 19
Table 2.3 Use of agricultural land: Year 2000 ............................................................... 20
Table 2.4 Major cereal crops indicators. ....................................................................... 21
Table 2.5 Research areas and programs of INIA .......................................................... 42
Table 3.1 Five point Likert-type scale used in the study ................................................ 79
Table 4.1 RAC/WG member age ................................................................................. 84
Table 4.2 RACNVG gender member’s distribution (N=81) ............................................ 84
Table 4.3 Current occupation of respondents (N=81) ................................................... 85
Table 4.4 Member’s formal educational level (N=81) .................................................... 86
Table 4.5 RAC/WG member living location (N=80) ....................................................... 87
Table 4.6 Major reason for no longer participate at the councils (N=38) ....................... 89
Table 4.7 Year when members start participating (N=66) ............................................. 90
Table 4.8 Research staff age (N=26) ........................................................................... 93
Table 4.9 Research staff gender (N=26) ...................................................................... 93
Table 4.10 Research staff academic degree (N=26) ...................................................... 94
Table 4.11 How many times research staff participated at the RAC or WG?

(N=26) ....................................................................................................... 95
Table 4.12 How RAC and WG council members where selected? (N=80) ..................... 96
Table 4.13 What is your representation status? (N=67) .................................................. 99
Table 4.14 lNlA’s research staff perception about RAC/ WG membership status

(N=25) ....................................................................................................... 100
Table 4.15 RAC / WG member’s perception regarding representation (N=81).

Frequencies and Percentages. .................................................................. 101
Table 4.16 t-test for means differences between WG members and RACNVG

members for ideas about representation of principal customer

segments ................................................................................................... 102
Table 4.17 Differences in perceptions by RACNVG membership status

(ANOVA) ................................................................................................... 103
Table 4.18 RAC member’ satisfaction with invitation process ......................................... 105
Table 4.19 Test of differences for satisfaction with invitation process (RAC vs.

WG) ........................................................................................................... 105
Table 4.20 RAC knowledge of meeting objective/purpose (N=80) .................................. 106
Table 4.21 INIA research staff knowledge of meeting objective/purpose. ....................... 107

ix

Table 4.22

Table 4.23

Table 4.24

Table 4.25

Table 4.26

Table 4.27
Table 4.28
Table 4.29

Table 4.30

Table 4.31

Table 4.32

Table 4.33

Table 4.34

Table 4.35

Table 4.36
Table 4.37

Table 4.38

Table 4.39

Table 4.40
Table 4.41

Table 4.42

Table 4.43

Test of differences (ANOVA) for knowledge of meeting

obkective/purpose (RAC, WG and INIA research staff). ............................ 107
Satisfaction with INIA support before, during, and after meetings

(frequency and percentages) ..................................................................... 108
Test of differences (t-test) for satisfaction before, during and after

meetings (RAC/WG vs. WG) ..................................................................... 109
Test of differences (ANOVA) for satisfaction with the

process/structure of meetings by membership status. ............................... 110
RAC/WG perception about received guidelines and previous

information to work in the councils ............................................................. 113
RAC/WG member perceived opinion about interaction ................................. 114
Time availability during meetings and growth in technical expertise .............. 115
INIA’s Research staff opinion regarding guidelines and information

previous meetings. .................................................................................... 118
INIA’s research staff opinion regarding opinion and interaction with

RACNVG members .................................................................................... 119
Opinion about time availability during meetings. ........................................... 120

Test of differences (t-test) between RAC/WG and INIA for received

guidelines, information prior meetings, interaction, and time during

meetings .................................................................................................... 121
Test of differences (t-test) for RACNVG members and INIA research

staff regarding major areas of responsibility for RAC councils ................... 123
Test of differences (t-test) for RAC/WG members and INIA research

staff regarding major areas of responsibility for WG councils .................... 126
Test of differences (t-test) for perceived importance of RAC opinions

for INIA ...................................................................................................... 129
Test of differences (t-test) for RAC member’s contribution. .......................... 130
Test of differences (t-test) for familiarity with the system (RAC vs.

INIA research staff). .................................................................................. 131
How often should the RAC meetings be held according to RACNVG

members? ................................................................................................. 134
How often should the WG meetings be held according to RAC/WG

members? ................................................................................................. 134
How satisfied RAC/WG are with the invitation Process? (N=78) ................... 135
How satisfied INIA La Estanzuela Research staff is with the internal

(INIA) invitation process? (N=26) ............................................................... 136
How much time in advance RAC/WG members like to received the

invitation (N=81 ) ........................................................................................ 137
Opinion about importance of established norms. .......................................... 140

 

IFfi raf

Figure 1.1
Figure 2.1

Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3

Figure 2.4
Figure 2.5
Figure 2.6
Figure 2.7

Figure 2.8
Figure 2.9

Figure 4.1

Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.5
Figure 4.6
Figure 4.7

Figure 4.8

List of Figures

Geographic location of Uruguay. ................................................................. 4
Agricultural GNP percentages of the National Gross Product.

Selected years: 1988-2001 .................................................................... 17
Organization of the Ministry of Agriculture of Uruguay ............................. 28
Organization of the Research and Technology Transfer-Extension

Institutions in Uruguay ........................................................................... 35
Localization of the INIA's research stations and head quarters. ............... 40
INIA's organizational structure ................................................................. 41
Sources of the income structure (%) of INIA for the year 1998 ................. 44
Evolution of the INIA major income-funding sources (farmer tax plus

government) as a percentage of the 1990 income (Base100%) ............. 45
Region of work of INIA La Estanzuela research station ............................ 47
Regional Advisory Council and Work Groups of INIA La Estanzuela

and their relationships ............................................................................ 48
Percentage of respondents and non-respondents for each sample

population (RAC/WG and INIA La Estanzuela Research Staff) .............. 83
Council member’s current status (percentages) ....................................... 88
Year when members start participating (Frequencies)(N=66) .................. 91
Major member’s area of work (Percentages) ........................................... 92
Research staff academic degree .............................................................. 94
Month of the year selected as most appropriate to have meetings ......... 132
After the normal invitation RAC/WG member likes to receive a

follow up reminder? ............................................................................. 138
Type of follow up reminder preferred by RAC/WG members .................. 139

xi

CHAPTERI
Introduction

This research is about the study of institutions called “Regional Advisory
Councils“(RAC) of the National Agricultural Research Institute (INIA) of Uruguay.
RAC are considered as important mechanism to assess agricultural demands
and as a customer linkage by national agricultural research organizations. More
specifically, this study will examine the factors and the relationships that affect
the performance of the “Consejos Asesores Regiona/es” (Regional Advisory
Councils) at the National Agricultural Research Institute of Uruguay.

Assessment, evaluation, and prioritization of need of the clientele are the
primary objectives for demand-driven agricultural research models (Allegri,
1999). The major challenge for the agricultural research organizations is to
develop accurate methodologies that allow to collects needs from their clientele
and update these needs periodically. Moreover, generally resources are limited;
therefore those needs also should be prioritized in order to fit the needs and
resources in research programs.

The National Agriculture Research Institute of Uruguay (INIA) is the main
applied agricultural research institution in this country. INIA is a paraestatal
institution created in 1989 over the existing base of the previous agricultural
research institution, the “Centre de Investigaciones Agri’colas Alberto Boerger"
(CIAAB). The CIAAB was reorganized in 1989 by a congressional law (Law
16.065, December, 1989), which transferred the entire CIAAB’s patrimony and

responsibilities to this new organization.

 

The four major changes in this new organization were: a) the farmers
participation in the INIA Board, b) the funding sources, 0) the new management
style, and d) the mandate to create Regional Advisory Councils, which serve as
instruments for need assessments and customer linkages.

The Consejos Asesores Regionales are considered by INIA as an important
instrument to assess farmers’ needs and to prioritize its applied research
programs. Allegri (1999) stated that,

“Regional Advisory Councils at each Experiment Station provide an
important forum for regular exchange of views and close contacts

between farmers and INIA staff. They are the places where actual
exchanges and participation occur.”

(pp. 115)

Farmers’ participation in the Regional Advisory Councils has been
emphasized for the last ten years. No studies have been made to assess the
performance of the councils, yet there appears to be several limitations in their
performance 1. Therefore, it has been felt that a study on the contribution of the
Regional Advisory Councils would be helpful to INIA and to strengthen the
Regional Advisory Councils.

The objectives to be addressed by this research are: a) to identify the
perceptions of INIA Regional Advisory Council members regarding the selection
process of members and their contributions to INIA with respect to research
needs assessment, b) to identify the perceptions of INIA research and
programmatic staff regarding the Regional Advisory Council members, their

selection, contributions, and performance, c) to compare and contrast the

 

I The researcher of this study has been member of the team responsible to work with six Regional Advisory
Councils at the INIA Research Station “INIA La Estanzuela”, for ten years (1990-2000).

 

perceptions of the Regional Advisory Council members and INIA Staff, and d) to
develop recommendations for INIA to improve the operation and performance of

the Regional Advisory Councils.

1.1. Overview of Uruguay

Uruguay is one of the smallest countries in South America (176,215 sz).
In comparison with the United States, its area is about the size of the state of
Florida. It borders to the north with Brazil, to the east with the Atlantic Ocean, to
the south with the River Plate and to the west with Argentina. The country is
characterized by a mildly rolling surface, with a maximum altitude of 140 meters,
yet 90% of the land is suitable for agriculture (including about 9% of arable land).

Uruguay can be classified as humid subtropical. Its predominant
vegetation is natural plain pasture, and the average annual rainfall is between
1100 and 1300 mm with minor seasonal variations; less rain in summer than
winter. Uruguay has four seasons with averages temperature about 21 C (70 F)
and 10 C (50 F) for summer and winter, respectively.

The total population of Uruguay is 3,400,000 (NE, 2002), 90.8% is urban
and 9.2% is rural. In relation to education, 49% of the population completed
elementary school, 34.5% high school, and 12.6% university level. The general
literacy rate is 96.9% (rural 93.8%) (Presidencia de la Republica del Uruguay,
2001). Life expectancy at birth is 74 years, and the infant mortality rate is 15 per
1,000 live births (World Bank, 2001), which represents some of the higher social

indicators in South America.

 

Ilflln‘” ‘ €-

Figure 1.1 Geographic location of Uruguay.
Maps Source: Word Sites Atlas 2002.

 

 

 

  

South America

ATLAN T! C

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

  

 

 

 
 

 

    

 

~ ~ ~
N ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ‘
~ ~ ~
\A‘h-g- ~ ~ ~ ~ ‘
58° rd’llmguaiau 0 Uruguay
0 50 100 150 200
30° 30°
Kilometers
© World Sites Atlas ’ "- -' rnm‘
Migas 54°
ARGENTINA} Rim,
j BRAZIL
Concordia jsflto
.Tacuarombo
32° ‘ 32°
gf’avmdu URUGUAY .MEIO
‘5 xRio Negro Res. . ".
Lag-0a Mmm‘;
“Mercedes TM”: V TIES. ‘ ,'
.Dumno . ‘7
{ Tnnidad' k
7343'- . 'XI'“~ .Florlda " 34:1
‘51" V San José. Mina: "
'\-- .1 M9.“ .Canolones .Roch; . g .. a ‘ .
,Ja
“lleggosdAelLes~ 3;], 5.3-L: Diaz's Maldonado A NTIC
\ 1: \(~ ,1.
La Platao Montewdeo 7% ,‘I‘i‘, OCEAN "
58 I, 5_§ . . 54

 

 

 

 

Uruguay does not have important mineral sources. The economy of
Uruguay depends on its agricultural sector. This sector has contributed an
average of 9% to the gross national product (GNP) in the last ten years.
However, for the year 2002 the contribution was 6.2% (Banco Central del
Uruguay, 2002). Uruguay has traditionally been an exporter of agricultural
products. In fact, agricultural production in Uruguay accounts for about 60 to 70%
of exports revenues, and more than 90% of the food consumed by its population
(OPYPA, 2002). Approximately 65% of the Agricultural Gross National Product
comes from animal production (meats, wool, and milk) and 35% comes from crop
production.

Total exports (goods and services) in the year 2000, accounted for US $
2.3 billion and total imports were estimated at US $3.5 billions indicating a
negative balance of payments for the country (Banco Central del Uruguay, 2002).

The official number of farms in 1990 was 60,000. Today there are about
57,000 farmers, due to the loss of small-scale farms (DIEA, 2002). Fifty-one
percent of the farms are less than 50 hectares, 35% are between 50 and 500
hectares and the remainder (14%) are larger than 2,500 hectares (DIEA, 2002).
Uruguayan farmers are both, full- or part-time farmers. In general, the full-time
farmers live with their families on the farms, and the part-time farmers allow time
for complementary employment activities and travel to the farms only to organize

the work (IPA, 2002).

1.2. The National Agricultural Research Institute (INIA)

The National Agricultural Research Institute of Uruguay (INIA) is a
relatively new national research institution oriented by a clientele demand model.
In 1989, the Congress approved a government proposal based on ideas of some
researchers, farmer organizations, professional associations and the scientific
community. Accordingly, an autonomous, non-public, non-profit organization was
created (Delpiazzo, 1993).

This new institution was created over the basis of the existent public
research organization, called “Centro de Investigaciones- Agricolas Alberto
Boerguef’ (CIAAB).

The main objectives of this new institution are a), to promote and execute
applied agricultural research activities in order to contribute to sustainable
development of the agricultural sector, and b) to articulate an effective transfer of
technology generated through the technical assistance and extension
organizations belonging to the public or private system. INIA is a decentralized
institution, public non-governmental, and non-profit organization co—funded by
farmers and government. Moreover, according to the actual research-technology
transfer-extension system in Uruguay, INIA is responsible for 90% of the
agricultural research (Allegri, 1999). INIA’s status and structure allow it to act
under private administrative regulations and as a private organization.

With the INIA’s creation, farmers were involved formally, for the first time,
in the management of the INIA organization through two representatives

appointed by farmer organizations to the INIA Board. In addition, the Consejos

Asesores Regionales (Regional Advisory Councils) were created as broad-based
vehicles for gaining additional farmer involvement. The INIA’s Law creation also
determines a farm tax (0.4%) to support the research operation, representing
about 41% of the total budget of INIA. The total basic budget is derived from this

tax, and similar amount is matched by Government funds.

1.3. The Regional Advisory Councils
The Law of INIA creation determines the existence of Regional Advisory
Councils (RAC). According to Delpiazzo (1996), the Article 10 of the INIA’s
creation Law mandates the creation of Regional Advisory Councils, which will be
composed by representatives of public and private institutions linked with the
more significant agricultural activities developed in the region of the each
research station. In addition, outstanding and well-recognized agricultural
professionals with experience in extension will be included in the council.
Consequently, farmers, technicians, and representatives from the main
professional associations comprise those advisory councils. The major areas of
concern are technological problems, research priority setting, and the
identification of possible educational activities (such as field days, seminars,
farmer visits, etc).
At present the INIA has five Regional Advisory Councils (RAC), with
permanent and alternative members. RAC members are not remunerated by

INIA. Permanent members could reach fifteen in number in each RAC.

Alternative members are invited to participate when their contribution is deemed
appropriate according to the agenda (Delpiazzo, 1996).

The INIA’s Law indicates a basic composition of these RAC, determining that
each council should include: a) one or two members for each major commodity
products produced under the research station area, b) three members with
outstanding regional development and involvement representing the farmers
community working in the area, c) one outstanding member representing the
university, and (I) one outstanding member representing the scientific agricultural
community. Moreover, it is important to point out that one member of the group
must be elected by the council as a president of the Regional Advisory Council
(RAC).

The Article 31 of the INIA’s Law, dictates that no new RAC can be created
where no research station exists.

The Board of INIA, in the understanding that the Regional Advisory
Councils do not have sufficient members base to provide a broad-based opinion
from the clientele, requires the creation of commodity groups or Working Groups
(WGs). There is no limitation in the number of WGs associated with each
research station, nor in the number of participants. The linkage between a WG
and within a RAC is due to the participation of the president and/or vice-president
of the WG within the RAC as a permanent member. In the first year of INIA work
(1990-1991), 24 WG were installed according to the major commodity products
or productive systems. According to Albicette (2000), 26 WGs are actually

operative due to some changes occurring according to the increment in the

relative importance of some goods and/or the closing or merging of some of
them.

These two institutions, the RAC and the WG, are one of the most
important elements used by INIA to address the clientele’s needs. Moreover,

they represent an important linkage with farmers and relevant agricultural actors.

1.4. Problem Background

Profound and permanent global changes are affecting the characteristics and
the variability of problems. Market globalization and market protection increase
the complexity of those problems and challenge farmers to obtain new
technology in order to solve technological problems and to become efficient in
the art of food production. These two previous statements are more important yet
for a country like Uruguay, where the agricultural sector plays a substantial role
in the general economy.

Agricultural research institutions are increasingly affected by global changes
and the complexity of the external context, which increases the interdependence
of economic sectors, higher technological requirements, and environmental and
sustainable issues (Allegri, 1999).

With this environment in mind, it is essential to strengthen the linkages of all
the actors involved in the agricultural sector to be successful. Therefore,
participation, involvement and collaborative modes become essential.

Participation and involvement requires the implementation of tools and skills to

drive and internalize the resulting inputs. Resources are limited, which requires
the necessity of prioritizing.

The RAC and WG are considered by INIA as important ways to assess
clientele needs. They work as “antennas” prospecting technological demands
and at the same time, informing others external actors about research activities,
assuring importance of INIA’s decisions, and facilitating the communication flow
process in both directions (Allegri, 1999). The RACs were created in the INIA’s
foundation law to include stakeholders’ opinions in the agricultural research
activities at the regional level. The INIA Board created the WGs as additional
instruments in order to analyze the main technological limitations in depth,
oriented by commodities or by production systems.

These original RACs, once defined, were responsible together with the
Regional Director and the Transfer Technology Unit for the formation of the Work
Groups (Commodity Groups).

The WGs do not limit the number of members. The connection between each
RAC and the different WGs working in one region is achieved basically through
to the participation in the RAC of one or two WG representatives.

After ten years of operation, those advisory councils have shown many
limitations in their performance. INIA recognizes the importance of those groups,
but feels the neCessity to strengthen the relationships and identify methodologies
to with which work. How to drive and empower those advisory councils (RAC and
WGs) to establish rich, productive, and effective relationships is one of the mayor

chalenges (Allegri, 1999, Restaino 1998)

10

1.5. Problem Statement

The problem to be addressed by this study is to identify and analyze the
factors that affect the stakeholders’ participation and functioning of the Regional
Advisory Councils (RAC and WG). Moreover, the INIA’s perceptions, behaviors
and attitudes that affect their involvement with those stakeholders groups will be
identified and analyzed.

The failure and/or the lack of methodology to work with those groups
determine low stakeholder involvement. Moreover, over time those RACs and
WGs suffer from low motivation, participation and lack of trust (Albicette, 2000;
M. A. Allegri, 1999; Restaino, 1998). Besides, researchers feel that the feedback
and inputs from RACs and GT5 are feeble, and are affected by current problems

Johnson (1998) examines the experience of a stakeholder advisory
group’s attempt to guide a land grant’s research priorities. This author states that
the failure of a broad-based, statewide advisory group raises serious concerns
for proponents of stakeholder involvement in research priority making. According
to INIA’s experience, the selection of RAC and WGs participants is an important
factor related to the validity and reliability of those stakeholders’ opinions
(Restaino, 1998).

Hoefner (1998), argues that there is little published on stakeholder
advisory processes and, therefore, little is known about which methods are useful

and which are not.

11

The objectives to be addressed by this research are: a) to identify the

perceptions of INIA La Estanzuela research station Regional Advisory Councils

(RAC and WGs) members regarding the selection process of members and their

contributions to INIA with respect to research needs, b) to identify the

perceptions of INIA La Estanzuela research staff regarding the Regional Advisory

Councils, their selection, contributions, and performance, 0) to compare and

contrast the perceptions of the Regional Advisory Councils members and INIA La

Estanzuela staff, and d) to develop recommendations for INIA to improve the

operation and performance of the Regional Advisory Councils of INIA La

Estanzuela research station.

1.6. Research Questions

This study will seek to answer the following research questions:

1.

What is the demographic and socio profile of Regional Advisory Councils
members?

How were Regional Advisory Councils members selected?

What are the linkages between the Regional Advisory Councils ’
participants and the major farmer organizations in Uruguay?

How do the Regional Advisory Councils participants perceive the
methodology that INIA uses to work with those stakeholder groups?

What do Regional Advisory Councils members perceive as barriers, if any,

in the functioning of the advisory councils?

12

6. What do INIA staff and managers perceive as barriers, if any, in the
functioning of the advisory councils?

7. According to INIA, what are the areas of work for the Regional Advisory
Councils?

8. According to the Regional Advisory Councils members, what are the areas
of work for the advisory councils?

9. What is the relevance that Regional Advisory Councils members give to
RAC and WGs in terms of identifying farmer research needs, farmer
linkages, and farmer educational programs?

10. What is the relevance that INIA gives to RAC and WGs in terms of
identifying farmer research needs, farmer linkages, and farmer

educational programs?

1 .7. Importance of the Study

This study becomes relevant in order to determine what the major barriers
are to a better development of Regional Advisory Councils (RAC and WG).

It is expected that an examination of the related literature and the data
analysis from this study will provide rich results and conclusions in order to
generate a set of recommendations to improve the action of these important
instruments and to strengthen the relationship between the INIA and its

stakeholders.

13

In addition, it is the researcher’s intention to contribute new information to
other similar demand-driven models using stakeholder councils and/or to develop

similar systems.

1.8. Definition of Terms
National Agricultural Research Institute (INIA) of Uruguay (Instituto Nacional de
Investigacion Agropecuaria). This is the apex agriculture research
organization in Uruguay created by the Law 16.065 in 1989. It headquarter
is located in the capital city of Uruguay (Montevideo) and has five research
stations distributed among the country.

Regional Advisory Councils (RAC) of INIA: groups of qualified informants (ten to
fifteen) who functions'as advisors and discussants concerning needs of
farmers and the setting of priorities for research programs with INIA.

Working Group (WG) of INIA: commodity groups formed by knowledgeable
members (twelve to twenty) who functioning to discuSs technological
problems. This environment provides a more homogeneous environment
with which to discuss technological problems. Depending on the commodity
production, one or two representatives of each WG are appointed to the
RAC.

Advisory groups — Groups of knowledgeable people who will give advice
concerning specific issues. For the scope of this study, this term can be

extended to the RAC and WGs.

14

Clientele — Farmers, agricultural professionals, agri-industry and agri-business

representatives and others agricultural actors who receive service from INIA.

Stakeholder — Groups of people who share a common interest in a particular
issue or system, for instance: farmers.

Commodity — Agricultural product, such as milk, corn, or soybean produced

directly by farmers, and without industrialization

15

 

CHAPTER II

Literature Review

This chapter analyzes relevant bibliography related to the field study. The
chapter describes the background of the agricultural sector of Uruguay, the
Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR), the agricultural research and
technology transfer system in Uruguay, the National Agricultural Research
Institute (INIA), the INIA La Estanzuela research station, the Regional Advisory
Councils of INIA, the use of advisory councils in agriculture, stakeholder
participation in agriculture research, the concept of clientele, and team and group

dynamics.

2.1. Agricultural Sector of Uruguay

Uruguayan economy is largely based on agriculture. In average, it is
possible to indicate that more than two—third of the export revenues came
from the agricultural sector (Le, 62% for year 2000, Table 2.1). The
agricultural Gross National Product (AGNP) was approximately 11% in the
1980’s. However, this important contribution has shown a constant decline in
the last twenty years, especially during the last decade. In the year 2001, the
agricultural GNP contributed to 6.2% of the US $ 25 billion gross national
product (Banco Central del Uruguay, 2002). Figure 2.1 shows the contribution
of the agricultural GNP to the gross national product in a series of fourteen

years (1 988-2001 ).

16

Figure 2.1 Agricultural GNP percentages of the National Gross Product.
Selected years: 1988-2001

 

 

14%

 

12% _

 

 

 

 

 

10%«— i'—-"'"

8% 4, e TF—MHT— _ __ r" __
6%«~———'—————-—~~—~~———l—

4%-—‘ —”"‘9— _. _ _ J —i ‘7. _ J I‘-#
2°/.d~_‘~ '— _- r. __ _ _ J __ .2 __
0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19881989 19901991 1992 1993‘1994j1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000l2001
[AGNP 11.8 10.6 9.00 8.16 8.60 7.22 7.77l8.48 7.88 7.38 6.77 5.49 6.03j6.22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Banco Central del Uruguay, 2002

Even with this reduction in the AGNP contribution, agricultural exports
still account for over 60% of the total Uruguayan exports, including the
contribution of the various agricultural processing industries. As indicated in
Table 2.1, beef and sheep production, arable crops, fruit production, and
forestry represent the main agricultural activities of Uruguay. In the year 2000,
the country exported approximately US $ 360 million in beef cattle (16% of
total exports revenues). Wool and wool products exports accounted for more
than US $ 150 millions for the same year (7.6% of total exports revenues),
and dairy production contributed a value of US $ 127 millions (6% of exports).

The main arable crops are: rice, wheat, barley, oats, maize, sorghum,

sunflower, and a small volume 'of soybean. For the year 2000, this component

17

 

accounted for about 9% of the total export revenues; in particular rice was

responsible for 7% of the total crop production (DIEA 2002)

Table 2.1 Products and percentage of contribution of the Uruguayan
total exports for year 2000.

 

 

Product Thousand Percentage
US 3 Of the total

Beef 369,090 16.1
Sheep (meat) 32,581 g 1.4
Live Bovines 13,491 0.6
Live Ovine 7,058 0.3
Poultry meat 168 0.0
Wool 128,953 5.6
Leather 264,994 1 1.5
Dairy 124,673 5.4
Honey 3,047 0.1
Cereals 21 6,388 9.4
Non-Citric fruit 3,515 0.2
Citrus 30,839 1 .3
Wine 6,758 0.3
Forestry 108,990 4.7
Fishery 120,242 5.2
Subtotal 1 ,430.787 62.4
Others non-agricultural 863,770 37.6
TOTAL EXPORTS 2,294,557 100.0

 

Source: DIEA 2002, based in MGAP BCU, JUNAGRA e INAVI.
in Censo Agropecuario, 2000

The major export partners are the Common Market of the South
(Mercosur) accounting for 40-45% of the exports, the European Community
(20%) and The United States (8%) (World Bank, 2001).

The more recent Agricultural Census conducted in Uruguay (Censo

Agropecuario, 2000), indicated the presence of some 57,000 farms. This
number shows a small increment over the 54,000 farms in existence in 1990.

However, this increment in the number of farms between 1990 and 2000 is

18

explained by a better coverage and organization of the most recent census

(Direccion de lnsumos y Estadisticas Agropecuarias, DIEA 2002). The normal

tendency during the last 20 years has been a reduction in the number of

farms due principally to the loss of small-scale farms. As indicated in Table

2.2, in the year 2000, Uruguay accounted for 20% fewer farms than in 1980.

In addition, the same table provides information regarding the evolution of

some of the principal indicators related to population and land distribution.

Regarding land ownership, it is important to note that most of the land in

Uruguay is privately owned (70%), but leasing (16%) and partnerships also

occurs (DIEA, 2002).

Table 2.2 Number of farms and other demographic indicators.

Census year

 

Indicator 1 970 1980 1 990 2000

Total number of farms 77,163 68,362 54,816 57,131
Total area exploited (ha) 16,517,730 16,024,656 15,803,763 16,419,683
Total agricultural pop. 318,166 264,216 213,367 189,838
Total workers 1 81 ,206 1 59,446 1 40,430 1 57,009
Hectares per farm 214 234 288 287
Hectares per person 52 61 74 86
Workers per farm 2.35 2.33 2.56 2.75

 

Source: DIEA 2002 (Censo Agropecuario 2000)

The use of the agricultural land of Uruguay (Table 2.3) can de

summarized as follows: natural and established forestry (7.6%), fruit, vineyards

and horticulture (0.5%), crops and forage (8.1%), seeded or artificial pastures

(7.3%), natural grassland with fertilizer and/or seed incorporation (4.1%), and

natural grassland (71 .1%).

As a general description, the more intensive

 

productive systems are located in the south and the southwest area of the
country, coinciding with the better soil quality of the country. Extensive beef
cattle, sheep and mixed livestock systems are located in the north and northeast
area of Uruguay. Rice production, one of the most important exportable crops, is

located in the east section, having an accelerated expansion to the northeast.

Table 2.3 Use of agricultural land: Year 2000.

 

 

 

Eyloited area

Hectares Percentagg_
Total 16,419,683 100.0%
Forestry 1 ,250,722 7.6%
Citric fruit 21 .659 0.1%
Others fruit 10,490 0.1%
Vineyards 9,382 0.1%
Horticulture 34,695 0.2%
Cereals crops 597,533 3.6%
Annual Forage crops 417,529 2.5%
Land under work 323,441 2.0%
Artificial pastures 1 ,195,979 7.3%
Natural grassland with seed and fertilizer 678,434 4.1%
Natural grassland 1 1 ,667,747 71.1%
Urproductive land 212,072 1 .3%

 

Source: DIEA 2002, Censo Agropecuario 2000.

Regarding technological aspects of the Uruguayan agriculture it is
pertinent to indicate that about 10% of the farms (5,608) in year the 2000 were
using irrigation systems. Farms cultivating rice accounted for 11% of the total
farms with irrigation systems. Mechanization is another important indicator of
technology, and for the same year, 41% of the farms (i.e., 23,250) had tractors
for cultivating 11 million hectares (DIEA, 2002).

In the year 2001, livestock numbered 11 million cows (mostly Hereford)

and 13 million of sheep (mostly Corriedale and Merino). The dairy sub-sector

20

(Holstein based) produced 1,300 million liters of milk for the same year (382
liters/person). Regarding the major cereal crops, Table 2.4 shows the cultivated
area, the productivity and the average yield per hectare since 1997. As indicated
by Allegri (1999), technological innovation from the research institutions
contributed to the 75% of the milk production growth, 30% of the wheat average
yield, 20% of the rice productivity, and 20% of the meat production. However,
there remain yield gaps between the farmers and the research station averages.

Table 2.4. Major cereal crops indicators.

 

Cereal Crg1s 1 998/99 1 999/00 2000/01
Wheat Area “’ 193.3 196.5 128.0
Production ‘2’ 559.2 377.2 324.4
Productivity ‘3’ 2,893 1,920 2,534
Barley Area 72.8 54.9 92.2
Production 196.0 11 1.0 228.8
Productivity 2,692 2,022 2,482
Corn Area 59.3 42.3 57.2
Production 242.5 64.7 262.8
Productivity 4,089 1 ,530 4,595
Sunflower Area 134.3 50.2 48.8
Production 1 60.7 33.3 58.3
Productivity 1 ,197 663 1 .195
Sorghum Area 29.7 12.4 38.4
Production 106.1 19.9 158.9
Productivity 3,572 1 ,605 4,143
Rice Area 208.1 1 89.4 1 53.7
Production 1 .328 1 ,209 1,030
Productivity 6,383 6,384 6,704
Soybeans Area 9.0 8.9 12.0
Production 19.0 6.8 27.6
Productivity 2,1 1 1 768 2,300

(1) Area in thousand of hectares

(2) Production in thousand of tons

(3) Productivity in kilos per hectare
Source: DIEA 2002, Anuario Agropecuario 2001

2.2. The Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR)

Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay signed the “Tratado de
Asuncion” founding the "Common Market of the South" (Mercado Comt’In del
Sur) “MERCOSUR” in 1991. In Ouro Preto, Brazil (1994), the Protocolo de Ouro
Preto established the institutional structure of MERCOSUR. Later, Chile and
Bolivia became associate members of MERCOSUR. The enlargement of the
dimensions of their national markets through integration was a fundamental
condition for accelerating their processes of economic development (Arboleya,
J.; Restaino, E., 2002)

MERCOSUR and the associated countries (Chile and Bolivia), at the end
of 1999, represented a population of 231 million (4% of the world population) and
about 10% of the total global land area (lICA, 2001). In particular, MERCOSUR
accounts for approximately 40% of the Latin America land area, 4.2% of the
world product and 4.3% of the world commerce. MERCOSUR’s world
participation does not seem very important yet; however this common block
represents an important economic force for Latin America, accounting for more
than 70% of the gross product and 40% of the internal commerce (Sawaya M..J.
et al. 1998).

The agro—alimentary sector of MERCOSUR is a strategic sector inside the
block, which is responsible for about 20% of the commerce (lICA, 1998). This

sector of MERCOSUR involves a wide variety of agricultural products of high

quality.

As indicated by Arboleya, J and Restaino E. (2002), the MERCOSUR market

allows for:

Free movements of goods, services and factors of production (capital and
labor), by means of, among others, the elimination of custom duties and
non-tariff restrictions on the movement of goods.

The establishment of a Common External Tariff (CET) and the
undertaking of a common trade policy vis-a-vis third countries and the
coordination of positions on economic, trade, regional and international
forums.

The coordination of macroeconomic and sector policies between members
countries in the areas of foreign trade, agriculture, industry, fiscal and
monetary issues, foreign exchange and in capital, services, customs,
transport and communications as well as others that are agreed upon, in
order to assure adequate conditions of competitiveness amongst member
countries.

Members’ commitment to harmonize their legislation on relevant issues to

strengthen the integration.

In terms of commerce, MERCOSUR has a substantial importance for

Uruguay, and in particular for the agricultural sector. MERCOSUR accounts for

45% of the Uruguayan exports and 43% of the Uruguayan imports. Other

important commercial partners such as the European Community and the United

States accounts for 20% and 7% of Uruguayan exports, respectively The Multiple

23

 

National System of Generation, Technology Transfer, and Extension (World

Bank, 2001).

a) History

During the institutional evolution of the Generation, Technology Transfer,
and Extension system, many organizations have contributed in different ways to
develop this multiple system.

The first experience in Uruguay in relation to this field was in 1914, the
year in which the National Plant Breeding and Nursery Institute (lnstituto
Fitotecnico y Semillero Nacional) was established (INIA, 2002). It was a pioneer
agricultural research organization in Uruguay and South America. In 1907, the
University of the Republic established a Faculty of Agronomy with the
commission of superior education to develop professionals in agriculture science
(Facultad de Agronomia, 2002). It wasn’t until 1950 that the extension focused
on technical assistance and outreach. In 1953, a pilot demonstrative area (Area
Demostrativa de San Ramon) was established under the supervision of the
Ministry of Agriculture (MGAP) and Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on
Agriculture (IICA). It was established with the purpose of developing the south
region that had educational, economical and technical problems (lndarte, 1988).
In 1961 the “Instituto Fitotecnico y Semillero Nacional” was reorganized as the
Agricultural Research Center with “Alberto Boerger” (CIAAB) as its first director.
With this reorganization, the CIAAB broadened its goals by taking responsibility
for extension projects. This action determined the formation of the National

Center for Agriculture Extension inside of the CIAAB. Its objective was to offer

24

integral technical assistance to farmers and their families. This was a short
experience. In 1968, the CIAAB returned to its previous goal of maintaining
exclusive responsibility for research and articulation with other institutions of
technical assistance, education, credit and organizations for the dissemination of
information (Allegri et al., 1988). Between the 19606 and 1970s there were
numerous changes in these organizations. Many institutions such as Plan
Agropecuario were created, diverse institutions reviewed its goals and some
government programs were established. This shows that Uruguay, differently
from many Latin American countries, opted for the multi-institutional model
approach in reference with the chain technology-generation and technology
transfer-extension (lndarte, 1988). This model determined that many institutions
focused in on their specific needs and goals, but without a formal national plan

for articulation.

b) The present

According to this previous development, Uruguay today has a several
institutions, related to research, technology transfer and extension system. Allegri
(1999) analyzed this “national system” in two sub-systems:
1) Technology generation, and

2) Technology transfer and extension

1) The technology generation sub-system
Four actors represent this technology generation sub-system. The National

Agriculture Research Institute (INIA), which represents approximately 90% of the

25

national investment in applied agricultural research (Allegri, 1999), the University

of the Republic, with a faculty of agronomy and veterinary medicine, the Ministry

of

Agriculture (MGAP) (through a Veterinarian Laboratory Research Center

“Miguel Rubino” - DILAVE), and the Uruguayan Wool Secretariat (SUL)

2) The technology transfer and extension sub-system

This sub-system is multi-institutional. Basically those institutions or actors

may be grouped into five clusters:

Public orqani_zation or programs manaoed by the MGfi. This group is very
small and today we can find only some structure oriented to small farmers
and a few important social sectors. This is consistent with the government
strategy of transferring the financial responsibility of the extension activities to
the private or “semi-private” sector. For instance, we can find programs
conducted by the MGAP, oriented to provide technical and management
assistance, products promotion, and some financial assistance linked to the
incorporation of new technology:

Livestock Project, promoting adoption of innovation in all meat chain
production (farmers, industry, market, products, etc) to increase market
competitiveness.

Technology Transfer Program, oriented to' finance technology transfer
projects presented by individual or groups of farms.

Fruit and Horticulture Development Program (PREDEG)

Non Traditional Exportation Development Program (PENTA)

26

 

National Help Program for Small Farmers (PRONAPPA-FIDA)
Natural Resources Management and Irrigation Development (PRENADER)
National Development Program of Small/Medium Livestock Farmers

(PRONADEGA)

In 1990, the MGAP created the National Fruit and Horticulture Council
(JUNAGRA). This is an MGAP unit whose goal is to improve the relationships
between the fruit and horticulture organized farmers and the various
technology transfer-extension services. Its mission is to offer technical
support for the production, processing and marketing of this sub-sector
(JUNAGRA, 2002). Moreover it seeks to promote the adoption of new
technologies, disseminate information, and help organized farmers to export.
The JUNAGRA’ targets over approximately 12,000 small and medium fruit

and horticultural farms (JUNAGRA, 2002).

27

Figure 2.2 Organization of the Ministry of Agriculture of Uruguay

 

Ministry of Agriculture

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OPYPA DIEA
Office ff Policy atrtd , Office of Agricultural
Agncu ture am Ication Statistics
International
Affairs
I I l I 1 L
General National National National National JUNAGRA Citn'c
Secretary Fishery Council of Council of Council of Comrnision
Institute Natural Agricultural Livestock
Resources Services Services

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source : MGAP. 2001

b) Public orqan_i_zations that are related with the MGA_P_. In this case, the
management and control is shared by the public and private sector. Examples
of this are INIA, Plan Agropecuario Institute (IPA), National Seed Institute
(INASE) and SUL. The INIA and SUL have also research obligations. The IPA

has exclusively the responsibility for extension.

i) INIA was created in 1989 by congressional law, modifying the
existent CIAAB. INIA has two major objectives. First, to promote and
implement agricultural research activities in order to contribute to
sustainable development of the agricultural sector. Second, to articulate

an effective transfer of technology generated through the technical

28

assistance and extension organizations belonging to the public or private
system. Farmers are involved in the institutional management through
representatives appointed by farmers’ organizations.

The Law of INIA creation also determines the existence of five Regional
Advisory Councils (RAC). Farmers, technicians and representatives from
the main professional association assemble those advisory councils. The
main objectives of those RACs are to provide advice on technological
problems and contribute to priority setting. There are also, Working
Groups (WG) for each commodity and/or system of production. Those two
instruments, RAC & WG, are two of the most important elements used by
INIA to assess to farm needs. Moreover, they represent an important
linkage with farmers and relevant agriculture actors.

Farmers contribute to the INIA budget with a tax over farmers’ sales
(0.4%). The total basic budget is derived from this tax from farmers, and at
least the same amount is matched by Government funds.

The INIA develops many activities (technical seminars, training, field days,
guided visits, fair stands, etc) and products (videos, publications,

handouts, etc.) to cover the demand for technology.

ii) Plan Agropecuario Institute (IPA) was restructured in 1998. Before
it restructuring, it was a public organization directed by the MGAP. Today
it has a board with the same structure as INIA. lPA’s budget comes

principally from the government, but it can establish agreement with the

29

private sector in order to develop special extension programs. Its current
staff includes around 30 technicians. The IPA has six regional offices
throughout the country located in strategic locations. It works in
cooperation with the INIA and other sources of information and
technology. It also develops many activities, especially for public or private

farm advisors and farmers.

iii) The National Institute of Seeds (INASE) is another public non-
governmental, non-profit organization. The Congress modifying the
existing structure inside of the MGAP, created this institute in 1997. This is
another example of moving responsibility from government to autonomous
non-profit organization. The principal goals and objectives are to promote
the production and distribution of high quality seeds with knowledgeable
identity. By law, INASE is responsible for testing (every 2 to 3 years) all
the new commercial vegetable varieties that attempt to enter into the
commercial system in Uruguay. The INASE controls many activities in
relation with the commercialization process of seeds and it disseminates
information regarding the particular characteristics and quality of seeds for
all the vegetables and crops used in Uruguay (INASE, 2002). This
information is very important for farmers by aiding their selection of the
appropriate variety of seed according to the individual needs and

productive system. The INASE is a member of the International Seed

30

Testing Association (ISTA), International Union for Protection of Variety

Obtain (UPOV), and Association of Seed Certification Agencies (AOSCA).

iv) Uruguayan Wool Secretariat (SUL). Since 1966, its main activities
have been in the sheep industry and have been the generation and
transfer of technologies, training, guidance, information, quality control of
wool and meat production processes, and overseas consultancy services
(SUL, 2002). It also develops many activities for the transfer of technology

to sheep breeders.

0) Public organizations NOT under the MGAP

 

This segment includes the University of the Republic, the Bank of the Republic

(BROU) and state governments.

i) University of the Republic: The University of the Republic of
Uruguay, through the Agronomy and Veterinarian Faculty, develops
Independent research and transfer technology project and activities, in

addition to its formal educational responsibilities.
ii) Bank of the Republic (BROU): The BROU is the principal financial

institutions supporting the agricultural sector (lndarte, 1988). BROU is

the main institution that helps to disseminate information to farmers

31

linked to credit services. Moreover, as a part of the promotion of its
credit lines, it disseminates important technical agricultural information
such as: crop varieties approved for credits, credit linked to the use of

some specific fertilizer or credit available for specific planting practices.

iii) State Governments: Some state government offices have
agricultural development agencies that promote the development of
some region or products. In general these offices have technicians that

help farmers within the state territory.

d) Non- grofit grivate organization

 

The technical assistance organized, executed and financed by the private
sector has grown considerably in the last few years. The private sector
represents a very important mechanism for technology transfer. It is dynamic and

exerts high impact. The most important actors are:

i) Cooperatives: The cooperative movement has a long history in
Uruguay (Ferrin LC, 1991). Today, approximately 60 agricultural
cooperatives serve a large number of farmers. They specifically serve
small and medium farmers. The most important role of those
cooperatives is related to basic agriculture inputs, sales and
agribusiness operations, products stores and direct farm advice. The

highly developed commercial activity has created the need for

32

organized second-grade structures with marketing specialization by
products (Uruguayan Wool Central Cooperative, Uruguayan Meat
Central Cooperative and Uruguayan Grain Central Cooperative).

In relation to dairy production, CONAPROLE (the National Co-
operative of Dairy Farmers) groups about 80% of the dairy farmers,
processes 70% of country’s production, and exports more than 50% of
its milk production (CONAPROLE 2002).

Cooperatives are an important instrument for farm advice, technology

transfer and extension programs.

ii) Cooperative Research and Experimentation in Agriculture Groups.
CREA’s groups are composed by ten to twelve farmers with similar
productive characteristics to each other. They are self-managed
groups that work and meet periodically to share experiences of their
farms, analyze problems and search for solutions. Every group has
one or two technicians that work as farm advisors. Each group has a
hierarchical organization that helps to conduct the activities. The
central element of the activity of one CREA group is the regular and
rotational visit to one member by the entire group. All CREA groups
(approximately 50) are organized in a major hierarchical organization,
called FUCREA that gives administrative services and searches for
permanent actualization of technicians hired by farmers. The CREA

movement is based in two principal concepts: the farmer-manager as a

33

 

central element in the decision making process of technology
incorporation, and the solid attitude of cooperation between farmers in

order to grow in technology and business development.

e) Private actors. Finally it is necessary to highlight the action of the private
sector as an important element in the transfer technology-extension process.
This group includes principally the following actors: industry, input suppliers,
and private farm advisors. The development of this segment has been very
important to Uruguay in recent years. For instance, the agro-industries
represent an important actor in relation with the development of some regions
and products. Two examples are present in Uruguay. One is in relation to
barley crop and brewery industries. These industries provide seeds, fertilizer
and farm advice and at the end they purchase the product from farmers. This
is a very interesting vertical integration, which helps to develop barley crops
technology (in addition to other cereal crops) paying attention to the
production marketing and quality factors. Rice farming is another good
example. In the same way as in the east and northeast of Uruguay, the rice
industry has helped this important exportable crop to grow consistently in the

last years.

34

Figure 2.3 Organization of the Research and Technology Transfer-
Extension Institutions in Uruguay

 
   
 

   

Research &

Technology Transfer

d ‘Td

r.l ’
It“ '

 

- IN IA

0 University

0 MGAP - DILAVE
- SUL

 

 

 

 

      
 

Technology Transfer &
Extension

JUNAGRA
; MGAP-Programs

 

"LGovemmentaI-MG Afll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INIA
Related to :2: S E
l—‘Ijqon Govermental MGAP SUL
Non related . BROU
MG AP State Governments
F-l Non Profit Private Organization J—, Cooperatives
CREA
_{ Private Actors 1 ; Industry
Suppliers

anate Professionals

 

 

farmers. industries. professionals. society .

 

Agriculture
“C US TOMERS"
of information / technology

 

Source : Restaino. ZOOI

 

It is also necessary to mention the importance of the “round tables”. These

are self-directed groups working to identify relevant vertically integrated
problems. They are composed of specialists from INIA, the Technological
Laboratory of Uruguay (LATU), Agronomy Faculty, and the industrial sector.
Currently in Uruguay there are barley (malt factories), wheat, rice, garlic and

onion, tomato, citrus and forestry round tables working.

In the same way, input suppliers through different marketing strategies

are providing technology.

and providing farmers with seeds of new varieties, new chemicals, fertilizers, etc,

35

Finally we have to indicate the action of private technicians (agronomists,
veterinarians and technical experts) in farm advice, technology transfer and
extension. This relationship is not very evident in general and it is more limited to
big farms.

As described above, the generation, technology transfer and extension
system includes a conglomeration of many agents .and institutions. From the
description, it is evident that the present strategy of the Uruguayan government is
to transfer financial responsibility of the extension activities to the private sector,
except for the service of small farmers (Allegri, 1999).

Some organizations such as INIA, IPA, INASE, are already functioning
with Board of Directors including representatives of the major farmers
associations. This is a very important and modern concept. As a principal
customers, farmers are directly involved in the decision-making of these
organizations. That leads to a very strong demand driven model and participatory
involvement.

Group technical assistance is increasing (refer to the CREA example).
The experience with this participative methodology is very positive, not only in
developing productive and technological problems, but to also in helping and
empowering the farmer and his/her family as managers. Technical assistance to
individual farmers is mainly through individual advisors from non-profit
organizations (like: cooperatives) or from private professionals.

One of the main characteristics of this multiple technology transfer-

extension system is its diversity. Farmers have the advantage of having many

36

sources of information and institutions taking care of many aspects of the
agricultural sector’s problems. On the other hand, the complex institutional
system determines overlapping and competition among institutions working for
the same “customers” even though each has a different scope. The
establishment of more partnerships (e.g., strategic alliances, networking, social
capital, etc) to promote a more efficient development and optimize resources
should be a priority in this field.

Globalization and competitive markets demand innovation and high
efficiency from farmers. Therefore, it is necessary to better articulate the transfer
of technologies in order to optimize organizational effort, decrease overlapping
and competition, and to help farmers with these difficult challenges.

The latest reorganization effort of the research system (INIA) incorporates
a modern concept where farmers orient and help to prioritize research programs.
This is one of the most important changes in the last decade in the agricultural

that promotes demand-driven model of agricultural research.

2.3. The National Agricultural Research Institute (INIA)
a) Institutional background
In order to support and develop the important agricultural sector of
Uruguay, the country has been working for a long time in agricultural research
and extension. The first experience in implementing agricultural research and
extension in Uruguay came in 1914 when the National Plant Breeding and

Nursery Institute (Instituto Fitotecnico y Semillero Nacional) was established for

37

the purpose of improving local cereals grown in the country. Since then, the
research system has grown under the outstanding leadership of its first director,
Dr. Alberto Boerger. In 1961, after Dr. Boerger is death, the Institute was
reorganized, broadened in its goals and it was renamed as the “Centre de
Investigaciones Agricolas Alberto Boerger” (CIAAB) (INIA, 2002).

The CIAAB expanded its research areas including pastures, beef cattle,
dairy, sheep, seeds, integrated production systems and many support disciplines
to help the research programs. Since the beginning of the 1970’s the
Government has promoted regionalization of the national research system,
creating and annexing four new research stations to the existing “La Estanzuela”.
Each research station was committed to work with the major commodity product
produced or grown in that region.

According to Allegri (1999), although this reorganization was a major
change in favor of agricultural research, the CIAAB continued to belong to the
public sector, i.e., Ministry of Agriculture. The major constraints that the CIAAB
faced during this period were restrictions in human and financial resources and
the lack of formal participation of clientele in research needs assessment.
However, the Institute developed good performance and a remarkable regional
reputation based on the creativity and commitment of the staff and the
establishment of strategic agreements with many farmer organizations to
increase funding sources for research in key commodities such as rice, dairy,

beef meat, and wool.

38

b) The National Aqricultural Research Institute creation
In 1987, based on conceptions of some CIAAB researchers, some farmer
organizations and others’ from the scientific community, the Government
developed a new proposal for the existent agricultural research organization. In
1989, a congressional law based on this previous idea, modified the CIAAB
creating a new public non-governmental, non-profit organization entilted the

National Agricultural Research Institute (INIA).

c) INIA structure and internal organization
The Institute has five research stations distributed around the country and
located in different agro-ecological and socio-economic regions: INIA La
Estanzuela (South-west), INIA Las Brujas (South), INIA Treinta y Tres (East),
INIA Tacuarembo (Noth-east) and INIA Salto Grande (North). In addition, it has
an administrative headquarter in the capital city, Montevideo. This structure
provides approximatley 5,000 hectares for agricultural research purposes (M. A.

Allegri, 1999; INIA, 2002).

39

Figure 2.4 Localization of the INIA’s research stations and head quarters.

Nil

 
   

INIA
INIA (- "’15, Tacuarembé
Salto Grande Ig—J—‘T‘

, Q—i "1 INIA

Treinta y Tres

INIA
La Estanzuela

  

Headquarters
INIA
Las Brujas

The Board of Directors is the highest authority of INIA. Two farmer’s
representatives representing the most important farmer organization in the
country, and two Government members compose this Board. The next level of
authority in the institutional flow chart is the National Director who is responsible
for the implementation and execution of the Board’s decisions and for the
identification of additional issues from the staff. Therefore, the National Director
receives the support and advice from specialized units in the area of Research
Projects & Evaluation, Human Resources, Administration, Agribusiness and

Technology Transfer, and lntemational Cooperation (Figure 2.6).

40

Figure 2.5 INIA’s organizational structure

 

L Board of Directors 1

 

 

 

 

[ Nationall Director J

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National . T . .
Coordination I National Assocrate Director I
Committee :
Human Resources Administration lntemational Research Project & Agribusiness &
Unit Unit Cooperation Evaluation Unit Tech. Transfer
Unit Unit
Regional Directors )— Regional - Area Supervisors " Research
Coordination Program Heads
Committee
I
I l 1 l L
INIA Las Brujas INIA La Estanzuela INIA Treinta y Tres INIA Tacuarembo INIA Salto Grande
Research Staff Research Staff Research Staff Research Staff Research Staff

 

 

 

 

 

 

|

Each research station has a Regional Director, who has administrative
responsibilities at the regional level. The programmatic research area is under

the leadership and coordination of the Research Area Supervisors, and

Research Head of Programs.

INIA personnel currently include 128 researchers of the over 529 total staff
of INIA (INIA Human Resource Unit, 2002). Of the 128 researchers, 21 (16%)
hold administrative and managerial positions, while 107 (84%) are appointed
100% to researcher activities. Most of the researchers have post-graduate
degree (83%), distributed as follow: 45% have Master degree and 38% hold

Ph.Ds. (INIA Human Resources Unit, 2002). In comparison with the situation

41

Research Stations

 

 

described by Allegri (1999), the total human resource members of INIA show a
4% reduction since 1999. In particular, the faculty member segment was reduced
by 7% since 1999. The percentage of researchers with post-graduate studies
increased by 2% according the results reported by Allegri in 1999. However, the
percentage of researchers with Ph.Ds increased by 15% since 1999. The ratio of
support staff to researchers is about 3.7:1.

The operative research system responds to a “matrix” model. The Areas
and Programs (represented by commodities and systems of production) have a
national hierarchy and conduct activities at the relevant experimental station

(Table 2.5).

Table 2.5. Research Areas and Programs of INIA
Research Area (4) Research Programs (13)
Animal Production Beef Cattle

Dairy

Sheep and Goats
Farm Animals
Pastures

 

 

Crop Production Winter Crops
Summer and Oil Crops
Rice
Evaluation of Cultivars

Horticulture Horticulture
Fruticulture
Citrus

Forestry Forestry

 

42

As mentioned in Chapter I, INIA’s structures also include five Regional
Advisory Councils (one for each research station). These Regional Advisory
Councils (RAC) were created in the Law of INIA creation, with the objective of
including stakeholders’ opinions in the agricultural research activities at the
regional level (Allegri, 1999).

In addition to the RAC, in 1990, the INIA board created Work Groups
(WGs) to provide more broad-based opinions to the RAC. The purpose of the
WGs roles are to strengthen the participation of farmers and other customers in
guiding research programs. In these WGs the INIA researchers, farmers, farmer
representatives, and other stakeholders discuss research plans and desired
results for specific commodities and system of production.

The RAC and WGs of INIA La Estanzuela are the subject of this study. A
more elaborate description about these councils is provided in the section
entitled “T he Regional Advisory Councils of INIA) in this chapter.

The financial resources of the institute came from three major sources that
were established by the Law of INIA’s creatidn: a) a 0.4% tax assessment on
farmer’s sales on the domestic market (first sale), b) a matching amount of
financial resources provided by the government, based on the farmers tax
contribution, and c) the self-generated funds from agricultural, and/or intellectual
products as well as royalties and private agreements or joint ventures. In addition
to these three major sources of funds, two others can be identified: a) voluntary
contributions from farmer organizations, institutions, and/or national and

international aid agencies, and b) grant development from the institution. Figure

43

2.7 shows the distribution of these funding sources for the year 1998 (Allegri,

1999).

Figure 2.6 Sources of the income structure (%) of INIA for the year 1998.
Source : Allegri (1999)

Agreements

 

 

 

 

 

0 Farmers
9" 40%
81 %
Products and
Sales
1 0% Governrrent

41%

Regarding the evolution of INIA’s income, it is important to note that since
its creation in the year 1990 and until 1997, the income from farmer plus the
government was growing as a consequence of higher productivity and of
stabilized agricultural prices. However, since 1997 incomes shows a constant
reduction as a consequence of the regional economic crisis, due to loses of
some Uruguayan export markets i.e. loss of US. beef market caused by “foot
and mouth” disease, and of course, the reduction in international prices of some

major agricultural commodities (Figure 2.8).

Figure 2.7 Evolution of the INIA major income-funding sources (farmer tax
plus government) as a percentage of the 1990 income (Base100%)

 

25096
20096 “‘“
100%) 4,.4“-!=’,r”””””’ ““T‘\\\\

5096

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

096

I T T 1' I T T

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1998 2000 2001

 

 

 

Source: INIA, 2002 (Administration Unit)

2.4. INIA La Estanzuela Research Station of INIA
The INIA La Estanzuela research station is one of the five research
stations of INIA. The study was conducted at this research station, which is
located in the southeast part of the country. The INIA La Estanzuela regional
area of work involves some of the most productive soils of Uruguay, with a high
diversification of productive systems including dairy, intensive livestock, forage,
and cereals crops productions.
This research station was founded in 1914 and was the pioneer agricultural
research organization in South America (INIA, 2002). Between 1961 and 1970,
four others new research stations were created, developing the base for the

INIA’s creation in 1989.

45

INIA La Estanzuela is responsible for the development and conduction of
research programs in seven of the thirteen INIA’s research programs. These
research programs are identified as follows:

- summer and oil crops
- winter crops

- evaluation of cultivars
- dairy

- beef cattle

- sheep and goats

- pastures

Moreover, INIA La Estanzuela is the head research station of four of the
above named research programs (i.e., summer and oil crops, winter crops,
evaluations of cultivars, and dairy). Other research and support disciplines
collaborate and/or develop research projects as well. These disciplines are as
follows: beekeeping, cattle breeding service, weeds, soils, irrigation and weather,
crop breeding, seed production and breeding, animal and vegetable lab services,
technology transfer unit and agricultural economic unit.

The region of work of INIA La Estanzuela involves some 20,000 farms
accounting for 35% of the total existing farms in the country in the year 2000
(DIEA, 2002). As mentioned earlier, this region is one of the most diversified
regions of the country because of the soil quality that allows for many

combinations of production or systems of productions.

46

Figure 2.8 Region of work of INIA La Estanzuela research station.

‘- INIA U
INIA : b Tacuarembo N
Salto Grande ”

A

Q, ‘1 \ INIA
1’ Treinta y Tres

i

   

INIA
La Estanzuela

INIA
Headquarter INIA
Las Brujas

Regarding human resources, INIA La Estanzuela allocates 34 faculty
members (31 of which are researchers) and 120 support personnel, accounting
for 27% and 30% of the INIA total staff, respectively (INIA Human Resources
Unit, 2002). In relation to the operating budget, INIA La Estanzuela accounts for
37% of the total operating budget of INIA (INIA Administrative Unit, 2002).

As discussed earlier, the Law of INIA creation indicates the existence of
Regional Advisory Councils for each research station. The INIA La Estanzuela’s
Regional Advisory Council is formed by 13 members (INIA La Estanzuela, RAC
minutes 2002). In addition, five Work Groups (WGs), were developed according
to the major areas of research of this research station. The following WGs are
functioning at INIA La Estanzuela: beekeeping, dairy, cereals crops, seed
production, and intensive livestock production. Each of these WGs is comprised

of a variable number of members ranging from 12 to 15.

47

Figure 2.9 Regional Advisory Council and Work Groups of INIA La
Estanzuela and their relationships.

 

Regional Advisory Council
of INIA La Estanzuela

13 members

1 Well-known
Farmer

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Well-known
Ag. Professional

 

1 Representative
from
Agricultural
Professionals

 

 

2 Representatives
from each W6
(10 members)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beekeeping Dairy Cereal Seeds Intensive
Crops Production Livestock
WG WC W6 W6 WG

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From the review of the RAC and WG minutes of INIA La Estanzuela from
1991 to 1995, it is possible to find that WGs and the RAC met twice a year.
During 1996, there were no meetings, and for the period from 1997 to 2001, five
RAC and 14 WG meetings were held. Consequently, it is possible to indicate that
for the entire period 1991-2001, INIA La Estanzuela research station organized
and conducted a total of 15 RAC and 54 WGs meetings. Usually, meetings were
conducted in the first and the last quarter of the year.

A Some of the problems affecting the RAC-WG system can be illustrated
from the analysis of some keys issues discussed in the most recent meetings
conducted between April and August 2001. Three WGs council meetings were
conducted at INIA La Estanzuela: Cereal Crops, Intensive Livestock and Dairy.
One of the major problems occurred at the meeting was the response to the

invitation in terms of attendance. Of the total members invited to participate in the

48

meetings, only 31% attended (attendance range: 21 to 41%) (Unidad de
Agronegocios y Difusion INIA, 2001).

The same pattern was found for all meetings conducted at INIA, with a
36% attendance in eleven WGs council meetings conducted at the five research
stations between March and November 2001 (attendance range: 14 to 70%)
(Unidad de Agronegocios y Difusion INIA, 2001). This fact could be explained by
various reasons, some of which were related to a lack of motivation to
participate, lack of information previous to the meeting, a short time between

receipt of the invitation and the meeting time, among others.

2.5. The Regional Advisory Councils of INIA

As mentioned earlier, the INIA’s Law of creation (1989) established the
Regional Advisory Councils of INIA. As the Law indicated, five RACs were
created in 1990, coincident with each research station location. In 1990, the INIA
Board of Directors, understanding that the RAC does not have a sufficient
member base to provide broad-based opinions from the clientele, required the
creation of commodity groups or Working Groups (WGs). Delpiazzo (1996), in an
interpretation of the INIA’s Law, indicates that the RAC are institutions of support,
consultation, and advice for the research station directors (Regional Directors).
The RAC mission is to collaborate with the Regional Director to propose the
bases for the establishment of regional (research and/or extension) plans and to
promote regional activities and to collaborate in seeking additional funding

resources for research and extension activities (Delpiazzo, 1996). The same

49

author, states clearly that RACs are not structures of active administration for the
institution (Art 15 of the INIA’s Law 16.065).

The Regional Director of each research station is responsible for the
management, follow-up and convocation of the RAC. However, each RAC has
the right to ask the research station Regional Director for a meeting at any time.
Moreover, the Regional Director receives support from the Technology Transfer
Unit of each research station. This unit’s major responsibility is to operate as a
gatekeeper for demand of extension educational activities (i.e., farmers and
technician visit, etc.); to develop regional educational programs (i.e. seminars,
field days, etc); to produce and coordinate educational materials (i.e.,
publication, videos, etc.); and to collaborate with the RAC’s and WGs logistics
and support. This last responsibility involves: a) maintaining a database with
personal information of the RAC and WG members; b) delivering invitations for
RAC and WGs meetings; c) supporting and processing the initiatives from the
RAC and WGs members; d) processing and archiving the RAC and WG minutes;
and e) maintaining the necessary communication with the RAC and WG
members. But this unit does not have decision-making right, therefore, for any
external action related to the RAC and WGs it has to have the Regional Director
approval.

Regarding the procedures, Delpiazzo (1996) indicates that the Law of INIA
creation (Article 32) established that every RAC should work under the command
of one member functioning as the president. Regarding the frequency of

meetings, the same article specifies that RACs should meet at least every three

50

months. In addition, the same author states that the Regional Director of each
research station should assist with the RAC meetings. As indicated by Delpiazzo
(1996), the current established norms suggest that RAC members may remain
as members for a period of three years, but they can be re-elected.

The WGs, in some ways, are RACs organized by commodity groups. As is
indicated by Article 8 of the INIA Board resolution #102/91 (August, 1991), each
WG could be composed by a maximum of ten permanent members who must be
farmers or agricultural professionals of the region (Delpiazo, 1996). However,
depending upon to the topic of discussion, selected members could assist in
order to increase the access to more knowledgeable or pertinent information. In
addition, regional farmers could freely attend the meetings, without limitation in
number.

Article 9 of the same Board resolution, indicates that every WG should
have a president elected from the permanent members in order to represent the
WG at the RAC, plus a vice-president and a secretary. The Article 10, indicates
that the Regional Director should appoint a regional faculty staff working in
extension activities (Technology Transfer Unit) as the liaison with all the WGs of
the region. The WG president, vice-president, and the secretary should have
permanent contact and interaction with the regional Director and the liaison, in
order to achieve a dynamic development of the WG.

Finally, Article 12, described by Delpiazzo (1996), indicates that every
activity or meeting product should be documented and archived as RAC and WG

records (minutes).

51

From the documentation analyzed, there is no indication of what the
responsibilities of the WG should be. However, based on the original idea of
creation, it can be assumed that they have the same duties as the RAC, but

restricted to the commodity product for which they are working.

2.6. The Use of Advisory Councils in Agriculture

Establishing a linkage between research, extension, and universities
working in agriculture has been a considerable challenge for a long time (Leholm,
A.; Suvedi, M; Vlasin, V., 1998). The authors state that administrators and
managers of agricultural organizations (research, extension, education, and
development) have recognized that linkages among research, extension, and
clientele are necessary and must be strengthened. These linkages have been a
major problem in both developed and in developing countries. However, this fact
is more pronounced in developing countries.

Leholm, Suvedi, and Vlasin (1998), describe four types of research,
education, and extension linkages, appropriate to improve interaction. These
authors based their views on the original description of Kaimowitz, Snyder and
Engel (1990), who identified three major types of linkages as: a) joint planning
and programming; b) collaborative professional activities; c) resource allocation;
and communication between organizations.

According to this description, RAC fit the “Collaborative Professional
Activities” description, in which researchers, educators and stakeholders meet

together to plan, implement, and evaluate programs, plans, and/or activities. As

52

Leholm at al. (1998) point out, this approach encourages teamwork and reduces
differences regarding personal status.

Thiele, van Fliert and Campilan (2001) defines participatory research as
the involvement of farmers and other stakeholders early in the process of
technological innovation in order for them to collaborate in the identification of
problems and in the development of new appropriate technology for these
problems. According to Thiele et al. (2001), there are almost as many definitions
and classifications of participatory research as practitioners. However, they
present a classification of participatory research from Biggs (1989), identifying
four types: a) contractual, where farmers provide scientists with consultation
regarding resources (i.e., land) and/or services (i.e., labor); b) consultative,
where scientist consult farmers and other stakeholders regarding their problems
and possible solutions; c) collaborative, where researchers and farmers
collaborate as partners in the research process; and d) collegial, when scientists
guide farmers and users in informal research and development systems.

According to the previous classifications of participatory research, the
Regional Advisory Councils of this study are a mix of consultative and
collaborative types. However, according to the definitions of functions of the RAC
of INIA, there are more consultative than collaborative actors.

Advisory councils have a long established history and are closely related
to agriculture practices and especially to the Land Grant System of the United
States. As Johnson (1998) argues, the Land Grant System has historically

cultivated strong relationships among those groups that included qualified

53

informants. The establishment of those advisory councils gave status to farm
interests by permitting farmers and other important agricultural actors to
participate in research decisions.

In the United States, The Federal Agriculture Research (Extension and
Education Reform Act of 1998) requires land grant institutions to establish
structures for obtaining stakeholder inputs. Agriculture research is recognized by
this reform as a public good, which requires public involvement of its users
(Johnson 1998). For instance, the Virginia Cooperative Extension (VCE), in
1990, faced a severe reduction in its state budget allocation. It was indispensable
for the VCE to find the means to become more efficient and effective in the
identification of educational activities and in the allocation of resources in
extension programs. Consequently, “Advisory Councils” were created as an effort
to ensure that community stakeholders became systematically involved in the
needs assessment process and the programming effort of the VCE (MSUE,
1997)

Others synonyms are used in place of “Advisory Councils”. The Michigan
State University Extension (MSUE) mentions that advisory councils are
frequently referred to as “Extension Councils” or “Extension Advisory Councils”.
In spite of this, they are all described as having similar functions (MSUE, 1997).
These councils have existed over many years in many counties of the state of
Michigan in the United States, according to the Handbook. MSUE indicates that
the uses of these broad-based councils were central to MSUE in 1992 in the

“Statewide Issues Identification” process.

54

Leholm, A., Hamm, L., Suvedi, M., Gray, I., and Poston, F, (1999) argue
that agricultural research stations have been criticized for not including formally
stakeholders’ opinions in the past. The authors state that the “interface” between
extension and research is a key element in order to meet future needs based on
a demand driven system. They present a description of the “Area of Expertise
Team” (AoE) of Michigan State University. The AoEteams are very similar in
their functions to the RAC. However, these are organized as self-directed teams
with co-chairs as leaders, and with their own budgets. Leholm et al., describes
self-directed teams as groups that place decision-making and problem solving
authority in the hands of persons most knowledgeable of the products or
services. The major difference with the RAC (analyzed in this study) is that they
have a higher independence in decision-making. The AoE’s major functions are
to plan, implement, and evaluate educational programs. The RACs studied in this
research are more instruments of consultation, from the research organization.

Some examples of advisory council use in agriculture at the MERCOSUR
countries are also described. Of course, Uruguay is one example having the
installation of the Regional Advisory Councils (RAC and WG) at the INIA (INIA,
2002). In addition, the National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA) of
Argentina describes the uses of “Consejos Asesores Regionales” (Regional
Advisory Councils) in its structure. However, the INTA councils also have
responsibilities regarding budget allocation at the regional level as well being as
policy makers of the institute. The regional advisory councils at the INTA were

also created by the Law of creation of the INTA in 1956 (INTA, 2002).

55

Similarly, the National Agricultural Research Institute (INIA) of Chile,
created in 1964, indicates the existence of “Consejos Directivos” (Directive
Councils) at the regional centers of research (INIA-Chile, 2002). These councils
develop functions similar to the INTA of Argentina. They integrate
representatives from the public and the private sector as broad-based councils
but with important responsibilities in budget allocation and in the decision-making
process of the research institute at the regional level.

The Agricultural Research Institute of Brazil (EMBRAPA) did not specifically
mention the existence of advisory councils in its structure. However, the concept
of involving public and private stakeholders in participative methods is indicated

in its organizational description (EMBRAPA, 2002).

a) MILLI'ICIIORS of me_advisory cogncils in agriculture

From the review of literature, it is possible to identify common functions for
the advisory councils working in agriculture, of which the most important are to:
a) identify community assets, needs and issues; b) collaborate in the prioritization
process according to the available resources; 0) assist in the evaluation process;
(I) identify potential resources; 6) become knowledgeable communicators with
the organizations to whom they represent; and f) advocate for research and/or
extension programs (INIA, 2002; MSUE, 1997; INTA, 2002; INIA-Chile, 2002,
Johnson,1998)

From the previous description of major functions, it is possible to

understand the variety of roles and authority that advisory councils may have. An

56

accurate delimitation of the roles among council members is indicated as
indispensable, for a true functioning of the advisory councils. As indicated by
Johnson (1998), if there is not a clear definition of roles, it is possible that council
members and researchers may have different understanding of the council’s
roles and purposes. Consequently, different expectations will be made by the

different actors at the council resulting in mismatching goals and frictions.

b) Memibership and representations at the advisory cogncils

It needs to be kept in mind that the advisory councils are groups of people,
and in consequence, human relationships influence them. Moreover, issues
concerning selection of participants appear to be an important factor that affects
its performance. Advisory councils are generally formed to achieve a favorable
balance represented by geographical location, age, gender, commodity
production, major role, as well others characteristics of members (Mainzer,
1958). The failure of broad-based statewide advisory groups raises serious
concerns (Johnson, 1998). An advisory council’s opinion may ignore the needs of
some farmer segments and/or non-traditional groups. Lacy (1996), states that
determining appropriate membership is often a key factor in building a successful
advisory council process. Current problems are likely to have more weight with
those groups, and sometimes, advisory councils are not concerned with long-

term vision problems (Heffernan, 1986).

57

c) Adyisfory cogncil fgnctioning

As human groups, advisory councils may also suffer from motivational and
behavioral problems. The lack of motivation to participate after a period of time
has been reported by Restaino (1998). A lack of trust in the process is also
mentioned by Allegri (1999). Johnson (1998) reported that most council members
found council participation to be stimulating because of the social and technical
interaction developed at the councils. In addition, council members may feel
motivated by the possibility of being “insider” viewers of research programs. This
fact, as indicated by Gordon (1999), could be interpreted as a non-reward
motivational factor for council members.

This participatory method may involve some problems related to the
shared of responsibilities or power. Evaluation results of advisory councils
(Extension Councils) of the Virginia Cooperative Extension indicated that both
extension staff and non-extension staff members 'were uncomfortable with
shared decision-making and saw the involvement process as a time-censuming
effort (MSUE, 1997).

The frequency of meetings is also indicated as a determinant for a
successful functioning of the councils. From the INIA minutes’ analysis, it was
indicated that, in general, every council met twice a year. The established norms
for the RAC councils at INIA specify that at least the regional advisory council
should have the opportunity to meet twice during the year. Johnson (1998)
describes the same situation for the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station’s

advisory council. Because of the irregular meeting frequency, it is indicated that

58

council members suffer from discontinuity (Mainzer, 1958; Johnson, 1998;
Restaino, 1998). In this sense, follow-up meetings and a continuous
communication between meetings appear as indispensable.

The agenda meeting definition (purpose and objectives) and duration of
the meetings are issues to be considered carefully for any meeting. Council
members and researchers are adults, with individual responsibilities external to
the council, different jobs, different experiences, determining different and
particular expectations. The “andragogical model” described by Cookson &
Knowles (1998) regarding adult learners states that, adults have a deep need to
be self-directed and they have an accumulated body of experience that has to be
considered. Moreover, Cookson & Knowles indicate that primarily intrinsic
motivators, such as self-esteem, responsibility, and opportunity, motivate adults.
This model, different from the “pedagogical model”, implies the necessity of being
learner (or in this case, council member) oriented. Doing an analogical
consideration of this model, in summary, it is possible to state that at the moment
of establishing the meeting goals, objectives, and agenda, it is necessary to have
in mind that we are working with adults and, therefore, the basic assumptions
made by Knowles should be taken into consideration. For instance, Johnson
(1998) states that the primary purpose of meetings were for giving reports by
researchers and administrators, with only a small amount of time set aside for
discussion. Indication of requests from INIA council members for more time for

discussion and better planning of the meeting agenda were also found in the

59

council reports (minutes). Surely, this is not the expectation that “advisory”
council members have regarding their function at the councils.

Gamon, J. (1987), in an interesting paper entitled “Advisory Councils-Real
Friends”, report some of the most important considerations in order to have
supportive advisory councils or, as the author indicate, “real friends”. Gamong,
points out meeting at convenient time, in a familiar place is sometimes a key
factor for having good attendance. Moreover, she argues over the option of
replacing meetings with telephone conferences, mailed reports, and other a-
synchronous contact, in order to reduce the frequency of meetings. In addition,
she indicates the importance of correct-sized, action-oriented, personally
rewarding meetings as time tested, and never-fail guidelines for successful
council committees.

As a summary of the major issues affecting the advisory councils, it is
opportune to cite Johnson’s (1998) major recommendations found in the case
study of the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station’s advisory council. The
recommendations were:

- define a clear role for the advisory council

- select knowledgeable and well-linked stakeholders

- help stakeholder organizations and their members to develop capacity to

participate in advisory councils and research priority setting

- develop an internal infrastructure to operate and support the councils,

and

60

- communicate council’s activities among all stakeholders and the general

public. (pp. 133-140)

2.7. Stakeholder Participation in Agricultural Research

According to Grimble and Wellard (1997), stakeholders can be defined as
“any group of peOple, organized or not, who share a common interest or stake in
a particular issue or system.” Farmers are in concordance with this position in the
agricultural system in Uruguay, and especially in the INIA ecosystem. Farmers
share, with this agricultural research organization, the challenges of seeking new
technology and solutions to technological needs. Moreover, it is important to
remember that, in the case of INIA, farmers are an important source of funding
for INIA (40%). That fact increases the importance of this segment as
stakeholders. In addition, Burkhard (1991), and Allegri (1999) state that
stakeholders have long been involved in determining public agricultural research
priorities.

Kelsey, KB. (2002), in a case study of forestry stakeholders working
together with the Department of Forestry at Oklahoma State University, points
out that lack of information from the land-grant university and the presentation of
too technical information represented barriers for these stakeholders to have
timely, useful and appropriate knowledge. One of the conclusions of this study
strongly suggests the necessity to have face-to-faoe interaction, consultations,

and integration between researchers and stakeholders in order to match interest.

61

2.8. The Concept of Clientele

As described in the introduction, clientele can be considered as not only
the actual, but also, potential customers. Cano, (1981) conducting an important
research in many Latin American countries two decades ago, reported that most
of the agricultural research in those countries represents a lack of accountability
to clientele. Cano’s study describes clearly that before the 19805 agricultural
political directives and research thoughts from researchers drove the research
programs. This system failed to address the real needs of the major customers.
After many years, important marketing concepts were introduced into the
agricultural systems. These marketing concepts influenced many organizations
working in agricultural research to establish demand-driven models, and become
preoccupied with identifying its “clientele” and, most important, with identifying
effective instruments to assess clientele needs.

The International Service for National Agricultural Research (lSNAR)
stated that the importance for research and extension organizations working in
agriculture was to promote and establish the necessary mechanisms for involving
public and private stakeholders in order to have direct contact with the clientele
(ISNAR, 1990). According to Hadwiger (1982), a generalized type of clientele
linkage came from the establishment of advisory councils groups.

Long, J. (1984), indicate the substantial value that there is when
stakeholders and users of extension programs are involved in advisory councils.
As Long states, involvement speeds up the process of planed change and it

result in better decisions.

62

2.9. Team and Group Dynamics

The terms “teams” and “groups” of people implies that some individuals
work together, physically, or otherwise, having a common purpose (Gordon,
1999). However, Gordon states that there is an important difference between a
group and a team. A “group” can be defined as .two or more people in a work
setting with a common goal. On the other hand, the term “team” emphasizes
collaboration (symbiosis) between members to accomplish the goal.

Knowing the manner in which groups and teams develop ensure the
effectiveness of these instruments (Gordon, 1999). The first step in this process
is the formation of the group or the team. Common needs, interest, goals,
physical proximity and/or cultural similarity are the most important causes for
team or group formation. However, the same author states that groups that have
common goals and interest are more effective than those who don’t.

Watson, Johnson & Merrit (1998), indicate that it is essential that teams
members understand both the interdependence of individuals within the group
and the uniqueness that each person brings to the team.

. Although, there is a process for a group development in which the group
evolves through many stages until it becomes productive. Four key elements
should be considered in order to achieve effective development (Gordon, 1999):
a) the resources of individual members, b) goal setting for the group, c) norm

setting, and d) roles setting.

63

Advisory councils are in fact groups or in some cases teams working
together, consequently all previous concept have to be taken into consideration
in order to function effectively. In addition, it is important to indicate that there are
some characteristics linked to the work in teams such as: a) groups generally
need more time to make decisions than individuals, b) groups tend to make
riskier decision than individuals (Gordon, 1999), and 0) there is a risk of ignoring
individual expertise if the group procedures and norms are not clearly
established. From the major difference, described earlier, between “teams” and
“groups” appears important to set up the condition to turn the advisory councils
from groups to teams. This is not an easy task. Maxwell (2001) identified 17
indisputable Laws for Teamwork. Among these laws, two appears as the most
important regarding the advisory councils working in agriculture: develop identity
between members, the council, and the research system; and the law of
communication that indicates the necessity of develops full interaction among

members.

CHAPTER III

Methodology

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the methods and procedures used
to assess information about Regional Advisory Council members’ profiles and the
perceptions that members have regarding the Regional Advisory Councils. It also
describes procedures followed to study INIA La Estanzuela research staff profile
and their perceptions about the Regional Advisory Councils.

This study was conducted at La Estanzuela research station of the
National Agricultural Research Institute (INIA) of Uruguay. Of the five INIA
research stations (Las Brujas, La Estanzuela, Treinta y Tres, Tacuarembo, and
Salto Grande), it was only possible for INIA to provide La Estanzuela research
station Regional Advisory Councils database on time for inclusion in this study.
Therefore, the study was limited to INIA La Estanzuela research station.

This study focused on two areas: a) the internal operation of INIA
regarding the Regional Advisory Councils, and b) the interaction between the
Regional Advisory Councils (Regional Advisory Council-RAC and Work Groups -

we) and INIA.

65

3.1. Research Design

This research has the format of a case study of INIA La Estanzuela
research station, one of the five research stations of the National Agricultural
Research Institute of Uruguay. Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh (1996) states that case
studies attempt to describe the subject of the study from the entire range of
behaviors and the relationships of these behaviors and the environment.

Singleton et al. (1993), also recommends using case studies when the
item of the study is a single unit of analysis, such as an organization. Moreover,
uses of case studies have been a common method for investigating research and
scientific advisory committees and drawing conclusions on their operations and
effectiveness (Johnson, 1998).lNIA La Estanzuela research station is located in
the southwest region of Uruguay. This research station accounts for 30% of the
total research staff of INIA and for about 37% of the total operative INIA budget
(INIA Human Resources Unit; Administration Unit, 2002). This study focuses on
identified factors and processes taking places inside of the Regional Advisory
Councils, and analyzes the relationships of the ecosystem INIA-Regional
Advisory Councils & Work Groups.

Instrument development was done between February and May 2002, and
data analysis from September thru November 2002. Data collection was
conducted in Uruguay, between June and August 2002 by the researcher.

This study utilized both, qualitative (exploratory research) and quantitative
(descriptive and explanatory research) methods. This combination of quantitative

and qualitative methods were used in obtaining a more complete picture in order

66

to understand the complexity of internal and external human relationships under

the framework of an organization.

3.2. Research Questions

This study intended to answer the following research questions:

1.

What is the demographic and socio profile of Regional Advisory Councils
members?

How were Regional Advisory Councils members selected?

What are the linkages between the Regional Advisory Councils
participants and the major farmer organizations in Uruguay?

How do the Regional Advisory Councils participants perceive the
methodology that INIA uses to work with those stakeholder groups?

What do Regional Advisory Councils members perceive as barriers, if any,
in the functioning of the advisory councils?

What do INIA staff and managers perceive as barriers, if any, in the
functioning of the advisory councils?

According to INIA, what are the areas of work for the Regional Advisory
Councils?

According to the Regional Advisory Councils members, what are the areas

of work for the advisory councils?

. What is the relevance that Regional Advisory Councils members give to

RAC and WGs in terms of identifying farmer research needs, farmer

linkages, and farmer educational programs?

67

10. What is the relevance that INIA gives to RAC and WGs in terms of
identifying farmer research needs, farmer linkages, and farmer

educational programs?

3.3. Population and Sample

This study included two sample populations: a) Regional Advisory Council
members of INIA La Estanzuela (RAC and WG participants), and b) INIA La
Estanzuela research staff.

All participants of Regional Advisory Councils (RAC) and Work Groups
(WG) listed in the database of INIA La Estanzuela since December 1998 were
included as the second population of this study. According to this, 131 council
members were identified as the target population. After the first mail contact, four
persons responded who had never participated in the system. Therefore, the
researcher considered this as a database error and eliminated these records
from the population. Consequently, 127 council memberswere included as the
survey population for the RAC and WG population.

Research managers of lNlA LA Estanzuela (Regional Director, Research
Area Supervisors and Research Programs Head) were excluded from the lNlA
sample population of this study, due to the fact that they are involved in the
decision making process of many of the issues regarding the Regional Advisory

Councils.

68

Of the 38 actual INIA La Estanzuela research staff (target population), 31
researchers were identified as survey participants. The Regional Director, two

area supervisors, and four program research heads were excluded.

3.4. Instrumentation
In order to implement a valid, reliable, credible and feasible methodology
the following four instruments for data collection were utilized:
. Two types of surveys:
Survey A, to collect data from INIA La Estanzuela researcher staff
Survey B, to collect data from RAC and WG council members
. Informal questionnaire (semi-structured interviews)
. Secondary data analysis (internal documents, memorandums, agendas,
minutes, reports, etc.)

Appendix C shows the instruments used for the different populations.

a) Questionnaire devemment
Survey questionnaires were first developed in the English language.
Survey questions were developed following the research questions established
for this study, taking into consideration the suggestions and topic of interest
proposed by the Technology Transfer and Marketing Unit of INIA, and taking into
consideration the experience that the researcher has after having been working
with the councils for a period of ten years. Once the first draft for each survey

questionnaire was developed, these were revised after close consultation with

69

the Technology Transfer and Marketing Unit of INIA. In addition, Michigan State
University experts (the researcher’s major professor, two other professors in the
department of Agricultural Natural Resources, Education and Communication
Systems-ANRECS) provided feedback and suggestions over the survey
questions and questionnaire organization. Finally other suggestions from faculty
members at the ANRECS department and INIA peers were also taken into
consideration.

After this careful and critical process, and following the guideline as
described by Dillman D. (2000), two survey questionnaires were constructed,
including six sections with 34 questions for the Regional Council Members, and
five sections with 20 questions for INIA research staff. Moreover, a comment
section was provided at the end of each survey questionnaire to allow
participants to add additional comments related to the study. Of the total set of
questions, 14 were identical and two were identical except for some modification
in the number of options presented to the respondents.

The six sections of the RAC/WG survey questionnaire (Survey B) were:

1) Section A. Present member’s selection process consisted of two
questions to determine the actual membership status regarding
the Regional Advisory Council (RAC) and/or the Working
Groups (WG) councils and the possible causes of withdrawal of
some members.

2) Section B. Member selection and representation: eight

questions were posed in this section with the intention of

70

3)

determining when members joined the councils, how they were
selected, suggestions to improve selection process, member
relationship with major farmers and agricultural
organizations/institutions, familiarity with the system before
participation, and member’s perception regarding representation
of major organizations at the councils.

Section C. Operational characteristics: of the RAC and the WG
councils. This section asked participants a set of seven
questions regarding, the best period of the year (months) to
hold meetings and the frequencies of councils meetings,
satisfaction with the invitation process and issues regarding
invitation timing, knowledge of meeting objectives/purposes
before attending, and satisfaction with INIA’s meeting support.
Section D. Meeting procedure: this section included four
questions of which two were open-ended seeking to identify the
major weaknesses of the meeting procedures and of which
three were suggestions to improve meetings procedures. One
question was posed to investigate general satisfaction with
meeting procedures and last question in this section was a nine-
item question regarding information and guidelines received
previous to attending meetings, interaction with others
participants, time availability during meetings, and increments in

technical expertise as a result of council participation.

71

Section E. RAC and WG perceptions: this section involves six
questions dealing with major barrier identifications, major areas
of concerns of RAC and WG, perceptions about member
contributions and importance of members’ opinions. In addition,
members were asked to indicate the importance of having
norms to guide the selection and/or member renovation.

Section F. Personal characteristics: in this section seven
questions investigate major commodity products linked with
participants, member leadership characteristics, age, gender,

actual occupation, educational level and living location.

INIA research staff questionnaire, as indicated earlier, included five sections.

1)

' Section A. Selection and representation. INIA staff were asked in

this section to indicate how familiar they were with the system, how
many times each had participated in council meetings and how they
perceived council member representation.

Section 8. Operational characteristics of RAC and WG councils.
This section included four questions. Three were identical to the
questions asked in Section C of Survey B (RAC/WG): period of the
year to hold meetings (month), frequency of meetings, and
objective/purpose of the meeting knowledge before participation.
The remaining question in this section, as well as in Survey B,

asked about satisfaction of invitation process of researchers to the

72

Council meetings (notification process requesting the researcher
participation in the meeting).

3) Section C. Meetings procedures. This section corresponded to
section D in Survey B. It included the same four questions, however
the nine-item question (in Survey B) was reduced to five items.
Interaction with others members and the technical expertise
statement was not pertinent for INIA staff.

4) Section D. RAC and WG perception. This section is identical to
Section E on Survey B. The main objective of this section was to
establish a perception comparison between RACNVG council
members and lNlA research staff.

5) Section F. Personal characteristics. Three questions were included
in this section to gather information about INIA research staff age,

gender, and educational level.

Appendix D shows the congruence between sections and questions in
both survey questionnaires and the relationship with the research questions of
this study.

As Dillman (2000) indicates, the graphical aspects of layout and design,
itself, represents the critical aspect that will affect participant understanding of
questions and the motivation to answer all questions. Consequently, three

different graphic models were developed and consulted with peers and with

73

Michigan State University experts in order to identify which model was clearer
and friendlier.

Next, the survey questionnaires were translated into the Spanish language
taking care to preserve the exact meaning of each question and/or item. To
assure validity, all of the Spanish versions of the interview questions, and the
survey questionnaires A & B were field tested using a group of people with
similar characteristics to the study population, but were not included in the study.
Based on the feedback (field-test), modifications were made in the instruments
enhance content validity.

Finally, survey questionnaires were printed and duplicated using a
different color for each sample population (pale blue for the Regional Advisory
Council, pale yellow for INIA research staff). This procedure allowed the
researcher to quickly identify survey questionnaires with each sample and for
survey participants to quickly identify the questionnaire from the cover letter, and
to avoid any possible errors in data entry. In addition, Dillman (2000) states that
paper color also plays an important role in attracting respondent attention to the

instrument.

b) Survey implementation
Pre-letters and cover letters were developed to establish the first contact
with survey participants and to introduce the necessary information of the study,
respectively. In addition, the pre-letters and cover letters included the contact

information of the researcher and the request to contact the researcher if it were

74

necessary to use a different address or means to send the survey. The cover
letters as well as pre-Ietters were designed following Dillman’s (2000)
suggestions, to create a professional, friendly and positive first impression.

The pre-Ietter for the Regional Advisory Council members and INIA
research staff were very similar. The Regional Advisory Council member pre-
letter was printed on INIA letterhead, signed by the Regional Director of INIA La
Estanzuela and the researcher. The pre-letter was sent by public or private mail
(depending on the best choice regarding the participant address) on June 20,
2002 (ten days before mailing the survey questionnaire).

The survey packets (RAC/WG and INIA research staff) were assembled
including the cover letter, the survey questionnaire (with a unique generated
code inserted at the bottom of the first page), and a self-addressed prepaid
return envelope. RACNVG survey packets were mailed using a private and the
public mail company from Colonia City (Uruguay) on July 3, 2002.The pre-letter
for INIA research participants was mail-merged with the INIA La Estanzuela
research staff e-mail database and sent by INTERNET e-mail on July 15’, 2002.
The cover letter for INIA researchers was also printed on an INIA letterhead and
signed by the researcher. A confidentiality statement, in agreement with the
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) 2 of
Michigan State University, was included assuring survey participant of privacy

protection.

 

2 UCRIHS, University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects

Survey questionnaires, pre-letters, cover letters and interview consent forms were submitted to
UCRIHS for approval on May 27 6, 2002. Approval and authorization to conduct the study
(Category 1-2 Exempt, ID # 02-441) was received on June 06, 2002. (Appendix B)

75

INIA researcher survey packets were assembled as well as RAC/WG
packets, but, in this case, they only included a plain lNlA envelope for returning
the survey to the office researcher at INIA La Estanzuela. INIA research packets
were distributed at INIA La Estanzuela research station, in person by the
researcher on July 10, 2002.

A series of two follow-up reminders were developed to contact non-
respondents after the first mailing. The first thank-you reminder follow-up letter to
the RAC/WG members was sent by mail about ten days after the survey packet,
on July 15, 2002. The second follow-up reminder for the same sample included a
new motivational cover letter and a duplicate questionnaire. It was sent by mail
on July 26, 2002 (five days before the established return response deadline).

Two follow-up reminders were sent to INIA research staff by e-mail on July
24, 2002 and August 5, 2002.

Copies of all materials used in the mailing packets as well the follow-up
reminders are provided in Appendix C.

Completed questionnaires were carefully checked upon return.
Date of return and respondent code were annotated in the database to identify
early and late respondents. Early and late RACNVG respondents were compared
in order to identify some possible differences. t-tests were run to explore possible
differences in the perceptions from earlier and late RAC/WG respondents. All
usable questionnaires were given a new identification number following the order

of processing (data entry). By the closing date, August 15 2002, 81 usable

76

questionnaires were received from the RAC/WG members and 27 from the INIA

research staff, representing 64% and 84% response rates, respectively.

Figure 3.1 Survey implementation timing execution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

May June June June July July July July August August Sept.
27 06 15 20 01 10 24 26 05 15 10
l ’ = a = l
l RAC/WG RAC/WG RAC/W6 RAC/WG j
2 pre-letter survey first follow- 2"". Follow-
g l ' sent packet up sent up sent ‘ ;
sent
Survey UCRIHS Survey materials Closing
. . Data
rnatenals approval are printed and date entry
fOUb' ' med mu't'med INIA pre- INIA INIA first lNlA 2M. begins
UCRI HS letter survey follow up follow up
(English sent packet sent sent
& distributed
Spanish)

c) Semi-structured interviews

Interviews were conducted as part of the qualitative data collection. In total

nine interviews were conducted: three of INIA research staff and six of RACNVG

77

council members. Council members and INIA researchers were selected
randomly for interviews.

Interviews were conducted in a very informal environment and were not
tape-recorded to increase the free-flow of ideas and the confidentiality of the
interviewees. Notes were taken after the researcher finished the interviews. The
notes were analyzed, clustered into common topics and reported together with
the open-ended questions over the same topics as were asked in the survey
questionnaires.

The interview information was used to complement survey information and in
order to obtain a more qualitative understanding of the major issues of the RAC

and WG council.

3.5. Data Analysis

A continuous and interactive process from the beginning of the research
study was followed to collect and analyze qualitative data (INIA documents,
council meeting minutes, interviews, and open-ended questions included at the
survey questionnaires). This data was classified, organized systematically and
analyzed identifying common patterns.

Quantitative data were coded, entered and analyzed using the Statistical
Package for Social Science (SPSS) software between September and November

2002. Data were first checked for data entry errors. Corrections were made in the

78

database and errors or inconsistencies, were checked by tracking the code
number for each survey questionnaire.

The first part of the analysis consisted of descriptive statistics including
frequency counts, measures of central tendency and measures of dispersion, as
appropriate.

The second part of the analysis consisted of descriptive statistics of
questions with a five-point Likert-type scale. Six Likert-type scales were used in
this study (Table 3.1). Means and standard deviations were calculated for each
variable. Tests of mean differences (ANOVA, Scheffe post-hoc, and t-test) were
performed to analyze significant differences on perceptions between two or more
groups.

The alpha level was set a priori at the 0.05 levels for all significance tests.

Table 3.1 Five point Likert-type scale used in the study

 

 

Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale
1 2 3 4 5 6

None Not Not at all Strongly Nothing Not at all
Satisfied disagree important

Poor A little A little Disagree Somewhat A little
Satisfied important

Fair Somewhat Somewhat Neutral Neutral Neutral
satisfied

Good Satisfied Good Agree Important Familiar

Very Very Very good Strongly Very Very

Good Satisfied agree important familiar

 

79

3.6

Limitations of the Study

Some limitations of the study included the following:

This study is limited to the Regional Advisory Council and Work
Groups of the INIA La Estanzuela research station of the National
Agricultural Research Institute of Uruguay.

This study is limited to the INIA La Estanzuela research staff of the
National Agricultural Research Institute of Uruguay.

The researcher has been working with the Regional Advisory
CouncilsNVork Groups of INIA La Estanzuela research station
since 1990. This experience contributes to the study development
and conduction, but at the same time has the potential for
developing subjective perspective.

At the time when this study was conducted, the region and, in
particular, Uruguay was affected by a severe economic recession.
The agricultural sector was one of the most affected by this
recession and therefore, some participants’ opinions/perceptions

could be potentially affected by this situation.

80

CHAPTER IV

Resufls

The data collected in this study were analyzed using the Statistical
Package for Social Science (SPSS) and according to the methodology described
in Chapter III. Qualitative data were analyzed interpreting the responses, coding
major topics, and clustering the responses according to the emerging topics. This
chapter describes the most important findings, according to the objectives of this
study.

The results and discussion of findings, are organized according to the research

questions as follows:

1. What is the demographic and socio profile of Regional Advisory Councils
members?

2. How were Regional Advisory Councils members selected?

3. What are the linkages between the Regional Advisory Councils
participants and the major farmer organizations in Uruguay?

4. How do the Regional Advisory Councils participants feel about the
methodology that INIA uses to work with those stakeholder groups?

5. What do Regional Advisory Council members perceive as barriers, if any,

in the functioning of the advisory councils?

81

6. What do INIA staff and managers perceive as barriers, if any, in the
functioning of the Regional Advisory Councils?

7. According to INIA, what are the areas of work and concern for the
Regional Advisory Councils?

8. According to the Regional Advisory Councils members, what are the areas
of work and concern for the advisory councils?

9. What is the relevance that Regional Advisory Councils members give to
RAC and WG in terms of identifying farmer research needs, farmer
linkages, and farmer educational programs?

10.What is the relevance that INIA gives to RAC and WG in terms of
identifying farmer research needs, farmer linkages, and farmer

educational programs?

The study populations for this study consisted of 127 Regional Advisory
Councils (RAC) and Work Group (WG) members, and 31 research staff of INIA
La Estanzuela research station. Data were gathered using a self-administered
questionnaire to all members of this population and thru semi-structured
interview to nine randomly selected participants.

At the closing date established as August 15, 2002 a total of 81 usable
surveys were received from the RACNVG members indicating a rate of return of
64% (Figure 4.1). For INIA La Estanzuela research staff, a total of 26 completed
and utilizable survey were received representing a return rate “of 84% (Figure

4.1).

Figure 4.1 Percentage of respondents and non-respondents for each sample
population (RAC/WG and lNlA La Estanzuela Research Staff)

 

 

RAC/WG Members INIA La Estanzuela Research Staff

1 6%

    

84%

 

 

 

[U Respondents lNon Respondents [El Respondents lNon Respondents I

 

 

 

 

As this is an explanatory case study, theses responses rate are
considered as adequate. D. Dillman (2000) indicates for some surveys
developed in the United States responses rates between 58 and 78% as
acceptable. In addition, the RACNVG sample rate of 64% is considered by the
researcher a worthy rate considering the difficult socio-economic situation of the

country and especially of the agricultural sector when this study took place.

4.1. Regional Advisory Councils Members’ Profiles
To answer the first research question, selected demographic and socio
information was collected from the RACNVG members.
Results are organized under the following headings: a) age, b) gender, c)
major occupation, d) formal educational level, e) living location, f) current
membership status, 9) major reason for no longer participating, h) year when

started participating, and l) major members’ 3 commodity production area.

83

a)Ag§

The minimum and maximum age reported by the Regional Advisory
Council members (RAC and WG) was 26 and 70 years, respectively. The
average age of members (mean) was 48 years and a standard deviation of 9
years. Approximately, two-third of respondents were between 39 and 57 years
(Table 4.1). In addition, percentiles distribution (25"‘, 50‘“, and 75th percentiles)
are indicating a negatively skewed age members distribution, indicating that

more cases are over the mean.

Table 4.1 RACNVG member age

 

 

 

N=81
Mean (Std. Dev.) 47.85 (8.55)
Percentiles 25 42.50
50 48.00
75 52.00

b) Geode

Table 4.2 shows that almost all (96.3%) of the council members are male.

Only 3 out of the 81 respondents (3.7%) are female.

Table 4.2 RACNVG gender member’s distribution (N=81)

 

 

Frequency Percent
Female 3 3.7
Male 78 96.3
Total 81 1 00.0

 

84

c) Major occupation

RAC/WG Council members could be farmers, farm advisors and/or farmers or
professional working in any agricultural organization or farmer association in
Uruguay. Regional Advisory Council (RAC) and Work Group (WG) members
were asked to identify themselves with a major occupation such as: a) farmers,
b) farm advisor, c) professional working for an institution, and d) other
occupation. Results in Table 4.3 indicate that almost one-fourth (24.7%) of the
RACNVG members were farmers, about one-fifth (19.8%) were farm advisor, and
about 26% were “professionals working for an institution” as his/her major
occupation. However, 24 of the 81 members indicated some combination of the
above options.

Table 4.3 Current occupation of respondents (N=81)
Frequency Percent

 

Farmer 20 24.7
Farm Advisor 16 19.8
Professional working for an Institution 21 25.9
Farmer/ Farm Advisor 11 13.6
Farmer/ Professional working for Institution 5 6.2
Farm Advisor/ Professional working for Institution 6 7.4
Others 2 2.5
Total 81 100.0

 

A computation of these combination shown in Table 4.3, indicate that about
14% of the respondents’ occupation is “farmer and farm advisor”, 6.2% as
“farmer and professional working for an institution”, and about 7% indicated “farm
advisor and professional working for an institution”. The remaining 2.5%

indicated “other” major activity such as “agricultural businessman”.

85

(1) Formal edfltional level

RAC and WG members were asked to indicate their formal educational level
as part of his/her demographic characteristics. Table 4.4 shows that about four
out of five (81.5%) have more than 13 years of education, representing a
bachelor level or University degree. Almost one out of ten (9%) indicated High
School education, and the same number (9.8%) indicated less than 10 years of

formal education.

Table 4.4 Member’s formal educational level (N=81)

 

 

Frequency Percent
Less than 6 years 1 1.2
7 to 10 years 7 8.6
11 to 12 years 7 8.6
More than 13 66 81.5
Total 81 100.0

 

e) Living location

Council member’s (RACNVG) living location (Urban, Suburban or Rural) is an
important characteristic in order to understand how available some services
could be for members. Table 4.5 shows that about three out of five (58%) came
from an “urban” living location and Montevideo the capital of Uruguay. The “rural”
living location (member that live in a farm) was indicated by one-fourth of the

members.

86

Table 4.5 RAC/WG member living location (N=80)

 

 

Frequency Percent

Main city 17 21.3
Urban 29 36.3
Sub-urban 14 17.5
Rural 20 25.0
Total 80 100.0
Missing NA 1

Total 81

 

f) wrent membership status

Council members could participate as Regional Advisory Council member
(RAC), Working Group member (WG), or participate in both councils as Working
Group member and group representative at the RAC (RACNVG). To explore the
membership status from participants, council members were asked to identify
themselves as Regional Advisory Council (RAC) member, Working Group (WG)
member, Working Group member and RAC representative (RAC/WG), “not sure”
about his/her position and if he/she is no longer participating at the council
system. Figure 4.2 shows that 1.3% indicated that they were RAC members,
about 34% indicated Work Group membership position, and one out of ten (10%)
mentioned participation in both councils as WG member and RAC
representative. In addition, a significant percentage of respondents (32.5%)
indicated that there were “not sure” about what his/her membership is. Similarly,
about one out five respondents (22.5%) indicated that they were no longer

participating in any council (neither RAC, nor WG).

87

Figure 4.2. Member’s current position (percentages)

 

N longer
participating
22.5% WG
33.8%
Not Sure RAC 8, we
325% 10.0%

9) Major reason for no longer participating in the RAC or WQ

From those members participating in the survey and responding that they are
no longer participating (22.5% of the respondents, Figure 4.2) or not sure about
his/her status (32.5%), about 8% mentioned that they lost interest in continued
participation (Table 4.6). Similarly, almost 8% mentioned they found some kind of
conflict with other activities, 5% indicated that they found the system complex,

and 30 out of 38 (almost 79%) mentioned other reasons, which included:

0 I did not received any new invitation from INIA (n=22)
. I changed my work region (n=1)

. I changed my job (n=1)

88

I am retired now (n=1)

The system does not allow me to participate as I like (n=1)

I participate only once for a special meeting (n=1)

Non specific reason (n=3)

Table 4.6 Major reason for no longer participate at the councils (N=38)
Frequency Percent

 

 

Lost interest 3 7.9
Find conflict w/ others activities 3 7.9
Find the system complex 2 5.3
Other 30 78.9
Total 38 100.0

 

h) Year when members start participating

RAC and WG members were asked to identify the year when they started
their participation at the councils. Table 4.7 shows that almost 29% of
respondents started their participation in 1990, year when the councils were
established by INIA. Years 1998 and 2001 show significant percentages of
members starting their work as RAC and/or WG members (12.1% and 19.7%
respectively). This is consistent with years in which INIA has worked extensively
with RAC and WG establishing and prioritizing the new research programs and
consequently, demanding its stakeholders their opinion about the research
program development (1998, POMP Evaluation, PIMP discussion; 2001, PIMP
Evaluation). In addition, Results show that one-half (50%) of the members have
been working for at least 5 years in the RACNVG, and almost one out of three

(30%) has ten years of experience working at the councils (Table 4.7).

89

Table 4.7. Year when members start participating (N=66)

 

 

Year Frequency Percent Cumulative
Percent
1990 19 28.8 28.8
1991 3 4.5 33.3
1992 1 1.5 34.8
1993 5 7.6 42.4
1994 2 3.0 45.5
1995 3 4.5 50.0
1996 0 0.0 50.0
1997 3 4.5 54.5
1998 8 12.1 66.7
1999 5 7.6 74.2
2000 4 6.1 80.3
2001 13 19.7 100.0
Total 66 100.0
Missing 15
Total 81

 

Similarly, Figure 4.3 shows the frequency distribution of the years when
members started to participate in the council. This picture provides an easy

view of the distribution.

90

Figure 4.3. Year when members start participating (Frequencies)(N=66)

 

8

Frequency

8

 

 

 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Year when start participation

i) Major commodig production of members

Figure 4.4 shows the major production area associated with RACNVG

 

members. According to the results, about one-fifth (21.3%) of the RAC/WG
members were engaged in dairy, about 19% of members are linked to cereal
crops, almost 14% with beef meat, and 12.5% with beekeeping as major areas.
In addition, seed production was indicated by five members (6.3%), forage by
four participants (5%) and a 2,5% of RAC/WG members indicated sheep/goats.
For some participants it was difficult to select one major area of work

linked with the major agricultural commodities in the INIA La Estanzuela region.
Therefore, 16 members (20%) indicated some combinations crops and livestock
systems. These includes:

0 Integrated system of production (n=1)

. Cereals crops, Forages and Seed Production (n=4)

. Beef meat, Cereals crops, Forages and Seed Production (n=5)

91

0 Beef meat and Sheep/Goat (n=2)
. Beef meat and Dairy (n=2)
. Irrigation systems (n=1)

0 Bee-keeping and calves breeding (n=1)

Figure 4.4. Major member’s area of work (Percentages)

Beef meet

Other

   

Bee-keeping
12.5%

  
 
 
 
 

  

Seed production Sheep/Goats

6.3%

   

2.5%

    

 

Forage crops

5.0%

   

Cereals crops

 
 

18.8%

 

4.2. INIA La Estanzuela Research Staff Profile

This section describes demographic information for the INIA La

Estanzuela research staff population. The population, as it was described in the
Methodology chapter, involved the research staff at INIA Ia Estanzuela research
station (N=31) excluding the Regional Director, Area Supervisors (2

Supervisors), and Programs Heads (4 Programs Head). The response rate, as

92

mentioned earlier was 84% (N=27). Results presented in this section are
organized under the following items: a) age, b) gender, 0) graduate degree, and

d) experience with the RACNVG councils.

alage

Table 4.8 shows that the average and median (50th percentile) age for the
research staff is 46 years. A standard deviation of 8 years indicates that about

two-thirds of the INIA La Estanzuela research staff is between 38 and 54 years.

Table 4.8 Research staff age (N=26)

 

 

Mean (Std. Dev) 46.12 (8.31)
Percentiles 25 39.00
50 46.00
75 53.50
b) Gender

Of the research staff survey respondents, 69.2% were male and 30.8%
were female. As shown in Table 4.9 almost seven out of ten research staff was
male. These figures show some higher percentage of female researchers at this
time at INIA La Estanzuela that it was described by Allegri (1999) (22% were
female in the overall INIA in 1999).

Table 4.9. Research staff gender (N=26)
Frequency Percent

 

Female 8 30.8
Male . 1 8 69.2
Total 26 1 00.0

 

93

c) Graduate degree
INIA La Estanzuela research staff participating in the survey was also
asked to answer about their current academic level. Table 4.10 indicates that the
majority (92.3%) of research staff has some post-education study (Master or
Doctoral). Almost two out of three (65.4%) research staff have Master degree,

and over one-fourth indicated Doctoral academic level or PhD.

Table 4.10. Research staff academic degree (N=26)

 

 

Frequency Percent
Bachelor 2 7.7
Master 1 7 65.4
Doctoral 7 26.9
Total 26 1 00.0

 

Figures obtained for INIA La Estanzuela show a better situation regarding
Master level in comparison with the whole Institution (45%) and a reduced level

regarding total INIA’s Ph.D (38%).

Figure 4.5. Research staff academic degree

Doctoral
26.9%

   
 
 

Master

  

65 4%

94

d) Participation at the RAC / WG meetings

The number of times that a researcher participates in the RACNVG
meetings is an important variable related with the experience that the researcher
has regarding this participatory system. When INIA La Estanzuela research staff
were asked to indicate the number of times that they participate, almost two-third
(65.4%) indicated participation in four to six meetings since 1990, 7.7% indicated
participation between seven and ten times, and 3.8% more than ten times (Table
11). However, about one-fourth (23%) indicated participation of less than three
times in twelve years. In addition it is important to remark that since the RAC and
WG were established in 1990, almost 70 meetings were held in INIA La

Estanzuela research station ((CAR & GT INIA La Estanzuela, 1990-2000)).

Table 4.11 How many times research staff participated at the RAC or WG?
(N=26)

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
1 to 3 times 6 23.1
4 to 6 times 17 65.4
7 to 10 times 2 7.7
More than 10 times 1 3.8
Total 26 100.0
4.3. Councils Member Selection

a) Selection process

Selection of RAC and WG members is important first-step to the

functioning and representation of a participatory process.

95

Findings in Table 4.12 show that “direct invitation from INIA” and “direct
designation by farmer’s organization” are the two major means in which
members are invited to participate in the RAC and/or the WG councils. According
to these figures, INIA is directly responsible for the selection of about half (46%)
of RAC/WG members. In addition, two-fifths (40%) of the INIA LA Estanzuela
RAC / WG members were designated to participate by majors farmers
organizations operating in the country. Fewer respondents (2,5%) expressed that
they were self involved by personal interest, and one out of ten (10%) were
invited by others members of RAC and WG who were already participating in the

advisory councils.

Table 4.12 How RAC and WG council members where selected?

 

 

fl=80l

Frequency Percent
Through lNlA invitation 37 46.3
Appointed by organization 32 40.0
By personal interest 2 2.5
RAC or WG invitation 8 10.0
Other 1 1.3
Total 80 100.0
Missing 1
Total 81

 

96

b) Members sugg§tions regflpg selection process

This section provides qualitative information collected using open-ended
questions included in the RACNVG survey questionnaire and personal interviews
to council members.

Participants were asked to offer suggestions about how members should
be selected in the future. Members felt that future council members should have
a wide experience in the field for what they are expected to represent. Moreover,
actual council members indicated that selection should be done from a wide
spectrum, including independent members, members representing regional
organizations, national organizations, and others farmers and/or agricultural
organizations. Similarly, members pointed out the following values as remarkable
and necessary characteristics for any council member: innovative, positive,
vision, leadership, and motivation.

The quotation below indicates the spirit of what participants indicated as
desiderable:

“Select people motivated, innovative with positive attitude and directly
linked with the production,. .. with mud on the shoes”

Regarding representation of members, it was as well mentioned that WG
members designation should be done by the major organizations working in the
region and by INIA directly. Regarding RAC members appointment, participants’
opinion is divided. Suggestions include the following statements as the most
frequently mentioned: 'a) RAC members should be selected from the WG

members, b) INIA board should select them and c) the Regional Director should

97

invite RAC members from the major agricultural organizations working in the
region.

In addition, members indicated that it is necessary to establish a written
policy regarding how members should be selected and re-elected, and this policy

should be advertised and disseminated.

4.4. Linkages with Farmer Organizations
Linkages or working relationships that RACNVG members have with the
major agricultural farmers organizations and agricultural associations is an
important indicator about what is the grade of representation the major
agricultural stakeholders have in the RAC and WG councils. A set of questions
was included in the RACNVG survey questionnaire to gather information to

respond to the third research question of this study.

Information in this section is organized under the following sub-headings: a)
RACNVG member actual representation, b) INIA Research staff perception about
the RACNVG member representation, c) RAC/WG member perception about the
actual representation of the major stakeholders, d) perceived difference from the
two councils (WG and WG/RAC), and e) perceived difference in the

representation based in the actual member’s representation status.

98

a) RAC and WG member’s actual representation
Regional Advisory Council members were asked to indicate what is their
actual representation status (linkage with farmers organization). Table 4.13
shows that almost four-fifths (80%) of the RAC and WG members are
representing an organization or a group of farmers. More than 60% of the RAC
and WG members are representing some agricultural or major farmer
organization/association, and about 2 out of ten members (19%) indicate

themselves as independent members.

Table 4.13 What is your representation status? (N=67)
Frequency Percent

 

 

Independent participant 13 19.4
Representing an organization 41 61.2
Independent but representing a group of farmers 13 19.4
Total 67 100.0
Missing 14
Total 81

 

b) INIA’s research staff perception abogt mermaers representation
The same questions regarding representation of RACNVG members were
also asked to the INIA La Estanzuela research staff to collect their perceived idea

about RAC/WG member’s representation.

99

Table 4.14 INIA’s research staff perception about RAC/ WG membership status
(N=25)
Frequency Percent

 

Independent participant 5 20.0
Representing an organization 12 48.0
Independent but representing a group of farmers 8 32.0
Total 25 100.0
Missing 1

Total 26

 

Findings shown in Table 4.14 indicate that almost one-half (50 %) of the
INIA La Estanzuela researcher staff perceived that the majority of RAC / WG
members are appointed to represent some farmer/agricultural organizations.
Similarly, 32% indicate that a majority of RAC/WG members are independent
(not linked with any major farmer organization) but representing a group of
farmers.

Thus, perception that the research staff have about RAC/WG

representation is consistent to what of RAC / WG members.

c) _R_A§ / WCi member perception about representation
Besides identifying the real representation that each member has at the
councils, RAC and WG members were asked to indicate what perception they
have about the overall representation of the major stakeholders groups.
Respondents were asked to indicate their perceptions on a five point Liekert-type
scale. The values for each statement were averaged to determine a value for

each statement based on the overall opinion of the RACNVG members.

100

Table 4.15 shows that the perception of RACNVG members about

Frequencies and Percentages.
Poor Fair Good Very Mean Std.

Perception None

farmers’ representation is fair (mean: 2.82, Std. Dev.: .976). Their perception
about University representation was poor (2.44, Std. Dev.: 1.089). Similarly,
members indicated a poor (2.56, Std. Dev.: .979) perception for the agri-industry
representation and for the agri-business representation (2.59, Std. Dev.: 1.023)
at the councils. University and agri-business representation were the statements
were members express major dispersion in their opinion indicated by higher
standard deviation. About the statement “Organization representation” at the

councils was rated higher (Mean: 3.17, Std. Dev.: .828).

Table 4.15 RAC / WG member’s perception regarding representation (N=81).

Good * Dev

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

 

 

 

 

 

About farmers 6 21 26 16 2

representation (8.5) (29.6) (36.6) (22.5) (2.8) 2.82 .976
(N=71)

About organization 3 8 36 22 2

representation (4.2) (11.3) (50.7) (31.0) (2.8) 3.17 .828
(N=71)

About University 15 18 18 1 1 1

representation (23.8) (28.6) (28.6) (17.5) (1.6) 2.44 1.089
(N=63)

About agri-industry 10 22 21 13 0

representation (15.2) (33.3) (31.8) (19.7) (0) 2.56 .979
(N=66)

About agri-business 1 1 16 21 13 0

representation (18.0) (26.2) (34.4) (21.3) (0) 2.59 1.023

(N=61)

“Mean was calculated based on a 1-5 scale: 1=None, 2: Poor, 3=Fair, 4=Good,

5=Very Good.

101

d) Differences in the perceivecflpinion between RAQ and WG

An attempt was made to determine possible differences in the perceptions
of representation at the RAC/WG councils, according to the membership status
(exclusive participation in the WG vs. participation in both RAC and WG). A t-
test was performed to compare the means for each statement within WG and
RACNVG members. Table 4.16 shown that the perceptions of “Organization
Representation” was significantly different between W6 and RACNVG members
(t=2.581, Sig. .021). Members who participated both in RAC and WG had
significantly positive perceptions about organization representation than WG
members. No significant differences in perceptions were found for all other
statements between RAC and WG members.

Table 4.16 t-test for means differences between WG members and RACNVG
members for ideas about representation of principal customer segments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perception Actual position N Mean" Std. t-value Sig.
Deviation

About farmers WG member 26 2.92 1.017

representation WG member & RAC 8 3.50 .756 1.730 .103
representative

About WG member 26 3.15 .834

organizations WG member & RAC 8 3.88 .641 2.581 .021*

representation representative

About University WG member 24 2.21 .884

representation WG member & RAC 8 2.50 1.414 .549 .587
representative

About agri- WG member 24 2.71 .999

industry WG member & RAC 8 2.38 1.061 .781 .451

representation representative

About ang- WG member 20 2.85 .875

business WG member & RAC 8 2.13 1.126 1.634 .132

representation representative

* Significance difference at 95%
"Mean was calculated based on a 1-5 scale: 1=None, 2: Poor, 3=Fair, 4=Good, 5=Very
Good.

102

e) Differences in the perceived idea by membership statgs
Differences in the perceived idea of representation at the RACNVG
according to the membership status (independent participant, representing an
organization, and representing a group of farmers) were explored.

Table 4.17 Differences in perceptions by RACNVG membership status (ANOVA)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perception Membership status N Mean” Std. F Sig.
Dev. value
About farmers Independent participant 12 3.17 .937
representation Representing an 36 2.86 1.018
organization .577 .565
Representingagroup of 12 2.75 1.055
farmers
Total 60 2.90 1.003
About organizations Independent participant 12 3.08 1.165
representation Representing an 36 3.31 .749
_o_rganization 1.496 .233
Representingagroup of 12 2.83 .718
farmers
Total 60 3.17 .847
About University Independent participant 10 2.10 .994
representation Representing an 32 2.47 1.164
organization .633 .535
Representingagroup of 11 2.64 1.120
farmers
Total 53 2.43 1.118
About agri-industry Independent participant 11 2.27 1.009
representation Representing an 34 2.65 .981
organization .608 .548
Representingagroup of 11 2.45 1.128
farmers
Total 56 2.54 1.008
About agri-business Independent participant 11 2.82 .982
representation Representing an 30 2.63 .964
gganization 1.458 .243
Representingagroup of 10 2.10 1.197
farmers
Total 51 2.57 1.025

 

*Mean was calculated based on a 1-5 scale: 1=None, 2: Poor, 3=Fair, 4=Good, 5=Very
Good.

103

Results illustrated in Table 4.17 indicate that there are no significant
differences in perception of representation at the RACNVG according to their

membership status.

In addition, Appendix E presents a list of Institutions, farmer organizations and
group of farmers from which respondents reported linkages or any formal

relationship.

4.5. Perception Regarding Procedures Used with the Councils

Respondents were asked to indicate their feelings about the methods and
procedures that INIA utilizes to work with them. Questions were asked about the
invitation process, meeting procedures, INIA support and weaknesses.

Findings are presented in the following sections:

a) Invititiowocesg
Table 4.18 shows results when RAC/WG members were asked to give
their opinion about the “Invitation process” that INIA uses to convoke a meeting.
More than three-fifth (60%) of participants indicated that they are “Satisfied” or
“Very Satisfied”; however, fewer members (7%) were “Not Satisfied”, and one out

of ten (10.3%) indicated “Little Satisfaction”.

104

Table 4.18. RAC member’ satisfaction with invitation process

 

 

Frequency Percent

Not satisfied 6 7.7
Little satisfied 8 10.3
Somewhat satisfied 15 19.2
Satisfied 41 52.6
Very satisfied 8 10.3
Total 78 > 1 00.0
Missing 3

Total 81

 

For the overall group of RACNVG members results shows a mean score of
3.47 and a Standard Deviation of 1.066, on a 1-5 scale: 1=Not Satisfied, 2: Little
satisfied, 3: Somewhat satisfied, 4=Satisfied, and 5: Very satisfied.

In order to determine differences in the members’ perceived opinion about
the invitation process, t-test was run. t-test value of 1.351 (p: .207) indicates that
there is no significant difference between RACNVG and WG members’ opinion

(Table 4.19).

Table 4.19 Test of differences for satisfaction with invitation process (RAC vs.
WG).
Actual position N Mean Std. Std. t-test Sig.

 

 

Dev. Error
Mean
How satisfied are you WG member 27 4.04 .587 .113
with the invitation WG member 9 3.56 1.014 .338 1.351 .207
process & RAC
representative

 

105

b) Qpinion apout information before attending the meetiggg
When RAC/WG were asked about how well they know the
objective/purpose of the meeting before assisting to the meetings, almost one-
third (34%) of members indicated they came to the meeting with “somewhat”
knowledgeable about the objective or purpose of the meeting. Similarly, 31.3%
indicate “A little” knowledge, and 2.5% “Not at all” knowledge of the meeting
purpose. Besides, fewer (5%) of members came to the meeting with a “Very

good” knowledge of the purpose (Table 4.20).

Table 4.20 RAC knowledge of meeting objective/purpose (N=80)

 

 

Frequeng Percent

Not at all 2 2.5

A little 25 31.3
Somewhat 27 33.8
Good 22 27.5
Very good 4 5.0
Total 80 1 00.0
Missing 1

Total 81

 

Overall, the average score (mean of 3.01, Std. Dev .948 calculated based
on a 1-5 scale: 1=No at all, 2: A little, 3: Somewhat, 4=Good, and 5: Very good)
indicated somewhat satisfaction regarding knowledge of the objectives previous
the meetings.

When INIA Research staff was asked the same question almost one-third
(31%) of the researchers indicated that they start the meeting with “some”
knowledge of the objective or purpose of the meeting (Table 4.21). However,

almost half of them (46%) indicate a “good” knowledge of the meeting objective.

106

Similarly, about one-fifth (19%) indicated “a little” knowledge, and about 4% of

the mentioned “no” knowledge of the purpose of the meeting.

Table 4.21 INIA research Staff knowledge of meeting

 

 

objective/purpose.

Frequency Percent
Not at all 3.8
A little 19.2
Somewhat 30.8
Good 46.2
Very Good 0
Total 100.0

 

To analyze possible differences between the means of the groups (RAC,

RAC/WG, and INIA), a one-way ANOVA test was run. According to the results

shown in Table 4.22, there were no significant differences (p< .05) between

means.

Table 4.22 Test of differences (ANOVA) for knowledge of meeting
obkective/purpose (RAC, WG and INIA research staff).

 

 

 

 

N Mean Std. F Sig.
Deviation
WG member 27 3.26 1.023
WG member & RAC 9 3.00 .866 252 .778
representative
INIA Staff 26 3.19 .895

 

c) Opinion about satisfaction with INIA support

RAC/WG members survey questionnaire asked about the perceived

satisfaction regarding: a) INIA support before members assist to the meeting, b)

INIA support during the meetings, and c) INIA support after the meetings.

Respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction on a series of

107

statements on a Likert-type scale. The scale had a reliability (Cronbach alpha) of

.74.

Table 4.23 Satisfaction with INIA support before, during, and after meetings
(frequency and percentages).

 

 

Satisfaction No A Little Somewhat Satisfied Very Mean Std.
Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied ’ Dev
N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)
Before 12 14 23 25 3 2.9 1.138

Meetings (15.6) (18.2) (29.9) (32.5) (3.9)
(N=77)

 

 

During 5 3 6 50 12 3.8 .963
Meetings (6.6) (3.9) (7.9) (65.8) (15.8)

(N=76)

After 16 23 18 16 2 2.5 1.131
Meetings (21 .3) (30.7) (24.0) (21 .3) (2.7)

(N=75)

 

*Mean was calculated based on a 1-5 scale: 1=No Satisfied, 2=A little satisfied,
3=Somewhat satisfied, 4=Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied.

Values without parenthesis indicate Frequencies; Values in parenthesis indicate
Percentages,

Means calculated based on a 1-5 scale (1=No Satisfied, 2: A little

satisfied, 3: Somewhat satisfied, 4=Satisfied, and 5: Very satisfied) showed a

value of 2.9 (Std. Dev: 1.138), i.e, mean satisfaction with INIA support before the

meetings; 3.8 (Std. Dev.: .963), Le, satisfaction during the meetings; and 2.5

(Std. Dev.: 1.131) satisfaction after the meetings. The higher values of standard

deviation for each statement indicate a wide spread variation in the member’s

opinion about satisfaction for “before” and “after’ meetings; yet, a few members

indicating, “Very satisfied” (less than 4%).

To explore possible mean differences for each satisfaction statement

based on the major group of work (WG exclusive and RAC/WG), a t-test was run.

Table 4.24 shows that there is no significant difference in the level of satisfaction

108

with INIA. However, WG members consistently indicate a higher satisfaction level

than RAC/WG members.

Table 4.24 Test of differences (t-test) for satisfaction before, during and after
meetings (RACNVG vs. WG)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actual position N Mean Std. t-value Sig.
Dev.
Satisfaction with INIA help:WG member 27 3.44 1.050
Before the meetings WG member & RAC 9 2.78 1.093 1.600 .133
representative
Satisfaction with INIA help:WG member 25 4.12 .526
During the meetings WG member & RAC 9 3.89 1.269 .530 .609
representative
Satisfaction with INIA help:WG member 25 3.20 1.118
After the meetings WG member & RAC 9 2.44 1.236 1.612 .131
representative

 

d) Opinion about satisfaction with the procegufres used during the meetings

How satisfied council participants are with the methodology is a good
indicator regarding if INIA is using an appropriate procedure to work with.

Satisfaction means were calculated based on a 1-5 Likert-type scale.
(1=No Satisfied, 2: A little satisfied, 3: Somewhat satisfied, 4=Satisfied, and 5:
Very satisfied). Results shown in Table 4.25, indicate a 3.74 mean for WG
members (Std. Dev.: 1.059), 3,78 (Std. Dev.: .833) for RAC/WG members, 3,56
(Std. Dev. 1.044) for those members who are not sure. if they still are members,
and 2,88 (Std. Dev. 1.111) for participants that indicated they are no longer
participating. Similarly, INIA research staff indicated a 2,71 mean satisfaction

value (Std. Dev. .908), showing the lower satisfaction according to the scale.

109

Therefore, findings in Table 4.25 indicate that INIA Research staff is less
satisfied than RAC/WG members about the methodology used in the meetings.
Furthermore, RAC/WG members that are no longer participating in the meetings,
and members that there are “nor sure” about what is his/her status are less

satisfied than others groups.

Table 4.25 Test of differences (ANOVA) for satisfaction with the
process/structure of meetings by membership status.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Membership status N Mean Std. F Sig.
Deviation value

WG member 27 3.74 1.059

WG member & RAC 9 3.78 .833

representative 4.843 .001 *
Not sure 24 3.56 1.044

No logger participating 17 2.88 1.111

INIA Staff 24 2.71 .908

 

As shown in Table 4.25, significant differences at the .05 level were observed
among the groups determined by membership or relationship with the councils. A
multiple comparisons between groups (Post Hoc Test, Sheffe) indicated that the
satisfaction indicated by INIA research staff is significantly different from

RACNVG members and WG (Sig. .014).

e) Mm weakness in meet_ir_1g§
Information presented in this section came from qualitative data collected
thru open-ended questions and members interviews. One open-ended question
related to collect opinion about the major weakness that participants found was

included in the RAC/WG and INIA research staff questionnaires.

110

Analysis of the opinions from RACNVG members reveals, that meetings
are very bureaucratic with a wide and extensive program, and consequently lack
of available time for discussion and interaction.

Another set of statement could be related to the available information that
members can have previous to the meetings. Members indicated that previous
information is very poorly or inexistent, therefore meetings show lack of
preparation from members resulting in uninformed members.

Methodological aspects of the meetings were also indicated as
responsible for poor meetings. In this sense, members indicated that
methodology used regularly lacks of opportunity to interact with INIA’s
researchers. Moreover, it was pointed out that meeting mostly of the times are
not for discussion, but just to inform about what INIA researchers are doings.
Finally, members indicated as an additional weakness the domination that old
and experienced council members exert over the rest of the members.

From the stand point of INIA, researchers indicated as one of the major
weakness the little opportunity that they have to participate directly-in the
meetings. Researchers expressed that mostly of the time Area Supervisors or
Program Head lead the meetings using the information provided by the
researchers.

In addition, researchers indicated that INIA sometimes do not have clearly
defined what the purpose of the meeting is. Furthermore, researchers also
pointed out that the council members opinions are not well processed inside of

the INIA’s structure.

111

Some other minor groups of opinions were consistent with what was
pointed out by members regarding: a) wide program, b) lack of time, c) poor or
inexistent information provided to councils members previous the meetings and

d) excess of technical data.

4.6. Council Members Opinion about Perceived Barriers, Meeting
Interaction and Received Guidelines

A set of questions was asked to RAC/WG members in order to gather
their opinion about the major barriers that they found in the system. RACNVG
members were asked to respond to three basic groups of statements regarding:
a) instructions and guidelines for meetings, b) interaction between RAC/WG
members and INIA La Estanzuela research staff, c) opinion about time available
during meetings and, d) major barriers expressed in open-end questions.

A mean was calculated for each statement based on a 1-5 Likert-type
scale: 1=Strongly disagree, 2: Disagree, 3: Neutral, 4: Agree, and 5: Strongly

disagree.

a) Instrgctions and guidelines for meetings
This section describes the opinion that RAC/WG members have about the
instructions and guidelines they receive or received to work on the councils.
RACNVG members rated with a mean of 2.68 (Std. Dev= 1.016) in a 1-5

scale their opinion about received “adequate guidelines about the RAC and WG

112

councils” (Table 4.26). When asked about if they received adequate information
prior to the meeting, a mean of 2.60 (Std. Dev.: .990) was founded according to

their opinion.

Table 4.26 RAC/WG perception about received guidelines and previous
information to work in the councils.

 

 

 

Guidelines Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Mean Std.
& Disagree Agree ’ Dev.
Information N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

I receive adequate 11 20 27 16 1 2.68 1.016
guidelines about (14.7) (26.7) (36.0) (21.3) (1 .3)

RAC and WG

(N=7Q

I receive adequate 10 28 23 15 1 2.6 .990
information previous (13.0) (36.4) (29.9) (19.5) (1 .3)

the meeting

(N=77)

 

* Means calculated based on a 1-5 scale: 1=Strongly disagree, 2: Disagree, 3:
Neutral 4: Agree and 5: Strongly disagree.

Mean values in Table 4.26 indicate a “disagreement” or “neutral” opinion

regarding guidelines received and prior information about the meeting.

b) Interaction petween RAC/WGLmerflers and research staff

Member’s results shown in Table 4.27 indicate means ranging between
3.13 and 3.93 for a set of statements regarding interactions either between
RACNVG members or RACNVG and INIA research staff. A mean of 3.93 (Std.
Dev. .943), was indicated to the feasibility of members to express their ideas
during meetings. When members were asked to indicate their opinion about

interaction with other members and INIA research staff, a mean of 3.69 (Std.

113

Dev.: 1.000) was indicated, 3.47 (Std. Dev.: 1.125) was the mean found for
interaction with other members outside of meetings, and 3.63 (Std. Dev.: 1.056)

for interaction with INIA Research staff.

Table 4.27 RACNVG member perceived opinion about interaction

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interaction Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Mean Std.
Disagree , Agree ’ Dev

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

I can express my 2 5 9 40 20 3.93 .943

opinions during the (2.6) (6.6) (11.8) (52.6) (26.3)

meetings

(N=76)

I can interact with 3 6 16 36 14 3.69 1.000

others members (4.0) ' (8.0) (21.3) (48.0) (18.7)

dudngthe

meetings

(N=75)

I can interact with 4 12 18 28 14 3.47 1.125

others members (5.3) (15.8) (23.7) (36.6) (18.4)

outside the

meetings

(N=76)

There is a good 4 7 16 35 14 3.63 1.056

interaction with (5.3) (9.2) (21.1) (46.6) (18.4)

INIA Researchers

(N=76)

I feel that my ideas 4 14 29 24 4 3.13 .963

are taking in (5.3) (18.7) (38.8) (32.0) (5.3)

consideration

(N=75

 

In general, respondents tend to agree that they had an opportunity to
express ideas and to interact between RACNVG members and with INIA
research staff. The lower perception value was found for RAC/WG members
who indicated their opinion about the feeling that their ideas expressed in the

meetings are taken into consideration by INIA (mean=3.13). Moreover, the

114

lower standard deviation (.963) was also found for this statement indicating

more consistency among RACNVG members about his/her opinion.

c) Opinion about time and growth in technical expertise

Members where asked to indicate if they have enough time during
meetings to elaborate their ideas and if they feel that they are increasing their
technical expertise as a consequence of their participation in the RAC and WG
councils. Results shown in Table 4.28 indicate a mean of 2.99 (Std. Dev.: .902)
regarding the time that members have to elaborate their ideas during meetings.
This result shows an almost “neutral” opinion to this statement.

Members opinions about the fact of develop technical expertise as a
consequence of participate in the councils show a mean of 3.58 (Std. Dev.:
.912). This value indicates that members have agreement regarding this
statement; in fact, more than three-fifth (63%) of members “agree” or “strongly
agree” with this statement (Table 4.28). -

Table 4.28 Time availability during meetings and growth in technical expertise

 

 

Time and Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Mean Std.

Technical expertise Disagree Agree ’ Dev
N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N I‘M

I have enough time 4 16 36 17 3 2.99 .902

during meetings to (5.3) (21.1) (47.4) (22.4) (3.9)
elaborate my ideas
(N=76)

 

lfeelthatlam 1 10 16 38 8 3.58 .912
developing technical (1.4) (13.7) (21.9) (52.1) (11.0)

expertise as result of

my participation

(N=73)

 

d) Major barriers

115

Qualitative data regarding the major barriers showed that 11 statements
out of 26 were related to the utility and the importance given to council members’
opinion by INIA. Members indicated that they have an impression that INIA does
not feel it necessity to meet with them, and consequently it does not give value to
their participation. Council members felt that INIA shared information about
closed or approved research programs. Lack of feed back from INIA regarding
councils suggestions, recommendation or possible implementation of council
opinions seem to support the previous idea about the importance that INIA is
given to this systems to RACNVG members.

Another important group of opinions is related to the economical situation
that Uruguay, and in particular, the agricultural sector is living since the end of
year 2000. Members indicated that the recession does not allow them to see the
technological needs of the future. Furthermore, they do not feel motivated to
participate because they have many economic and financial problems to resolve
at the present time as a consequence of the recession.

The third most important issue indicated is related to the economic cost
that members have to pay to participate. Members indicated that participation at
the councils is not remunerate by INIA; as a consequence, members have a
direct cost of travel and expenses to cover in order to assist to the meeting and a
more important indirect cost regarding the loose of the day in their personal
activities.

Finally, a miscellaneous group of minor comments were related to: a)

members’ low level of commitment, b) membership renewal renovation, c)

116

 

regulation of members participation, and d) lack of coordination between major

farmers organizations.

4.7. INIA Research Staff Opinion about Perceived Parriers, Meeting
Interaction and Received Guidelines

Similar to RAC/WG, a set of questions regarding the major barriers that

they found to the functioning of the meetings was asked to INIA research staff.

INIA research staff were asked to respond to three basic group of statements

regarding: a) instructions and guidelines for meetings, b) interaction between

RACNVG members and INIA La Estanzuela research staff, and c) opinion about
time available during meetings.

Descriptive statistics with means and standard deviation were calculated

for each statement based on a 1-5 scale: 1=Strongly disagree, 2: Disagree, 3:

Neutral, 4: Agree and 5: Strongly disagree.

a) Instruptions and guidelines for meetings

Table 4.29 shows INIA Research staff opinions about the received
guidelines and instructions previous council meetings. A mean of 2.54 (Std.
Dev.: .811) for “adequate guidelines” indicate that research staff does not agree
with the statement, in fact 50% of the researchers “disagree” and 38.5% are

neutral to the statement.

117

Regarding “previous information”, a mean of 2.23 (Std. Dev.:. 815) shows

that research staff lack of appropriate information before the meetings.

Table 4.29 INIA’s Research staff opinion regarding guidelines and information
previous meetings.

 

 

Guidelines Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Mean Std.
& Disagree Agree ’ Dev
Information N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

I receive adequate 1 13 10 1 1 2.54 .811

guidelines about RAC (3.8) (50.0) (38.5) (3.8) (3.8)

and WG

(N=26)

Ireceive adequate 4 14 6 2 0 2.23 .815
information previous (15.4) (53.8) (23.1) (7.7) (0)

the meeting

(N=26)

b) Interaction between RAQAMGL and Researfich staff

A mean of 3.35 (Std. Dev. 1.018) indicates that INIA La Estanzuela
research staff is “neutral” regarding the possibility of express their ideas during
meetings. When INIA research staff was asked to indicate their opinion about
interaction with RACNVG members, a mean of 2.96 (Std. Dev.: .889) was

indicated (Table 4.30).

118

Table 4.30 INIA’s research staff opinion regarding opinion and interaction with
RAC/WG members

 

 

 

Interaction Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Mean Std.
Disagree Agree ’ Dev
N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%)

Ican express 1 4 9 9 3 3.35 1.018

my opinions (3.8) (15.4) (34.6) (34.6) (11.5)

duhngthe

meetings

(N=26)

There isa 2 4 12 7 0 2.96 .889

good (8.0) (16.0) (48.0) (28.0) (0)

interaction

with RAC/WG

members

09:25)

 

Overall the averaged scored (means) show that INIA research staff are
either “neutral” or “agree” to the fact that they can express their ideas during
meetings. They are almost “neutral” regarding interaction with RAC/WG
members. In fact, one-fourth (24%) of the INIA Ia Estanzuela research staff
“disagrees” and 8% strongly “disagree” regarding interaction with RACNVG

members.

c) Opinion about amolfl of time to express ideas during meetings

Almost half (48%) of the staff expressed “neutral” opinion about the

amount of time provided to express ideas (Table 4.31).

119

 

Table 4.31 Opinion about time availability during meetings.

Time Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Mean Std.
Disagree Agree ’ Dev

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

I have enough time

during meetings to 2 6 12 5 0 2.80 .866

elaborate my ideas (8.0) (24.0) (48.0) (20.0) (0)

4N=25)

d) Major barriers

INIA research staff also was asked in an open-ended question to identify
the major barrier that this participative system is suffering. According to the
analysis, the major theme was related to the difficulty that council members have
to separate individual problems than regional or national problems. This problem
also determines that ideas or suggestions from council members are based on a
short vision of the future.

In addition, INIA research staff (coincidently with RAC/WG members)
indicated the fact that INIA lacks of credibility from the council members. INIA
staff pointed out that INIA is perceived as bureaucratic to implement council
members’ suggestions and give timely feed back to the suggestions and

propositions made during the councils meetings.

4.8. Comparison of Perceived Opinions, Council Members vs. INIA
As we saw previously, some of the questions posed to RAC/WG members

described in the section 1.6 were also posed to INIA research staff (section 1.7).

120

This section analyze some possible differences in the perceived opinions
between RAC/WG and INIA’s research staff regarding their valorization for the
following selected statements: a) opinion about received guidelines, b)
information received previous meetings, c) opportunity to express ideas during

meetings, and d) time available during the meeting to elaborate they own ideas.

Table 4.32 Test of differences (t-test) between RAC/WG and INIA for received

guidelines, information prior meetings, interaction, and time during meetings.
N Mean Std. Dev. t-value Sig.

I received adequate INIA 26 2.54 .811

guidelines about theRAC/WG 75 2.68 1.016 .716 .477
RAC and WG

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I received adequate INIA 26 2.23 .815

information RACNVG 77 2.60 .990 1.874 .067
previous the

meetings

I can express my INIA 26 3.35 1.018

opinions during the RAC/WG 76 3.93 .943 2.591 .013 ”
meetings

I have enough time INIA 25 2.80 .866

 

during the meetings RACNVG 76 2.99 .902 .926 .360
to elaborate my
ideas

Results shown in Table 4.32 indicate a significant difference between
RAC/WG and INIA’s research staff opinion on the “opportunity to express their
own opinions during the meetings” (t-value=2.591, Sig. .013). Therefore,
according to the findings, councils’ members seem to be more likely to give
suggestions than INIA research staff during meetings.

For all others statements shown in Table 4.32, there were no a significant

differences between the RAC/WG and INIA research staff opinion (p< .05).

121

 

4.9. Perception about Relevance of the RAC/WG
This section presents results regarding the perceived relevance of the
advisory councils (RAC and WG) to identify farmer research needs, farmer

linkages, and identify farmer educational programs.

A mean was calculated for each statement based on a 1-5 scale:
1=Strongly disagree, 2: Disagree, 3: Neutral, 4: Agree and 5: Strongly
disagree. A t-test was run to explore possible significant differences between
means groups.

Results are presented under the following structure: a) responsibilities of RAC
councils, b) responsibilities of WG councils, and c) judgment about importance of

RAC/WG councils’ opinion for INIA.

a) Responsjpilities of the RAC cogncils

In this section sample population were asked to answer a set of
statements regarding the relevance of the RAC for a selected given group of
major responsibilities according to analyzed agendas of these RAC and WG
councils since 1990.

Regarding “farmer needs identification”, findings shown in Table 4.33
indicate that RACNVG members were close to “agreement” (mean: 3.87) and
INIA’s research staff were in the middle of the way between a neutral and
agreement (mean: 3.46). A t-test, between both means indicate a significant
difference between both samples populations. Values for this statement

consequently indicate that RACNVG members are more willing to identify the

122

 

councils as relevant institution to identify farmer’s needs than INIA’s research

staff.

When participants were asked to categorize if RAC councils are relevant

to maintain strong linkages with the major farmer organizations, RAC/WG mean

was 3.74 and INIA’s research staff mean was 3.79. Both opinions are consistent

and there is not significant difference between means (Table 4.33).

Table 4.33 Test of differences (t-test) for RAC/WG members and INIA research
staff regarding major areas of responsibility for RAC councils

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RAC/W6 INIA Staff t-value Sig.
N Mean’ N Mean”
(Std. (Std.
Dev) Dev)

RAC are relevant institutions to 75 3.87 24 3.46 2.027 .049”
identify farmer needs (.935) (233)
RAC are relevant institution to 76 3.74 24 3.79 .269 .789
maintain a strong linkage with (.985) (.833)
farmer organizations
RAC are relevant institutions to 74 3.46 24 3.46 .005 .996
identify regional educational (1.062) (.884)
activities
RAC are relevant institution to give 75 3.40 25 1.80 9.089 .000*
advice about INIA operative (1.151) (.577)
budget
RAC are relevant to give support 70 3.77 25 2.80 .3823 .000"
to the INIA’s Regional Directors (1.010) (1.118)
RAC are relevant to prioritize 74 4.08 25 3.32 3.767 .000”
research progams (1.057) (.802)
RAC are relevant to integrate 74 3.50 25 3.48 .089 .930
farmers, industry and consumers (1.230) (.872)

to analyze technological problems

“Mean calculated based on a 1-5 scale: 1: Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree,

3=Neutral, 4:Agree, and 5:Strongly Agree.
* Significant difference

123

In addition, a identical value of 3.46 for both samples were found when
asked about the relevance of the RAC councils to identify regional educational
activities.

The relevance “of RAC councils to give advice about operative INIA’s
budget” shows a very different and opposite orientation between samples.
According to the RAC/WG members a mean of 3.40 indicate a positive relevance
for this statement. However INIA’s research staff means of 1.80 indicate a
negative opinion of this statement for the RAC, with a significant difference
regarding the RAC/WG mean. Moreover, RAC/WG council members indicated a
mean of 3.77 when asked about the relevance of RAC councils to give advice of
Regional Directors. However, INIA’s research staff opinion is significantly
different with a 2.80 mean value.

When samples were asked to indicate their opinion about “relevance of
the RAC councils to prioritize research programs”, RAC/WG members indicated
an averaged value of 4.08, while INIA’s research staff indicate a 3.32 mean
value, showing a significant difference (p< .05) between indicated means.

For the last statement regarding the RAC councils, similar means were
founded (3.50 for RACNVG and 3.48 for INIA’s staff) indicating no significant
differences in their opinion about the relevance of RAC councils as a mechanism
to integrate farmers, industry and consumers.

In summary, RACNVG members agree about three roles for the council:

a) RAC is relevant to prioritize research programs

b) RAC is relevant institutions to identify farmer needs

124

c) RAC is relevant to give support to the INIA’s Regional Directors

INIA La Estanzuela research staff tends to agree with the following three roles
for the RAC council:
a) RAC are relevant institution to maintain a strong linkage with farmer
organizations
b) RAC are relevant to integrate farmers, industry and consumers to
analyze technological problems
0) RAC are relevant institutions to identify farmer needs, and RAC are

relevant institutions to identify regional educational activities.

b) Responsibilities of the WG cogncils

The same set of statements were asked to RAC/WG members and INIA’s
research staff regarding the WG councils, in order to explore some possible
differences in the perceived idea of relevance between both councils (RAC and
WG).

Table 4.34 shows that WG are highly indicated by RAC/WG members to
identify farmer’s needs (mean : 4.20). INIA’s research staff is close to agreement
indicating a mean value of 3.70, showing a good acceptance of this statement.
Even though there is a significant difference between both samples means,

values indicate agreement to the statement.

Table 4.34 Test of differences (t-test) for RACNVG members and INIA
research staff regarding major areas of responsibility for WG councils

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RAC/WG 'INIA Staff t-value Sig.
N Mean“ N Mean"

(Std. (Std.

Dev) Dev)
WG are relevant institutions to 79 4.20 23 3.70 2.789 .008*
identify farmer needs (.774) (.765)
WG are relevant institution to 78 3.91 24 3.88 .185 .854
maintain a strong linkage with (.871) (.797)
farmer organizations
WG are relevant institutions to 77 3.71 24 3.63 .421 .677
identify regional educational (.856) (.924)
activities
WG are relevant institution to 74 2.89 24 1.63 7.024 .000*
give advice about INIA (1.177) (.576)
operative budget
WG are relevant to give support 71 3.51 24 2.46 4.590 .000”
to the INIA’s Regional Directors (1.067) (.932)
WG are relevant to prioritize 78 3.88 24 3.42 2.167 .036*
research programs (1.057) (.881)
WG are relevant to integrate 79 3.58 25 3.52 .306 .761
farmers, industry and (1.183) (.770)

consumers to analyze
technological problems

"Mean calculated based on a 1-5 scale: 1: Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree,

3=Neutral, 4:Agree, and 5:Strongly Agree.

* Significant difference

Regarding the relevance of the WG councils to maintain a strong linkage

with farmer’s organization, participants indicated means close to agreement

(INIA=3.88, RACNVG 3.91). Similar situation was found for the statement related

to the relevance of these councils in order to identify regional educational

activities, with no significant different mean of 3.71 and 3.63 for RAC/WG and

INIA’s research staff respectively.

Once again, the statement about the relevance of

“give advice about

INIA’s operative budget” show the lowest rating by RAC/WG members and INIA’s

126

Ir“-

research staff. This result is consistent with the RAC council’s statement and
indicates that these councils are seen as “not appropriate” to discuss about
budget

When asked about if WG are relevant institutions to give support to
regional directors, a significant difference was found between a 3.51 RACNVG
mean and 2.46 INIA’s research staff mean. This result seem to indicate that
according to RAC/WG members WG councils are relevant entities to give
support to regional directors, while INIA’s research staff are more reluctant to
support this statement.

According to RACNVG members a mean of 3.88 was indicated for the
relevance of the WG councils to prioritize research programs. INIA’s staff
indicates a significant different mean of 3.42. These values indicate that
RAC/WG members are more willing to indicate these institutions to prioritize
research programs.

For the last statement (WG are relevant to integrate farmers, industry and

consumers), no significant mean of 3.58 for RACNVG and 3.52 were indicated.

In summary, the three major mean values according to the RACNVG
member’s idea are:
a) WGs are relevant institutions to identify farmer needs
b) WGs are relevant institution to maintain a strong linkage with farmer
organizations

c) WGs are relevant to prioritize research programs

127

 

INIA’s research staff tends to indicate the three following statements as major
roles for the WGs:
a) WGs are relevant institution to maintain a strong linkage with farmer
organizations
b) WGs are relevant institutions to identify farmer needs

c) WGs are relevant institutions to identify regional educational activities

0) Mme of RACNVG_opinion for INIA

RACNVG members and INIA research staff were asked to indicate their
judgment about how important they think the RAC and WG councils’ members
opinion are for INIA. Mean values were calculated based on a 1-5 scale:
1=Nothing important, 2: Somewhat Important, 3: Neutral, 4: Important and 5:
Very Important. A t-test was run to determine significant differences between
group means scores.

As shown in Table 4.35, a mean of 3.86 (Std. Dev.: 1.022) was indicated
for RACNVG members’ as their perception of how important is for INIA their
opinion. INIA research staff indicates for the same question a 3.12 (Std. Dev. :
.971) mean value. A t-test indicated a significant difference between the two
means (t-value: 3.282, Sig. .002). Results indicate that RACNVG have a
significant better perception about how INIA considers their opinion than INIA

research staff.

128

 

Table 4.35 Test of differences (t-test) for perceived importance of RAC opinions
for INIA
Nothing Somewhat Neutral Import. Very Mean Std. f-value Sig.

 

 

Import. Import Import. Dev.
N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)
RAC/WG 1 11 8 37 22 3.86 1.022
member (1 .3) (13.9) (10.1) (46.8) (27.8)
(N=79) 3.282 .002
INIA 1 6 8 9 1 3.12 .971
Research (4.0) (24.0) (32.0) (36.0) (4.0)
Staff
(N=26)

 

4.10. Contribution as a RACNVG Member for Selected Areas.

Members and INIA research staff were asked to indicate their perceptions
about how RAC/\NG had contributed to the selected most important areas
according to the major topics for what INIA asked RAC/WG participation. Mean
values were calculated based on a 1-5 scale: 1:Very poor, 2: Poor, 3: Regular,
4: Good and 5: Very Good. A t-test was run to explore possible significant
differences between group means.

Results in Table 4.36 shown that mean values for both, RAC/WG and INIA
research staff range from 1.79 to 2.96. These averaged values, indicate that
both RACNVG members and INIA research staff hold the perception that
RAC/WG members contribution to this selected areas was in the best situation
“Regular”.

A t-test was used to determine differences in opinions between RAC/WG

members and INIA research staff. Findings in Table 4.36 indicate a significant

129

 

difference for the last item: “Members contribution regarding prioritization of
extension activities”, (t-value=2.811, Sig. .007). INIA research staff perception
about RAC/WG member’s contribution is significantly more positive than

RAC/WG members themselves.

Table 4.36 Test of differences (t-test) for RAC member’s contribution.

 

 

Statements Groups N Mean Std.Dev. Std.Error t-test Sig.
Mean
Member contribution INIA 26 2.31 .788 .155

 

regarding: research policy RAC/WG 72 2.33 1.035 .122 .130 .897
formulation

Member contribution INIA 26 2.85 .881 .173

regarding: research projectRACNVG 74 2.76 1.180 .137 .405 .687
identification

 

 

 

 

 

Member contribution INIA 26 2.96 .871 .171

regarding: research projectRAC/WG 74 2.80 1.216 .141 .741 .462
gloritization

Member contribution INIA 26 1.81 .694 .136

 

regarding: budget and RACNVG 70 1.79 .915 .109 .126 .900
resources allocation

Member contribution INIA 26 2.92 .845 .166

regarding: identification of RACNVG 74 2.51 1.088 .127 .1964 .054
extension activities

Member contribution INIA 26 2.88 .816 .160

regarding: prioritization of RACNVG 72 2.32 1.032 .122 2.811 .007’
extension activities

 

 

 

 

4.11. Familiarity with the System Before Participation
How familiar participants (RACNVG and INIA research staff) were with the
system before participating is an important element to understand if participants
were well prepared to participate in this system; therefore if INIA provides them

enough information and/or training before being council members.

130

When asked to indicate their familiarity with the system, RAC/WG
members averaged a mean of 2.48 (Std. Dev. 1.211) in a 1-5 scale: 1=Not at all,
=A little, 3:Neutral, 4: Familiar and 5=Very Familiar (Table 37). INIA Research
staff indicates a 3.38 (Std. Dev.:. 637).
Results indicate that INIA research staff were significantly more familiar
with the system than RAC/WG members (t-value:4.935, Sig. .000). Results show
an important gap or need for more education or training to the advisory council

members before they join the system.

Table 4.37 test of differences (t-test) for familiarity with the system (RAC vs. INIA
research staff).
Notat Alittle Neutral Familiar Very Mean Std. t-value Sig.

 

 

all Familiar Dev
N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N(%)
RAC/WG 21 23 17 15 4
member (26.3) (28.8) (21.3) (18.8) (5.0) 2.48 1.211
(N=80)
INIA 0 1 15 9 1 4.935 .000*

Research (0) (3.8) (57.7) (34.6) (3.8) 3.38 .637
Staff
(N=26)

4.12. Time and Frequency of Meetings Suggested

This section present information regarding the most appropriate period of the
year to have meetings, and how frequent participants indicate council meetings
should be held. From the current norms of the Regional Advisory Councils
(Delpiazzo, 1996), we know that there is indication for the RAC to meet every

three months. The analysis of the RACNVG minutes indicates that usually

131

meetings were hold twice a year, and mostly during the first and last quarter of
the year. In addition, it was indicated in the minutes of the RAC the necessity of
avoid meetings during important period related to major agricultural operations as

seed, and harvest. (RAC, WG minutes 1992-1998)

a) Appropriated months of the year

When is most appropriate to have meetings is an important element that
need consideration when working in the agricultural sector. Farmers and others
agricultural stakeholders’ free time vary according to the type of production
and/or major commodities products RACNVG members are linked with.

Figure 4.6. Month of the year selected as most appropriate to have meetings

(Expressed in individual valid percentages. 100: 100% of the population said “Yes” to this month,
0=0% selected this month as appropriate)

 

50 |
45
40
35
30
25

20

 

Jan Feb Mar Apr Nay Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

 

III RAC/WG I INIA

 

132

As shown in Figure 4.6, there is consistency in the shapes illustrated by the
percentage in which each month was selected by participants (RACNVG and
INIA).

August shows the lower gap between both, RAC/WG and INIA, and was
highly selected as appropriate to held meetings. Similarly, March and May shows
reduced gaps between both samples, and were indicated with good preference
to have meetings, but less than August. INIA research staff indicated July as the
most appropriate month; however, RACNVG indicated this month with the same

preference as May.

b) Frequency of meetings

Table 4.38 indicates that 52% of the members prefer to meet one or two
times a year, and 14% are willing to meet 3 to 4 times at the RAC councils. In
addition, one-fourth (25.4%) of members indicate to meet when is needed, but at
least once a year, and a minor percentage (6%) indicated their prefer to meet
when is needed.
INIA’s research staff indicates a similar pattern of preference regarding frequency
of RAC council meetings; 46% of researchers mentioned 1 to 2 times a year as
the better frequency, 30% are willing to meet when is needed but at least once in

a year and 23% when is needed.

133

Table 4.38 How often should the RAC meetings be held according to RAC/WG
members?

 

 

RAC RAC/WG members INIA Research Staff
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
1 to 2 times a year 35 52.2 12 46.2
3 to 4 times a year 10 14.9 0 0
When is needed 4 6.0 6 23.1
When is needed, but once a year 17 25.4 8 30.8
Other 1 1.5 0 0

 

In the case of WG councils, almost 30% of RAC/WG members indicate 1
to 2 times a year as the better frequency to meet, almost one fourth 3 to 4 times,
17% prefer to meet when is needed and 27% when is needed but at least once a
year (Table 4.39). In addition, about 54% of the INIA research staff indicate that
meet when is needed but at least once a year is the best frequency for these
councils, almost 27% indicate 1 to 2 times a year, 15% when is needed and a
minor percentage (4%) selected 3 to 4 times as the more preferable frequency to

meet.

Table 4.39. How often should the WG meetings be held according to RAC/WG
members?

 

 

WG RAC/WG members INIA Research Staff
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
1 to 2 times a year 24 29.6 7 26.9
3 to 4 times a year 20 24.7 1 3.8
When is needed 14 17.3 4 15.4
When is needed, but once a year 22 27.2 14 53.8
Other 1 1.2 0 0

 

134

4.13. Invitation Process
a) RAC/\LG members
RACNVG members were asked to give opinion about how satisfied they
are with the invitation process that INIA uses with members to convoke the
meetings. Basically, this question is related with the timing of the invitation, the
information they received, and the support they receive from INIA since they are
invited and the meeting.
Table 4.40 shows that about 63% of RACNVG members are ”satisfied”,
19% are “somewhat satisfied”, and one out of ten participants are ‘Little
satisfied”. However, 8% of members are “no satisfied” with the invitation process.
In addition, an averaged mean for this variable was calculated, indicating a mean

of 3.47 and a mode of 4.00.

Table 4.40 How satisfied RAC/WG are with the invitation Process?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(N=78)
Frequency Percent

No satisfied 6 7.7
A little satisfied ' 8 10.3
Somewhat satisfied 15 19.2
Satisfied 41 52.6
Very satisfied 8 10.3
Total 78 100.0

 

Mean was calculated based on a 1-5 scale: 1:No Satisfied,
2=A little satisfied, 3: Somewhat satisfied, 4=Satisfied,
5=Very Satisfied.

Mean: 3.47 (Std. Dev. 1.066)
Mode: 4

135

b) INIA’s internal convocation process

As well as RAC/WG members, INIA research staff receives an invitation
from the Regional Director and/or the Head Program to assist to the RAC or WG
meetings. For this reason INIA Research staff was asked to indicate how
satisfied they are with the internal process of convocation for these meetings.

Results shown in Table 4.41 indicate that almost one fifth (19.2%) of the
researchers are no satisfied, 30.8% are a little satisfied, 46.2% somewhat
satisfied, and fewer (4%) indicated satisfaction with the process. There was no
indication of very satisfied.

In addition, an averaged mean for this variable was calculated, indicating

a mean of 2.35 and a mode of 3.00.

Table 4.41 How satisfied INIA La Estanzuela Research staff is with
the internal (INIA) invitation process? (N=26)

 

 

Frequency Percent
No satisfied 5 19.2
A little satisfied 8 30.8
Somewhat satisfied 12 46.2
Satisfied 1 3.8
Very Satisfied 0 0
Total 26 100.0

 

*Mean was calculated based on a 1-5 scale: 1=No Satisfied,
2=A little satisfied, 3=Somewhat satisfied, 4=Satisfied,
5=Very Satisfied.

Mean: 2.35 (Std. Dev: .846)
Mode: 3

136

c) Timingand follow-gp for RACNVG invitgtion

How many days in advance RACNVG members likes to receive the
invitation for the meetings is an important point in order to improve the quality of
the entire process of invitation.

RAC/WG members were asked to indicate, how much time in advance
they like to receive the invitation. Table 4.42 shows that more than one half
(51.9%) of the members prefer to receive the invitation 15 days before the
meeting, about 11% indicate 3 weeks in advance (21 days), almost one fourth
(24.7%) indicate 4 weeks (30 days) in advance, and a minor percentage (2.5%)

prefer more than 30 days in advance.

Table 4.42. How much time in advance RAC/WG members like to
received the invitation (N=81)

 

 

Frequency Percent
7 days in advance 8 9.9
15 days in advance 42 51.9
21 days in advance 9 11.1
30 days in advance 20 24.7
More than 30 days 2 2.5
Total 81 100.0

 

Besides, members were asked to indicate if after the normal invitation they
would like to receive some kind of reminder follow-up, and if “Yes”, which way is
best for them.

As is indicated in the Figure 4.7, three-fourth (75.6) of RAC/WG members

indicate that they like to receive a reminder follow-up after the first normal

137

invitation. Moreover, 61% of members indicate e-mail (internet mail), and 27%

selected a phone call as the most appropriate ways to remind them the meeting.

Figure 4.7 After the normal invitation RAC/WG member likes to receive a
follow up reminder?

No
24 4%

75 6%

 

Indication of “e-mail” as the most appropriate way to communicate with
61% the actual list of members seems to indicate that the majority of members
have access to Internet (Figure 4.8). This finding is an important point for INIA in
order to increase the number and quality of contacts with the majority of

members in an economical way.

138

Figure 4.8 Type of follow up reminder preferred by RAC/WG members

 

4.14. Importance of Established Norms for the RACNVG

According to the actual description of RAC and WG procedures,
established in the INIA’s Law of creation, there are established norms regarding
member’s rotation, member‘s position and members selection. However,
according to the procedures utilized during the last ten years at INIA La
Estanzuela there was lack of application of the existent norms.

For this reason, members were asked to indicate if they consider
important to have norms that could help the RAC and WG councils. Table 4.43
shows that the majority of RAC/WG members (57.1%) indicate the necessity of
have norms, and 31% indicate a somewhat necessity. Coincidently, INIA
research staff follows the same pattern indicated by RACNVG members, but in a

stronger percentage in favor of having established norms. Thus, almost 85% of

139

INIA research staff indicate that RAC and WG councils need to have norms to

works, and an additional 11% indicate a somewhat necessity of have norms.

Table 4.43 Opinion about importance of has established norms.
Yes, need Somewhat No, do

 

norms not need
norms
N (%) N (%) N (%)
RAC/WG member
(N=81) 44 (57.1) 24 (31.2) 9 (11.7)
INIA Research Staff
(N=26) 22 (84.6) 3 (11.5) 1 (3.8)

 

In addition when RAC/WG members were asked to specify what type of norm
they would like to promote, the following items better represent their opinions:

. Necessity of register members representation

. Regulate concurrence and absences as motive to remove the member

. Regulate period of time to serve as council members

Similarly, INIA research staff indicated the following topics as major areas to
setup norms:

. Members representation should be documented

- Norms regarding monetary payments to council members for travel coSts

. Regulate number of farmers and professional for each council

. Period of time to serve as council members

140

4.15. Analysis of Others Comments
Respondents were encouraged to provide further opinions they felt were
related to the study. This section provides an analysis of the final open-ended
comments included in the survey questionnaires (RACNVG and INIA).
Information presented in this section is organized under the following headings:

a) RAC/WG general comments and b) INIA’s researchstaff general comments.

a) RACNVG general comments

Forty-five RACNVG respondents over 81, freely provided comments
indicating more close feelings regarding the Regional Advisory Councils
and the Work Groups. From the qualitative analysis of this comments, six
major themes emerged 1) Economical situation of Uruguay, 2)
Membership situations, 3) Needs assessments, 4) RACNVG as linkages,

5) INIA position regarding RAC and WG and 6) Happiness with the study

topic/initiative.

Theme 1: economical situation of Uruguay, participants pointed out
that under this situation determining high constraints and financial problems In
particular in the agricultural sector, there is few time to use in participative
mechanism. RAC/WG members indicated that their particular economical and
financial problems are they priority. Moreover, they state that this situation
determines lack of motivation in general with the agricultural sector and in

. particular to participate and being involved with the RAC and WG councils.

141

 

Related, but with minor intensity, members indicated also that participation in the
RAC and WG represent by itself a cost (travel expenses).

Theme 2: Several comment related to council “membership situations”.
Some participants indicated confusion about their membership status because
they were invited to participate in one or two specific time, but after they did not
received more invitation, neither explanation. One respondent was very specific
in his/her comment: “I did not receive more invitations, so I do not know if I am
still member or not”

Under the same topic, some other comments refer to the lack of young
and new people at the councils. Moreover, members indicated that they do not
have any reward from this membership. Annotations about this specify that
members should have some economical rewards that help them to cover travel
expenses, and or the loss of the day in them particular activities. However, they
also mentioned that any non-economical reward or recognition will increase the
motivation and engagement with the system and consequently with INIA.

Theme 3, related to the usefulness of RAC and WG as important tools to
explore farmers and productive need assessments. One member remarked the
importance of RAC and WG to gather information regarding the major
technological problems that farmers have. However, two final comments pointed
out that RAC are less effective than WG regarding his topic. According to one of
this comments, WG are more linked to the reality and to farmers than RAC.

Theme 4, involved comments related to the appropriateness of RAC and

WG as bridges or linkages with major agricultural stakeholders. RAC were

142

mentioned as good instruments for linkage research with customers. However,
members pointed out that selection and representation are key elements to
establish good linkages that allow these councils to operate as antennas from the
productive sector.

Important comments were also indicated regarding INIA position to these
councils (Theme 5). Some final comments mentioned that INIA should give more
importance to this system. According to one comment, INIA research staff should
be more open and receptive to council member’s opinion.

Under the last theme: happiness with the study, comments were indicated
to congratulates the researcher for choosing this topic. Participants hope that
results could help to improve and to revitalize the system. Moreover, these kind
comments indicate for the researcher demonstrations of appreciation and
friendship collected from ten years of work in the region as research-farmers
liaison agent. I addition these desire of good things from some members indicate

also an important cohesiveness with INIA, build from this'system.

b) INIA’s research ptaff deneral comment;

From INIA research staff questionnaire 11 final comments were collected
out 26 respondents. Those final comments could be clustered under 4 themes: 1)
Council member selection and representation, 2) RACNVG outreach, 3) RACNVG
weight, and 4) INIA’s procedure.

Theme 1: revolves around issues indicated from researcher indicating that

member’s selection should be done more careful in order to have real and

143

effective representation. In addition, one comment indicated that in order to have
effective representation members should be rewarded economically, to create a
sense of responsibility in the council member.

Topic included under theme 2 elaborate the idea that RAC should have
national outreach, while WG are much appropriate to work oriented by regional
outreach.

The third theme, integrate three comments related to what should be the
importance (weight) that RAC and WG should have for INIA. Research staff
comments under this theme indicated that INIA should consider council opinion
as one more voice or channel to listen, but not the only one. Moreover, research
staff pointed out that this understanding should be clearly transmitted and
understood to council members, in order to create real expectations regarding
their opinions. Other final comment, indicated the necessity of consider other
channels of opinion because council needs are extremely related to present
problems. However, for research it is extremely necessary to think also in future
demands.

The fourth and final umbrella theme, involve comments related to the
importance for INIA of have more clear defined objectives, purpose, procedures
and norms to work with RAC and WG as a precondition for a good system
development. Additional comment indicates also that INIA should give to the
RAC and WG more importance.

This selected quotation is very inclusive regarding many of the final

comments:

144

 

“RAC and we should be an important component of INIA system of
research prioritization, farm need assessment and linkage, but in reality they
have been unsuccessful. I hope this study can help INIA to identify some
elements for a new strategy to revitalize the RAC and WG. Unfortunately, some
things are very rigid. For instance, RAC are included in the INIA’s Law of
creation. Consequently, it could be an obstacle to create a new structure that
allows RAC to work oriented by disciplines, as it seems more appropriate. ”

145

CHAPTER V

Summary, Conclusions and Implications

5.1. Summary

This research was conducted at the INIA La Estanzuela research station
of the National Agricultural Research Institute (INIA) of Uruguay. The study is of
institutions called “Regional Advisory Councils” (RAC and WGs) of INIA La
Estanzuela. RAC and WG’s, created by the INIA’s Law of creation of INIA and
the INIA Board of Directors respectively, are indicated as important mechanisms
to assess agricultural demands as well as linkage structures with the major
agricultural and farmer organizations.

The primary objective of this study was to examine the factors and the
relationships that affect the performance of the RAC and WG’s. Currently, no
studies have been made at INIA to assess the performance of the councils, yet
there has been indication of several limitations in their performance.

The results of this study have implications for INIA and particularly for INIA
La Estanzuela research station.

This research involved two study populations: the RAC members and the
research staff of the INIA La Estanzuela research station. A total of 127 council
members and 31 researchers served as populations in this study.

Data were collected using two self-administered survey questionnaires
(RAC/WG council members and INIA research staff), an informal questionnaire
for semi-structured interviews, and the analysis of secondary data (internal

documents, memorandums, minutes, etc). Data were collected at INIA La

146

Estanzuela research station in Uruguay, between July and August of 2002. Data
analysis was done using quantitative (descriptive statistics, tests of means
differences) and qualitative procedures.

Findings showed that RAC and WG continue to be relevant mechanisms
for stakeholder participatory involvement. However, some problems regarding
member and research staff guidelines to work with the councils, definition and
communication of objective/purpose of council meetings, council members’
renovation, INIA procedures of research staff involvement in councils meeting
and communication between INIA and council members were identified as the
major limitations for the councils’ performance.

The socio-demographic information of RAC council member shows low
participation of young people, and an extended length of services of council
members at the RAC and WG.

Findings indicate that INIA is responsible for the selection of almost half
(46%) of the council members. Although this important selection of council
members made by INIA, shows a good representation from the major farmers
and agricultural organizations, and a balanced distribution of farmers (25%), farm
advisor (20%), and professional working for institutions (26%), the RAC council
member still perceived a low representation of the agri-business, University, and
farmer actors.

Lack of guidelines, information received prior to attending meetings, lack

of knowledge of the objectives of meetings, and low direct participation of

147

 

research staff at the council meetings were indicated as major problems of the
general procedures that INIA uses to work with the RAC and WG councils.

RAC and WG members also indicated confusion regarding their current
membership status. The major reason for this uncertainty of membership status
was indicated by the reduced frequency of contact or lack of
contact/communication from INIA.

RAC and INIA research staff indicate and agree on the importance of the
Regional Advisory Councils (RAC and WG) as valid instruments to identify
farmers needs, prioritize research programs and develop linkages between
research, extension, customers and stakeholders.

From the analysis of the literature, it is easy to discover the importance of
participative and collaborative methods utilized between the research centers,
customers or users of the technology and stakeholders. INIA, and the Regional
Advisory Councils (RAC and WG) instrumented by INIA are remarkable
examples of this participation, collaboration, and integration.

This study has identified some key elements that for improving the
methodology of work with the advisory councils and improve the relationship of

RAC and WG with INIA.

5.2. Conclusion and Implications
The most significant conclusions of this study are presented following the
guidance of the posed research questions, which drove this research. The

following major conclusions and implications are organized under the following

148

sections: a) advisory council members’ profile, b) council members’ selection
process and linkages with the major farmer/agricultural organizations, c)
perceptions regarding the methodology/procedures used by INIA with the
advisory councils, d) major barriers affecting the advisory councils performance,
e) areas of concern of the advisory councils, f) relevance of the advisory councils

opinions, and 9) general reflections.

a) _A_dvisonLC_o_t_rncil mempers’ profile

From the socio-demographic characteristics of council members (RAC and
WG) there is an indication of a lack of involvement of young people (farmer and
farmer representatives) at the councils. The percentile distribution of the council
members’ ages shows a negatively skewed distribution with 50% of the council
members being over 48 years of age. Moreover, the lack of young people was
mentioned during the interviews and in the final comments from RAC and WG
members’ survey questionnaire. This finding implies, for INIA, the necessity to
include young and valuable people, with different ideas and perceptions
regarding the agricultural sector and technological needs. In addition, the findings
allowing a lower level of involvement of young people with agricultural issues or
agricultural organizations. According to Mainzer (1958), it is very important for
the life and accuracy of the advisory council to have a good balance represented
by geographical locations, age, gender, actor’s major role, and commodity. Lacy

(1996) and Johnson (1998), indicate the importance of having a broad-based

149

composition and appropriate membership as a key factor for building successful
advisory councils.

Regarding the year when members joined the councils, the findings
indicated that 33% of the advisory council members joined the councils during
the first year of RAC and WG work (1990-1991), meaning that they had been
working continually for more than ten years. Similarly, 50% of the members had
been working at the RAC and WGs for more than five years. This implies the lack
of council member renovation and consequently, no opportunity for new people
to contribute to INIA. In addition, this result suggests some status quo related to
the dynamic of RAC and WG regarding the general procedures of member
renovation. The conduction of focus groups in the INIA La Estanzuela region for
pre-sampling and identification of new members is a good strategy to start the

renovation process.

b) Council memJbers’ selectjon process ancflnkages with major
farmer/agricultural organizations.

Regarding the selection process of council members, the findings
indicated that INIA was responsible for the selection of 46% of the INIA La
Estanzuela council members. However, this fact does not affect the
representation of the major farmer and agricultural organizations at the councils.
In fact, 80% of the RACNVG members indicated they were representing
organizations (Institutions represented are listed in Appendix E). This finding is
consistent with the perception that INIA research staff have regarding the council

member representation. In addition, the major occupation of council members

150

 

indicates a balanced distribution of farmers (25%), farm advisor (20%), and
professional workers for organizations (26%). However, council members
perceived a lower representation by the university, and the agri-industry and
business segments at the advisory councils. This implies that RAC and WG’s
have a good representation of the major stakeholders groups, but that some
attention should be given to increasing the university and the agri-industry and

agri—business representation for the future.

c) Perceptions regarding t_he meLhodology/procedures used by INIA with the
_a_dvisorv cogncils.

In relation to the procedures that INIA is using with the advisory councils,
a major concern was identified regarding guidelines and information that
members and researchers received prior to attending the meetings. Finding
indicated that a significant percentage of council members (68%), as well as
research staff (54%), being attending the meetings with a poor knowledge of the
objective/purpose of the meeting. This finding was shown by means scores on
a1-5 Likert-type scale, which indicated that the information received prior the
meeting, was not satisfactory (the means were 2.60 and 2.23 for RAC/WG and
INIA research staff, respectively). This finding has a significant implication in
relation to the quality of the meetings. It seems to be very difficult for members
and researchers to accomplish the purpose of the meetings, when there is a lack
of information and the objectives are unclear. Consequently, it is necessary for

INIA to make a significant effort in the meeting objectives definition and

151

 

communication, as well in the provision of general information prior to the
meetings.

Findings also indicated that RAC/WG and INIA research staffs do not
have adequate guidelines related to the council work prior to their participation.
This finding shows that council members and INIA research staff have to gain
experience and learn about the work of the councils as they participate in the
RAC and WG meetings. Consequently, this finding implies problems in the
understanding of the council functions and outreach. According to this finding, it
is important for INIA to establish instances and procedures to educate and to
inform council members and research staff about the functions, the norms, and
the general procedures regarding the RAC before new members join the system.

Regarding the satisfaction that council members have concerning the INIA
support before, during and after the meetings, the findings indicated that
members were well satisfied with the support that INIA provided them during
meetings (3.8 mean in a 1-5 Likert-scale). However, council members expressed
little or only some satisfaction (2.5 and 2.9 mean in a 1-5 Likert-scale), regarding
support before and after the meetings. This result may be due to the lack of
communication, and follow-up contacts from INIA between meetings. As it was
noted earlier, a significant percentage of council members have doubts about
their membership status as a consequence of the lack of communication from
INIA. In this sense, again, the findings suggest the necessity to improve the
strategy of communication and contact with members in an ongoing manner.

Regarding council members interactions, members reported the ability to

 

interact sufficiently with other councll members and between themselves and the
research staff.

However, INIA research staff perceived that they do not have the same
capacity for interacting with council members. This finding suggests that INIA
staff have some limitation to interact with council members. As indicated earlier,
a significant percentage of INIA researchers participate in a small number of
meetings. Similarly, some researchers indicated that in most of the cases, they
provide the information to the Area Supervisor and Program Head, but they do
not participate in the RAC and WG meetings. Findings related to the internal
process of convocation of INIA researcher at the meetings, indicated lack of
satisfaction of researchers with this procedure. This conclusion implies that
norms and procedures need to be revised to ensure more research involvement
with RAC and WG meetings.

In addition, there is a common perception between council members and
INIA research staff that meetings are'very broad in their programs, that many
reports are presented and that there is not enough time for discussion. In
addition, council members complained that they did not receive any feedback
from INIA regarding their opinions and participation. The conduction of “open-
agenda” meetings appears to be as important in order to ascertain new topics
and to give the opportunity to RAC members to freely discuss problems or
issues, that would otherwise be missed or be outside of the agenda or be out of

time.

153

 

(m...—

The major findings in this section are in agreement with the major issues
affecting advisory councils as reported by Johnson (1998) in a similar study
conducted at the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station of Michigan State

University.

(1) Major barriers affecting the advisory councils performance

The membership status of the advisory council participants is one of the most
significant findings of this study. When members were asked to indicate their
current membership regarding RAC and WGs, one out of three (32.5%) indicated
not to be sure about his/her membership status. Similarly, one out of five (22.5%)
mentioned no to be longer participating. More than half (55%) of the members
indicated not being actively working was a very significant concern. However,
when exploring the causes of inactivity, almost three-fourths (73%) mentioned
that they had not received new invitations from INIA to participate in meetings or
communication regarding the RAC councils for a long period of time. This finding
implies a significant lack of communication from INIA to the council members. In
addition, this conclusion suggests that the RAC and WG council members
database could be corrected or ameliorated by adequate maintenance.

One of the major functions of the Regional Advisory Councils is to identify,
to discuss and prioritize research programs. However, INIA La Estanzuela
research staff indicated a low level of participation at the council meetings.
Almost two out of three researchers mentioned participating in four to six

meetings, and 23% of them indicated participating in only one to three meetings

154

 

over more than 60 meetings held since 1990-91. This finding is consistent with
comments from the open-ended questions in which research staff members are
recommended to become more involved directly in the council meetings, rather
than being represented by Area Supervisors or Program Heads. This finding
suggests that a review be made of the INIA’s procedures regarding INIA La
Estanzuela faculty participation in the council meetings. It is pertinent to state
that this factor could be responsible for the lack of major involvement and
engagement of the INIA researcher in the system. Moreover, it could be difficult
for researchers to consider RAC and WG suggestions when the researcher did
not participate directly in these meetings.

In order to increase motivation and engagement a strong
recommendation is made to develop a non-monetary reward, recognition, and
motivational strategy for RAC council members, to increase the feeling of
belongingness, esteem, and cohesiveness with the' system and INIA. Easy
procedures such as publication in newspapers regarding RAC members’
meetings or ideas, an annual award given to the most engaged RAC member, an
annual recognition given to the work of each RAC members, among other

possible ideas, are suggested.

e) Areas of concern of the advisory cogncils work

RAC/WG members and INIA staff perceived that both councils are relevant
institutions for identifying farmer needs, prioritizing research programs,

developing linkages between the research institute and farmer and/or agricultural

155

 

C
1,;

organization, identifying regional extension activities, and integrating farmers,
industry and consumers in a sort of round table of discussion. RAC/WG council
members also indicated the function of giving advice about budget allocation and
of supporting the regional director in his/her development as areas of
responsibilities for the RAC and WG. However, INIA research staff disagrees
with both of these suggestions.

The findings suggested that both RACNVG members and INIA research
staff have a good understanding of the major functions of the councils. However,
RAC/WG council members perceived that the “budget” responsibility is an area
of concern for the RAC. This area, as described by Delpiazzo (1996), is not an
area of responsibility of the councils. In this sense, it could be important for INIA

to make efforts to clarify this stakeholder expectation.

f) Relevance of 1113 advisory cogncils opinions

In relation to the importance of council opinions, both council members
and INIA research staff state that RAC and WG council opinions are important to
INIA. However, council members and INIA research staff indicated that councils’
contributions were poor in the following areas: research policy identification,
formulation, prioritization, and identification and prioritization of extension
activities. Comments in the open-ended questions and interviews revealed that
council members do not receive clear feedback regarding how their opinions are
processed inside of INIA. This conclusion implies the necessity of establishing a

good communication flow between council members and INIA, and vice versa

156

 

regarding the process of integrating council opinions. Feedback is needed, as a

two-way communication system, between INIA and council members.

9) General reflections

Leholm et al. (1998), and Leholm et al. (1999), have indicated that
establishing the linkage between research, extension, and stakeholders has
been a considerable challenge. As the authors argue, many research stations
have been criticized for not including formally stakeholders’ Opinions. In this
sense, INIA represents a good example of both points: a) developing an
instrument in an innovative system that allows farmers and other stakeholders to
participate and collaborate in the decision-making process of the institution, and
b) creating an instrument of linkage for the major agricultural actors working in
the agricultural sector of Uruguay.

RAC members and INIA research staff indicated a substantial relevance of
this instrument for identifying technological needs and educational activities,
prioritizing research and extension programs, and as using a linkage tool with
stakeholders. In addition, a great commitment to the instrument and from the
topic can be easily identified from the high responses rates, and the interest
demonstrated by the participants in the study.

It is important to remark that many of the problems reported in this study
were identified as common problems by other researchers for others advisory
councils, and represent mostly organizational problems, rather than structural

problems. As Axinn, H., and Axinn, W. (1997) pointed out, participation and

157

collaboration does not occur without cost; that cost includes the investment of
time, energy, and appropriate communication, “including long hours of patient
listening” (p 93). The authors indicate that collaboration is more of a qualitative
process, than it is a quantitative process.

The most urgent and general actions that INIA La Estanzuela research
station must consider, based on the findings, are to review the general
procedures and norms established for the work with the RAC and WG. The
elaboration and dissemination of updated norms, in collaboration with RAC and
, INIA staff members, is encouraged. For this purpose, developing a set of focus
groups, to discuss major findings of this study and to determine solutions is
advised. The identification and/or the reinforcement of the work of a “gatekeeper"
or liaison person for the RAC and WG, in order to identify and develop a
continuous communication strategy is also encouraged.

In addition, an efficient, effective, and timely process must be
implemented for the internal processing and archiving of the RAC and WG
suggestions, ideas, and comments. Feedback regarding the status of these
inputs is imperative in order to increase trust, motivation, and the perception of
contribution from RAC and WG members.

The usefulness of this study could be realized if the results were analyzed
by INIA and utilized to improve the Regional Advisory Council system at INIA La
Estanzuela research station. A summary of the results should be made available
to council’s members, INIA research staff, and lNlA managers in order to utilize

the major findings.

158

5.3. Recommendation for Future Research

Although there is indication of the existence and the uses of
Regional Advisory Councils or Advisory Councils at different levels, some studies
were conducted and few were published. Some difficulty was found in attempting
to identify similar studies to help in the definition of this study. Consequently,
several gaps in the research literature and knowledge related with the topic were
noted. This case study represents the first Study of the Regional Advisory
Council’s one research station (INIA La Estanzuela) of the National Agricultural
Research Institute (INIA) of Uruguay. As a case study, this research station
represents valuable information for the subject of the study, but a generalization
of the findings is not possible.

In addition, due the importance of the export commerce for the agricultural
sector of Uruguay, it would be worthwhile to.conduct additional deep analysis
regarding the independence that farmers and other stakeholders have regarding
the identification of new productive technologies.

It is necessary to encourage the undertaking of new studies regarding this
area in order to broaden the knowledge regarding these valuable participatory
institutional arrangements.

A similar study is recommended to be conducted of the entire INIA,
involving the five research stations in order to provide a major source of

information for drawing generalizations regarding the Advisory Councils of INIA.

159

 

APPENDICES

160

Appendix A

Sample Population and Instruments

INIA La Estanzuela RAC & WG participants
Participants since 1998 (n: 127)

 

Researchers (N =3 l)

   

 

 

 

” Random survey “B” Random sample
EMA/LA. sample (n=127) n : 6 (5%)
(N=31) n = 3 (10%) interview

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

161

Appendix B
UCRIHS Approval

MICHIGAN STATE
u N l v r: R s I T Y
October15,2002

TO: Murari SUVEDI

409 Agriculture Hall
MSU

RE: IRB 3 02-441 CATEGORY: 1-2 EXEMPT

TITLE: AN EXAMINATION OF THE REGIONAL ADVISORY COUNCILS OF URUGUAYS
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE (INIA)

ANNUAL APPROVAL DATE: June 5- 2002
REVISION REQUESTED: October 7, 2002
REVISION APPROVAL DATE: October 14. 2002

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this project is
complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and wetfm of the human subjects appeu to be
adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore. the
UCRIHS APPROVED THIS PROJECTS REVISION.

Thisletternotesapproulforthechsngesmsdeintinprojectflflesndtarget
population.
RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calenda' you, beginning with the approval date
shownabove. Projectscondmlngbeyondoneyearmustberenemdmmthegeenmmwalfonn.
A maximum of four such expedited renewal are possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project
beyond that b‘me need to submit it again for a complete review.
REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects. prior to
initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal. please use the green renewal form.
To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written request to the
UCRIHS Chair. requesting revised approval and referencing the project’s IRB# and titie. Include in
yommquestadesatpumofmediangeandanymisedhsmments,cmsunfamsor
advertisements that are applicable.
PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work. notify
UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects. complaints. etc.) involving lunar:
men subjedsuZ)d1anguhdnmseudrenWmmmtunequmafionhdicefinggreamnskbm
ETI'IICSAIID humanwbjectshanezdstedwhendnpromcdwaspmvlmnlymiemdandepproved.
STANDARDS If we can be of further assistance. please contact us at (517) 355-2180 or via emal:
UCRIHSGmsuedu. -
m Gee-hes es

'mm“ ”gm" Sincerely,

2020mm“
£31li A7

«324
srmsszteo Ashir Kumar, MD.
FAX: 517/432-4503 UCRIHS Chair
wet mummies/wins
E-Ms‘l: Meat AK: rt
cc: Ernesto Restaino Galup
409 Agriculture Hall

 

news-em
WUWM

mam.
Momma-mt

162

 

Verbal Consent Statement for Interviews — INIA & RAC
(To be read)

Dear [RAC member first name / INIA Researcher]:

HELLO, I am Ernesto Restaino. I would like to ask for your valuable participation in the study
entitled " An Examination of the Regional Advisory Councils of the Uruguay's National
Agricultural Research Institute of Uruguay (INIA)".

Your opinion is an extremely valuable component of this study. You were selected randomly
to participate in this personal face-to-face interview.

I would very much appreciate a few minutes of your time to respond some questions. This is
an informal interview so feel free to talk relaxed. It should only take 30 minutes.

Please be assured that your participation is voluntary, and all your responses are kept strictly
confidential. This means that your name will not be connected to your responses in any way
and your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your answers
will not be seen by anyone except for the researcher. You are in liberty not to answer any of
the questions or to terminate the interview at your discretion.

Are you willing to participate in this interview? (Yes/No)

(The interviewer is to leave a copy of this verbal consent with each participant.)

 

 

fimhewmymmdmmmh IIyouheveWercencanszMtsesa
M. pleesecelrtect: sardypenlchant, ermdssedsfiedatenytine Wanyespect
offlolssurdy, youmeycenuct-myumrslleyeum:
Ernesto Restaino, Ing. Agr.

Master Candidate, MSU Ashir Kumar, M.D.,

W Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human
Phone: (05541 8000 Subjects IUCRIHSI

INIA La Estanzuela Phone: (517) 355-2180. Fax: (517) 432-4503.

Rut. 60 km 11. Coionia Wm

 

 

202 Olds Hall. East Lansinng 48824. USA

 

UCRIHS APPROVAL FOR
THIS project EXPIRES:

JUN - 6 2003
mnamswumucmou
ONEMON'I'I-l
ABOVEDA‘I'EfOPg'gflnnTRUE

163

 

 

Cover Letter for the Survey Questionnaire A - INIA
[Date]

[INIA researcher FIRST NAME and LAST NAME]
INIA [name of the Research Station]

Dear [researcher first name]:

I would like to ask for your valuable participation in the study entitled " An Examination of the
Regional Advisory Councils of the Uruguay’s National Agricultural Research Institute of
Uruguay (INIAI'.

This study is being conducted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for my Master degree
at Michigan State University. I decided to choose this area of work based on the importance
that this topic has for clientele participation in INIA's policy making.

Your opinion as INIA researcher is an extremely valuable component of this study. This survey
is sent to all the INIA researchers.

I will appreciate a few minutes of your time to respond to the attached questionnaire. It
should take about 10 minutes.

Please be assured that your participation is voluntary, and all your responses are kept strictly
confidential. This means that your name will not be connected to your responses in any way
and your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your answer will
not be seen by anyone except for the researcher. Your name will never be placed on your
questionnaire. You may choose not to answer some of the questions. You indicate your
voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire.

An early response would be especially appreciated. Once you have completed the
questionnaire, use the self-addressed envelope provided and-places it in the box you can find
in the secretary of your Research Station. Please return this completed questionnaire before
[Month Day, Year].

A summary of the result of this study will be available upon completion. If you would like a
copy of the result, please indicate this in the available space in the questionnaire.

Thanks for your assistance. _

 

Sincerely,

JUN - 6 2003
Ernesto Restaino SUBMIT RENEWAL APPUCATION
Transfer Technolgy Unit — INIA La Estanzuela ONE MONTH PRIOR TO
ummmmmmmm ”mmmam
study.plessecentect: MMmeWetmymmmym

. olmisswdy.yeumycennct-ummrsly.llmm:
Ernesto Restaino. Ing. Agr.

Master Candidate. MSU Ashir Kumar, 14.0..

W Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human
Phone: (0554) 8000 Subjects IUCRIHSI

INIA La Estanzuela Phone: (517] 355-2180. Fax: (517) 432-4503.

Ruta 50 km 11, Colonia MM

 

 

202 Olds Hell. East Lansing, MI 48824. USA
C:\MyFrlss\Restsino\MSU_tesis\questionsrios_ingl\Covsr Letter for the Survey Questionnaire A.doc

 

 

164

Cover Letter for the Survey Questionnaire B - RAC
[Date]

IRAC/WG member FIRST NAME and LAST NAME]
[STREET ADDRESS]
ICITY. COUNTY]

Dear [RAC/WG member first name]:

I would like to ask for your valuable participation in the study entitled " An Examination of the
Regional Advisory Councils of the Uruguay's National Agricultural Research Institute of
Uruguay IINIAI". '
This study is being conducted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for my Master degree
“at Michigan State University. I decided to choose this area of work based on the importance
that this topic has for clientele participation in INIA's policy making.

Your opinion as RAC and WG member is an extremely valuable component of this study. This
is sent to all RAC and WG members listed since 1998.

I will appreciate a few minutes of your time to respond to the attached questionnaire. It
should take about 10 minutes.

Please be assured that your participation is voluntary. and all your responses are kept strictly
confidential. This means that your name will not be connected to your responses in any way
and your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your answer will
not be seen by anyone except for the researcher. Your name will never be placed on your
questionnaire. You may choose not to answer some or any of the questions. You indicate
your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire.

An early response would be especially appreciated. A self-addressed envelope has been
enclosed for your convenience in returning the completed questionnaire. Moreover. if you find
any difficulty to send back the questionnaire feel free to contact me anytime. Please return
this completed questionnaire before [Month Day. Year].

A summary of the result of this study will be available upon completion. If you. wpuld like a
copy of the result, please indicate this in the available space in the que

 

 

THIS pr
Thanks for your assistance.
Sincerely. JUN - 6 2003
Ernesto Restaino ‘ SW". RENEWAL APPUCAM
Transfer Technolgy Unit - INIA La Estanzuela ONE I" 0' I I I ' PRIOR TOUE
finahanenymdonurdmmtfis lfyeuloavegmstiarsorcemregudhgmnwtsase
seamnleesecontect: Mummermdssedsfiedatanymwldunym

- oldilsstudy. youmaycentact-anonymeuslleyou whit:
Ernesto Restaino. Ing. Agr.

Master Candidate. MSU Ashir Kumar, M.D.,

W Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human
Phone: (0554) 8000 Subjects (UCRIHS)

INIA La Estanzuela Phone: l517l 355-2180. Fax: 15171 432-4503.

Ruts 50 km 11. Colonia My

 

202 one: mu. East Lansing, MI 49324. USA

 

 

C:\Myfies\Restsino\MSU_tesis\qusstionarios_ingl\Cover Letter for the Sway Questionnaire 8.doc

165

 

Appendix C

Pre-Ietter RAC and WG members
Fecha

«titulo» «hombre» «apellido»
«direccion»
«Iocalidad», «departamento»

Estimado «nombre»:
Es un gusto volver a estar en contacto!

Nos dirigimos a Ud. en su carécter de participante del Conseio Asesor
Regional (CA R) y/o los Grupos de Trabajo (GT) de INIA La Estanzuela, para
manifestarle, que en el marco del esfuerzo que INIA viene realizando para
revitalizar esta importante herramienta de vinculacion con el sector productivo,
proximamente recibira de parte del lng. Ernesto Restaino, de la Unidad de
Difusién de INIA La Estanzuela, un breve cuestionario referents al estudio del
funcionamiento de los mismos. Su analisis sera' un aspecto central de la tesis de
sus estudios de Maestria.

Dicho estudio pretende recoger Ias impresiones, percepciones 9 ideas de los
miembros y quienes han participado en alguna ocasion en el CAR y los GT.

Le enviamos esta comunicacion anticipadamente, con el fin de ponerle en
conocimiento de que su particigacit’m en este estudio es muy importante. Su
opinién es el insumo mas substancial de este proyecto, el cual sera de gran
importancia para saber como podremos mejorar y jerarquizar el vinculo con los
principales clientes de INIA a través del CAR y los GTs.

Muchas gracias anticipadamente por su tiempo y consideracién. Solo con su
generosa ayuda es que esta estudio podra ser exitoso. Por favor esté pendiente
de la llegada del cuestionario, el mismo sera enviado por esta misma via (si
Usted desea hacer algun cambio en su direccion o forma de envio, por favor
llamenos aI Q§Z4 §000 — Stella genegetto o envie un correo electrénico a

restaino@ inia.org.uy).

Deseando poder contar con su valiosa opinién y ayuda reciba atentos saludos,

lng. Ernesto Restaino lng. Eduardo de la Rosa
Unidad de Difusion Director Regional
INIA La Estanzuela INIA La Estanzuela

166

Pre-letter INIA Research Staff

Fecha

«Nombre» es un gusto volver a estar en contacto!

Como sabras, me encuentro al final de mi programa de Maestria en Michigan
State University. Actualmente estoy iniciando mi Tesis referente el estudio de los
Consejos Asesores Regionales y los grupos de Trabajo y su relacionamiento con
INIA.

Este trabajo pretende recoger Ias impresiones, percepciones e ideas de los
miembros de los CAR y los GT y de quienes han participado en alguna ocasion
en ellos. En unos pocos dias distribuiré entre todos los técnicos investigadores
de INIA Ia Estanzuela un breve cuestionario referente aI estudio de los
Consejos Asesores Regionales (CA H) y los Grupos de Trabajo (GT) de INIA
La Estanzuela.

Del mismo modo, un cuestionario similar esta siendo enviado a todos los
participantes externos.

Esta comunicacion as informal y tiene como objetivo iniciar el contacto y
solicitarles su valiosa ayuda antes de recibir el cuestionario. Vuestra opinion
como técnico de INIA La Estanzuela es el insumo mas substancial de este
estudio.

Muchas gracias anticipadamente por tu tiempo y consideracion. Distribuiré
personalmente el cuestionario Iuego del 15 de Julio, cuando este visitando INIA
La Estanzuela por 4 semanas en ocasion de llevar adelante este trabajo; la
devolucién se hara en forma totalmente anonima.

«Nombrez» deseo poder contar con tu valiosa opinion y ayuda! Nos vemos
pronto.

Un afectuoso saludo,

Ernesto Restaino

Unidad de Difusion — INIA La Estanzuela
restm) @ inia.org£y

Tel: (0574) 8000

INIA La Estanzuela
Ruta 50 Km 11, Colonia

167

Cover Letter RACNVG members
Fecha
«titulo» «nombre» «apellido»
«direccion»
«localidad», «departamento»

Estimado «nombre»

Quisiera solicitar su valiosa participacion en el estudio titulado “Analisis de los Consejos Asesores
Regionales del Instituto Nacional de Investigacion Agropecuaria del Uruguay (INIA)”.

Este estudio es conducido como parte de mis estudios de Maestria en Michigan State University.
He decidido elegir esta area de trabajo basado en la importancia que esta tema tiene referido a la
participacion de los principales beneficiarios de INIA en la determinacién de politicas del Instituto.

Su participacicin como miembro del CAR y/o de los GT es un componente extremadamente
valioso en este estudio. Esta encuesta esta siendo enviada a la totalidad de los miembros
registrados desde 1998. Apreciaria mucho que destine algunos minutos de su tiempo para
contestar el questionario adjunto. Solo Ie tomara unos 15 minutos.

Por favor tenga en cuenta que su participacion es voluntaria, y que sus respuestas seran
tenidas en estricta contidencialidad. Esto significa que su nombre no sera conectado con sus
respuestas de ninguna forma y su privacidad sera protegida bajo Ias maximas regulaciones
establecidas por la Iey. Su nombre no debe ser nunca puesto en el cuestionario. Asimismo, Usted
puede elegir no contestar alguna de las preguntas. Enviéndonos el cuestionario adjunto Usted
esté indicando su acuerdo de participacién voluntaria.

Una pronta respuesta es ampliamente agradecida. Un sobre con todos los datos requeridos y
previamente pago ha sido incluido para su comodidad y conveniencia en el retorno del
cuestionario una vez completo. Asimismo, si Usted tiene alguna dificultad para el retorno del
cuestionario, no dude en contactarme. Por favor complete y envie el questionario antes del 15 de
Agosto 2002.

Un resumen de los resullados estara disponible una vez finalizado el estudio. Si Usted desea
recibir una copia por favor indiquelo marcando su preferencia en el Iugar previsto en el
cuesfionano.

Gracias por su colaboracion; atentos saludos,

Ernesto Restaino,
Unidad de Diiusion- INIA La Estanzuela

 

 

Si Usted tiene alguna pregnant referida a1 estudio, par Si Usted tiene alguna pregunta referida a sus derechos como
favor contacle a: participante en el estudio, o si tiene alguna inconfonnidad con
cualquier aspecto de este proyecto, Usted puede contactar
Ernesto Restaino. Ing. Agr. (andnimamente si Io desea) a:
Candidato a Maestria. MSU
regtainQQinigorguy Ashir Kumar, M.D.,
Tclef: (0574) 8000 Director del Comité dc Investigacion con Participacién dc Sujetos dc
INIA La Estanzuela Michigan State University (UCRIHS)
Ruta 50 km 1 1. Colonia Tclcf: (517) 355-2180. Fax: (517)432-4503.
ucr‘ihsgafmsu.edu
202 Olds Hall. East Lansing. MI 48824. USA

 

 

168

 

Cover Letter INIA Research Staff
Fecha
«titulo» «Nombre3» «Apellido»
«Estacion»

«Nombre2»:

Quisiera solicitar tu valiosa participacién en el estudio titulado “Anaiisis de los Consejos
Asesores Regionales del Instituto Nacional de Investigacion Agropecuaria del Uruguay
(INIA)”.

Este estudio es conducido como parte de los requerimientos para completar mis estudios de
Maestria en Michigan State University. He decidido elegir esta area de trabajo basado en la
importancia que este tema tiene referente a la participacion de los principales beneficiaries de
INIA en la determinacion de politicas del Instituto.

Tu participacion como técnico de INIA es un componente extremadamente valioso en este
estudio. Esta encuesta esta siendo enviada a la totalidad de los técnicos investigadores de INIA
La Estanzuela. Apreciaria mucho que destines algunos minutos de tu tiempo para contestar eI
cuestionario adjunto. Solo te tomara unos 10 minutos.

Por favor ten en cuenta que tu participacién es voluntaria, y que tus respuestas serén tenidas
en estricta confidencialidad. Esto significa que tu nombre no sera’ conectado con tus
respuestas de ninguna forma y tu privacidad sera protegida bajo Ias maximas regulaciones
establecidas por la ley. Tu nombre no debe ser nunca puesto en el cuestionario. Asimismo,
puedes elegir no contestar alguna de las preguntas. Enviando el cuestionario adjunto esta’s
indicando tu acuerdo de participacion voluntaria.

Una pronta respuesta es ampliamente agradecida. Una vez completado el cuestionario, insértalo
en el sobre de re-envio suministrado y depositalo en el contenedor que encontraras en la central
telefénica de la Estacion Experimental. Por favor completa y envia el cuestionario antes de
Agosto 15,2002.

Un resumen de los resultados estara disponible una vez finalizado eI estudio. Si deseas recibir
una copia por favor indiqualo marcando tu preferencia en el Iugar previsto en el cuestionario.

Gracias por tu colaboracion.
Atentamentos saludos,

Ernesto Restaino
Unidad de Dilusién - INIA La Estanzuela

 

 

 

SI Usted flene alguna pregunta referida a! estudio, Si Usted tiene alguna pregunta referida a sus derechos como
por favor contacts a: participante en el estudio. o si tiene alguna inconforrnidad con
cualquier aspecto de esta proyecto, Usted puede contactar
Ernesto Restaino, Ing. Agr. (andnimamente si Io desea) a:
Candidato a Maestria. MSU
restaino@ inia.org.gx Ashir Kumar, M.D.,
Telef: (0574) 8000 Director del Comité de Investigacion con Participacién de
INIA La Estanzuela Sujetos de Michigan State University (UCRIHS)
Ruta 50 km 11, Colonia Telef: (517) 355-2180, Fax: (517) 432-4503,
ucrihs@msu.g1u
202 Olds HalL East Lansing, MI 48824. USA

 

169

 

First Follow Up Reminder
Same for RAC/WC and INIA staff

[Fecha]

[Nombre]
[Direccion]

Con gusto le hemos enviado la semana pasada un breve questionario acerca del
estudio de los Consejos Asesores Regionales (CAR) y los Grupos de Trabajo
(GT) del Instituto Nacional de Investigacion Agropecuaria (INIA).

Si Usted ya lo complete y envio, por favor acepte mi mas sincero
agradecimiento. Si Usted am no lo ha completado, por favor tomese unos
minutos y hagalo hoy mismo. Le estoy sinceramente agradecido de antemano
dado que solo pidiendole la valiosa opinion a gente como Usted podremos
mejorar nuestros RAC y GTS.

Por favor recuerde que su participacion en el estggjo es sgmamente importante.
Su opinion es el insumo mas substancial del proyecto.

Si por alguna razén Usted no ha recibido eI questionario, 0 se le ha
traspapelado, por favor comuniquese al 0554 8000 y le haré Ilegar otro hoy
mismo.

Muchas gracias
Atentamente

Ernesto Restaino
Unidad de Transferencia de Tecnologia — INIA La Estanzuela

restaino@iniaogggy
Ph: (0574) 8000

INIA La Estanzuela
Ruta 50 Km 11, Colonia

170

Replacement Letter Follow Up

[Fecha]

[Nombre]
[Direccion]

Hace tres semanas Ie enviamos un breve questionario acerca del estudio de los
Consejos Asesores Regionales (CAR) y los Grupos de Trabajo (GT) del Instituto
Nacional de Investigacién Agropecuaria (INIA). Hasta el dia de hoy no hemos
recibido su questionario completo.

Si Usted ya lo complete y envio, por favor acepte mi mas sincero
agradecimiento. Si win no lo hizo, adjunto encontraré una nueva copia del
questionario para facilitarle su respuesta. Por favor tomese unos minutos y
hagalo hoy mismo. Le estoy sinceramente agradecido de antemano dado que
sélo pidiendole la valiosa opinion a gente como Usted podremos mejorar
nuestros RAC y GTs.

Por favor recuerde que su particigacion en el estudio en sumamente importante.
Su opinion es el insumo mas substancial del proyecto. Asimismo, recuerde que
su confidencialidad esta protegida con el maximo rigor establecido por la ley.

Tengo la esperanza de que Usted atJn pueda ayudarnos llenando el questionario
y devolviéndolo lo mas pronto posible.

Muchas gracias
Atentamente

Ernesto Restaino
Unidad de Transferencia de Tecnologia — INIA La Estanzuela

restaino@ inia.org.uy
Ph: (0574) 8000

INIA La Estanzuela
Ruta 50 Km 11, Colonia

171

Verbal Consent Form for Interviews

Estimado [Miembro del RACIGTITécnico de INIA nombre]

Buen dia/Buenas tardes! Mi nombre es Ernesto Restaino. Quisiera solicitarle su
valiosa participacion en el estudio titulado “Analisis de los Consejos Asesores
Regionales del Instituto Nacional de Investigacion Agropecuaria del Uruguay (INIA)”.

Su participacion es un componente extremfliamente valioso en este estudio. Usted fue
elegido al azar entre todos los participantes para esta entrevista.

Apreciaria algunos minutos de su tiempo para responder algunas preguntas. Esta es
una entrevista informal, por lo cual puede sentirse en confianza y relajado. La entrevista
solo tomaré unos 30 minutos.

Por favor tenga en cuenta que su participacion es voluntaria. y que sus respuestas
sera’n tenidas en estricta confidencialidad. Esto significa que su nombre no sera'
conectado con sus respuestas de ninguna forma y su privacidad sera protegida bajo
Ias maximas regulaciones establecidas por la ley. Sus respuestas no serén vistas ni
analizadas mas que por el investigador. Usted tiene el derecho de no contestar alguna
o ninguna de Ias preguntas. o terminar esta entrevista cuando Usted lo disponga.

Esta dispuesto a participar en la entrevista? (Si/No)

(El entrevistador dejaré una copia de este consentimiento al entrevistado)

 

 

 

Si Usted tiene alguna pregunta referida al Si Usted tiene alguna pregunta referida a sus

estudio, por favor contacte a: derechos como participante en el estudio, o si
tiene alguna inconforrnidad con cualquier aspecto

Ernesto Restaino, Ing. Agr. de este proyecto, Usted puede contactar

Candidato a Maestria. MSU (andnimamente si Io desea) a:

restaino @ inia.org.uy

Telef: (0574) 8000 Ashir Kumar, M.D.,

INIA La Estanzuela Director del Comité de lnvestigacién con

Ruta 50 km 11, Colonia Participacién de Sujetos de Michigan State
University (UCRIHS)
Telef: (517) 355-2180, Fax: (517) 432-4503,
ucrihs@msu.edu
202 Olds Hall, East LansingJ/ll 48824. USA

 

172

 

1)
2)

3)

4)

Interviews Questions

Cual es su percepcion general respecto de los CAR y GTs?

En su opinion, cual cree es la mayor barrera para que este sistema
desempefie una buena performance?

Cuales son sus sugerencias acerca de como los RAC y los GT
deberian ser organizados y reforzados en el futuro?

Cual es su opinion acerca de la representatividad de los miembros en
los CAR y los GT?

173

 

 

RAC and WG survey Questionnaire
Cuestiornario para mianbros
del

Cansejo Asesor Regional y Grupos de Trabajo

 

Porfavormarquelaopciénmenejorrqaresatteatopinién.Bjerplo: m / l 2 G 4 5
CIR- siglaquerepmesmtaalcmaeimmfimieml
GP- siglaquemwmtaalosmm

 

0 MummiancmaImlosty/olosmr

Soy miembro del CAR simmdeum

Soy miembro de los GT 3 primes opcic’mes m

Soy miembro de los GT, y delegado en el CAR cantata 14 Prev-Int! 2

No estoy seguro

bbsigoparticipando i siUstedesbéenestasimacifiLporfavuromtimeom
elamdmariobesadammemerimciapasada.
Suopiniéneeminportante!

DDDUU

a SiUbbednosiauemtidmbmalCflRy/oulosar,parm
Wham

Fardi interés y dejé de particignr

Etncntré limitantes eocnc'micas para participar

Ehcautré algt'm ccnflicto ccn 01:an actividads perscnala
Ehcontré e1 sistata catplejo y poco atractivo

No creo en este método de participacic'm

Otra (especifiqe)

UDDDDD

 

 

a MMandmommr

afio

 

0 mmmmuflmmamOma-sr

A través de iINitacién de INIA

Par interés perscnal

Por invitacic’m de otro miatbro del CAR 0 los are
out: (especifique)

DUDDD

 

maxim mummammm:

69 CAR

Meantmfliarizadoestamasbedcmalanylosa'santesdeim

loam!
Mfmdmlemdménmlaescala : dandeliguala'Nachfau'Lljmizado'
tastaSigIJala‘utyfattiliarizado'

Muy
Nada poco Algo Muy
1 2 3 4 5

flashedummmw, aflldelasdauimscpdmesuja'
MmdMMmfimx

D Soy un participante indqaatdiente

 

“*9

D Rqaresato a una organizacic’n/asociacic’n/ixstitucic'n

(Porfavarcmteetehmme)

D No estoy designado por ninguna organizacién, pero represmto a un

grupodeproductores (Pbrfavorca‘itabe lepregunta 9)

ammwwmmmma
nature :

 

 

ammmdemes,parmmnqndaub
one!»

 

175

, Rqaresattacién de organizaciones de productora

 

Mummmenmammma
ManolCARylos 01's?

Parfavurindiquemeleocidtparamdamtadelas siguiattesafintadcnes.

les iguala“Nohay' hastaS iguala‘Esmxyhteta'.

No at; P15 Es Esmuy
hay pobre milarlmenatnena

Representacién de prochctora
Representaciém de la thiversidad

WK!) Cb 1a agro—irrhstria
Rqaresentacic'm de las agro—atpresas

HHHHH
wwww
wwuww
pubic-b
mmmmm
“I

 

«hammers

 

m mm azalesneus mammiadoemmbmmimesr
Puedeelegirna’sdetmo. Circule su/s opcion/es

Ehe, Feb, Mar, Ahr, May, Jun, Jul, Ago, Set, Oct, Nov, Dic

mum mmmm:

01':

O
3
N

la2vecesa'telafio
3a4vecesenelafio
Oamadoseanecesario
Cuandosea necesario, pero a1 nenosunavez a1 afio

Otra (wedfique)

DECIDE]
DECIDE]

Otra QR:

 

 

ManndsfadaoasdascedcmalmdeindbadQundom
ammmalmyzumr
dratleatopdénenlaescala.Deatb1 iguala‘Nosatisfed'io'hasta 5 iguala
Weatisfecho'.

No Poco Alp Muy
1 2 3 4 5

mwmmmmnmamwmm
mammyzos as:

D 7 dias antes

D 15 dias antes

D 21 dias antes

D 30 dias antes

D Mas de 30 dias antes

 

E"
mamnmmm caldera Medudhkalain
”“0th

D S. DNO
Si su respuesta fue “SI", por favor diganos com? 1

‘5

ti.

DRIteléfcno
DPbrcozreo
DPbrfax

D Burcozreoelectrc’mico

mandamhfldnm-Ihqnwfldw. “tannin
Mal mmmmanmmam
Ebrfavorindiqiesuopdén atlaescala, deedeliguala 'Paranach'hasta
SigJala 'Mxyma‘i'.

Fara Muy Muy
nada poco A190 Rim his:
1 2 3 4 S

Mmmudvsudanelmquezedbeparmudem
coma miembro del an o los 01's?
Pbrfavorttarquesucpdénenlaescalaparacadamadelassituacionesplanteadas.
Descbliguala'Noaatisfecho'hastaSiguala'Mtysatisfedb'.

N0 Muy poco Algo Muy
satisfiedn sat. a. Stirs. aria-seeds
1 3 4 5

Antesdelas ramicnes 2
Dmantelasmmicnes 1 2 3 4 5
Decpaeedelasramionee 1 2 3 4 5

 

177

@ mmmmmndwonmm

Wham:
Bourfavor :indiquesuopcic’n enlaaecala, deedeliguala 'Nosatisfecho'

hasta 5 igual a Msatisfecho'

No Poco Algo Muy
m a; a. saris. satisfah')

a MuthudbfimflobmW

w mmmm-umijamrmau-pm
WWW.

.............................................................

 

 

 

 

@ nadMibWutddeaamdooendemaan
mm:

Por favor rtarque su opcién 31 la escala para cada una ch las situaciones planteadas.
Desde 1 igual a 'Muy at desacuerdo' hasta S igual a 'Muyde acuerdo'

Muy en En Has 0 De Muy de
desacuerdo chsac. menos acuercb acuerrb

Tengo adecuadas instrucciones acerca del funcionamiatto 1 2 3 4 5
del CAR y los (31‘s

 

Recibo suficiente infonnacic’n antes de las ramicnes 1 2 3 4 5
Rtedo eJ-tpraar mis cpinicnes chrante las ramicnes 1 2 3 4 S
Puedo interactuar ccn otros miat‘hros chrante 1a reunicnes 1 2 3 4 5
Puedo interactuar con otros Im'arbros fuera de las reuniones 1 2 3 4 5
Hey bustia interaccién ccn los técnicos de INIA durante 1 2 3 4 5
las remicnes

Siento que mis ideas scn tenidas en cuenta 1 2 3 4 5
Tango suficiente tiarpo chrante las ramicnes para 1 2 3 4 5

elaborarmis ideas

Siento que estoy desarrollando mi conocimiatto técnico 1 2 3 4 5
corn resultado de mi participacién

 

@ alum afllusmmuumm/Wual
mama-m:

1)

2)

3)

 

cu. / are Pagina m'unero 6

179

 

a mammamn’mmmmmmamwom
mylos 01's?

1)
2)

3)

@ mquémdidaastaduddeMOQdemanluW
Wt
Pbrfavornarquesuopcionenlaescalaparacadatmatblas situacionesplanteaths.
Desdel iguala 'Muyatdesacuerdo' hasta 5 iguala 'Muydeacuerdo'

Muy en an Has 0 De Muy de
cheacmrtb desac. menos acuenb acuertb

E]. GR es una ixrportante estructura para identificar 1 2 3 4 5
midades tecnolégioas de los prodsctorse

El CAResuna inportante estructuraparatrantenerun 1 2 3 4 5
fuerte vimllo ocn organizaciaaes de productores

El CAR es tma inpartante estructura para ideatificar 1 2 3 4 5
actividads de difusic’n locales

El CAR es una inportante estructura para aoonsejar acerca 1 2 3 4 5
del prseupusto operativo de INIA

El CAResuna inportante estructuradesoportepara los 1 2 3 4 5
Directores Regicnales

mCAResm'iathportanteestmcturaparaprriorizar 1 2 3 4 5
prograttas de imatigacic’m

El. CAResuna Surportante estructurapara integrar 1 2 3 4 5

prodzctores, irrhstria y mmnidorm para analizar
problems tecnolégioos

Los an: em tma :thportante estructura para ideatifioar 1 2 3 4 S
necesidadse tecnolégicas de los prochctores

Los GI‘s son una :thportante estructura para nantener un 1 2 3 4 5
fuerte vixmlo can organizacia‘ies de productores

Las GI‘s scm una ixtportante estructura para identifioar l 2 3 4 S
activichés (b difusién locales

Los GT3 sm una ixrportante estructura para aomsejar 1 2 3 4 S

acerca del presupuesto cperativo de INIA
IosGI‘sscnmiaierortanteestructuradescporteparalos 1 2 3 4 5

Directotres Regicnales

LosGI‘sscnunainportanteestructuraparapriorizar 1 2 3 4 5
programs de investigacic'm

LosGI‘ssmtmainportanteeatructur-aparaintegmr l 2 3 4 5

predictotres, industria y mam para analizar
problems tecnolégicos

.....................................................................................................................................

 

 

dumbedqueuimtanbebmmsymlasesbahleddasmel
mylosars, awkward-hos, madam,
«n!

 

S. D NOD Mas o menosD
Si su respuesta fue “SI ”, qué tipo de nomas deberian ser establecidas?

r.
mémimcecreeastedsonlosmsdelmjrlosm'apun )
m L

Nada Algo Muy
Inportanbes inp. Neutro Inrmtantes Iuportantas
1 2 3 4 5

mutanadidaczeeastadquemtrabajomnimmhaantdhddo
cinemas”:

Por favormarque suopciéna'i la escalaparacadauna de las situaciones planteadas.
Desde 1 igual a 'Mxypohre oontribucién' hasta 5 igual a 'Mxyhae'ia oontrihacién'

Muypobre Pobre mailer Buena Muybuena
antrihxzic’n (Intr. Qntr. Qntr. (Irttdhxzit'n

Fonnflacic’ncbpoliticascbimmtigacifin 1 2 3 4 5
Ibtificacifitdetrqiectoscbmgafic’n 1 2 3 4 S
Priorizaciéndeprqectosdeitmtigacifit 1 2 3 4 5
Distrihnic’ndetresmsstorbimestigacic’n 1 2 3 4 5
Irhitiflcacidtdeactividaiscbdimflgacic’nyettasic'n 1 2 3 4 S
Priorizaddtdeactividaisdedimflgacidtyectasidt 1 2 3 4 S

....................................................

 

 

candelossiauianbasrubmsdepmdmichmjarmuntasum
headers-aw“ (porfavorelija solouna, lanésixrportanteparaUsted)

U Ganado de carne D Cerales D Hutialltm‘a

D Lederia D Pbrrajes U I-hcticzltura

D Ovinos/C‘aprinos D Prod. de sanillas D Ppimltura

D Otra (SpecifiqLJe) D Forssbacién 'J“

 

a mmmwmaMcmmmm-s

 

aflnndcnas:
Muy en En Mas 0 De Muy de
desacuerdo desac. menos award) acuerdo )3.
Me considero un miarbro activo 1 2 3 4 5 L
Me gusta llegar a decisionss por concenso 1 2 3 4 5
Me gusta hacer criticas positivas 1 2 3 4 5

Soy una persona innovativa
Me considero técnicamente solido en mi area de trabajo 1 2 3 4 5

Megusta trabajarenequipo 1 2 3 4 5

a Galilean“?

 

Q azalessugenemt

D Femenino D Masculino

Q Mummy

D Prochctor

U Asesor Técnico

D Profesicnal trabajarrbpara una Institucic’n
C) Otza (especifiqae)

 

...............................................................................................................................

 

Q anabosafiosdeechcaciaafamlhaompletador

D Menos de 6 afios (Prinaria)
C] Ehtre 7-10 afios (Liceo)

[:1 me 11-12 afios (Eachillerato)
D Mas de 13 afios (Universidad)

Q wammmmwmmaudm:

Cl Capitalino (Ib’ltevidso)

E] Urbano (vivo en otra capital distinta ae Mmtevidso)
D Sub-urbane (vivo cerva de una capital, memos de 20 km)
E mural (vivo en el catpo)

 

marcandounacruz enel recuadro adjunto E]

Wmdaspmrmayudau ©

......................................................................
..................................................................................................................

 

 

 

 

INIA Research Staff Survey Questionnaire

 

Porfavormarquelaopciénquenejorrqaresettemopinio’n. Ejeuplo: m l 1 2 ® 4 5
03- siglaqueregresmtaalcmseiemmmal
GP- siglawerepresmtaalosmmmic

3Q'f—5gEW A .. W Y ,‘ . ., s; 3;. 2;. g, .j   ; ....;_.- ; _:,:,;  ;2.;.; .1; ;.~ g ;_: ; g; 2‘ {I :1:

 

9 Guineasveoaspartidpoanlasmimesdeloscnny/omdudeque
.. atmcicnarf

 

1a3veces

C]
D 4a6veces
Cl
C)

7 a 10 veces
Mas de 10 veces

a mmwmmmamymmr
Porfawrcirculeweleociétmlasmlazdeschligala'bhchfadljarizarb'
hastaSiguala‘MxyfardliariM'

Muy
Nada poco Mg) Huy
fatiljaizb fan. fan Elli-1mm!) fin’b’aiazb

1 2 3 4 5

9 aflbmWMaumeh
standadelosnimandmylosmr

D Los mia'rbros son trayoritariatrente participantes indqae'idienta

D Los miatbros rqorseautan trayoritariamente alguna organizacic’n/

Los miarbros no son designados por ninguna organizacién, pero
D rqmesentan trayoritariatra'tte a grupos de productores

 

It. ...... .Pam. ........... n o ...... 1.. Cod. -

184

 

 

 

3353@%#@!%¢¢¢$@4fi#s§MN¢flb1ia’PA;*“ 5§ 

mum afllumamumiabspanmtmmimear

m elegir mas de um. Circule su/s opcion/es

Ehe, Feb, Mar, Abr, May, Jun, Jul, Ago, Set, Oct, Nov, Dic

mum mmmm:

Q
it
N

GT:

1 a 2 veces en el afio

3 a 4 veces en el afio

mando sea necesario

(Mando sea necesario, pero al menos una vez a1 afio
Otra (especificpe)

DUDDD
DDDDD

Otra GAR:

-9431;

 

 

Otra 01':

 

”madmesdwbedcmalminbamHIWde
mbadadelmylosm'sr

drafleaicpciénenlaescala.nescb1 igttala'bbsatisfed‘n'tiasta 5 iguala
‘Mtysatisfecho'. '

No Poco Algo Muy

mmmmhfildnmghumidw. animus:
ma dfiedm/flqfisiboblazumibanbaschmmirt
Pbrfavorirdiquesuopdc'n atlaescala, desdeliguala 'Paranach'hasta
Siguala 'Mxybim'.

Para Muy MUY

nada poco A190 Big; him
1 2 3 4 5

.. pagman’o 2

185

Ir

 

 

a mmmmmudmnammonmumm
dmmbelasrumiansr
Rarfavor indiquesucpcién atlaescala, dsdeliguala 'Nosatisfecho'
hasta 5 iguala 'Mtysatisfedio'

No Poco Algo Muy
sausages at. a. saris. satisfefl'n 'F-
1 2 3 4 5

 

o aflluhmddfimadmbmm:

 

@ mmpodrianlasmsaarmjondunalfumrbrmmm

tres W m.
a
b
c)
- -------------- M Paginan 3 ;.g-

 

 

@ mguenedidaastedesbideawuwoendesaaierdoanlassiauianbas
m:
For favornarquesucpcic’menlaescalaparacadatmadelas situacionesplanteadas.
Desdel iguala 'Muyandesacuerdo' hastaSiguala 'Muydeacuerdo'

Muy en En Has 0 De Muy de
chsacuerdo deseo. memos acuercb acuercb

'Ilatgo adecnadas instruociones acerca del funciomtmiento 1 2 3 4 5
del CAR y los GI‘s

Recibo suficie’tte inforrtacién antes de las ramim 1 2 3 4 5
Puedo expresar mis qoinicnes dlrante las remiaies 1 2 3 4 5
Hay hia'ia interaccic’m con los mianbros del CAR y los 1 2 3 4 5
GR; durante las remicnes

Te'go suficiente tiarpo durante las reunicnes para 1 2 3 4 5
elaborarmis ideas

 

Q mam afluamlastsumesm/Wmnel
Mainstream!

1)

2)

3)

. Pagm n.' .6 .4...

187

 

Q mum adlasdabanfimmlutrummdammjoal
mylos 01's:

1)
2)

3)

@ maximdiJaUstadastadaMOandomdoaan
dim:
For favorxrarquesuopdénmlaescalaparacadamlachlas situacionesplanteadas.
Desdeliguala'Muyexdesacuardo' hastaSiguala 'Muydeamercb'

Muy en a: Mas 0 De Muy de
desawercb m. menos acmrrb acmd:

 

El GR es una inportante estructura para idaltificar 1 2 3 4 5
neoesidada tecnolégicas de los proddctora

El CAResuna irrportante estructuraparanantenerun 1 2 3 4 5
fuerte vinculo cm organizacim de prodzctores

E1 CAR es una :inpartante estructura para ideatificar 1 2 3 4 5
actividacbs Cb difusién locales

El CAR a una inportante estructura para aconsejar acerca 1 2 3 4 5
del prawnato qaerativo de INIA
EICARamaainportanteatructuradesoporteparalos -1 2 3 4 5
Directores Regicnales

mCAResmaainportmtestructuraparapriorizar 1 2 3 4 5
programs de imaatigacién

El. CARauna inportante estructurapara integrar 1 2 3 4 S

predictors, inchstn'a y ccnsumidores para analizar
problems tecnolégioos

Los an: em una J'erortante astructura para idaztificar 1 2 3 4 5
recasidads tecnolégicas de los prochctores

Los Grs scn una inportante estructura para mantaaer un 1 2 3 4 5
fuerte vinculo ccn organizacicnes de prodlctocres
Las GI‘s sonuna inportante estructura para idemtifimr 1 2 3 4 5

activichcb Cb difusién locales
Los GI‘s son una inportante estructura para accmsejar 1 2 3 4 5
acerca del presupuesto qaerativo de INIA

LosGI‘s scnuna inponrtante atmcturadescportepara los 1 2 3 4 5
Directoras Regionales

IosGI‘ssmunainportanteestructuraparapriorizar 1 2 3 4 5
programs de ixwestigacic'm

Los GI‘s scnuna inportante estructura para integrar 1 2 3 4 5

prodlctors, inizstria y ccnsmddores para analizar
problems tecnolégicos

............................................................................................................................................

............................................................

“Macaw mmymommd
Mylo: 01‘s, was sumamim, mad-bros,
in!

D S. D No D Mas o menos

Si su respuaata fue “SI”, qué tipo de normas deberian ser establecidas?

Mmimuaunstedammmsdalmylocm”

Nada Algo Muy
Iuportantes mp Nautro Inportarts Inportantes
1 2 3 4 5

mafinadidaauaubtadquaal Modalosmimdalmjrlos
mmmimibalum'auimm:

For favornarquesuopciénmlaescalaparacadaunadelas situacicnesplanteadas.
Desdeliguala 'Mxypohrecontribucidu' hastaSiguala 'szbuena contrihxdén'

Muypobre Pobre mgflar Buena Muybuena

Formflzfifndepoliticaschiwestigafifn 1 2 3 4 5
Ibtificxifixcierxmtcs$imestigacifin 1 2 3 4 5
Wdepmcbmmaddl 1 2 3 4 S
mstn'hniénfimnstoch W101 1 2 3 4 S
W®$xtifidahs¢dimflmchye¢asim 1 2 3 4 5
Priorizadéx$xtividais<bdiuflgai€nya¢asién 1 2 3 4 5

...... .2'" ....... ............... ..... ...,. . ...,

paging nfinero 5

189

 

 

@ Manama:

D Femenino D Masculine

‘3 Mosmmmr

D miversidad
D Master

D Doctorado

D Otra (especifique)

 

ammonmm ©

Pég n .. ”‘6'”.‘7 .

190

 

Sitbtedqfiereredtfirccpiadelos resultadosdeestewttflio, porfavorirdiqzdo
mcardomncruzmelrecuadroadjmto D

mmquudal! ©

” fiaéiha‘humer’ " ' 6 e

191

 

Appendix D

Research question correspondence between samples populetlons

Research questions and correspondence with the questions identification in survey
questionnaires. (Question number in parenthesis indicate open-ended questions)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research Questions RAC 8: WG INIA 58“
Questions Questlons
SurveyB SurveyA
1 What is the demographic and socio profile of Regional 12,328.29,
Advisory Councils members? 30,31 ,32,33,
34
2 How were Regional Advisory Councils members 4, (5)
selected?
3 What are the linkages between the Regional Advisory 7,(8),(9),1O 3
Councils participants and the major farmer organizations
in Urugu_ay?
4 How do the Regional Advisory Councils participants 13.16.17.18 7,8
perceive the methodology that INIA uses to work with
those stakeholder groups?
5 What do Regional Advisory Councils members perceive (19),(20),21,
as barriers, if any, in the functioning of the advisory (22)
councfls?
6 What do INIA staff and managers perceive as barriers, if (9),(10),11
any, in the functioning of the advisory councils? ,
7 According to INIA, what are the areas of work for the (23)
Regional Advisory Councils?
8 According to the Regional Advisory Councils mem bers,
what are the areas of work for the advisory councils? (13)
9 What is the relevance that Regional Advisory Councils 24,26,27
members give to RAC and WGs in terms of identifying
farmer research needs, farmer linkages, and farmer
educational programs?
What is the relevance that INIA gives to RAC and WGs 10.16.17
in terms of identifying farmer research needs, farmer
10 linkages, and farmer educational programs?
(G) General data 6,11,12,14,1 f,2,4,5,6,1
5,25 5,18,19,20

 

 

 

192

 

 

Appendix E

Major farmer organizations and agricultural institutions reported

Anaprose

Asociacién de lngenieros Agrénomos
Asociacién Nacional de Productores de Leche
Asociacién Rural de Florida

Banco de la Republica del Uruguay
Calcar .

Calmer

Calol

Calpa

Calpu

Cémara de Agroquimicos

Cémara Uruguaya de Semillas
Centro Agronémico de Salto
Conaprole

Cradeco

Facultad de Agronomia

Fucrea

Instituto Nacional de Colonizacién
lntituto Nacional de Carnes '
Recarlecal

Secretariado Uruguayo de la Lana
Sociedad de Criadores de Holando
Sociedad de Fomento “La Casilla”
Sociedad de Fomento de Flores
Sociedad de Fomento Rural de Tarariras
Sociedad Rural de Durazno
Sociedad Rural do Rio Negro

Union Rural de Flores

Group of Farmers

Grupo Apicola Cardona

Grupo de Criadores Ovinos lntensivos
Grupo de Productores Agricolas del Litoral
Grupo de Productores Lecheros CREA
Grupos CREA

Grupos Lecheros de Conaprole
Productores Apicolas

193

 

Appendix F

Late and earlier respondents comparison
i) General commets regarding late and earlier respondents

Normally, late and earlier respondents are compared in order to allow
generalization of the findings. In addition, as Dillman, D. (2000) suggest a
revision of earlier respondents survey questionnaires to allows the researcher to
identify possible problems in the questionnaire and have the right time to re-send
a new version. Following the Dillman suggestion, as it was described in the
methodology, a track of earlier and late RAC/WG respondent’s members was
executed to quick evaluate possible problems with the questionnaire, but also to
allows some quick analysis between both sub-groups (late and earlier).

RAC/WG members were considered “late respondents” when they survey
questionnaire was received after the closing date (July 31, 2002) and before
August 15, 2002, date when it was definitively closed the survey questionnaire
reception.

Figure 1 shows that 37% of RAC/WG members were considered “late
respondents”, and the remaining 63% were “earlier respondents” according to

the previous definition and procedure.

194

 

Figure 1 RACNVG late and earlier respondents percentages

 

l [:1 Earlier Respondents
‘ I Late Respondents

 

 

63%

 

 

 

No differences at .05 level of significance were found between the “early’
and “late” respondents perceptions and valorization of the questions asked.
However, from the cross-tabulation analysis of some descriptive statistics
it is interesting to point out some findings.
For instance, Table 2 shows that 40% of “late" respondents were “not sure” about
if they are RAC or WG members, versus a 29% from “earlier” respondents.
Similarly, 30% of “late" respondents indicate “no longer participation” in the RAC

and WG councils, versus about 18% from the ”earlief’ sub-group.

195

Table 2, Actual position * Late/earlier respondent Cross-tabulation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actual Position Late/earlier Total
respondent
late earlier
WG member Count 8 19 27
% within Late/earlier 26.7% 37.3% 33.3%
respondent
WG member & Count 1 8 9
RAC % within Late/earlier 3.3% 15.7% 11.1%
representative respondent
Not sure Count 12 15 27
% within Late/earlier 40.0% 29.4% 33.3%
respondent
No longer Count 9 9 18
participating % within Late/earlier 30.0% 17.6% 22.2%
' respondent
Count 30 51 81
Total % within Late/earlier 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
respondent

 

Besides, Table 3 indicates that in the “late” sub-group we can find more
(almost 31%) of members who are “Independent but representing a group of

farmers” than in the “earlier” segment of respondents (12%).

196

Table 3. What is your membership status * Late/earlier respondent Cross

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

tabulation
What is your Late/earlier Total
membership respondent
status
late earlier
Independent Count 5 8 13
participant % within Late/earlier 19.2% 19.5% 19.4%
respondent
Representing an Count 13 28 41
organization % within Late/earlier 50.0% 68.3% 61.2%
respondent
Independent but Count 8 5 13
representing a % within Late/earlier 30.8% 12.2% 19.4%
group of farmers respondent
Total Count 26 41 67
% within Late/earlier 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
respondent

 

Finally, a major percentage of “late” respondents were localized in the

main city or in an urban area (70%) than “earlier” respondents (50%) (Table 4).

At the beginning of the process a research concern was that sub-urban or rural

areas could needed more time to sent back the survey taking in consideration

that members living in these areas would need more time to reach the postal

office.

197

 

Table 4. Member living location * Late/earlier respondent Cross-tabulation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Member living location Late/earlier Total
respondent
late earlier
Main city Count 8 9 17
% within Late/earlier respondent 26.7% 18.0% 21.3%
Urban Count 13 16 29
% within Late/earlier respondent 43.3% 32.0% 36.3%
Sub- Count 3 11 14
urban % within Late/earlier respondent 10.0% 22.0% 17.5%
Rural Count 6 14 20
% within Late/earlier respondent 20.0% 28.0% 25.0%
Total Count 30 50 80
% within Late/earlier respondent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

 

 

ii) Other Complementary Information for Late respondents

Flow were you selected " Latelearlier respondent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Late/earlie
responden
late earlier Total
How you Through INIA Coun 14 23 37
where % within
0 O O
selects respon den 46.7 /o 46.0 A 46.3 /0
Appointed by Coun 11 21 32
o . .
/° mm" 36.7% 42.0% 40.0%
responden
By personal Coun 1 1 2
o . .
/° “mm" 3.3% 2.0% 2.5%
responden
RAC or WG Coun 4 4 3
o . .
/° w'm'" 13.3% 8.0% 10.0%
responden
Other Coun 1 1
o . .
A w'm'" 2.0% 1.3%
responden
Total Coun 30 50 80
% within
respon den 100.0 100.0 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

198

How familiar were you with RAC and WG before starting * Late/earlier respondent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crosstebulation
Late/earlier
respondent
late earlier Total
How familiar Not at all (Yum 8 13 21
were YOU With % within Late/earlier
RAC and WG respondent 27.6% 25.5% 26.3%
heme S‘amng A little Count 8 15 23
% within Late/earlier
respondent 27.6% 29.4% 28.8%
Somewhat Count 7 10 17
% within Late/earlier
respondent 24.1% 19.6% 21.3%
Familiar Count 5 10 15
% within Late/earlier
respondent 17.2% 19.6% 18.8%
Very familiar Count 1 3 4
% within Late/earlier
respondent 3.4% 5.9% 5.0%
Total Count 29 51 80
% within Late/earlier O
respondent 100.0 /0 100.0% 100.0%
Member gender * Late/earlier respondent Crosstebulation
Late/earlier
respondent
late earlier Total
Member Female Count 3 3
gender % within Late/earlier
respondent 5.9% 3.7%
Count 30 48 78
% within Late/earlier o
respondent 100.0 /0 94.1% 96.3%
Total Count 30 51 81
% within Late/earlier
respondent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

199

 

Member current occupation * Late/earlier respondent Crosstabulation

 

Late/earlier

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

respondent
late earlier Total
Member Farmer Count 9 1 1 20
current % within Late/earlier o 0
Farm Advisor Count 6 1o 16
% within Late/earlier o o
respondent 20.0 /o 19.6 /o 19.8%
Professional working Count 9 12 21
for an Institution % within Late/earlier
respondent 30.0% 23.5% 25.9%
Other Count 2 2
% within Late/earlier
respondent 3.9% 2.5%
Farmer/Farm Advisor Count 2 9 11
% within Late/earlier o o o
respondent 6.7/0 17.6/o 13.6 /o
Farmer/Prof. working Count 2 3 5
for Inst. % within Late/earlier a
respondent 6.7% 5.9% 6.2 /0
Farm Advisor/Prof. Count 2 4 6
working '0' "‘5‘- % within Late/earlier
respondent 6.7% 7.8% 7.4%
Total Count 30 51 81
% within Late/earlier o
respondent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0 /o

 

 

 

 

200

 

 

Member formal educational level * Late/earlier respondent Crosstabulation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Late/earlier
respondent
late earlier Total
Member formal Less than 6 years Count 1 1
educational level 0 - - -
/o wrthin Late/earlier 2.0% 1.2% ‘
respondent
7 to 10 years Count 5 2 7
% within Late/earlier o o
respondent 16.7% 3.9 /o 8.6 /o
11 to 12 years Count 1 6 7
% within Late/earlier o o o
respondent 3.3 /o 11.8 /o 8.6 A.
More than 13 Count 24 42 66
% within Late/earlier o
respondent 80.0 /o 82.4% 81 .5%
Total Count 30 51 81
% within Late/earlier o o o
respondent 100.0 /o 100.0 /0 100.0/o
Group Statistics
Late/earlier N Mean Std. Std. Error t-value Sig
respondent Deviation Mean
Member age late 30 47.70 7.883 1.439 .126 .900
earlier 51 47.94 8.988 1.259

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

201

Means differences between late and earlier respondents for the majo variables of the study.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Late/earlier N lMean Std. Std. t- Sig.
espondenJ Deviation Error value-a
Mean
How familiar were you with RAC late 29 2.41 1.181 .219 .343 .732
and WG before starfiig earlier 51 2.51 1.239 .173
How satisfied are you with the late 28 3.21 1.067 .202 1.622 .111
invitation process earlier 50 3.62 1.048 .148
How well did you know the late 30 3.10 .923 .168 .645 .521
objective/purpose of the meeting earlier 50 2.96 .968 .137
Satisfaction with INIA help : late 29 2.97 .981 .182 .356 .723
Before the meetiflgi earlier 48 2.88 1.231 .178
Satisfaction with lNlA help : late 28 3.82 .772 .146 .139 .890
Durinflhe meeting earlier 48 3.79 1.091 .157
Satisfaction with INIA help : After late 28 2.29 1.049 .198 1.514 .135
the meetings earlier 47 2.68 1.163 .170
Satisfaction with the late 28 3.50 1.000 .189 .000 1.000
process/structure of meetings earlier 50 3.50 1.129 .160
I received adequate guidelines late 27 2.44 1.013 .195 1.516 .135
about the RAC and WG earlier 48 2.81 1.003 .145
I received adequate information late 27 2.56 .974 .187 .274 .785
previous the meetings earlier 50 2.62 1.008 .143
I can express my opinions during late 27 4.19 .681 .131 1.964 .053
the meetings earlier 49 3.80 1.040 .149
I can interact with other members late 26 3.81 1.059 .208 .701 .487
during the meetings earlier 49 3.63 .972 .139
I can interact with other members late 27 3.52 1.122 .216 .257 .798
outside the meeting: earlier 49 3.45 1.138 .163
There is a good interaction with late 27 3.85 .949 .183 1.417 .162
INIA researchers earlier 49 3.51 1.102 .157
I feel that my ideas are taking in late 27 3.41 .931 .179 1.894 .063
consideration earlier 48 2.98 .956 .138
l have enough time during the late 27 3.22 .801 .154 1.790 .078
meetings to elaborate my ideas earlier 49 2.86 .935 .134
lfeelthatlam developing late 26 3.42 .809 .159 1.117 .268
technical expertise as result of earlier 47 3.66 .962 .140
y participation
How important are the RAC and late 29 3.72 .996 .185 .914 .364
WG imputs earlier 50 3.94 1.038 .147

 

 

 

 

202

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albicette, M. M. (2000). Analisis de los Consejos Asesores y Grupos de Trabajo
(Diagnostico del Ambiente lnterno - Documento lnterno). Montevideo: INIA.

Allegri, M. A. (1999). Collaboration and Accountability in Agricultural Research : The
Case of INIA, Uruguay. Thesis (Ph.D.), Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Allegri, M. A., Andre, B., Villagran, M. (1988). Sistemas de Transferencia de Tecnologia
y Extension en el Uruguay. In I. B. PROClSUR (Ed.), Dialogo XVII -
Transferencia de Tecnologia Agropecuaria en el Cono Sur. Montevideo: IlCA.

 

Antholt, C. H. (1998). Agricultural Extension in the Twenty-first Century. In J. M. Staatz
(Ed.), International Agriculture Development (Third ed., pp. 354). London, UK:
The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Arboleya, J., & Restaino, E. (2002). Extension Models in South America: A Description
of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay (Mercosur countries). Hort
Technology, In press.

Ary, 0., Jacobs, L.C., Razavieh, A. (1996). Introduction to Research in Education (5th
ed.). Orlando, Florida: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Axinn, G. H., & Axinn, N. W. (1997). Collaboration in International Rural Development: A
Practitioner’s Hanbook. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.

Banco Central del Uruguay. (2001). Boletin Estadistico. 247, 105.

Banco Central del Uruguay. (2002). Retrieved, 2002, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.bcu.org.uy

Biggs, S. (1989). Resource-Poor Farmers Participation in Research: A Synthesis of
Experiences from Nine National Agricultural Research Systems. The Hague, The
Netherlands: lSNAR.

Blasina&Tardaguila. (2001). Estadisticas Agropecuarias. Retrieved, from the World Wide
Web: www.eLadro.com/estadisticas/

Burkhardt, J. (1991). The Value Measure in Public Agricultural Research, Beyond the
Large Farm: Ethics and Research Goals for Agriculture (pp. 79-106): Westview
Press, Inc.

203

Cano, J. (1981 ). Formation of Human Resources for Agricultural Research in Latin
America, and Participation in Research Network: Training Researchers at CIA T.
Thesis PhD, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Caporal, F. R. (2001). La Extension Rural en Rio Grande do Sul: De La Tradicion “Made
in Usa" Hacia el Paradigma Agroecologico: Universidad de Santa Maria, Brasil.

CAR & GT INIA La Estanzuela. (1990-2000). Memorias de los Consejos Asesores
Regionales y Grupos de Trabajo de INIA La Estanzuela.

CONAPROLE. (2002). Cooperative Nacional de Productores de Leche. Retrieved, 2002, E
from the World Wide Web: mgzllwwwconaprolecomuv -:

Cookson, P., Knowles, M., Nadler, L., & Nadler, Z. (1998). Prototypical Program
Planning Models. In P. Cookson (Ed.), Program Planning For the Training and
Continuing Education of Adults, North American Perspectives (pp. 29-75).
Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Co.

 

Delpiazzo, C. E. (1993). Marco Juridico del Instituto Nacional de Investigacion
Agropecuaria. Montevideo: INIA.

Delpiazzo, C. E. (1996). Marco Juridico del Instituto Nacional de Investigacion
Agropecuaria (2nd. ed.). Montevideo: INIA.

DI EA. (2002). Direccion de Estadisticas Agropecuarias - Estadisticas Agropecuarias.
Retrieved, from the World Wide Web: http://www.mgag.gub.uy/DIEA
hwy/1207.3127.35/Diea/CEN802000/censo_general agrogecuario_2000.htm

httg://207.3.127.35/Diea/anuarios.htm

 

Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and lntemet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (2nd. ed.).
New York: John Wiley & Sons.

EMBRAPA. (2002). Embrapa Portal da Pesquisa Agropecuaria. Retrieved, 2002, from
the World Wide Web: http://wwwembraga.br.estatut.html

Facultad de Agronomia. (2002). Retrieved, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.fagro.edu.uy

Ferrin, L. C. (1991). The Small Farmer Sector in Uruguay: a Partnership in Development
Cooperation.

Gamon, J. (1987). Advisory Councils-Real Friends. Journal of Extension, 25(3).

Gordon, J. R. (1999). Organizational Behavior, a Diagnostic Approach (Sixth Edition
ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

204

 

Grimble, R., & Wellard, K. (1997). Stakeholders Methodologies in Natural Resources
Management : A Review of principles, Contexts, Experiences and Opportunities.
Agricultural Systems, 55(2), 173-193.

Heffernan, W. (1986). New Directions of Agriculture and Agriculture Research. Totawa,
NJ: Kenneth Dahlberg.

Hoefner, F. (1998). Effective Stakeholder lmput Processes. CSARE Consortium News,
17, 16-18.

Houghton Mifflin Company. (2002). Educational Materials - Education Place. Retrieved,
from the World Wide Web: http://www.eduglacecom/ss/mags/s america.html

IICA. (1998). Agricultura en el MERCOSUR, Chile y Bolivia (1 ed.). Montevideo: "CA.
"CA. (2001). Agricultura en el MERCOSUR, Chile y Bolivia. Montevideo: IICA.

IICA. (2002). Instituto lnteramericano de Cooperacion para la Agricultura. Retrieved,
2002, from the World Wide Web: Mp://www.iica.ord.uv

INASE. (2002). Instituto Nacional de Semillas. Retrieved, from the World Wide Web:
mgzl/wwwjnaseordtfll

lndarte, E. (1988). Lineamientos para la Articulacion entre Generacion y la
Transferencia de Tecnologia Agropecuaria (Reporte de Consultoria). Montevideo
- Uruguay: IICA.

lNE. (2002). Instituto Nacional de Estadistica. Retrieved, 2002, from the World Wide
Web: http://www.ine.qub.uv/

INIA. (2002). Intsituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agropecuarias. Retrieved, from the
World Wide Web: http://www.inia.orq.uv

INIA Chile. (2002). lnstitucionalidad del INIA Chile. Retrieved, 2002, from the World
Wide Web: mgr/lwwwjinia.cl/institucionalidad

INTA. (2002). Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria. Retrieved, 2002, from the
World Wide Web: http://www.intagovar/memorialprint/conse dir p.htm

IPA. (2002). Instituto Plan Agropecuario. Retrieved, 2002, from the World Wide Web:
http://wwwplanagrocomgy

ISNAR. (1990a). Definicion de Prioridades para la Investigacion Agropecuaria - INIA.
Montevideo: ISNAR.

 

ISNAR. (1990b). Estructura y Organizacion del lntstituto Nacional de Investigacion
Agropecuaria. Montevideo: ISNAR.

Johnson, T. R. (1998). Using diverse stakeholders to advise on land-grant research
priorities : a case study of Michigan '3 Agricultural Experiment Station and
Extension Agricultural and Natural Resources Advisory Council. Thesis (M.S.),
Michigan State University, East Lansing.

JUNAG RA. (2002). Junta Nacional de la Granja. Retrieved, 2002, from the World Wide
Web: http://207.3.127.35/Junalqra/defaulthtm

Kelsey, K. D. (2002). A Case Study of Stakeholders Needs for Extension Education.
Journal of Extension, 40(2).

Lacy, W. B. (1996). Research Extension, and User Partnership: Models for Collaboration
and Strategies for Chance. Agriculture and Human Values, 13(2), 33-41.

 

Leholm, A., Hamm, L., Suvedi, M., Gray, l., & Poston, F. (1999). Area of Expertise
Teams: The Michigan Approach to Applied Research and Extension. Journal of
Extension, 37(3).

Leholm, A., Suvedi, M., & Vlasin, R. (1998). Research-EducaHon-Extension Linkages.
Paper presented at the First National Congress On Agronomy, Environment and
Food Security for the 21S'Century., New Delhi, India.

Long, J. (1984). Advisory Co‘uncils. Journal of Extension, 22(4).

Mainzer, L. (1958). Science Democraticized: Advisory Committees on Research. Public
Administration Review, 18(4), 314-323.

Maxwell, J. C. (2001). The 17 lndisputable Laws of Teamwork. Nashville, Tennessee:
Tomas Nelson, lnc.

MGAP. (2002). Ministerio de Ganaderia Agricultura y Pesca. Retrieved, 2002, from the
World Wide Web: http://www.mgag.gub.uy

MSUE. (1997). Michigan State University Extension Staff Handbook (September 1997).

OPYPA. (2002). Base de datos - Series historicas. Ministerio de Agricultura Ganaderia y
Pesca. Retrieved, from the World Wide Web:

httg://mgap.gub.uy/ogypa/bdd/series.asg

Presidencia de la Republica del Uruguay. (2002). Presidencia de la Republica del
Uruguay. Retrieved, from the World Wide Web: httpzllwwwpresidenciagub.uy

206

 

Restaino, E. (1998). Prospeccion de la Demanda: El Caso de lNlA Uruguay. ln IICA-
PROCISUR (Ed.), Dialogo XL Vlll (pp. 65-69). Montevideo - Uruguay: IICA.

Restaino, E. (2001). The Research, Technology Transfer and Extension System in
Uruguay. In F. L. Brewer (Ed.), Agricultura Extension Systems: An lntemational
Perspective (pp. 43-58). North Chelmsford, MA, USA: Erudition Books.

Reyes, Y. (1995). Farmers' participation in and their perceptions of the effectiveness of a
farmer-controlled irrigation system in the Dominican Republic. Thesis (Ph.D.),
Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Ruttan, V. W. (1998). Models of Agricultural Development. In J. M. Staatz (Ed.),
lntemational Agriculture Development (Third ed., pp. 155). London, UK: The
Johns Hopkins University Press.

 

Salant, P., & Dillman, D. (1994). How to Conduct Your Own Survey. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Sawaya, J., Garbarino, P., & Meloni Nassar, A. (1998). Estrategias Agroalimentarias
Para El MERCOSUR. In IICA (Ed.), Agricultura en el MERCOSUR Chile y Bolivia
(pp. 20-31). Montevideo: IICA.

Singleton, R., Straits, B., & Straits, M. (1993). Approaches to Social Research (2nd. ed.).
New York: Oxford University Press.

SUL. (2002). Secretariado Uruguaya de la Lana. Retrieved, from the World Wide Web:
httpzllwww.sul.orq.uv

Thiele, G., van de Fliert, E., & Campilan, D. (2001). What Happened to Participatory
Reseach at the International Potato Center? Agriculture and Human Values, 18,
429-446.

Unidad de Administracion INIA. (2002). Presentacion INIA Las Brujas, APUINIA (Julio
2002)

Unidad de Agronegocios y Difusion INIA. (2001a). lnformes de Grupos de Trabajo 2001.
Montevideo: lNlA.

Unidad de Agronegocios y Difusion lNlA. (2001b). lNlA- Estrategia de Difusion.
Montevideo: lNlA.

Unidad de Recursos Humanos lNlA. (2002). Boletin de Recursos Humanos (Marzo,
2002)

207

 

Watson, W., Johnson, L., & Merrit, D. (1998). Group and Organizational Management.
London: Sage Publications.

World Bank. (2001). The World Bank Group. World Bank. Retrieved, 2002, from the
World Wide Web: http://www.worldbank.orq/data

208