O
S
. O . t
- . . ..
. .. .
I o
. . _
. o . .>
v. o . .
. 2... ......D
. .9. ._ 4/a .. :
... n.
. g
. . .
. o .
. . u
.- A
.. ...

  

‘o: .
at...) ...... a
.....r Ls... . .
..

.
t

\
r

“.... m...

I

l,

.u

 

;

 

. .
.310.
t.-

I.

n a s

1

8

w
‘8

1

can‘q 0‘3.
. In...
....

   

    

libe-

. .. '.
r ‘ ‘
' 'lo .'
.1 ‘
’-
‘1
D. '
.
.

 

U

U

 

&!
3'9

Q

'3

 

zesea

— ‘~v
a
.
-
.
. u
o
,
‘
..

i

an
.IR

 

:

.h...~‘¢ .- . o-
» I..J.c.

‘-
a~ .

 

ster

¢

4

u
0

“ti
3

0
-
t
v
Q
.

I"

.l

 

U

W
‘Pléfia’

-
o
n

L :1

I. I it
. I
. o . - o
o n
o. ' u n a o
. . .
. ... .
. .o . u
v . . ..
. I.
. . .
A . .
. u.
.
.. w .; .
. u . .
o .
c
. . .
. . k .
o . .
. . . I
. I
.
0‘
u l a.
. M . nv . u I It 0 o .
I . . . u. o . ... a. . . . - 1 O
. . ... . .. I . . . |- a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 c:/ClRC/DateDue.ind¢p.15

 

PERCEIVED BARRIERS AND OPPORTUNITIES TO THE
LINKAGE OF RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND EXTENSION IN
RWANDA

By

Callixte GATALI

A Plan B Master Research

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

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agricultural and Natural Resources
Education and Communication Systems

2003

ABSTRACT

PERCEIVED BARRIERS AND OPPORTUNITIES TO THE LINKAGE OF
RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND EXTENSION IN RWANDA

By

Callixte Gatali

The purpose of this study was to investigate perceived barriers and opportunities
to link research, education and extension in Rwanda. Data were collected between June
and August 2002 fi'om 46 participants in six Provinces of Rwanda. Data were analyzed
using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and descriptive statistics. Four
research questions guided this study. The instrument used face-to-face interviews and
was developed using open-ended questions.

Findings revealed that many issues confronting Rwandan extension services are
still unsolved such as low educational level, poor training and lack of logistics for
extension staff; weak linkages between research, education and extension with each
service operating separately; and lack of farmer participation in decision- making.
Outstanding barriers to the establishment of linkages included unwillingness to
collaborate, weak financial resources to support linkage activities, lack of framework
for collaboration between partners, coordination and farmer participation. The study
findings also indicated that many opportunities for building linkages exist. Based on the
study findings, recommendations include: improve extension professionals through
training, provide them with adequate means, reorganize institutions, formalize linkages,
ensure collaboration of partners, improve communication mechanisms, set up a

structure of coordination and enhance farmer participation in decision-making.

DEDICATION

To our families and fi’iends in Rwanda for their love,
guidance, encouragement and support.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to Dr. Frank Brewer, my Major Professor, for his guidance, advices
and many enrichrnents to my field experience through my participation in two AIAEE
conferences (South Afi'ica & North Carolina), many field trips (Washington DC, Kentucky
&North Carolina, Michigan Extension Tour, Ogemaw County) and his visit to Rwanda to
help me to get started with my research data collection.

I am also grateful to Dr. Dave Krueger, my committee member for the design of my
research and the methodology used for data collection, and Dr. Herb Bucholtz, my
committee member too for his excellent help and advice in the field of Animal Science.

My gratitude is also expressed to the chairperson of the Department of ANR
Education and Communication Systems, Dr. Kirk Heinze.

I am also indebted to Dr. Cynthia Donovan and Miss Patricia Farrell for their contribution
for the development of the instrument used in this study and data analysis tools (SPSS). I
would like to express special thanks to Mary Pierce, Gloria Bateman, Diane Davis and
Julie McDaniel for their enthusiastic help in administrative matters.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to David Weight, Dan Clay and Tim
Schilling, respectively Coordinator of PEARL project, Director of Institute of International
Agriculture at MSU and in-country Coordinator of PEARL Project to have made possible
my studies through the financial support of PEARL Project.

I have been enlightened by my wife Epiphany MUKUNDIYIMANA and been
helped by her in field data collection, entry and constant encouragement throughout this

endeavor. My deepest appreciation is extended to NUR authorities and study participants.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................ viii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................ ix
KEY TO SYMBOLS OR ABBREVIATIONS ................................................ x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. .1
1.1 Background and Setting .................................................................. 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ................................................................. 5
1.3 Purpose of the Study ...................................................................... 7
1.4 Research Questions ........................................................................ 8
1.5 Definition of Major Terms ................................................................ 8
1.6 Basic Assumptions ......................................................................... 9
1.7 Limitations ofthe Study ......................... 10
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 11
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................... 11
2.2 Basic information on Rwanda .......................................................... 12
Geographical and Demographical Aspects ....................................... 12
Administrative Aspects ............................................................. 12
Social, Political and Economic Conditions of Rwanda ........................ 15
2.3 Overview and Evolution of Rwandan Extension System ........................... 17
2.4 The Role of the National University of Rwanda in Agricultural Research and
Extension Systems ........................................................................... 22
2.5 Understanding Research, Education - Extension-Farmer linkages. ............... 26
2.5.1 Types of research, education and extension linkages .................... 29
2.5.2 Barriers to extension-education-research linkages ....................... 33

2.6 Factors Affecting Research-Education and Extension linkages in Rwanda. . ....36
2.7 Michigan State University Extension: A US. Land Grant Model of Formal
and Successful Linkage between Research, Education and Extension ................ 42

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODS ........................................................................... 48
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................... 48
3.2 Research Design .......................................................................... 49
3.3 Population ................................................................................. 50
3.4 Sampling ................................................................................... 52
3.5 Instrument Development ................................................................ 53
3.6 Pilot Study ................................................................................. 55
3.7 The face-to- face interview/Data Collection .......................................... 55
3.8 Data Analysis ............................................................................. 57

CAHPTER 4

RESULTS .............................................................................................. 58
4.1 Intrdduction ............................................................................... 58
4.2 Characteristics of Current Extension System ......................................... 59

4.2.1 Participants’ Opinions on Current Extension System .................... 59
4.2.2 Challenges Facing Current Extension ...................................... 61
4.2.3 Constraints and Weaknesses of Rwandan Extension ..................... 62
4.2.4 Existing relationships between Research, education and Extension....62
4.2.5 Channels of Information Delivery/Communication ...................... 64
4.2.6 Sources of Extension and Research Information ......................... 65
4.2.7 What to Improve in Technology Transfer .................................. 66
4.3 Perceived Opportunities to Link REE ................................................. 67
4.3.1 Necessity of Linkage of REE ................................................ 67
4.3.2 Opportunities to the Linkage of REE ....................................... 67
4.3.3 Expected Outcomes of the Linkage of REE .............................. 68
4.4 Participants’ Perceptions of barriers to the Linkage of REE. . . .- ................... 69
4.5 Structure, Role and Responsibilities .................................................... 70
4.5.1 Participants’ Perceptions of Moving Extension Services. . . . . . . . . . . ......70
4.5.2 Creation of an Outreach Center at Faculty Teaching ..................... 72
4.5.3 Coordination of Linked REE ................................................ 73
4.5.4 Role and Responsibilities of Partners in the Linked REE. ...............74
4.5.5 Perceived Sources of Funding for Linkage Activities .................... 75
4.5.6 What Should Be Improved In Current Extension System ............... 75
4.5.7 Additional suggestions to the linkages ..................................... 77
4.5.8 Chapter Summary ....... -. ..................................................... 78

vi

CHAPTER 5 '
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS, DISCUSSION,

CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ..................... 79
5.1 Study Overview .......................................................................... 79
5.2 Summary of significant findings, discussion, conclusions, recommendations
and implications ........................................................................ 80
5.2.1 Research Question]: What were the characteristics and
Constraints/weaknesses of Rwandan Extension System ................ 80

5.2.2 Research Question 2: What were the perceived opportunities to the
Linkage of Research, Education and Extension in Rwanda. . . . . . . . ....83
5.2.3 Research Question 3: What are the primary inhibiting factors or
Barriers to the linkage of Research, Education and Extension ......... 84
5.2.4 Research Question 4: If the linkage is being made, (i) what are the
role and responsibilities of different partners (ii) What model of

Linkage can be appropriate to Rwanda ........................ . ............ 85

5.3 Study Conclusions ....................................................................... 96

5.4 Study Recommendations and Implications ........................................... 97

5.5 Recommendations for Further Research ............................................. 100
APPENDICES

Appendix A: UCRIHS Approval ................................................................. 101

Appendix B: Personal Interview Consent Form ................................................. 102

Appendix C: French Transcription of the Consent Form ....................................... 103

Appendix D: Introductory Letter .................................................................. 104

Appendix E: Instrument/Research Interview Questions ........................................ 105

Appendix F: French Transcription of the Instrument ........................................... 107

REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 109

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Rwanda’s Macro-economic indicators from 1995 to 2001 ............................ 16
Table 2. Rwanda’s basic socio-economic indicators .............................................. 17
Table 3. Participants’ opinions on current extension .............................................. 60
Table 4. Ten moSt important challenges facing current Extension .............................. 61
Table 5. Existing relationships between research, education and extension. . . . . . . . .. ........ 63
Table 6. Six most-stated channels of information delivery ....................................... 64
Table 7. Ten most important sources of extension and research information. . . . . . .. ......... 65
Table 8. Ten most frequently suggested improvements to technology transfer ............... 66
Table 9. Six most frequently mentioned opportunities to the linkage of REE ................ 68
Table 10. Perceived barriers to the linkage of research, education, and extension. . . . . . ..70
Table 11. Opinions on moving extension services by type of respondent ..................... 71

Table 12. Respondents’ arguments for moving extension services to a research
Institution ................................................................................. 72

Table13. Participants’ Arguments for the Creation of an Outreach Unit at Faculty

Teaching institutions ..................................................................... 73
Table 14. Role and responsibilities of researchers in linked REE ............................... 74
Table 15. Role and responsibilities of Faculty teachers in linked REE ........................ 75
Table 16. Role and responsibilities of extension staff in linked REE .......................... 75
Table 17. Perceived sources of funding for linkage activities ................................... 75
Table 18. Five most important suggestions for improving Extension system ................. 77
Table 19. Five most frequently stated additional comments to the Linkages .................. 78

viii

Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.

Figure 7.

LIST OF FIGURES

Twelve Provinces that make up Rwanda ......................................... 13
Administrative map of Rwanda with limits of Districts ........................ 14
The National Extension Service .................................................... 19
Agricultural Extension as part of AKIS/RD ...................................... 32
Current relationships between the main actors of REE in Rwanda ........... 37
The six Provinces concerned by the Study ....................................... 51

A conceptual model for the functioning of REE formal linkages in
Rwanda ................................................................................ 89

ix

AKIS/RD

ANR

AOE

ATS

DES

GDP

GTZ

FAO

ISAE '

ISAR

ISNAR

MAES

MIN AGRI

MIN IFIN

MSU

MSUE

NAERC

NGO

KEY TO SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems for Rural
Development

Agricultural and Natural Resources

Area Of Expertise

Agricultural Technology System

District Extension Service

Gross Domestic Product

Gesellschafi fiir Technische Zusarnmenarbeit

Food and Agriculture Organization

Institute of Agriculture and Livestock

Rwandan Institute of Agricultural Sciences

International Service for National Agricultural Research
Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station

Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Forestry

Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning

Michigan State University

Michigan State University Extension

National Agricultural Extension and Research Committee
Non-Government Organization

National University of Rwanda

PEARL
PERC

PSA

SAA

SAARFA

SAFE
SGZOOO
SPSS
UM

USAID

Partnership for Enhancing Agriculture in Rwanda Through Linkages
Provincial Extension and Research Committee

“Projet Service Agricole” (Agricultural Service Project)

Research- Education-Extension

Sasakawa Africa Association

Strengthening Afiican Agricultural Research and Faculties of
Agriculture

Sasakawa Afiica Fund for Extension Education
Sasakawa- Global 2000

Statistical Package for Social Sciences
University of Minnesota

US. Agency for International Development

xi

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and Setting
Agricultural Extension is an informal educational delivery system that can serve

as the link between people and knowledge and it is an essential element in any
agricultural and rural development program. Extension outreach helps people solve their
own problems, thereby improving their livelihood (Brewer, 2001). In order for extension
programs to be relevant and responsive to people, there needs to be a structure in place
that is responsive, flexible and adaptative to meet the needs of families and communities
in an increasingly complex, interdependent, rapidly changing, resource limited world,
Brewer stated.

Adams (1982) also defines agricultural extension as an advice and assistance for
farmers to help them improve their methods of production and marketing. Extension is
part of the effort to achieve a balanced social and economic development of rural areas.
Providing farmers with the opportunity of acquiring updated information is one of the
primary goals of public extension services in developing countries.

In order to manage farms optimally and to earn more stable income, farmers need
to acquire proper information about more profitable crops, new farming techniques,
fertilizing, pest management, irrigation, changing factors and market prices for crops, and

so on (B02, 2002).

Governments in developing countries are facing new extension challenges:

globalization and market liberalization, privatization, commercialization and agri-

' business, democratization and participation, environmental concerns, disasters

and emergencies, information technology break-through, rural poverty, hunger and
vulnerability, HIV/AIDS epidemic, biotechnology and genetic engineering, criticism of
public extension services, integrated, multi-disciplinary and holistic development,
meeting the need to provide food for all, raising rural incomes and sustainably managing
natural resources. . .(Qamar, 2002). All these critical issues exist in a rapidly changing
world and are putting new pressure on the developing countries in their effort to develop.

Rivera, Qarnar, and Crowder (2001) have articulated the role of extension in
alleviating poverty and improving food security. Agricultural and rural extension is one
of the means available to help alleviate poverty and improve food security. It promotes
the transfer and exchange of information that can be converted into functional
knowledge, which is instrumental in helping to develop enterprises that promote
productivity and generate income, said Rivera et a1.

According to Quinones (2000), to arrest the problems of poverty, food insecurity,
and degradation of natural resources in Sub-Saharan Africa, the critical role of
agricultural intensification as the engine of broader economic growth is becoming
increasingly clear to Afiican governments and leaders.

Many economically developing countries are in the process of establishing or
redeveloping an extension system to strengthen a fiagile agricultural industry and meet

the great needs of rural people and communities. Small inefficient farm units characterize

those countries with low farm profitability, limited government support and unsure
markets (Brewer, 2001). Crowder, Lindley, Bruening and Doron (1999) also found that
extension, as a non-formal educational input, can make important contributions to
sustainable agricultural production and rural development.

However, the continuing effort to stimulate economic growth in Afiica through
agricultural development reflects the rise and fall of the different ‘fads’ and ‘fashions’ in
international development over the past 50 years (Simpson & Owens, 2002). AS the ‘poor
cousin’ in most agricultural development strategies, agricultural extension and education
has been particularly affected by the changing trends in external financing (p. 29).

The previous Situation reflects ongoing endeavors currently unveiling in Rwanda,
3 country that has been severely affected by the 1994 genocide where approximately

1 million people were killed and many socio-economic infrastructures destroyed. After the
country genocide, the government of Rwanda has put ntunerous efforts in boosting the
national economy including the agricultural sector through agricultural extension
programming. The foremost focus of this new agricultural extension system has been on
conserving water and forest resources; increasing soil fertility, bolstering farm input
supplies; and controlling livestock diseases. Despite these efforts, challenges facing
agricultural development in Rwanda include: 1) poverty and food insecurity reduction;

2) market-oriented agriculture; 3) building a more responsive extension system,

and 4) enhance farmer involvement. To address these challenges the extension system has
begun to pull together a multidisciplinary approach that links important contributions fiom

various research with producers, families and communities.

Even though agriculture plays a key role in the Rwandan economy, the agricultural
extension service has failed to achieve its mission to disseminate agricultural knowledge
to farmers (Ministry of Agriculture [MINAGRI], 1997). Rwandan agriculture cannot any
more assure the food security to the population, reports MIN AGRI.

This challenge of Rwandan agriculture to assure food security is more than just
technology and production, it may also be the system used to transfer knowledge and
technology to people, to help use them efficiently and effectively, and to improve
people’s living conditions. For example, Nezehose (1990) notes that the Rwandan
extension system suffered mainly from (1) a lack of coordination between all
stakeholders, (2) a lack of enough means to reach out to the farmers, (3) a low adoption
of relevant innovations due to the farmers’ poverty, and (4) a lack of enough process
skills for extension agents. On the other hand, Barry (2000) stated that a lack of linkages
between research-education and extension (REE) was among the weaknesses observed in
the Rwandan extension system.

The failure of Rwandan extension to disseminate knowledge to the end-users has
been observed Since the colonial period where extension services were more concerned
with the introduction of cash crops for export, e.g., coffee, pyrethrum, quinine, cotton and
wheat for the breweries, than with educating the agricultural community. The main
causes of that failure could be attributed to: 1) low educational level, poor training and
lack of equipment for extension staff at low administrative levels; 2) weak linkages

between research, faculty teaching and extension with each service operating separately;

and 3) lack of farmers’ participation in planning, implementation, evaluation of
development programs, and decision-making.

Although agricultural research and extension have common objectives, there is a
lack of close coordination between them. Because of this, their ability to help farmers
effectively and to contribute to agricultural development is often limited (Cemea, Coulter
& Russell, 1985). This is particularly important for Rwanda where agricultural research,
education and extension are compartmentalized in separate institutions without any
formal linkage. Although some studies (MINAGRI, 1997; Ministry of Finance &
Economic Planning [MIN IFIN], 2002; Roche, 1998) mention the relevance of Rwandan
extension, little research has been done on research, education and extension linkages.
This is why a study addressing specifically inhibiting factors or barriers and opportunities
to the establishment of linkage of research, education and extension in Rwanda is needed
for building an efficient and more responsive system to the clientele needs.

This study involves the analysis of factors affecting the barriers and opportunities

to the linkage of research, education and extension in Rwanda. This chapter addresses
the background and setting, problem statement, purpose of the study, research

questions, definition of major terms, assumptions and limitations of the study.

1.2 Statement of the Problem
The government of Rwanda has made poverty reduction one of the national
priorities, reports the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning ([MINIFIN], 2002) in

the National Poverty Reduction Programme & Statistics Department.

 

The Ministry goes on to say that Agriculture must be a central element of poverty
reduction strategy in Rwanda, and “Agricultural extensions (where effectively delivered)
are very important services and are big inputs for raising productivity among farmers
(p.3 7)”.

However, agricultural extension is still linrited in Rwanda, states the Ministry of
Finance and Economic Planning (2002) and it is facing increasing challenges in
providing quality services to the customers. Extension systems would not be effective
and efficient without any direct collaboration with research and education, which are
responsible for releasing new technologies and people who work in extension.

Unfortunately, there is a paucity of information and studies addressing research,
education and extension linkages in Rwanda and describing the feelings, expectations,
and challenges of different partners toward extension services to meet farmers’
expectations. According to Rivera, Qamar, and Crowder (2002), linking the triangle’s
institutions with their common clientele, namely farmers, and with each other requires
systematic planning. This system integrates farmers, agricultural educators, researchers
and extensionists (Figure 4). In addition, the quality of services provided would greatly
improve if all the three concerned institutions were linked together and well-designed
programs would attract more donors.

Therefore, the complex situation of lack of linkages between research, education
and extension in Rwanda requires a detailed research. The assumption is that linkages

between research, education and extension and end-users are likely to promote learning,

generating, sharing and using agriculture-related technology, knowledge and information.
Thus, the problem to be addressed in the present study is the perceived barriers and
opportunities to the linkage of research, education and extension in Rwanda.

This study is the first to specifically address linkages between research, education
and extension in Rwanda. It will have a direct bearing on research, extension and
education relationships. In fact, there is a need for agricultural scientists (researchers,
educators and extension staff) to work together to address the problem of food security i
(the production of food, the marketing of food and the entitlement of food), bring
knowledge to the farmers and sustainable solutions to agronomic problems in particular
to help farmers to improve their productivity, income and living conditions. The findings
of this study should encourage research, extension and education institutions to
strengthen their relationships and build a strong Agricultural Knowledge and Information
System (AKIS).

We are confident that the findings fiom an examination of perceived barriers and
opportunities to the linkage of research, education and extension in Rwanda would help
in efforts to build a more effective, efficient and responsive extension system to meet
- farmers’ needs and problems. Furthermore, the findings will help to build genuine
collaboration and information exchange system between different partners.

1. 3 Purpose of the Study
The researcher’s purpose in this study was:
0 To gather information relative to the perceived barriers and opportunities to link

research, education and extension in Rwanda.

Therefore, the concise information collected from this study will provide a reference tool
for enhancing the collaboration between the extension services of the Ministry of
Agriculture, the Rwandan Institute of Agricultural Sciences (ISAR), faculty teaching
institutions such as the National University of Rwanda (N UR) and the Institute of
Agriculture and Livestock (ISAE), local and international Non-Government
Organizations (NGOS), agricultural secondary schools and farmers.

- To create foundation for future research.

1.4 Research Questipns
This study addresses the following questions:
(1) What are the characteristics and constraints/weaknesses of Rwandan Extension
System?
(2) What are the perceived opportunities to the linkage of research, education and
extension in Rwanda?
(3) What are the primary inhibiting factors or barriers to the linkage of research,
education and extension?
(4) If linkage is being made, (i) what model of linkage can be appropriate to Rwanda?

(ii) What will be the role and responsibilities of different partners?

1.5 Definition of Major Terms

For the purpose of this study, the following terms are used:

0 Research, education and extension linkages:
“By linkage between research, extension and education we understand an
integrated agricultural knowledge and technology system that includes such actors
as farmers themselves, educators and researchers, extension workers, NGOS,
businesses and make them work together for improving the effectiveness of
agricultural technology. Even actors can belong to separate institutions, the
integrative approach might focus not only on their organization and structural
linkage, but also on their functions and complementary information and

promoting group or team approaches to problem solving system” (Crowder &
Anderson, 1 996).

0 Agricultural Knowledge and Information System (AKIS):
An Agricultural Knowledge and Information System (AKIS) is a system of
people and institutions that generates, transfers and utilizes agricultural
knowledge and information. The system is characterized by its key subsystem:
agricultural research, agricultural extension and agricultural education. Farmers,
their needs and opportunities drive education, extension, and research and for
each provide direct input into design, funding, priority setting, execution and
evaluation (FAO & World Bank, 2000).

0 Extension worker:
A person, employed by the government or NGOS, who is in charge of delivering
extension messages to the farmers.

0 Farmers’ association:
A group of farmers with a various number of individuals, but not less than 7

people to form an association, sharing interests around one or more commodities

such as land use, crop production, livestock, inputs management, and so on.

Legislation exists on farmer associations in Rwanda.

1.6 Basic Assumptions
The basic assumption of this study is that an integrated research, education and
extension system generates synergy and is likely to be more flexible, responsive and
effective in meeting farmers’ needs and problems:
0 Research will sustain teaching and extension through new science-based
knowledge;
0 Faculty teaching will prepare researchers, extension personnel, and teachers to
service workforce needs;
0 And extension will serve to disseminate knowledge to the farmers and link together

researchers, educators and farmers/rural communities.

1.7 Limitations of the Study
The researcher recognizes the following limitations of this study:
1. The study is geographically limited by time and means to a sample of 46 people.
2. The study is limited by availability of previous studies on linkages of research,
education and extension in Rwanda.
3. The findings may have direct relevance only to the participants.
4. The study data was self-reported and may present varied interpretations of the

questions asked and hence articulations of responses.

10

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Once again agriculture extension plays an important role in agricultural

development in Rwanda (MINAGRI, 1997; MINIFIN, 2002). This chapter analyzes the

current situation and constraints/problems of the Rwandan extension system, addresses

the role of teaching and research institutions in supporting extension, and makes a

comparison with the US Land— Grant System as a model of linking between research,

education and extension. Relative to literature review the following topics are analyzed:

Basic information on Rwanda;
Overview and evolution of the Rwandan Extension System;

The role of the National University of Rwanda in agricultural research and

extension systems;

Understanding research, education, extension, and farmer linkages;

Factors affecting research, education and extension linkages in Rwanda; and
Michigan State University Extension: A US. Land Grant model of formal and

successful linkage between research, education and extension.

11

2.2 Basic Information on Rwanda

Geographical and Dem ographical Aspects

Rwanda is a land locked country located in the eastern part of central
Africa. According to the 3rd General Census of Population and Housing (Ministry of
Finance and Economic Planning, 2003a), the country has a population of 8.2 million
people living on a land area of 26,368 sq. km. The population density is 431 per sq. km
(CIA World Factbook, 2002) making Rwanda the most densely populated country in
Afiica (opposed to an average of 26 per km2 for Sub-Saharan Afiica). At the current
growth rate of 2.9% per annum, the population is expected to reach 11.4 million by the
year 2010 (Rwandan Institute of Agricultural Sciences [ISAR], online).

Uganda to the North, Tanzania to the East, Burundi to the South and Democratic
Republic of Congo to the West border Rwanda (Figure 1). The country extends between
1 degree and 3 degrees south of the equator, 29 degrees and 31 degrees East of
Greenwich (Longitude). The climate is moderate and characterized by temperate
conditions, especially in higher altitudes in the Northwest of the country. The topography
is hilly to mountainous with altitude ranging fi'om 950 meters above sea level in the
southern part of the country up to 2,5000 meters and 4,500 meters (highest peaks) in the
volcanic regions of the northwest.

Administrative Aspects
The capital of Rwanda is the City of Kigali with 608,141 inhabitants. The country
is divided into twelve provinces (Figure 1), each with a town designated as the center of

local government. Provinces are divided into Districts (Figure 2).

12

Districts are divided into Sectors, which in turn are divided into Cells, the smallest political

and administrative units of the country.

Figure 1. Twelve Provinces that Make up Rwanda

 

 
  
  

CGIS-UNR

Reelised by Jean Pierre Bizimana.
Student Geographer
.UIet 2002

 

Aggromelatlon
- Lake

- Lake Kivu
- National Park
- Forest

' Provinces

      

 

 
   

 

 

 

 

 

13

 

 

- TANZANIA

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Administrative Map of Rwanda with Limits of Districts

CGlS-UNR

 

14

Social, Political and Economic Conditions of Rwanda

Rwanda is one of the poorest countries of the world. Its economy is primarily
based on agriculture. Agriculture constitutes the main economic resource of the country
(MINAGRI, 1997). It accounts for 91.1% of the employment for the active population
and remains the main source of economic growth. The agricultural sector contributes
36.6- 41.6% to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Ministry of Finance, 2002; ISAR,
online; World Bank, 2002). The main agricultural export item is coffee, which in 1997
contributed 52% of the national foreign earning while at the same period tea as the
second most important export commodity item contributed 24% of the foreign currency
earning (ISAR, online). The industrial sector is still in an embryonic stage and comprises
of factories that process and assemble imported semi-manufactured products. Processing
plants for tea, coffee, sugar, and tobacco dominate the Rwanda’s small industry. Industry
contributed only for 21.8% to the GDP in 2002 according to the World Bank.

Rwanda’s economic characteristics are a result of its colonial and post-colonial
history of the country according to the Rwandan Ministry of Finance and Economic
Planning (2003b) in Vision 2020. The economy of Rwanda is characterized by internal
and external macro-economic disequilibria, which are observable in the budget deficit
and the Balance of Payment deficit, deficit between internal savings and gross

investment, high unemployment and underemployment rates (Table 1).

15

Table 1. Rwanda’s Macro-Economic Indicators from 1995 to 2001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indicator 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 ASS
(1999)
Inflation rate (%) IPC 48.2 13.3 11.7 6.8 -2.4 3.9 3.4
GDD deflaror 50.4 10.2 15.6 2.0 -5.2 1.3 0.7 12
Savings less (In % of -l9.0 -19.2 -17.4 -17 -16.7 -16.3 -16.4 -2.6
investments GDP)
. (in 10RwF) ~64.4 -81.9 -97.1 -105.6 -107.7 -115.0 -123.7
Internal 122.8 120.3 124.6 120.4 118.7 113.7 -113.9 102.6
absorption
(% of DGDP)
Global fiscal Aid -13.7 13.2 -9.2 -8.3 -9.7 -8.9 -9.5 -5.6
deficit excluded
(% of GDP) Aid included -2.4 -5.8 -2.5 -30 -3.8 0.1 -1.1 —4.5
Current deficit -20.5 -l9.2 17.3 -l6.8 -17.1 -l6.9 -l6.3
balance (% of 4.5 -0.2 -3.2 -9.4 -7.6 -5.1 6.5
GDP)
GDP per capita 227 263 470
(USD)
Debt servicing (% 20 14 17 26 25 10
of exports)

 

Source: - 2001 Rwanda Development indicators: Africa database 2001
- Rwanda Vision 2020, Draft 4, English, February 2003

The imbalances became a source of macro-economic instability and an

insurmountable debt burden, given the meager resources. In addition, Rwanda has a weak

GDP per capita, compared to other countries and for this reason the purchasing power of

the population is very weak. This has a negative influence on other socio-economic

indicators as shown in Table 2.

l6

 

Table 2. Rwanda’s Basic Socio-Economic Indicators

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INDICATOR 1990 1996 1999 2000
Population (Millions) 6.879 6.167 7.494 7.711
GDP per capita (S) 374 224 253 227
Life expectance (years) 53 46 49 49
Infertile mortality (for 1000 live birth) 120 124 107
_R_egistration in primary education 76.6 80.1 88
Poverty index (% inhabitants) 47.5 71.1 65.4 64.1
Access to safe drinking water (% of population) 49 ' 44 44
Gross Domestic Investment (%GDP) 13.5 15.2 18.0 1 8.2
Gross national savings (% GDP) 6.00 -3.96 4.88 3.6
Private consumption (% GDP) 83.7 95.9 85.9 90.2
Inflation (Price index to the consumption 9.1 9.33 -10.23 2.12
(Annual average %)
Gross official reserves (less imports) 1.7 4.9 8.1
Unpaid debts (% of GDP) 37.7 86.1 74.2 82.5

 

Sources: - PFP, IMF Bulletin of the report of the World Bank Personnel;
- Rwanda Development indicators, 2000
- Rwanda Vision 2020, Drafi 4, English, February 2003.

2.3 Overview and Evolution of Rwandan Extension System

Studies have shown that extension services have made significant impact on

agricultural development, leading to self-reliance and Rural Poverty Alleviation (RuPA)

in Afiica, Asia, and the Caribbean (N gomane cited in Ngomane & Flanagan, 2002).

Others have identified and some have evaluated the constraints limiting extension

effectiveness in promoting RuPA (Bruening& Reynar; Radhakrishna cited in Ngomane &

Flanagan, 2002).

Rwanda has had an extension system since the colonial period. During this period,

which is situated before the 19603, extension had as main objective the promotion of

17

 

export crops such as coffee, tea, cotton and cinchona but farmers were neither consulted
nor associated to any decision- making (MINAGRI, 1997).

In the 19803, a national extension system was created and put under the Ministry
of Agriculture responsibilities (N ezehose, 1990). However, there were a great number of
partners whose extension approaches were uncoordinated and the new agricultural
extension system failed to meet its goals due to, (1) a lack of coordination between all
stakeholders, (2) the system was not mature yet, and (3) the extension lacks enough tools
to carry out relevant on-farrn trials for innovations (N ezehose, 1990).

In the 19905, another Extension System, the PSA (“Projet Service Agricole”)
emerged under the auspices of a World Bank fund and introduced the Training and Visit
(T&V) system. PSA covered the majority of the country (MINAGRI, 1997). Yet, this
new system did not respond as well to the farmers’ expectations and needs due to high
costs required in employing, training and providing transport to large number of
extension staff, reports MIN AGRI. As MINAGRI notes, there have been many factors
that were associated with the partial implementation of PSA such as:

0 Extension agents had other things to do rather than extension;

0 Information systems had only partially functioned;

0 Proposed themes had less performance;

0 Extension agents on field had a low level of education and they did not benefit
from necessary training and support; and

0 Farmers were not really involved in the process.

18

In order to improve that situation, in 1997, the Ministry of Agriculture set up a
“National Agricultural Extension System” (Figure 3) with the following general
objective, ”Increase, diversify, specialize and intensify agro—sylvo-pastoral production
under reasonable, profitable economic conditions, for the State and the farmers as well,

while preserving patrimony " (MINAGRI, 1997, p.8).

Figure 3. The National Extension Service (Source: MINAGRI, n.d.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PARTNERS LEVEL ROLE
MINAGRI Conception
Technical Planning
Services I CENTRAL Coordination
Training
Monitoring+Evaluation
Agricultural Projects<——> Conception
Farmer Associations 4—N PREFECTURE Organizatiori R+D-
NGOs <—> Planning Participatory basis
Research Stations H, Coordination
Follow up
NGOS H Needs analysis
Local Leaders H COMMUNE Coordination and
Farmer Associationsa—p follow up of
Commercial farmersH‘ Extension programs

 

 

 

19

Note: F orrner “Prefecture” and “Commune” have been recently renamed
PROVINCE and DISTRICT respectively.

Specifically, the new system is aimed to solve the following problems:
Conserving and maintaining soil fertility for improving productivity; adapting production
systems to regional potential; using fertilizers; equipment modernization; market-
oriented production; increasing product added value through quality, organizing punctual
interventions and implementing an extension approach for accompaniment.

The main features of this new extension system are: (1) an extension service to
promote the commercialization of food crop, livestock and cash crop production; (2) the
use of farmer groups and associations to promote fanner-to-farmer-extension; (3) a
participatory approach to testing and adapting recommendations; (4) institutionalization
of the links between research and extension; and (5) process of continuing education for
extension staff and the coordination of extension with other different partners
(MINAGRI, 1997).

The implementation of the new system therefore depends on various approaches
as the philosophy that guides its activities: (1) National Agricultural Services (General
agricultural extension approach); (2) Training and Visits (T &VSystem); (3) By Products
or by Commodity; (4) By Project; (5) Agricultural educational institutions; [6) Agrarian
systems and research-development; (7) Participatory approach; and (8) Expenses
sharing (MINAGRI, 1997, pp. 10-13). Axinn (1988) and Brewer (2001) have previously
described most of these approaches. According to the Ministry of Agriculture no one of

these approaches is applicable to all conditions, all objectives or clientele, so the

20

extension services may relay on different approaches for problem solving and for
different purposes, stated MINAGRI.

Rivera et al. (2001) underline efforts undertaken jointly by Rwandan government
and the Food and Agriculture Organization (F A0) to promote institutional reforms such
as decentralization, participation, and provider pluralism.

However, many issues confi'onting the Rwandan extension services are still
unsolved such as: 1) low educational level, poor training and lack of equipment for
extension staff; Brewer (2001) notes that low qualification of extension workers leads to
limited effectiveness of extension services and lack of confidence by both the extension
agents and the people they try to advise; Adams (1982) also points out that the extension
agent, the most important link in the chain, is often the less supported with transport,
equipment and technical guidance; 2) lack of farmers’ participation in decision-making;
and 3) weak linkages between research, faculty teaching and extension with each service
operating separately.

As stated in the introduction section, building a more responsive extension system
through strengthening research-education-extension linkages is one of the critical
challenges facing Rwandan extension system. The next sections analyze the role of
National University of Rwanda in agricultural research and extension systems;
understanding research- education- extension —farmer linkages; factors affecting
research, education and extension linkages in Rwanda and Michigan State University
Extension (MSUE) as a model of formal and successful linkage between research,

education and extension.

21

2.4 The Role of the National University of Rwanda in Agricultural Research and
Extension Systems

According to National University of Rwanda (NU R) authorities, NUR has four

important missions (NUR, online):

(1) To provide teaching at a higher level: The main task of the NUR is to transmit
scientific knowledge to its students in a way that new ideas may come out and

professional aptitude is acquired (N UR, online).

(2) To organize scientific research:

Research activities at the NUR comprise all creative works undertaken in a
systematic way in order to increase scientific and technological knowledge,
including the knowledge of man, culture and society, also making good use of
that knowledge in new situations. The scientific research at University level is not
only lecturers and researchers' affair but also that of students in “licence” and
doctorate, as it is inscribed in their final papers (dissertations, doctorate and
specialization theses). In this way, the development of scientific research
contributes to the improvement and the strengthening of education structure

(N UR, online).

(3) To provide service to the community:
This task works hand in hand with the two mentioned above. Our University is
aware that its credibility lies in the need of serving the community where it
originates. By providing knowledge and know-how to the community, the NUR
contributes to the full development through its various and adequate services to
the needs of local population (N UR, online).

(4) To promote culture

The three tasks mentioned above are means, which enable the NUR to participate
to the enrichment and promotion of culture. Culture comprises both traditional

22

and modern aspects by the fact that it increases technological and scientific

knowledge in such domains as Sciences, Technology, Arts, etc. . . This enrichment

enhances a better understanding of relationships between man and his natural,
physical, social and human environment. It also contributes to the improvement of
this environment for the benefit of man and society. . .(NUR, online).

The College of Agriculture of National University of Rwanda is involved in
carrying out NUR mission through agricultural teaching, research, services to the
community and promotion of culture. The extent of College involvement in these
activities depends on availability of qualified human resources, equipment for
laboratories and research stations, basic infrastructures and educational technologies.

Throughout the world, there is a basic faith in the power of education to solve
problems. Higher education can provide the future intellectual capital necessary to spark
positive growth in a country. In particular, agricultural higher education can provide the
critical difference in whether we can meet the needs of an increasing world population or
face serious threats to food security across the world (Bjelland, Masuku & Ndimande,
2002)

Maguire (2001) observed that Afiican Universities had achieved much in a short
time, he said the mandate given to these institutions at independence required assessment
as a result of changes in the world, in Afiica and in the universities themselves, he also
noted that agricultural education faced a variety of challenges and dilemmas, but
observed that there were also new opportunities and possibilities. He outlined problems
facing Afiican universities and agricultural education in Afiica to include:

o Enrollments are often greater than the capacity of universities to handle

- Unsustainable patterns of expenditure for higher education

23

o Decline in the quality of education
0 Weak connection with other parts of the agricultural education system- colleges,
vocational schools, farmer training networks
0 Poor linkages and lack of communication with the employers of the graduates of
the university
0 The shift in focus from agriculture to rural development
0 High unemployment of graduates from the university, often due to a lack of
relevance of curriculum
0 Information technology
0 Globalization (pp. 29-30).
Some of the problems underlined by Maguire are Similar to what currently faced by
National University of Rwanda.

Gil (1987) reports that through research, Agricultural colleges and universities are
able to generate solutions to problems confronting the rural poor. Their aim is to develop
essential technologies for agricultural and rural development, said Gil. He also points out
that farming has become more of a business enterprise necessitating managerial and
business skills among graduates of agriculture.

The World Bank (1999) also underlines the fact that university faculty typically
devote 25 percent on their research designed to solve social problems, support teaching
programs, promote their own professional development, and generate income. Commonly
university roles in research systems are national research, basic research, regional

research and consultant services, stated the World Bank

24

Recognizing the important role of Afiican universities in improving agricultural
extension services, particularly in developing responsive training programs for mid-
career agricultural extension staff, Zinnah (cited in Breth, 1999) stressed the importance
of partnerships within the universities themselves as well as with other universities,
NGOS, and government ministries. Partnership is necessary, he said, because individual
organizations lack the breadth of knowledge, skills, resources, and power needed to deal
with the complex problems of agriculture and rural development including the training of
agricultural extension staff (p. 73). In addition, for successful partnership between
partners, Zinnah recommends genuine consultation and dialogue, effective
communication, committed leadership and need for organizational change.

Different partners have been involved in helping the College of Agriculture of
NUR to carry out its mission of teaching and disseminating adaptive research in
agriculture through different projects such as the UNR/UM/SAARF A project entitled

“ Building the Capacity of the Rwandan Research System to Conduct, Disseminate and
Teach Adaptive Research in Agriculture” (UNR/UM/SAARF A, 1993) and the
Partnership for Enhancing Agriculture in Rwanda through Linkages, PEARL (CANR
International News, 2002). In addition, the College has been initiating a series of
curriculum reform since 2001, with the financial support of the PEARL project, to adopt

new orientations in order to produce professional, market -oriented agriculturists.

25

However many factors are still limiting to the effectiveness and quality of
teaching, research and outreach activities at the College of Agriculture of NUR such as
insufficiency of qualified human resources, lack adequate equipment in laboratories,
library and research stations, lack of basic infrastructures such as buildings, lack of
educational technologies and research tools (limited access to Internet and web-based
resources), lack of direct/formal linkage with the Ministry of Agriculture in charge of
extension and other national partners involved in agricultural development such as the
Rwandan Institute of Agricultural Sciences (ISAR) and non-government organizations
(N GOS). Even though a memorandum of understanding for collaboration between NUR
and ISAR was signed few years ago, there are still no comrrritrnents to collaborate and no
joint activities between the two institutions.

This lack of linkages between extension, education and research is a serious
challenge that limits on one hand access of extension services to research-based
information and adequate training, and on the other hand feedback from farmers to reach
researchers and teachers. Consequently, the result of this situation is duplication of efforts

and lack of responsiveness to the needs and problems felt by the end-users of technology.

2.5. Understanding Research- Education- Extension- Farmer Linkages

The ISNAR (International Service for National Agricultural Research) 1997
Annual Report stated that linkages between researchers, extensionists, and farmers are
essential. They ensure effective flows of information fiom the farm (often via extension)

to the laboratory. They can also help bring usefultechnologies fiom research

26

organizations to farmers. The quality and types of the linkages determine to a large extent
the relevance of research products.

According to Agbamu (2000) the concept of linkages implies the communication
and working relationship established between two or more organizatiOns pursuing
commonly Shared objectives in order to have regular contact and improved productivity.
He noted that effective communication links between researchers and extensionists are
vital in the modification of technological recommendations and in initiating further
research. Such links enable new technologies and management practices to be suited to
local ecological conditions. Furthermore, the participation of extension workers in
adaptive research trials allows them to become familiar with the technologies they are
expected to promote and also helps to ensure that the sociological dimensions of farming
are not neglected. Havelock (as cited in Agbamu, 2000) argues that if the barriers
between two systems are permeable enough for messages and responses to flow out of
each to the other, then a link has been created between the two. From the viewpoint of the
previous statement, agricultural research and extension services are two systems, which
are linked by information flow and feedback. For agro- technologies to be relevant to
local needs, researchers, extension workers and farmers must play important roles in
identifying research problems, adapting the recommendations to local conditions and
providing feedback to researchers about the innovations that have been developed, said
Agbamu.

In principle, agricultural extension receives relevant information from the

agricultural education system and feeds backfield observations to this system.

27

Extension is also professionally linked to the agricultural vocational and higher education
systems in the sense that these systems also produce the agents who work in extension.
The relationships between agricultural extension and agricultural research is even closer,
because the knowledge that agricultural extension transfers is usually generated by
agricultural research through applied and adaptive agricultural development (Rivera et
aL,2001)

Writing about the need for more effective linkages between agricultural
extension, agricultural research, and farming people, Kairnowitz (cited in Axinn and
Axinn, 1997) notes:

“. .. Increasingly, the major breakthroughs take place in sophisticated laboratories,
far from farmers’ fields. Nevertheless, there will still be a need for adaptive research and

feedback on how these technologies perform. New links will have to be designed
between the laboratories, extension, and private marketing divisions to make this possible

(p. 128).”

Munya, Adams and Thomsom (2002), in Designing effective linkages for
sustainable agg' cultural extension information systems among developing countries in
Sub-Saharan Afiica, stated that to fulfill its mission of effectively educating and
facilitating learning among farmers, extension organizations have depended on research
institutions to provide relevant and reliable information on improved technologies and
practices. They however noted that the research-extension linkage has been weak and is
an institutional problem yet to be resolved.

Writing on genuine collaboration, Axinn and Axinn (1997) point out three factors

that are essential: I) trust and respect for the competence of individuals and organizations

28

involved; 2) each participant having something to offer to others for which the others
have a need; and 3) willingness on all sides to invest time and money in sufficient
communication (p. 107).

Niangade (1999) notes a key element in the process of reform to bringing together
researchers and end users is the creation of a consultation framework through which all
research proposals had to pass. All partners are consulted in the planning stage, and there
is also a system of follow-up assessment of all the activities, said Niangade.

Warning that partnerships are not an end in them, F oege (1999) said the test is
how does the partnership help? “ It is not worth the effort if we can not see the
outcome (p. 10).” Foege said productive partnerships require partners who have
complementary strengths, who have broad interests and experiences, and who Share a
common view of the desired outcomes.

Thinking in the same way as F oege, Obimpeh (1999) stressed that effective
partnerships require a common vision among the partners, which allows them to establish
common objectives and plan. He writes:

“ The development of rural areas will depend on effective collaboration among

stakeholders to facilitate the sharing of resources, experiences, skills, and

knowledge to solve the inherent problem of food insecurity and poverty.” (p. 9).
2.5.1 Types of Research, Education and Extension Linkages

Kaimowitz, Synder and Engel (cited in Leholm, Suvedi and Vlasin, 1998) have
identified various types of mechanisms to link research, education and extension

functions. Four of the mechanisms are described below.

29

1. Joint Planning and Programming: This includes activities such as joint
problem diagnosis, joint priority setting and joint program review meetings. Examples of
joint professional activities include collaborative trials and demonstration, joint decision-
making in release of recommendations, regular field visits, and informal sharing of tasks
and responsibilities.

2. Collaborative Professional Activities: This area includes opportunity for

researchers and educators to meet together to plan, implement and evaluate educational
initiatives across the disciplines. Examples could include participation in in-service
training programs, formal collaboration in trials, community needs assessment surveys,
and joint responsibility for release of recommendations. This approach encourages
teamwork and reduces status differences between researchers and educators.

3. Resource Allocation: Some organizations allocate staff time, funds or office
space, technology or other resources to support linkage activities between research,
education and extension functions. Examples of resource allocation include rotation of
staff to pool experience and expertise and get collaborative activities going, sabbatical
leave or other exchange of staff between organizations, and sharing office space for
fieldwork.

4. Communication between organizations: Communication can occur through

various mass and interpersonal media channels. Examples include radio and video
programs, two-way interactive communications, telephones, fax machine, electronic mail

servers, and various print media. Joint publications, videotape, web pages or other

30

software resulting from joint programs may provide excellent examples of successful
linkages.

For illustrating linkages between research, education and extension, the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations developed the “Knowledge
Triangle”- the Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems for Rural Development
(AKIS/RD) (Figure 4) that links rural people and institutions to promote mutual learning
and generate, share and utilize agriculture-related technology, knowledge and

information (Rivera et al., 2001).

31

Figure 4. Agricultural Extension as Part of AKIS/RD (Source: Rivera et al., 2001)

 

EDUCATION

 

 

 

FARMERS

As Figure 4 illustrates, agricultural knowledge and information systems for rural

 

 

RESEARCH

 

EXTENSION

 

 

 

 

 

 

development link people and institutions to promote learning and generate, share and use
agriculture-related technology, knowledge and information. According to the AKIS/RD
Strategic vision and guide principles (FAQ/World Bank 2000 cited by Rivera, 2001) the
system integrates farmers, agricultural educators, researchers and extensionists, enabling
them to harness knowledge and information from various sources to improve farming and

livelihoods.

32

2.5.2 Barriers to extension-education-research linkages

According to Leholm et a1. (1998), linking research, education and extension
' functions has been a considerable challenge to professional agriculturists at all levels.
They noted that linkages have been a major problem in both developed and developing
countries; only the degree of severity is different. In developing countries, agricultural
researchers maintain limited communication with educators at agricultural colleges and
universities, stated Leholm et al. They have identified several barriers that hinder
research, education and extension links. Some of these barriers are described below.

1. Policy and institutional contexts of lian and organizational factors
Agricultural community knows the linkage problems not only reduce Extension
efficiency, it also impairs Extension’s performance and diminishes the impact of
agricultural research.

2. Functional barriers and organizational structures to more functionally
linking research, education and extension

There tends to be inadequate collaboration between researchers and educators. Yet, the
research, education and extension functions tend to be the responsibility of three or more
agencies. Organizational structures of agricultural development agenciesiin most
countries tend to inhibit the seamless interface between education, research and
extension. Agricultural colleges and universities often operate under the Ministry of
Education and have limited operating ties wit agricultural research and extension
services, which operate under the Ministry of Agriculture or an autonomous agricultural
research organization. Further, the international agricultural centers tend to work mainly

with national institutions that have similar functions, not with higher education or the

33

extension service. Teamwork between agricultural researchers and educators is not very
well appreciated or recognized.

3. Narrow specialization of research problems: Sometimes this tends to
discourage collaborative relationships among different agencies. Although specialization
can lead to breakthroughs in specific areas, it tends to reduce the researcher’s ability to
deal holistically with broader issues on the context with which they occur. In colleges and
universities, the tenure and promotion system tend to encourage individual
accomplishment and specialization rather than multidisciplinary teamwork. As a result,
researchers and educators are less motivated to work across disciplinary boundaries to
strengthen the link between research, education and extension.

4. Differences in recognition and rewarding systems: In many countries,
agricultural research tends to be better recognized and rewarded than agricultural
education or extension work. Perceived status differences exist between researchers and
extension professionals. Research is still viewed as superior to extension work or
agricultural education.

5. Inadequate funding: Funding has been mentioned frequently as the major
problem of linking research,'education and extension functions in the developing
countries. Further of the mobility of research, education and extension professionals is
constrained by poor transportation facilities, further limiting their collaboration. A
majority of professional agriculturists lacks basic communication networks like
telephones, fax or electronic mail services. Professional development opportunities such

as joint seminars, workshops and field visits are declined due or constrained

34

to budget limitations.

Sigrnan and Swanson (cited in Leholm et al., 1998) argue that a continuing flow
of information between extension services and national agricultural researcher
institutions has been lacking. On the other hand, Swanson, Bentz and Sofranko (1997)
have articulated the lack of a close working relationship between national agricultural
research and extension organizations, and with different categories of farmers and farm
organizations to be one of the most difficult institutional problems confronting ministries
of agriculture in many developing nations. Research and extension organizations
generally compete over the same scarce government resources and, fiequently, leaders of
these institutions do not see themselves as part of a broader system: the agricultural
technology system (ATS). Instead, they try to increase the flow of resources coming to
their respective institutions and to Solve day-to-day management problems, rather than
ensuring that their respective organizations contribute to the broader goal of getting
improved agricultural technology to all major categories of farmers, said Swanson et al.

Crowder and Anderson (1996) also found that weak linkages among research,
education and extension (REE) institutions result in systematic “bottlenecks” in national
agricultural technology systems and can limit their effectiveness to contribute to
development; evidence shows that integrating research, education and extension can
improve the overall performance of agricultural technology systems. On the opposite
Side, pursue Crowder and Anderson, when research, extension and education institutions
are organized and function in an integrated system approaches, even when physically

' separate, then linkages among them and with farmers are more likely to receive attention.

35

An integrated approach to REE attempts to link all system participants -- researchers,
extension workers, educators, input suppliers, farmers and others -- so that they are
jointly involved in the agricultural technology innovation process. The common
denominator among these participants is information and knowledge; when linked, they
form an agricultural knowledge and information system that draws on both modern
science and farmers' indigenous knowledge.

According to the AKIS/RD Strategic vision and guide principles of FAO and the
World Bank (2000) a lack of systematic collaboration among educators, researchers,
extension staff and farmers has limited the effectiveness and relevance of support

services to the rural sector.

2.6 Factors Affecting Research-Education and Extension Linkages in Rwanda
Agricultural research, education and extension in Rwanda operate in separate
institutions making linkages between them more difficult (Figure 5). The main players of
agricultural research, education and extension in Rwanda are the Ministry of Agriculture,
(MINAGRI), the Rwandan Institute of Agricultural Sciences (ISAR), faculty teaching

institutions (e. g. NUR, ISAE), NGOS involved in agriculture and farmers.

36

Figure 5. Current Relationships between the main Actors of REE in Rwanda

 

 

MIN AGRI:
(Extension services) .— 1) _, ISAR _
1, Agricultural Dev. 1. Technology generation
Policies ‘ 2. Technology
2. Extension delivery dissemination?

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

9

l .

 

 

 

FARMERS

T

?
UNIVERSITIES & COLLEGES
(NUR & ISAE)

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Teaching
2. Research/technology generation
3. Outreach/services to the Community

 

 

 

As Figure 5 illustrates, the arrow indicates a direct link between two partners. The
question mark means whether link between partners does not exist, is weak or is
informal. The figure Shows that direct collaboration exist only between MINAGRI and
farmers. Collaboration between MIN AGRI and ISAR seems to be vertical and not
horizontal. Even though a memorandum of collaboration was signed between ISAR and
NUR, ISAR researchers and NUR teachers lack opportunities of collaboration in several

domains including joint seminars and workshops, joint field visits, joint problem

37

diagnosis, joint priority setting, collaborative trials and communication, and joint
decision -making in release of recommendations.

Extension

Extension falls under the Ministry of Agriculture and extension services are
aimed to raise farmers’ income/quality of life by focusing on the promotion of improved
crop and livestock technology, crop protection, input/credit support and marketing
information (MIN AGRI, 1997). A Director of extension and marketing coordinates
extension activities at the central or national level. Extension is also managed by
provincial and district extension offices, which are connected to the provincial and
district authorities respectively.

In the context of new decentralization policy launched in the country few years
ago, provincial and district extension services no longer depend on MINAGRI, they
administratively depend on the authority of the Prefet of the Province and District Mayor
respectively. They only depend on MINAGRI for technical and partial financial support.
According to informal sources, coordination of different levels of extension services in
this context of decentralization is one the challenges facing extension services.
MINAGRI is responsible for the planning and implementation of all national policies,
strategies and programs related to agricultural development in general. Certain
collaboration exists between MINAGRI and NGOS involved in agricultural and only
informal linkages exist between MINAGRI services and teaching institutions that report

to the Ministry of Education.

38

Agricultural education

University agricultural education is provided at the College of Agriculture of
National University of Rwanda as described above and at the Institute of Agriculture and
Livestock (ISAE), which both operate under the Ministry of Education. Besides formal
teaching, research and services to the community/outreach activities are part of
attributions of theses institutions. In order to provide the energy, materials and knowledge
to feed, house, nurture, educate and employ the growing country population, Rwandan
turiversities and colleges must develop a seamless link between research, education and
extension.

Agricultural research

Agricultural research is conducted both by ISAR and universities (NUR & ISAE).
The role of National University of Rwanda in agricultural research as part of its mission
has been already explained in section 2.4 of this chapter.

ISAR as the main agricultural research institution in the country has responsibility
for all agricultural research conducted in the country. ISAR is governed through its board
members, which is chaired by the General Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture. ISAR
is accountable to the Ministry of Agriculture and has a semi autonomous status (ISAR,
online). The mandate given to ISAR at its creation in 1962 was to promote the scientific
and technical development of agriculture and livestock in Rwanda. The main focus of its

activities was on basic and strategic research without any extension appointment.

39

However, according to ISNAR (as cited in UNR/UM/SAARF A final report,
1993) the decline of effectiveness and productivity of ISAR as national leader in
agricultural research over the past 10-15 years (almost 20 years), in spite of technical
assistance provided by a number of donor agencies (U SAID, GTZ, World Bank, FAO)
has been already observed. As the report mentioned, this decline was due to a critical lack
of qualified Rwandan scientists and staff. According to the same report, Rwandan
Agricultural research system would need around 300 qualified scientists to function
properly.

According to ISAR authorities, an institutional reorganization is needed to enable
ISAR to shift emphasis toward more adaptive research; have an effective and efficient
mechanism for linking to farmers, agricultural business persons and partners; have
mechanism and ability for generating, acquiring, storing, retrieving and efficiently
disseminating information to its clients; and have a mechanism for direct contact with
clients who are attempting to use new technologies from a variety of sources (ISAR,
online).

The previous statement from ISAR shows the need of Rwandan research,
education and extension institutions to develop “genuine collaborative relationships” for
more responsiveness to the needs and problems felt by the end-users of technology.

Barriers to research, education and extension linkages in Rwanda may be
described as both structural and functional and include, but not limited to policy and
institutional contexts, departrnentalization, more hierarchical organizational structures,

lack of understanding linkages as a priority and commitment to collaborate,

4O

 

lack communication networks hat enable the flow of information between institutions,
lack of multidisciplinary teamwork, lack of rewarding systems and motivations, and lack
of adequate funding to support linkage activities.

This problem of poor relationships between research, education and extension as
well as the need for collaboration between different partners has also been discussed
when the Faculty of Agriculture of National University of Rwanda held a National
Seminar on May 3—4, 2001 at the former Meridien Hotel in Kigali to reform its course
curriculum to better respond to the needs of Rwandan Agriculture by producing better
informed, more applied, connected and “development- ready” agriculturists to tackle the

challenges of the millennium as reported by PEARL Project in The Reachout No 1

 

(flu). Over 100 participants representing approximately 30 different sectors and
organizations that attended the Seminar highly recommended a close collaboration
between the Ministry of Agriculture, the College of Agriculture of NUR, ISAR, other
partners and farmers for more efficiency and responsiveness to the clientele needs.

In the National Extension System, MINAGRI (1997) states that linkages between
research and extension must be formalized in order to improve complementarity
between the two systems and guarantee both feasibility and efficiency of extension
messages (p.9).

Based on these statements provided in the previous sections and other documents
consulted, lack of dialogue, consultation and information exchange, lack of coordination
between partners, informal contacts, weak linkages and lack of active communication

seem to characterize current collaboration between the main players of research,

41

 

education and extension in Rwanda.

2.7 Michigan State University Extension: A US. Land Grant Model of Formal and
Successful Linkage between Research, Education and Extension

An example of successful and strong linkage between research,

education and extension is the United States of America Land Grant University System
by which America enjoys much of the economic and social prosperity. Michigan State
University is a Land Grant University and is part of the Land Grant College system
established in the United States by the Morrill Act of 1862. The Hatch Act of 1887
created the Agricultural Experiment Stations and the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 created the
Cooperative Extension Service. “As a land-grant university, Michigan State University
has been a leader in expanding its extension service network and in creating and
performing outreach research and education activities that respond to the evolving needs
of the people of Michigan and the nation (Michigan State University [MSU], online).”

Michigan State University Extension (MSUE) is a Land Grant, University- based
System, organized through the College of Agriculture, with county and multicounty
offices that localized technical knowledge to help people improve their lives through an
educational process that applies knowledge to critical issues, needs and opportunities.

The first characteristic of this system is a direct link between research, classroom
teaching and extension outreach: Research sustains teaching and extension through new
science-based knowledge; Teaching faculty prepares researchers, extension personnel,
and teachers to service workforce needs; and Extension serves as a link between

researchers and farmers/rural communities and provides opportunities for researchers,

42

 

 

teachers and students to work in real-life settings (Brewer, 2001).
What distinguishes this system from others is the active involvement of an institution
whose primary function is formal education in the non-formal out of classroom role of
extension education, Brewer said.

The Mission of Michigan State University Extension (MSUE) is to help
People improve their lives through an educational process that applies knowledge to
critical issues, needs and opportunities. MSUE provides information and offers on-going

educational programs in three main areas:

0 Agriculture and Natural Resources
0 Children, Youth and Family Programs

0 Community and Economic Development (MSU, online).

MSUE has as type of extension research integration— the Area Of Expertise
(A 015') team approach (Brewer, 2001; Leholm et al., 1998) with both campus and field
staff working together as an integrated team. The potential for improving both the
research and extension functions is maximized in this approach. A key to effective
meeting citizen needs is to directly involve them in identification of their needs and
actively engage them in the research process and Extension Programming. This
involvement includes problem identification and clarification, necessary research and
analyses, demonstrating applications of results, and conduct of extension education for

and with clientele (Brewer, 2001, p. 25).

43

The concept of Area Of Expertise Teams (AOE Teams) comes from a
Partnership between Michigan State University Extension (MSUE) and
Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station (MAES) for implementing self-directed area
of expertise team (AOE teams) as its major educational development and delivery model
(Brewer, 2001). Areas of Expertise (AOE) teams involve Extension specialists, agents,
researchers and/or stakeholders organized around a particular commodity, interest area
and/or issue. They are charged with listening to stakeholders, identifying priorities,
planning and providing educational programs, and evaluating pro gram outcomes and
impacts.
The reasons that Michigan State University has adopted AOE teams are the
following:
o Unhappy customers
0 Agents can’t cover all subject areas
0 Specialized educational needs of customers
0 Demand quality, cutting edge, research-based educational product
0 Better link between campus and field
0 Better link between University and customers
0 Group of employees fully responsible for planning, implementing and evaluating
educational pro grams in a self-directed manner
0 Concept developed in the private industry
0 Teams are more productive, efficient and deliver quality programs

0 Close to the customers, bottom-up programming.

AOE teams have the following structure: the initial AOE teams created were in

production agriculture and were formed as a result of stakeholder demand. The

boundary conditions suggested for use by ACE teams were:

Shared leadership: AOE teams have co-chairs; one from the campus and another
fiom off-campus; the on-campus co-chair has a joint research-extension
appointment.

Co-chairs rotate every two years

A coordinator or Coach is a team facilitator, aligned with management,
communicates and links.

AOE teams develop their own micro-vision, and operating procedures

AOE teams have an interdisciplinary, problem-solving, customer-orientated focus
AOE teams develop a plan for program delivery and curricula for staff
development

Involvement of stakeholders is expected, including stakeholder information input
for program/project selection direction and evaluation. Several of the teams have
formalized stakeholder involvement with advisory/partnership committees that
serve a two-year term.

Each AOE Agent member has an opportunity to select a mentor.

AOE teams are expected to be entrepreneurial and generate resotrrces for
enhanced programming.

Most teams are composed of 6-20 agents, Specialists (those having both Extension

45

and Experiment Station appointments) and selected others (customers, cooperators,

etc.) (Brewer, 2001, p. 31).

According to Brewer (2001) successful implementation of the ACE team model
in Michigan can be attributed to main four factors:
> Adhering to team basics as described by Katzenbach;
> Recognizing organizational basics that include a supportive environment for the
teams;
> An Extension administration that understood and practiced a shared leadership
and empowerment philosophy;
> An Extension and MAES administration that strpported the teams created (p. 35).
Lessons learned fi'om Michigan State University Extension for Rwandan
research-education and extension institutions Should be the following:
(1) A pluralistic approach for problem-solving and direct link between research,
classroom teaching and extension outreach;
(2) Extension serves as link between researchers and rural communities and provides
opportunities for researchers, teachers and students to work in real-life settings;
(3) Active involvement of an institution whose primary function is formal education
in the non-formal out of classroom;
(4) Team work approach in the process of planning, implementation and evaluation
of activities; and

(5) A two-way communication system with active participation of rural communities.

46

In summarizing this chapter, it is clear that this complex Situation of
Rwandan extension system and the lack of its link with research and education
require an independent study to investigate ways of improving this situation for

building a more responsive system to the clientele needs/problems.

47

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODS

3.1 Introduction
In order to accurately describe the participant’s perceptions on perceived barriers

and opporttmities to the linkage of research, education and extension in Rwanda, it was
essential a proper research protocol be followed throughout this study. A quantitative
research design has been chosen and personal face-to-face interviews were used as a
method of data collection. Because of this study involved human subjects, a copy of this
section with instrument development, a personal consent form and a research study
application were submitted to the Michigan State University’s University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects (U CRIHS). Approval to conduct the study was
granted by UCRIHS (see Appendix A).

In this Methodology chapter, the following sections are discussed: Research
Design, Target Population, Sampling, Instrument Development, Methods of Data

Collection and Data Analysis.

48

3.2 Research Design
This study was quantitative in nature because it dealt with subjects’ opinions and
perceptions about the problem under investigation, and the Specific methodology used is
that of face-to-face interviewing.
The design was descriptive research and followed recommendations described by
Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh (2002). The method of personal face-to-face interviewing has
been selected as it provides the most effective and efficient method of gathering data on
participants’ opinions, perceptions and feelings about the situation in their own words.
Gay (1987) reports that when well conducted, interviews can produce in-depth
data not possible to obtain with a mail or telephone questionnaire; the interview is most
appropriate for asking questions, which cannot effectively be structured into a multiple-
choice format, such as questions of a personal nature. In contrast to a mail
questionnaire, the interview is flexible and can adapt the situation to each subject. By
establishing rapport and a trust relationship, the interviewer can ofien obtain data that
subjects would not give on a questionnaire. The interview may also result in more
accurate and honest responses Since the interviewer can explain and clarify both the
purpose of the research and individual questions; another advantage of the interview is
that the interviewer can follow up on incomplete or unclear responses by asking

additional probing questions.

49

3.3 Population

According to Ary et a1. (2002) theword population refers to the entire group of
individuals to whom the findings of the study apply; defining the population is essential
for identifying the subjects appropriate to select for study and for knowing to whom the
results can be generalized.

This study involved six Provinces of Rwanda: Butare, Cyangugu, Gikongoro,
Kibuye, Kigali City and Ruhengeri (Figure 6) chosen randomly by writing the names of
all twelve provinces on slips of paper, rrrixing thoroughly and pulling six names. The
target population of this study belonged to the following institutions within the six
Provinces:

(1) Extension services of the Rwandan Ministry of Agriculture at the central level; .
(2) Faculty members of the College of Agriculture of National University of Rwanda and
the Institute of Agriculture and livestock (ISAE);
(3) Researchers of Rwandan Institute of Agricultural Sciences (ISAR);
(4) Local and International NGOS: ARDI, INADES FORMATION, Care International,
ACDI VOCA and FAQ;
(5) Agricultural secondary schools: Kabutare and Ntendezi;
(6) Extension workers at Province level in the 6 Provinces;
(7) And members of farmers’ associations.
Those institutions were deliberately chosen to represent the main actors within
agricultural production, extension, teaching and research and their choice was based on

the degree of involvement in research, education or extension activities.

50

Sampling of institutions and participants was purposive.

Figure 6. The Six Provinces concerned by the Study

 

 

  
  
 

CGIS-UNR

Realised by Jean Pierre Bizrmana.
Student Geographer
4111912002

 

Lake
Lac Kivu
National Park
- Forest
Provrnces concerned by study.
E3 Provrnces

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

51

3.4 Sampling

The researcher selected a purposive sample of people he believed were key in
terms of providing the best information as participants based on different factors
including availability of participants at the moment of the study, role of participant in
research, extension, education or farmer association. Writing about purposeful sampling,
Patton (1990) notes:

“The logic and power of purposeful sampling lies in selecting information-rich

cases for study in depth. Information rich-cases are those fi'om which one can learn a
great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the research, thus the term

purposeful sampling (p. 169).”

According to the recommendation of Ary et a1. (2002), “ Qualitative researchers
select purposive samples believed to be sufficient to provide maximum insight and
understanding of what they are studying. . .”(p. 428), the sample of persons to be
interviewed was based on judgment regarding the characteristics (diversity) of the target
population and the need of the study.

The sample Size was 46 people within those main actors of agricultural
development cited above. Of those participants, eleven (1 1) were individual farmers or
members of farmer associations, seventeen (l 7) were government extension workers,
seven (7) were NGO extension staff, two (2) were secondary school teachers, four (4)
were faculty staff and five (5) were researchers. Of the interviewees 83% were male and
17% were female. Faculty teachers, researchers, government and NGO extension staff,
and agricultural secondary school teachers were selected through institutional public

documents available at place of work.

52

Members of farmers’ associations were selected based on information given by the
extension services at the Province or District level.
3.5 Instrument Development

The researcher developed a set of open-ended questions for face-to-face
interviews (Appendices E &F). Formulating interview questions, the Researcher followed
recommendations described by Fowler (1995) in Improving survey questions. Some of
these recommendations were:

0 Beware of asking about information that is acquired only secondhand

Beware of hypothetical questions

0 Beware of asking about causality

0 Beware of asking respondents about solutions to complex problems
0 ' Ask one question at a time

0 Avoid asking two questions at once

0 Avoid questions that impose unwarranted assumptions

Beware of questions that include hidden contingencies (p. 78-83).
Questions were developed to obtain information pertaining to each of the four
research questions.

A panel of experts familiar with agriscience, qualitative research, interview
design and research methods within the Department of ANR Education and
Communication Systems verified the content validity of the instrument, and then
changes were made to improve clarity.

According to Patten (2002) to determine the content validity of an instrument,

we make judgments on the appropriateness of its content (p. 55).

53

Many researchers recognized usefulness of open-ended questions for face-to-face
interviews. According to Ary et a1. (2002), open-ended question permits a fine response
rather than restricting the respondent to a choice fi'om among stated alternatives.
Individuals are free to respond from their own flame of response. .. The researcher must
read and interpret each response, then develop a coding system that will permit a '
quantitative analysis of the responses (p. 390).

Patton (1990) recommends open-ended questions for the following reason:

“Because of limited time, when it is desirable to have he same information from

each person interviewed, a standardized open-ended format may be used in which

each person is asked essentially the same questions. The interview questions are
written out in advance exactly the way they are to be asked during the interview

(p. 285).”

Interview questions were formulated in a simple manner to be understood by
respondents with different backgrounds. The order of questions was also taken into
account to ensure that the researcher will collect the needed information and
respondents will receive the same questions. All the interviewees were asked the same
questions regarding:

- The characteristics and constraints/problems of the current Rwandan Extension
system

0 The perceived opportunities to the linkage of Research, Education and
Extension in Rwanda

0 The primary barriers to the linkage of Research, Education and Extension

0 The perceived structure of linkage (model) and responsibilities of partners in the

54

linked REE. The sample of interview questions is included in Appendix C.

Finally, as this study used human-as- instrtunent, the researcher took into account
advice given by Ary et al. (2002), “ Qualitative design requires the researcher to
become the research instrument. This means the researcher must have the ability to
observe behavior and must sharpen the skills necessary for observation and face-to- face

interview”(p. 426).

3.6 Pilot Study

A pilot study was conducted for testing reliability of the instrument. According
to Yin (cited by Smith, 2000), a pilot study helps the investigator refine plans with
respect to both the content of the data and the procedures to be followed. This pilot
study was conducted with three members of one of the farmers’ associations
operating at Mwogo Valley (Kararnbi) in Karaba District of Gikongoro Province and
two extension agents based at the Province level (Gikongoro). All the five
interviewees understood the questions and only small modifications were made to the
Instrument.

The pilot study served as a useful tool in refining the research procedures such
as duration of interview, quality of the recorded interview, how to correctly ask

questions in order to get more information.

3.7 The face-to—face interview/Data Collection

The researcher used open-ended questions for interviews (Appendices E &F) as

said above. The method of data collection was chosen according recommendations

55

of Fowler (1993) who said that the choice of data collection mode - mail, telephone,
personal interview, or group administration is related directly to the sample, and available
staff and facilities; it has implications for response rates, question form and survey costs.

Two weeks prior to the interview, the researcher made a tour in the six provinces
and the corresponding institutions identifying participants. At this opportunity, an
introductory letter (Appendix D) was given by hand (mailing by post office could cause
delays) to the supervisors seeking permission to interviewing people under their
authorities. A second contact was made, sometimes by telephone when it was possible, to
schedule interview.

The day of interview, upon arrival the researcher introduced himself, explained
the purpose and objective of the study, assured the confidentiality of the interview, asked
the interview participant to fill out a consent form (Appendices B & C), asked permission
to tape record interview, and began the interview. The majority of the interviews lasted
from forty minutes to one hour, and all interviews were conducted between June 2002
and July 2002. All interviews took place in either (1) institution conference room (2)
participant’s office (3) at a mutually agreed upon location, where there was privacy and
where the participant felt comfortable. As stated in the personal Interview Consent Form
that addressed confidentiality and stated that the interviewee privacy will be protected to -
the maximum extent allowable by law, all information given was kept confidential, and
responses were not associated with individuals’ names or institutions’ names.
Furthermore, the researcher was the only person gathering, analyzing and writing the

reports.

56

3.8 Data Analysis

The researcher transcribed the structured interviews and stored them
' electronically on floppy disks. Because most of the interviews were in French or
Kinyarwanda (mother language) the researcher gave the floppy disks to a specialized
agency for translation in English and a contract was signed with this agency. After _
translation, the researcher reviewed the new disks for accuracy, corrected some errors,
and filled in where the translator was unclear about technical language. Following this
process, the researcher went through the electronic files of the interviews, and replaced
any names or institution names with numbers (codes) to maintain confidentiality as stated
within the Personal Interview consent Form. As this process happened, the researcher
converted the taped text into a format that the computer software program,” Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS version 10.0),” required to assist with handling and
analyzing the data. Each interview question was imported into SPSS program as a
separate “case”, treating each participant, type of respondent and different answers to the
question as different variables. As all questions were open- ended, Multi Response Sets
within SPSS were used to handling analysis. Descriptive statistics (Frequencies and

Percentages) were used for analysis purposes. Results are reported in the next chapter.

57

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

4.1 Introduction

The researcher’s purpose in this study was to investigate perceived barriers and
opportunities to the linkage of research, education and extension in Rwanda. The data
that were collected in six Provinces of Rwanda: Butare, Cyangugu, Gikongoro, Kibuye,
Kigali City and Ruhengeri (Figure 6) from 46 people fi'om different partners including
research institutions, teaching institutions, government and NGO extension staff, and
farmers, who responded to the face-to- face interviews are described in this chapter. Of
those participants, eleven (11) were individual farmers or members of farmer
associations, seventeen (17) were government extension workers, seven (7) were non-
government extension workers, two (2) were secondary school teachers, four (4) were
faculty staff and five (5) were researchers. Of the interviewees 83% were male and 17%
were female.

In order to gather information on perceived barriers and opportunities to the
linkage of research, education and extension in Rwanda, participants were asked
questions based on four research questions mentioned above. SPSS was used to

summarize the multiple response sets to different questions.

58

4.2 Characteristics of Rwandan Extension System

One of the focuses of this study was to investigate the characteristics of current
extension system. To begin to address this complex question, the researcher asked
participants a series of sub-questions including: participants’ general opinion on current
extension system; role and challenges of agricultural extension; constraints and
weaknesses of extension; existing relationships between research, education and
extension institutions; channels of information delivery and feedback from farmers;
source of extension and research information; and important thing to be improved in the

technology transfer.

4.2.1 Participants’ opinions on current Extension System

Sub-question #1 addressed participants’ general opinion on current extension and
was formulated as follows: What are your opinions on Current Rwandan Extension
System?

Participants had multiple responses to this question as described in Table 3. Thirty
four percent (34%) of responses described the current extension system to be not efficient
due to lack of adequate financial resources and logistics for extension staff, lack of
competent extension staff and inadequate number of that staff, weak linkage between
different partners and lack of training. Sixteen percent (16%) of responses described
current extension to be efficient and to have good relationships with farmers, while 13%
said there was weak link between partners. Other opinions on extension were:

undeveloped extension (9%), agriculture remains traditional (6%), instability of the

59

system (4%), farmers have improved their skills through current extension (4%),
extension is not participatory enough (4%), research results that are not published (3%),
subsidies slow down extension (3%), lack of coordination (1.5%), and students practice

within extension (1.5%).

Table 3. Participants’ Opinions on current Extension

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Opinion Frequency % Of responses
Extension is not efficient 23 33.8
Extension is efficient 11 16.2
Weak link between partners 9 13.2
Extension is undeveloped 6 8.8
Agriculture remains traditional 4 5.9
Good policy of agric. development 4 5.9
Extension is not participatory enogh 3 4.4
Farmers have improved their Skills through 3 4.4
extension
Instability of the system 3 4.4
Subsidies slow down extension 2 2.9
Research results are not published 2 2.9
Students practice within extension 1 1.5
Lack of coordination 1 1.5
Total 68 100.0

 

 

 

 

The following comments made by the interviewees provide a deeper
understanding on how they felt about current extension.

“Current extension policy and approaches are good despite some constraints
related to lack of human and material resources, low quality of technicians from
secondary schools, questionable literate level of farmers used by current
extension to train other farmers ” (Government extension worker).

Another comment was:
“The current approach thought by the Ministry of Agriculture- based on using
farmers’ associations, professional associations might be eflicient if there are
good operators, good associations and good training " (NGO extension worker).

60

Another respondent said:
“The current extension system is experimental, there is no fixed system, there is
neither continuity, nor regularity... each time when there is a transfer at a
Ministry Department, a new system and new priorities are introduced; there is a
permanent change, which doesn ’t facilitate progress and regularity ” (Faculty
teacher).
4.2.2 Challenges facing current Extension
Sub-question 2 was: What do you consider to be the challenges of agricultural
extension in Rwanda? The aim of this question was to investigate role and challenges of

current extension. Ten most important challenges described by participants to facing

current extension are reported in Table 4.

Table 4. Ten Most Important Challenges facing current Extension

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Challenge Frequency % of responses
Developing new technologies and/or farming 12 12.4
techniques
Improve extension approaches/communication 8 8.2
Improve farmer literacy 8 8.2
Improve relationships between farmers and 7 7.2

partners

Increase agricultural productivity 7 7.2
Improve farmer livelihood 7 7.2
Agricultural development 6 6.2
Availability of financial resources 6 6.2
Communicate research results 6 6.2
Povegy alleviation 4 4.1

 

 

 

 

As described in Table 4, twelve percent (12.4%) of the respondents felt that
acquisition of new technologies was the challenge number one. Other important

challenges described by respondents included to improve farmer literacy (8.2%),

61

improve extension policy and approaches ( 8.2%), improve relationships between farmers
and partners (7.2%), improve farmer livelihood (7 .2%), increase agricultural productivity
and food security (7.2%), agricultural development (6.2%), availability of financial

resources (6.2%), communicate research results (6.2%) and poverty alleviation (4.1%).
4.2.3 Constraints and Weaknesses of Rwandan Extension

Sub-question 3 was: Do you perceive any constraints/weaknesses of Rwandan
extension system? If yes, what are they? As for the previous questions participants had
multiple answers in response to this question. They described the main constraints of
Rwandan extension to be inadequate financial resources and logistics (21.8%), lack of
competent staff (12.2%), weak relationships between farmers and partners (7.5%), slow
adoption of new technologies (7.5%), poverty in rural areas and subsistence agriculture,
(6.8%), weak linkage between research, education and extension (6.1%), lack of
agricultural technologies (6.1%), low literacy of farmers (4.8%), inadequate number of
extension staff (4.1%), no clear extension policy (3.4%), lack of good planning (2.7%)
,less support to extension activities by local authorities (2.7%), lack of sources of
information (2.0%), lack of motivation of staff (2.0%), lack of farmer participation

(2.0%), inadequate teaching system (2.0%) and lack of coordination (1.4%).
4.2.4 Existing Relationships between Research, Education and Extension

Sub-question 4 was: What are your opinions on existing relationships between

research institutions, teaching institutions and extension services in Rwanda?

62

All different responses to this question are reported in Table 5.

Table 5. Existing Relationships between Research, Education and Extension.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Relationship Frequency % of responses
Weak linkage between REE 25 41.0
Certain collaboration exists 7 11.5
Informal discussions between MINAGRI- ISAR 7 11.5
Limited to student &staff training 5 8.2
Collaboration Should be beneficial 5 8.2
No dialogue between MINAGRI and teaching 4 6.6
institutions

No coordination 2 3.3
Triangulation REE no functional 2 3.3
Duplications 2 3.3
Memorandum NUR-ISAR 1 1.6
No enough information 1 1.6
Total 61 100.0

 

 

 

For example, one respondent noted:

“There are some discussions between MINA GRI and ISAR on improving
collaboration but there is no dialogue between MINA GRI and teaching

institutions " (Government extension worker).

The next comment is similar to the previous but from another respondent:

“There is only informal information exchange between ISAR and extension services
but no information exchange between extension services and teaching institutions ”

(Government extension worker)

Another quote that was offered by an ISAR researcher was this:

“Collaboration between research and teaching institutions is limited only to the
students ' training. 0n the other hand, collaboration between ISAR and MINA GRI

extension services is also limited to the training of staff ”

63

 

A government extension worker made the next comment:
“ISAR and N UR signed a memorandum of collaboration but there is no
commitment for its implementation.”

Another respondent said:
“Even there is a service in charge of extension in the Ministry of Agriculture,
extension is still undeveloped because of lack of competent extension stafl and
lack of effective collaboration between researchers, teachers and extension
agents: the triangulation research-education and extension is not functional. If
this triangulation was fimctional, it would enable extension to provide research-
based information, which will be released by the collaboration between research
and education.” (Faculty teacher)
4.2.5. Channels of Information Delivery/Communication
The next sub-question addressed communication channels and was asked to the

participants as follows: What are the channels of information delivery? The six most

stated responses to this question are listed in Table 6.

Table 6. Six most-stated Channels of Information Delivery

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Channel Frequency % Of responses
Field trips and visitations 18 22.5 i

F ace-to- face organized meetings 16 20.0

Extension worker report 7 8.8

Farmer association report 7 8.8

Farmers come to office 5 6.3
Researchers& teachers have no way 5 6.3

to be informed about farmers needs

and problems

 

64

Other channels of information delivery that were mentioned in response to this
question included teacher/student reports (6.3%), teacher and researchers have no
channel of getting information to or fi'om farmers (6.3%), other reports (3.8%),
workshops (2.5%), farmer training (2.5%), demonstrations (2.5%), collaboration with
other institutions (2.5%), media (1.5%), publications (1.5%), and via agents in charge of
development at the District level (1.5%).

One respondent reported:

“Researchers and teachers have no formal ways of knowing about farmers ’
problems. ”

4.2.6. Sources of Extension and Research Information

The next sub- question 6 was: What are the sources of extension and research
information? Ten most important sources of research and extension information cited by
participants are listed in Table 7.

Table 7. Ten most important Sources of Extension and Research Information

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source Frequency % of responses
Foreign scientific publications (including 15 15.5
journals)

Workshops 15 15.5
Research institute (ISAR) 10 10.3
Internet and web-based information 7 7.3
Training 6 6.2
Study tg'ps 5 5.2
Books 5 5.2
F ace-to- face meetings 4 4.1
Media 4 4.1
Technical sheets 4 4.1

 

 

 

 

Other sources of information mentioned in the response to this question were:

NGOS’ publications (2.1%), national publications (2.1%), other sources (2.1%),

65

immediate supervisors (2.1%), agricultural concourses (1.0%), farmer knowledge
(1.0%), regional trials (1.0%), and student “Memoires” (1.0%).
However, 6.2% of respondents stated that information was not available.
4.2.7. What to improve in Technology Transfer
The last sub—question 7 in this series asked to the respondents was: What do you
feel is the most important thing to be improved in the technology transfer / extension
message to the farmers? Ten most frequently mentioned improvements to make to the

transfer of extension information in the response to the question are listed in Table 8.

Table 8. Ten most frequently suggested Improvements to Technology Transfer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What to be improved in the transfer of Frequency % of responses
technology/extension information

Work more closely with farmers 9 l 1.8
Improve extension policy/approaches 8 10.5
More focus on “On-farm research” 7 9.2
Improve conununication mechanisms 6 7.9
Enhance farmer participation 6 7.9
Adequate # of extension workers 5 6.6
Strengthen REE institutions 5 6.6
Training & study trips 5 6.6
Planning/monitoring 4 5.3
Increase extension budget 4 5.3

 

Other suggestions mentioned in response to this question were to improve
relationships between partners (3.9%), decentralization (3.9%), improve chain of
information delivery (2.6%), University and research institution involvement (2.6%),
poverty reduction programs (2.6%), staff management (2.6%), input supplies (1.3%),
improve the approach of using farmers to train other farmers (1.3%) and new farming

practices (1.3%).

66

4.3. Perceived Opportunities to link Research, Education and Extension.

4.3.1 Necessity of Linkage of REE

A major focus of this study research pertains to opportunities to the linkage of
research, education and extension. Another series of sub-questions was asked to
participants to allow the researcher to fully investigate this research question.

First of all, participants were asked whether they perceived any necessity of
linkage between research, education and extension and the question was formulated as
follows: Do you perceive any necessity of linkage between research, education and
extension in Rwanda? All forty-six respondents stated that linkage between research,
extension and education was not only necessary and desirable, but also was a priority for
moreeffectiveness and responsiveness of different partners to the farmers’ needs and
problems.

4.3.2 Opportunities to the linkage of REE

The next step for the researcher was to know what were the participants’
perceptions of the opportunities to this linkage and expected outcomes/advantages. The
next question, asked to the participants, was: What do you believe to be the opportunities
to the linkage of research, education and extension in Rwanda? Six most frequently
mentioned opportunities to the linkage of research, education and extension in response
to this question are reported in Table 9. Other mentioned opportunities included: staff
motivation (5.0%), demonstrations (5.0%), institution improvement (2.5%), market-

oriented agriculture (2.5%), rural communication (1.3%), staff training (1 .3%).

67

One percent (1.3%) of the respondents stated not having enough information to the

question.

Table 9. Six most frequently mentioned Opportunities to the Linkage of REE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Opportunity Frequency % Of responses
1. Institution leaders’ willingness to 21 26.3

collaborate

2. Consultation & dialogue of partners 20 25.0

3. Farmer participation 7 8.8

4. Competent staff 6 7.5

5. Financial &material resources 6 7.5

6. Planning and coordination 5 6.3

 

 

4.3.3 Expected Outcomes of the Linkage of REE
Further, participants were also asked what were their perceptions about the

expected outcomes of this linkage. The question was: What could be the expected

outcomes of this linkage? Five most stated expected outcomes of the linkage were:

0 Access research-based information

0 Functional triangulation REE/ competencies together

0 More physical contacts with farmers

0 Agricultural productivity/food security

0 Extension improvement

68

24.4%

19.8%

13.5%

13.5%

5.2%

Other advantages felt by respondents included knowledge (4.2%), avoiding duplication
(4.2%), easy technology transfer and adoption (3.1%), agricultural development (3.1%),
increasing farmers’ capacities (1.0%), poverty alleviation and farmer livelihood (1.0%),
research oriented to market economy (1.0%) and programs based on farmers’ needs
(1.0%).
4.4 Participants’ Perceptions of Barriers to the Linkage of Research, Education

and Extension

Another major research question pertains to participants’ perceptions of barriers
to the linkage of research, education and extension. The question was: What do you
perceive to be the barriers to the linkage of research, education and extension?
Perceptions of respondents on barriers to the linkage of research, education and extension
are reported in Table 10. AS shown in this Table, the major barrier to the linkage of
research, education and extension is unwillingness of institution leaders to collaborate
(19%) followed by weak financial resources (17.5%) and lack of consultation and

dialogue (12%).

69

Table 10. Perceived Barriers to the Linkage of Research, Education, and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extension
Perceived Barriers Frequency % of responses
Leaders’ unwillingness to collaborate 18 18.6
Weak financial resources for supporting 17 17.5
linkage activities
Lack of consultation and dialogue 12 12.4
Lack of coordination& monitoring 8 8.2
Lack of farmer participation in decision- 7 7.2
making
Lack of good planning 7 7.2
Research takes long time to releasing 6 6.2
results
Lack of competent staff 5 5.2
Lack of understanding linkage as priority 4 4.1
No clear extension policy/strategies 3 3.1
Poverty/subsistence agriculture 3 3.]
Slow technology adoption 3 3.1
Low salaries for extension staff 3 3.1
Farmer illiteragy 1 1.0
Total 97 100.0

 

 

 

 

4.5 Structure, Role and Responsibilities

Respondents were asked another series of question about the structure or model of
linkage, role and responsibilities of each partner in the linked research, education and
extension.

4.5.1 Participants’ Perceptions of Moving Extension Services from
MIN AGRI to ISAR

The first sub-question of this series asked participants whether they perceived
any necessity of moving extension services from the Ministry of Agriculture to the
Rwandan Institute of Agricultural Sciences (ISAR). The aim was to know whether

extension services would be more efficient under a research institution like ISAR rather

7O

than under the Ministry of Agriculture. The question was: What are your opinions of
moving the Extension Services from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Rwandan Institute
‘ of Agricultural Sciences (ISAR)?

Almost fifty nine percent (58.7%) of participants said yes for moving extension
services to ISAR, while 39.1% of respondents stated for leaving extension into the
Ministry of Agriculture and only 2.2% said that it was something to experiment.

Cross analysis on moving extension services fi'om MINAGRI to ISAR produced
the following output (Table 11.)

Table 11. Opinions on Moving Extension Services by Type of Respondent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Opinion Type of respondent
Farmer Gov. NGO ext. Secondary Faculty Researcher Total
extension agent school teacher
worker teacher
A 8 10 4 l 3 I 27
B 3 7 2 1 l -4 18
C 0 O 1 0 0 O 1
Total 11 17 7 2 4 5 46

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 Opinion code:
A- Yes for moving extension
B- Leave extension under the Ministry in charge of Agriculture
C- Something to experimenting
Table 11 shows that more than 67% (18 people out of 27) of participants who responded

yes for moving extension services from MINAGRI to ISAR were extension agents and

farmers.

71

 

Participants who stated for moving extension services fi'om the Ministry in charge
of Agriculture to the Rwandan Institute of Agricultural Sciences were asked additional
question, “why it was important to move extension”. Respondents’ arguments for moving

extension services in response to this question are reported in Table 12.

Table 12. Respondents’ Arguments for Moving Extension Services to a Research

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Institution

Reason for moving extension services Frequency % of responses
Direct interaction researcher-farmers 8 21.6
ISAR must be restructured & provided resources 8 21.6
Easy technology transfer 7 18.9
Minimize bureaucracy 5 13 .5
Direct collaboration Extension -Research 3 8.1
ISAR used to know farmers'problems 2 5.4
Stability of staff 1 2.7
Research stations are available for demonstration 1 2.7
&training

ISAR must adapt to decentralization 1 2.7
No explanation I 2.7
Total 37 100.0

 

 

 

 

4.5.2 Participants’ Perceptions about the Creation of an Outreach Unit at
Faculty Teaching Institutions
The next sub-question asked respondents whether the creation of an outreach unit
at faculty teaching institutions was important or not.
Eighty seven percent (87%) of respondents said the creation of an outreach unit
would be a good thing, 4.3% of respondents said it would be a duplication, other 4.3%

said it would be not necessary, 2.2 % of respondents stated it would be overloading those

72

institutions and 2.2 % of respondents said they didn’t know.

Respondents who answered yes to the previous question were asked additional
question, “Why the creation of an outreach turit at faculty teaching institutions was
important.” Different arguments given by respondents in response to this question are
reported in tablel 3.

Tablel3. Participants’ Arguments for the Creation of an Outreach Unit at
Faculty Teaching Institutions

 

 

 

 

 

Aggument Frequency °/o of responses
Mediate collaboration with MINAGRI extension 14 30.4

services and other partners

No explanation 11 23.9 '

Enable technology dissemination from those 6 13.0
institutions

Help to plan and implement teachers and 5 10.9

students’ field interventions

 

If financial and human resources are available 10.9

 

 

Enable more practical skills for students 4.3

 

5

Objectives must be well defined 2 4.3
2
1

If there is direct collaboration with ISAR 2 2

 

 

 

 

 

Total 46 100.0

 

4.5.3 Coordination of linked REE

Coordination in the new context of linked REE was the next question to the
participants. Coordination was a critical issue because different partners belong to
different institutions, then coordination would be important for more efficiency of the
linkage. The question asked to the respondents was: How do you perceive the

coordination of agricultural research, education and extension in Rwanda?

73

Forty nine percent (49%) of the respondents argued for a coordination committee;
21.6% said coordination should be done by the Ministry in charge of agriculture; by
research institute (13.7%); in the new context of decentralization, the Province might
assume the role of coordinator (7.9%); coordination on rotation basis (2.0%); no
coordination committee (2.0%); and 3.9% of the respondents had no idea how to

coordinate.
4.5.4 Role and Responsibilities of Partners in Linked REE

Participants also were asked what should be the specific role and responsibilities
of each partner in this linkage. The question was: What should be the specific role and
responsibilities of researchers, teachers and extension workers in the linked research,
education and extension? Participants’ responses to this question are reported in Tables
14, 15 and 16.

Table 14. Role and Responsibilities of Researchers in Linked REE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Role & responsibility Frequency % of responses
Research & generation of new technologies 35 63.6
Provide research-based information to other 8 14.5
partners
Train extension Staff and find solutions to 5 9.1
roblerns felt by them
Find solutions to farmers’ problems 3 5.5
Find ways of adopting technologies 3 5.5
Farmer training 1 1.8
Total 55 100.0

 

 

 

 

74

Table 15. Role and Responsibilities of Faculty Teachers in Linked REE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Role & responsibility Frequency % of responses
17 28.8

Update curriculum with research results

Formal teaching of future agriculturists 13 22.0

Research 12 20.3

Participation in training extension workers 7 11.9

According institution’ 3 mission &goals 6 10.2

Find solutions to problems felt by farmers 3 5.1

Evaluate impact of research results 1 1.7

Total 59 100.0

 

Table 16. Role and Responsibilities of Extension Staff in Linked REE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Role & responsibility Frequency "/o of responses
Research —based information delivery 25 35.7

Serve as link between researchers, 22 31.4

educators and farmers

Farmer training 16 22.9

According extension services’ mission 5 7.1

and goals

Find solutions to problems felt by 2 2.9

farmers

Total 70 100.0

 

75

 

 

4.5.5 Perceived Sources of Funding for Linkage Activities

Another important issue for linkage of research, education and extension activities
in particular is fimding. Appropriate funding must be provided to enable those services to
function correctly and be more responsive. Interviewees were asked to state possible
sources of funding. The question was: What sources of funding for linkage activities do

you perceive? Most important sources of funding mentioned by respondents in the

response to this question are reported in Table 17.

Table 17. Perceived Sources of Funding for Linkage Activities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of funding Frequency % of responses
Central government budget 46 38.3
Foreign sponsors 31 25.8
Contribution of beneficiaries 27 22.5
Non- government organizations 5 4.2
(N GOS)

Grants/proj ects 5 4.2
Local government budget 2 1.7
Bilateral donors 2 1.7
Special fund for agricultural 1 0.8
development

Institution budget 1 0.8
Total 120 100.0

 

4.5.6 What should be improved in current Extension System

The next question asked respondents about the most important improvement to be

made in the current extension. The question was: If any thing should be changed in the

current extension system, what would you like to be changed?

76

 

Five most important improvements suggested by participants to the current
extension system are reported in Table 18.

Table 18. Five most important suggestions for improving Extension System

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Suggested Improvement Frequency % of responses
Proximity of partners to the 9 11.8

farmers ‘

Improve extension 8 10.5
policies/strategies/ approaches

On-farm research 7 9.2

Improve communication 6 7.9

Farmer participation in 6 7.9
decision-making

 

 

 

Other issues that were mentioned in response to this question included training
and study trips (6.6%), adequate number of extension workers (6.6%), strengthen
research and extension (6.6%), increase budget (5.3%), planning, monitoring& evaluation
(5.3%), relationships research-education-extension (3.9%), decentralization (3.9%),
University involvement (2.6%), poverty reduction programs (2.6%), staff management
(2.6%), chain of information delivery (2.6%), input supplies (1.3%), new farming

techniques (1.3%) and not use farmers to train other farmers (1.3%).

4.5.7. Additional Suggestions to the Linkages
The last question that was asked to the respondents was: Do you have any
additional suggestion to the linkage of research, education and extension in Rwanda?

Five most frequently mentioned suggestions to this question are reported in Table 19.

77

Table 19. Five most frequently stated additional comments to the Linkages

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additional suggestion to the linkage Frequency % of responses
“Genuine” consultation and dialogue 18 28.1

between partners

Strengthen, improve & reorganize 9 14.1

institutions

Publish research results 5 7.8

Improve relationships with farmers 5 7.8

Training 5 7.8

 

 

 

 

 

Other issues mentioned by respondents included strengthen farmer associations
(3.1%), communication/exchange of information (3.1%), information on markets (3.1%),
competent staff (3.1%), income generating activities (3.1%), coordination and monitoring
(4.7%), input supplies on time (3.1%), farmer readiness to change (1.6%), on-farm trials

(1.6%), avoid free thing to farmers (1.6%).

4.5.8 Chapter Summary

In chapter IV, the writer presented the findings from face-to-face interviews.
The study participants offered data on characteristics and constraints of Rwandan
extension, perceived barriers and opportunities to the linkage of research, education and
extension, structure of linkages, and responsibilities of partners. The 46 participants were
interviewed from June 2002 through August 2002. They provided valuable information

on the research topic. Significant findings are presented and discussed in chapter V.

78

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

5.1 Study overview
The researcher’s purpose in this study was to investigate perceived barriers and
opportunities to the linkage of research, education and extension in Rwanda. Interviewing
46 people in face-to-face interviews was used for this investigation. The instrument
included 17 open-ended questions (see Appendix E) administered during one-on-one
interviews.
The following four research questions guided this study:
(1) What are the characteristics and constraints/weaknesses of Rwandan Extension
System?
(2) What are the perceived opportunities to the linkage of Research, Education and
Extension in Rwanda?
(3) What are the primary inhibiting factors or barriers to the linkage of Research,
Education and Extension?
(4) If linkage is being made, (i) what model of linkage can be appropriate to Rwanda?
(ii) What will be the role and responsibilities of different partners?
Descriptive statistics were used to present the findings. A discussion is organized
around significant findings on each research question for which specific conclusions and
recommendations are presented. Also included in this chapter are study conclusions,

recommendations, implications and recommendations for future research.

79

5.2 Discussion of major findings, Conclusions, Recommendations and Implications

5.2.1 Research Question]: What were the characteristics and

Constraints/weaknesses of Rwandan Extension System?

This research question addressed the following issues in order to characterize
Rwandan extension system: a general appreciation of Rwandan extension system;
challenges facing current extension; constraints and weaknesses of Rwandan extension;
existing relationships between research, education and extension; channels of information
delivery and feedback from farmers; sources of extension and research information; and
what can be done to improve technology transfer.

Discussion. Findings pertaining current extension Show that 34% of study
participants characterized current extension as inefficient versus 16 % who found
extension to be rather efficient. According to our respondents, the most important
challenge facing extension was to release new technologies and farming practices (12%)
followed by improving extension approaches and communication (8%), as well as
improving farmer literacy (8%).

On the other hand, major constraints and weaknesses of current extension,
according to the participants, included inadequate financial resources and logistics
(22%), lack of competent staff (12%), weak relationships between farmers and partners
(7.5%), and slow adoption of new technologies (7.5%). Furthermore, linkages between

partners (REE) were found weak in 41% of given responses, or informal (11.5%).

80

However, 11.5% of respondents also found some collaboration between concerned
institutions but it was limited either to staff or student training (8%). This study also
found that channels of information delivery were especially limited to field trips and
visitations (22.5%), face-to- face meetings (20%), extension worker reports (8.8%),
farmer association reports (8.8%) and farmers who come to extension worker office
(6%). At the same time, the most cited sources of extension and research information
included foreign scientific publications (15.5%), workshops (15.5%) and research
institutions (mainly ISAR) (10%). For improving technology transfer, participants most
fiequently suggested to work more closely with farmers (12%), improve extension
policies/approaches (10.5%), focus more on on-farm research (9%), improve
communication (8%), and farmer participation (8%).

Conclusions. This study’s findings on characteristics of Rwandan extension were
similar to previous studies describing extension systems in developing countries,
especially in Sub-Saharan Afiica where Rwanda is located (Brewer, 2001; Axinn, 1988;
Adams, 1982; Carson, 2001; Crowder et al., 1999; Maguire, 1998; Roche, 1998; Simpson
& Owens, 2002). For example, Carson (2001), writing about challenges facing extension
in Sub-Saharan African Countries, said that while there was a general agreement that
there was a need to bolster agricultural extension to enable it to continue to play its
critical role in agricultural and rural development is sub-Saharan Africa, extension
organizations were not able to cope with the emerging challenges they faced owing
poorly trained, poorly equipped and inadequate number of extension staff who were

current working in these extension organizations.

81

Some of the challenges pointed out by Carson included poor network mechanisms that
could speed up the exchange of ideas on innovative education and practices. . .lack of
consensus about the appropriate model of extension that should be used... low number of
qualified staff, the majority of whom are poorly trained and ill equipped to effectively
carry out their tasks; lack of strategic national training policies in most sub-Saharan ‘
Afiican countries; the majority of extension staff (80%) possess only secondary school
and intermediate level diploma and certificate credentials (p. 25).

Recommendations. In order to improve agricultural extension effectiveness and
efficiency and enable it to continue to play its critical role in agricultural technology
system (ATS), policy changes, institutional reorganization and strengthening are
required. In the same way, it’s important to improve quality of extension staff through
training, improved communication skills, increased funding for extension activities and
providing better means of transportation for provincial/district levels. Extension
approaches may also focus on empowering farmers by increasing farmer participation in
decision-making, and improving farmer literacy. For strengthening research-education-
extension linkages, collaborating institutions’ personnel should meet more often;
researchers and teachers should be more actively involved in identifying farmers’
problems. Institutions should exchange staff in order to enable personnel to work for a
specified time in each other institution. In addition, researchers, teachers and extension
workers Should collaborate through joint planning, monitoring, conducting on-farm trials,

evaluation of research and extension programs.

82

5.2.2 Research Question 2: What were the perceived opportunities to the
Linkage of Research, Education and Extension in Rwanda?

This research question was a major focus of this study. The major study findings

on this question are presented below.

Discussion. Study participants unanimously stated linkage between research,
education and extension was necessary for building a more responsive extension
system. Further, the most participants’ perceptions on opportunities to this linkage
included institution leaders’ willingness to collaborate (26%), consultation and dialogue
between collaborating institutions (25%),‘farmer participation in decision-making (9%),
competent staff (7.5%), adequate financial and material resources (7 .5%), and good
planning/coordination (6%). Furthermore, participants felt the most expected outcomes
of the linkage of research, education and extension were access research-based
information (24%), functional triangulation between research, education and extension
(20%), more physical contacts with farmers (13.5%), increasing agricultural
productivity (13.5%) and extension improvement (5%).

Conclusions. Our findings on perceived opportunities to the linkage of research,
education and extension are consistent with previous studies (Crowder et al., 1996;
Swanson et al., 2000; Agbamu, 2000; Foege, 2000). As Swanson et a1. (2000) stated in
chapter 2 of this study, leaders of research and extension institutions do not see
themselves as part of a broader system, the agricultural technology system (ATS), they

individually try to solve day-to-day management problems of their respective

83

institutions rather than to ensure that their respective institutions collaboratively
contribute to the broader goal of improving ATS. F oege (2000) warns that linkages in
themselves are not an end: good linkages must produce outcomes. He further underlines
that productive linkages require partners who have complementary strengths, who have
broad interests and experiences, and who share a common view of the desired
outcomes.

Recommendations. Make the triangulation between research, education and
extension, which is between MIN AGRI-ISAR- Faculty teaching institutions, functional.
Institutions leaders’ commitment to initiate collaboration for productive linkages is

expected. Increasing financial resources will ensure more sustainable linkages.

5.2.3 Research Question 3: What are the primary inhibiting factors or
Barriers to the linkage of Research, EducatiOn and Extension?

Another major research question of this study addressed linkage barriers.

Discussion. Participants perceptions of major barriers to the linkage included:
Leaders’ unwillingness to collaborate (19%), weak financial resources for supporting
linkage activities (17.5%), lack of consultation and dialogue (12%), lack of
coordination& monitoring (8%), lack of farmer participation in decision- making (7%),
lack of good planning (7%) and research that takes long time for releasing results (6%).
In addition, lack of competent staff, lack of understanding linkage as priority, farmer
illiteracy, and low salaries for extension staff, subsistence agriculture and slow

technology adoption were so far concerned.

84

Some questions such as institution leaders’ commitment to collaborate, weak
financial resources for supporting linkage activities, lack of consultation and dialogue,

' lack of coordination& monitoring, lack of farmer participation in decision- making, lack
of good planning, lack of competent staff, farmer illiteracy, and low salaries for extension
staff have been already addressed in previous research questions.

Conclusions. Once again, the study’s findings confirm previous studies that
addressed barriers to the linkage of research, education and extension, especially in
developing countries (ISNAR, 1997 Annual Report; Agbamu, 2000; Leholm et al., 1998;
Rivera, 2001; Axinn, 1988; Crowder and Anderson, 1996).

This study found weak linkages between REE. Linkage problems seemed to be
both structural and functional. In respect to structural barrier, REE were
compartmentalized in different institutions. Functional boundaries such as lack of
communication and information exchange between partners, competition for scarce
resources hamper the establishment of effective linkages and can undermine policies
aimed at integrating REE activities.

Recommendations. Build a national capacity to identify and resolve linkage
problems; increase participatory approaches in decision-making and conducting on-farm
trials; and provide farmers with basic skills of reading and writing.

5.2.4 Research Question 4: If the linkage is being made, (i) what model of
Linkage can be appropriate to Rwanda? (ii) What are the role and
responsibilities of different partners?

An important question for this study concerned the model, strategies, approaches

and functions to REE linkages. Study participants perceived findings presented below.

85

Discussion. Almost fifty nine (59%) percent of respondents felt that extension
services may be more efficient under the Rwandan Institute of Agricultural Sciences
(ISAR) rather than under the Ministry of Agriculture because of direct interaction
between researchers and extension staff, direct technology dissemination and
minimizing bureaucracy. But to make this happen, respondents recommend institutional
reorganization and strengthening.

On the other hand, 87% of respondents found the creation of an outreach unit at
faculty teaching institutions will really help to link those institutions with rural
communities and other partners as well as to be involved in outreach activities.

This unit will specifically mediate collaboration of faculty teaching with MINAGRI
extension services and other partners; help teachers and students to diagnose problems
and needs of rural communities, plan and implement their activities in the field; and
help to disseminate research results fi'om those institutions. This is true as well as the
faculty teaching institutions in the country (NUR, ISAE) have Outreach
activities/services to the community in their attributions. This study finding is also
similar to the current structure of Michigan State University Extension, as mentioned in
chapter 2, where a Director of Extension within the College of Agriculture and Natural
Resources coordinates Extension and Outreach activities within MSU.

In order to better coordinate linkage activities this study found necessary to create
a National Coordination Position (National Coordination Committee or National
Coordination Liaison Office) with subcommittees at the Province and District levels.

This study also found the main role and responsibilities of researchers to be of

86

generating technology, providing research-based information to other partners,
conducting adaptive research, participating in training of extension staff and evaluating
impact research results; the responsibilities of faculty teachers will be to instruct future
agriculturists who work in extension, update teaching curricula with research results,
generatenew technologies, conduct adaptive research, disseminate research results fiom
their institutions and participate in training of extension staff and researchers; while
extension staff will be responsible for research-based information delivery, serving as
link between researchers, teachers and farmers, and farmer training.

To make more funds available for linkage activities, respondents felt that the main
source of funding must come fi'om the government budget as agriculture plays a key
role in national economy (36.6-41.6% to the national GDP, see section 2.2) and
employs more than 90% of the active population. Funds fiom foreign Sponsors, bilateral
donors and foundations, NGOS and from the contribution of beneficiaries are highly
welcomed to support linkage activities, said respondents. In addition, in order to
harmonize research-extension activities, government funding sources must come from
the central, provincial and district levels. Another suggestion was to create a national
Granting Agency for financing linkage activities and enhancing competitiveness
between institutions.

For improving current extension system and enhance REE linkages, this study
found that physical proximity to help improve communication between scientists and
farmers/end-users of technology, policy/ strategy/ approach improvement, participation

of farmers in decision-making, on-farm trials, strengthening and improving institutions,

87

emphasis on training, adequate planning, monitoring and evaluation are required.

Based on findings presented above, the researcher proposes a conceptual model
for the firnctioning of REE formal linkages in Rwanda (Figure 7). AS Shown on this
figure, the conceptual model is conceived as having relational parts, which have been
grouped into:

(1) The formal agricultural knowledge system embracing researchers, educators,
extension workers, subject-matter specialists, linkage activities and methods. The major
actors of this knowledge system should be ISAR, NUR, ISAE and MINAGRI extension
services.

(2) The client system, i.e. farmers, farmer associations and cooperatives, input traders,
manufacturers (end-users of technology); and

(3) Problems affecting linkage activities

Linkage activities will be managed at varying administrative levels:

National, provincial and district levels. This bottom up approach of sourcing research
problems and decision- making on linkage activities will have the advantages to involve
farmers, all collaborating institutions and all administrative (district, provincial,
national) levels in this process. Thus, extension will really serve as link between
researchers, teachers and rural communities and provide opportunities for researchers,
teachers and students to work in real-life settings. However, this method presumes that
linkages will work efficiently if provincial or local governments possess their own
independent agricultural research stations and extension agencies (Agbamu, 2000). This

problem can be solved through institutional reform: we for example, propose to increase

88

the number of ISAR experimental stations in order to provide each province with its
own research station. Then, each research station will make a strong research-extension
network with the provincial extension service.

Figure 7. A Conceptual Model for the Functioning of REE Formal Linkages in
Rwanda (Adapted fi'om Swanson et al., 1997).

 

 

 

 

 
 
   

  
 
   
   

 

 

 

Extension worker: Subject-matter W:

Technology specialist:

dissemination Liaison service Technology
generation

 

 

 

 

 

 

I t .7
Link activities:

Identifying research needs

On-farm experiments

Joint evaluation

Committee meetings

Farmers’ participatory actions

 

 

 

 

Adrrrinistrative levels of owations:

1. National: NAERC
2. Provincial: PERC
2. District level: DES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Linkage methods:
. - Formal:
CLIENT SYSTEM: end-users organizaticinal &
of innovations ‘ Tar et managena
0 Individual farm families g ' Informal methods
0 Farmer associations
0 Input traders
. Manufacturers Problems:
0 Organizational issues
0 Method of linkage
Irnpingernent 0 Finance
0 Adaptive trials

 

 

 

 

 

 

89

To ensure a successful collaboration between MIN AGRI, ISAR, faculty teaching

institutions (e. g. NUR, ISAE) and other stakeholders and a better coordination, the

researcher proposes the following structure (Adapted fiom ISAR, online):

(a) A national coordinating position in the form of National Agricultural Extension

and Research Committee (N AERC)

(b) A Provincial Extension and Research Committee (PERC)

(c) A District Extension Service (DES)

The proposed composition of the national committee Should be:

0

O

0

Ministry of Agriculture (MINAGRI)

Ministry of Education (MINEDUC)

ISAR

Faculty teaching Institutions (NUR, ISAE)

National Center of Artificial Insemination

National Veterinary Laboratory

A representative of farmers

A representative of Agribusiness

A representative of UN and other International NGOS

A representative of local NGOS

Among attributions of the national coordination committee should be:

0 Establish national policies and guidelines for REE linkage activities

0 Ensure that the mandate of each partner are carried out as indicated

90

0 Make general recommendation on research-extension activities at national level
0 Analyze plans of linkage activities at national level and reports from the
provincial committee
0 Coordinate, monitor and evaluate linkage activities
0 Ensure communication and information exchange between partners
The composition of the provincial committee Should be the following:
' The “Prefet” (Governor) of the Province
I Director of agricultural and extension activities in the Province
' Local administrators
' District extension services
' A representative of ISAR
' Subject-matter specialists and knowledgeable persons
I Director of Education in the Province as a representative of teaching institutions
' Directors of projects operating in the Province
. Representatives of NGOS operating in the Province
I A representative of farmers
I A representative of the businessmen investing in Agriculture.
Attributions of the provincial committee should be:
(1) Identify annual research and extension needs/problems of the Province
(2) Adopt plans for research and technology dissemination
(3) Conduct adaptive research

(4) Ensure link with donors and sponsors and link between REE and the beneficiaries

91

(5) Communicate information on available technologies
(6) Analyze the impact of research results

(7) Report to the national committee

(8) Have an executive committee

The concept and role of this provincial committee have some Similarities with the
Areas Of Expertise (AOE) Teams used by Michigan State University Extension (see
section 2.5). At the province level, REE linkages will also be promoted through a joint
diagnostic survey involving staff of the Rwandan Institute of Agricultural Sciences
(ISAR), Universities (N UR or ISAE), and MINAGRI extension services. At the
province level, decisions on the selection of farmers’ problems/needs as annual research
themes will be finalized at this level by the PERC.

At the district level, farmers’ problems and needs will be compulsory sourced by
District Extension Services (DES) from farmers, farmer associations and cooperatives,
by NGOS, schools and administrative officers. The District Mayor, agronomist, forest,
veterinarian, soci010gist and the responsible for development in the District Should
compose the DES for example. These local needs identified by extension workers will
be supplemented with those identified by researchers, educators and subject-matter
specialists.

Linkage activities will also be promoted through joint evaluation committees and

on-farm adaptive experimental activities. Farmers’ problems will be identified through
data collected by researchers, extension workers and educators, local administrators, and

NGOS. Researchers, educators, subject-matter specialists and other officers

92

represented in the research- extension committees at different levels as explained above,
will take final decisions regarding research themes.

This study also defined major roles and responsibilities of researchers (generate
technology, provide research-based information to other partners, participate in
dissemination and evaluation of research results, and train extension staff), faculty
teachers (update teaching curricula with research results, generate technologies,
participate in dissemination and evaluation of research results, participate in training of
extension staff) and extension staff (research-based information delivery, farmer training,
link researchers and teachers with farmers). Furthermore, this study found that main
source of funding for linkage activities must come fiom government budget as agriculture
plays a key role in national economy. Further, for improving current extension system,
proximity of partners to the farmers, improvement of extension policies and strategies,
improved communication and farmer participation in decision-making are required.

Conclusions. This study’s findings on model of REE linkage appropriate to
Rwanda were consistent with previous studies conducted in other Afiican countries
including Mali, Senegal, Tanzania and Zimbabwe (ISNAR, annual report 1997). These
studies found the planning of REE-user linkage activities to play a key element on quality
and types of the linkages that in turn determine to a large extent the relevance of
research-extension programs. In addition, researchers and extension workers must treat
farmers as full partner in the technology —generation and transfer process.

Furthermore, the study’s findings confirmed Obimpeh’s (1999 findings that

emphaze the fact that an effective or beneficial partnership exists when stakeholders work

93

with a common vision and understanding, establish common objectives and plans, and
are dedicated to achieving a common goal.

Our findings were also consistent with previous studies conducted by Crowder
and Anderson (1996). Based on their recommendations, we draw the following

conclusions:

. Despite institutional divisions, which are likely to remain, it helps to view REE as
an integrated agricultural knowledge and technology system;

. A focus on both REE functions and organizational structures might broaden the
dialogue to include other partners and improved integration;

. A pluralistic approach is likely to have advantages, but to be effective linkages
must be'formed and strengthened. Policy and mandate changes, as well as
changes in "organizational attitudes", may be needed;

- Linkages may be best improved through the promotion of informal networking at
many levels with an incentive system that rewards collaboration.

. Strengthening and empowering "client groups" can result in more demand-driven

REE services and put pressure on the system to improve linkages.

Recommendations

Based on findings presented above on REE structure and firnctions, the researcher

recommends the following:

0 To organize a national workshop on building REE linkages.

94

Institutional reorganization, strengthening of collaborating organizations and
policy changes to improve linkages.

To set up methods and guidelines for planning and implementation of linkage
activities.

To build a national capacity to identify and resolve linkage problems.

To create a national REE coordination liaison office with subcommittees at the
provincial and district levels.

To create a national Granting Agency in order to make more funds available for
linkages activities and promote competitiveness.

To create an outreach unit at faculty teaching institutions to involve them in

extension activities.

95

5.3 Study Conclusions

Based on the findings of this study, the following conclusions were drawn:
Rwandan extension system has been subjected to fiequent changes over the past years
and in particular has been affected by the country 1994 genocide. Many issues
confronting extension system are still unsolved such as: 1) low educational level, poor
training and lack of equipment for extension staff at low administrative levels; 2) weak
linkages between research, faculty teaching and extension that are compartmentalized in
different institutions and operate separately, and 3) lack of farmers’ participation in
planning, implementation, evaluation of development programs, and decision-making.

Barriers that hinder the establishment of effective linkages between REE are both
structural and institutional and include departrnentalization, unwillingness to collaborate,
weak financial resources for supporting linkage activities, lack of framework for
consultation and dialogue, lack of consistent planning, coordination and monitoring of
linkage activities and lack of farmer participation in decision- making.

However, different opportunities exist to make the triangulation research-
education-extension possible and functional.

Recurrent linkage problems would require formal, institutional reforms. To be
efficient and responsive both to farmers and to each other, REE organizations require
structural and functional reorganization; policy, strategies and program change; strong
planning, monitoring and periodic evaluations of linkage activities; high qualified
personnel with adequate communication Skills and equipped with means for

transportation.

96

Improved communication channels such as electronicmail and web-based technology to
facilitate exchange of information between different levels of extension services, between
partners (i.e. REE, NGOS) and with outside collaborators are still very limited.
Participatory approaches to empowering farmers and farmer associations in decision-
making and their participation in the whole process of extension and research programs
are limited too. Physical proximity appears to help improve communication between
scientists and end-users of technology.

Furthermore, formal linkage requires that all involved parties perceive that they
receive benefits from the linkage relationships. In addition, REE linkages would require
a pluralistic approach and Should stress the importance of improved collaboration

between NGOS and government agencies.

5.4 Study Recommendations and Implications
The recommendations and implications as follows are based on the findings

directly related to the questions asked by the researcher.

1. Policy changes, institutional reorganization and strengthening of collaborating
organizations are required to enhance research-education and extension linkages.

2. To improve quality of extension staff through training, increase firnding for linkage
activities and provide incentives to collaborate as well as better means of
transportation to the researchers, educators and extension personnel. The

implication is to increase technical skills and incentives to collaboration.

97

To ensure the harmonization of research and extension activities between national,
provincial and district levels, and more available funds, the government funding of
extension services must come from national, provincial and district levels.

To ensure more available funds for research-education-extension linkage activities
and enhance competitiveness, the creation of a Grant Agency within the country
(within the Ministry of Agriculture for example) is needed.

Cooperation between universities’ research programs, research institutions and
extension services. The exchange of staff between agricultural research institute,
University and other faculty teaching Institutes, and extension services will enable
personnel to work for a specified time in each other’s establishment.

The creation of an Outreach Unit at faculty teaching institutions. The implication of
establishing an outreach unit at faculty teaching institutions Should enable these
institutions to be involved in extension activities as extension is part of their
mission.

In order to strengthen linkages at the province level and ensure more
engagement/involvement from provincial authorities, each province should have its
. own experiment station;

Physical proximity appears to help improve corrrrnunication between scientists and
end-users of technology. Moreover, researchers, educators and extension agents
should meet more often and be more actively involved in identifying farmers’ needs

and problems before any intervention.

98

IO.

11.

12.

13.

Conduct a study on coordination of extension activities between provincial/district
levels and the central (Ministry) level in the current context of decentralization.
Create a coordination position such as a research-education-extension liaison office
at national level with subcommittees at the province and district levels to ensure
better planning, monitoring, coordination and evaluation of linkage activities.
Increase informal contacts, regular meetings and create communication networks
between institutions.

Increase participatory approaches in identifying farmers’ needs and problems,
deciding research and extension themes, conducting on-farm trials and evaluating
research- extension activities. In addition, treat farmers’ organizations as a full
partner in technology- generation and —transfer process.

Scientists must recognize policymakers and administrative authorities as a target
group for their research results. Bringing relevant research to the attention of
policymakers and local authorities is an obligation for all agricultural researchers
and faculty teachers, not only those working in typically “policy-related” sub-

disciplines.

The researcher further recommends the following:

To organize a national workshop on research, education and extension linkages.

To build a national capacity to identify and resolve problems of weak research

-education- extension- user linkages, and set up methods and guidelines for linkage

planning and implementation.

Study trips in other developing countries where research-education-extension

linkages are functional.

99

5.5 Recommendations for Further Research

Many possibilities exist for further research in this area. These include the
following:

1. To conduct a research study of feasibility of the establishment of formal
research-education-extension linkages along with institutional reorganization.

2. To conduct a study of feasibility of designing a course to teach rural farmers
basic reading and writing skills to empower them to participate in decision-
making, technology generation and be more receptive to new technologies.

3. To conduct a study of feasibility of the creation of a Granting Agency in the
country (within the Ministry of agriculture for example) to support linkages
activities and encourage competitiveness.

4. To conduct a study of feasibility of improving extension staff Skills through a

training program of Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees.

100

APPENDIX A

UCRIHS APPROVAL (see next page)

101

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
ETHICS AND
STANDARDS

University Committee on
Research Involving
IIIIIIIII Subjects
Michigan State University
202 Olds Hall

East Lansing, MI

48824

517/355-2180

FAX: 517/432-4503

Web: www.msuedU/user/ucrihs
E—Mail: ucrihs@msu.edu

The Midrigan State University
IDEA is institution! Diversity:
Excel/arm in Action.

MSU is an attirmahveadion,
equal-mimlnior inst/when.

MICHIGAN STATE

 

UNIVERSITY

June 28, 2002

TO: Frank L. BREWER
410 Agriculture Hall

RE: IRB# 02.313 CATEGORY: EXPEDITED 2-6, 2-7
APPROVAL DATE: June 27, 2002

TITLE: PERCEIVED BARRIERS AND OPPORTUNITIES TO THE LINKAGE OF
RESEARCH EDUCATION AND EXTENSION IN RWANDA

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 welfare of the human

subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are

appropriate. Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval date
shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green renewal
form. A maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to continue a
project beyond that time 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
forrrr. 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 prbject's IRB#
and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments,
consent forms or 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
human subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating
greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and
approved.

lf we can be of further assistance, please contact us at (517) 355-2180 or via email:
UCRIHS@msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web:
http'J/wwwmsueduluser/ucrihs

Sincerely,

Ashir Kumar, MD.
UCRIHS Chair

    

1425 Spartan Village #K
East Lansing, MI 48823

APPENDIX B
PERSONAL INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM

Perceived Barriers and Opportunities to the Linkage of Research, Education and
Extension in Rwanda.

Agricultural Extension is an essential element in any agricultural and rural development
program. Extension outreach helps people solve their own problems, thereby improving their
livelihood. It is particularly important for Rwanda where agricultural sector represents the
backbone of the National Economy, employing over 90% of active population. The purpose of
this interview is to learn more on perceived barriers and opportunities to the linkage of research,
education and extension in Rwanda. This study assmnes that a linkage between research,
education and extension will be synergic, more responsive and effective in meeting farmers’
needs and problems.

The interview should take no longer than one hour. Your participation in this study is
completely voluntary. In order to protect participants’ privacy, Callixte Gatali, the researcher and
interviewer, will be the only one accessing and analyzmg the data, and writing the final reports.
Professional titles such as “ teacher, extension worker, farmer and others,” will be used instead of
individual names in the final report. In addition, audiotapes containing interviews will be
destroyed after interview transcription. All documents, including interview transcriptions will be
kept in a locked file cabinet in the researcher’s office.

Thank. you for your cooperation and help in this study. If you have any particular questions about
this study, please contact: .

Dr Frank Brewer . Callixte Gatali

409 Agriculture Hall National University of Rwanda
East Lansing, MI 48824, USA PO BOX 117 Butare, Rwanda
Phone (517) 355- 6580 ext 204 Tel (250) 530 823

Email: brewerf@msu.edu Email: gatalica@msu.edu

If you have questions regarding your role and rights in this study, you may contact:

Dr. Ashir Kumar, Ph.D.
Chair, University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
Phone (517) 355-2180

Email: ucrihs@msu.edu
I voluntary agree to participate in this study.

Signature ................................ Date .........................

To ensure accurate data, the researcher requests to audio tape the interview. After the
transcription of the audiotapes has taken place, the researcher will destroy the audiotapes.

I voluntarily agree that the interview can be audio taped for purposes of ensuring accurate Data.
Signature ................................ Date .........................

102

APPENDIX C
FRENCH TRANSCRIPTION OF THE CONSENT FORM

Barrieres et Opportunites Ressenties nu Lien entre la Recherche, I’Enseignement et la
Vulgarisation an Rwanda.

La vulgarisation Agricole est un element essenticl a tout developpement agricole et rural.
La vulgarisation aide les gens a resoudre leur propres problemes, de ce fail a ameliorer leurs
moyens d’existence. C’est particulierement important pour 1e Rwanda on 1e secteur agricole
represente la colonne vertebrale de l’Economie Nationale, en employant plus de 90% de la
population active. Le but de cette interview est d’apprendre davantage sur les barrieres et
opporttmites ressenties au lien entre la Recherche, l’Enseignement et la Vulgarisation au
Rwanda. Cette etude presmne qu’un lien entre la Recherche, l’Enseignement et la Vulgarisation
serait synergique, plus reactif et effectif pour repondre aux besoins ct problemes des fermiers.

L’interview pourrait prendre moins d’une heure. Votre participation dans cette etude est
entierement volontaire. Pour preserver la vie privee des participants, Mr Callixte Gatali, 1e
chercheur ct enqueteur, sera 1e sail a acceder et analyser les donnees, et a ecrire les rapports
finals. Les titres professionnels tels que “ enseignant, agent dc vulgarisation, fermier et autres “
seront utilises a la place des noms individuels dans le rapport final. De plus, les cassettes
contenant les interviews seront detruites apres la transcription des intrerviews.Tous les
documents, incluant les transcriptions des interviews seront gardes dans des classeurs verrouilles
dans le bureau du chercheur.

Merci pour votre cooperation et appui dans cette etude. Si vous avez des questions particulieres
au suj et de cette etude, contactez s’il vous plait:

 

Dr Frank Brewer Callixte Gatali

409 Agricultural Hall Universite Nationale du Rwanda
E. Lansing, MI 48824, USA PO BOX 117 Butare/Rwanda
Tel (517) 355 6580 ext 204 ' Tel (250) 530 823

Email: brewerf@msu.edu Emai: gatalica@msu.edu

Si vous avez des questions concernant votre role ct droits dans cette etude, vous pouvez contacter:

Dr Ashir Kumar, Ph. D.

President du Comite Universitaire sur la
Recherche Implicant des Sujets Humains
Tel (517) 355 2180

Email: ucrihs@msu.edu

J ’accepte volontiers de participer dans cette etude
Signature ..................................... Date .................................

Pour s’assurer de la fidelite des donnees, 1e chercheur a besoin d’enregistrer l’interview.
Apres que la transcription des cassettes aura lieu, le chercheur detruira les cassettes.

J ’accepte volontiers que l’interview soit enrregistree pour assurer la fidelite des donnees.

Signature .......................................... Date ....................................

103

APPENDIX D
INTRODUCTORY LETTER

{Date}

Sir/Madam ....................
Address .......................
Dear Sir/Ms

My name is Callixte Gatali and I’m a Graduate student in a Master’s program at
Michigan State University, USA. For my research topic, I’ve chosen to work on
Perceived barriers and opportunities to the linkage of research, education and extension
in Rwanda.

I will be investigating people’s opinions and perceptions through one-on-one interviews.
The study population has been chosen fi'om the following institutions: the Ministry of
Agriculture, the Rwanda Agricultural Science Institute (ISAR), faculty teaching
institutions (National University of Rwanda (NUR) and Institute of Agriculture and
Livestock (ISAE), local NGOS, agricultural secondary schools, extension workers and
farmers’ associations.

I am writing to ask your cooperation and permission to work with people from your
institution.

As far as participants’ confidentiality and/or institution’s privacy are concerned, I would
like to assure that the researcher and interviewer, will be the only one accessing and
analyzing the data, and writing the final reports. Professional titles such as “ teacher,
extension worker, farmer and others,”_will be used instead of individual names in the
final report. In addition, audiotapes containing interviews will be destroyed after
interview transcription. All documents, including interview transcriptions will be kept in
a locked file cabinet in the researcher’s office.

I look forward to this opportunity to discuss issues surrounding the relationships between
research, education and extension and I hope the collected concise information will
enhance the collaboration between the concerned institutions, and their responsiveness in
meeting the farmers’ needs and problems.

If you have any particular questions about this study, please contact me at
gatalica@msu.edu or contact the Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture of the National
University of Rwanda at tel. (250) 530 823 or call Dr. Frank Brewer at (517) 355-6580
ext 204 or e-mail him at brewerf@msu.edu. Feel free to contact

Dr. Ashir Kumar, Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human
Subjects at (517) 355- 2180 or at ucrihs@msu.edu for questions involving your role and
rights in this study.

We thank you in advance for your cooperation. Yours sincerely. Callixte Gatali

104

APPENDIX E

INSTRUMENT/ RESEARCH INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Perceived Barriers and Opportunities to the Linkage of Research, Education and
Extension in Rwanda.

Objective 1: Characteristics/current situation of Rwandan extension system

1. What are yOur opinions on current Rwandan Extension System?

2. What do you consider to be the challenges of agricultural extension in Rwanda?

3. Do you perceive any constraints/weaknesses of Rwandan extension system? If yes,
what are they?

4. What are your opinions on existing relationships between research institutions,
teaching institutions and extension services in Rwanda?

5. What are the channels of information delivery?

6. What are the sources of extension and research information?

7. What do you feel is the most important thing to be improved in the transfer technology
/ extension information to the farmers?

Objective 2: Perceived opportunities to the linkage of research, education and

extension

8. a) Do you perceive any necessity of linkage between research-education and extension
in Rwanda?

b) What do you believe to be the opportunities to the linkage of research, education
and extension in Rwanda?

9. What should be the advantages/outcomes of this linkage?

105

Objective 3: Perceived barriers to the linkage of REE

. 10. What do you perceive to be the barriers to the linkage of research, education and
extension?

Objectives 4: Structure, role and responsibilities

11. What are your opinions of moving the Extension Services from the Ministry of
Agriculture to the Rwandan Institute of Agricultural Sciences (ISAR)?

12. How do you perceive the creation of an outreach unit at faculty teaching institutions?

13. How do you perceive the coordination of agricultural research, education and
extension in Rwanda?

14. What should be the specific role and responsibilities of researchers, teachers and
extension workers in the linked research, education and extension?

15. What sources of funding for linkage activities do you perceive? What should be the
contribution of the beneficiaries?

16. If any thing should be changed in the current extension system, what would you like
to be changed?

17. Do you have any other suggestion to the linkage of research, education and extension
in Rwanda?

106

APPENDIX F
FRENCH TRANSCRIPTION OF THE INSTRUMENT

Barrieres et opportunites ressenties au lien entre la recherche, l‘enseignement et la
vulgarisation au Rwanda.

Questions pour Interviews
Objectit 1: Situation actuelle du systéme de vulgarisation agricole au Rwanda
1. Quelles sont vos opinions sur le systeme actuel de vulgarisation au Rwanda?
2. Que considerez vous étre les défis de la vulgarisation agricole au Rwanda?

3. Percevez- vous des contraintes/faiblesses auxquelles fait face 1e systéme actuel de
vulgarisation au Rwanda? Si oui, lesquelles?

4. Quelles sont vos opinions sur l’actuelle collaboration entre les institutions de
recherche, d’enseignement et de vulgarisation au Rwanda?

5. Quelles sont les voies de transmission de differents messages aux béne'ficiaires?

6. Quelle est la chose la plus importante a améliorer dans le transfert des technologies aux
fermiers?

7. Que peut- on améliorer dans le systeme actuel de transmission de l’inforrnation aux
fermiers?

Objectit 2: Opportunite's ressenties au lien entre la recherche, I ’enseignement et la
vulgarisation au Rwanda

8. a) Percevez-vous la nécessité d’un lien entre la recherche, l’ enseignement et la
vulgarization au Rwanda?

b) Quelles opportunités/conditions nécessaires voyez-vous pour l’établissement de ce
lien entre la recherche, l’enseignement et la vulgarisation ?

9. Quels peuvent étre les avantages de ce lien?

Objectit 3: Principales barrieres au lien entre la recherche, I ’enseignement et la
vulgarisation

107

10. Quelles principales barrieres ressentez-vous au lien entre la recherche,
l’enseignement et la vulgarisation au Rwanda?

11. Quelle est votre opinion de déplacer les services de vulgarisation du Ministére de
I’Agriculture a l’Institut des Sciences Agronorniques du Rwanda (ISAR)?

12. Comment percevez-vous la creation d’une Unité de vulgarisation dans des institutions
qui dispensent l’enseignement agricole universitaire?

Objectit 4: Structure du lien, role et reponsabilite's des differents partenaires.

13. Comment percevez-vous la coordination entre la recherche, l’enseignement et la
vulgarisation au Rwanda?

14. Quels seraient le role et les responsabilités des differents partenaires dans le lien entre
la recherche, 1’ enseignement et la vulgarization au Rwanda?

15. Quelles sources de financement percevez-vous pour financer les activités de
recherche, d’enseignement et de vulgarization au Rwanda? Quelle serait 1a contribution
des be’néficiaires?

16. Si quelque chose pouvait étre amélioré dans le systeme actuel de vulgarisation, que
souhaiteriez-vous voir étre amélioré?

17. Avez —vous une autre suggestion a ajouter a cette interview?

108

REFERENCES

1. Adams, M. E. (1982). Agricultural extension in developing countries. Intermediate
Tropical Agricultural Series. Longrnan Group Ltd.

2. Agbamu, J.U. (2000). Agricultural research-extension systems: An international
perspective. Network paper 1063. Agricultural Research & Extension
Network (AgREN): Odi

3. Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education
(sixth edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group/Thomson Learning, Inc.

4. Axinn, G.H. (1988). Guide on alternative extension approaches. Rome: FAQ.

5. Axinn, G.H. & Axinn, N. W. (1997). Collaboration in international rural
development: A practitioner ’s handbook. Thousand oaks, California: Sage
Publications, Inc.

6. Barry, A.W. (2000). Rwanda prospects for agricultural commodity competitiveness:
Constraints and opportunities. Final report. Kigali, Rwanda: Ministry of
Agriculture (MINAGRI).

7. Bjalland, D., Masuku, B. & Ndimande, T. (2002). International higher education loan
program: A partnership for international education in agriculture.
Outstanding poster presented at the 18th Annual Association for
International Agricultural and extension Education conference, Durban,
South Africa, May 26-30, 2003. Journal of International Agricultural and
Extension Education, 9(2), 46.

8. 802, I. (2002). Does early adoption affect farmers’ use of the extension service?

Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education,
9 (3), 77-82.

9. Brewer, Fr. L. (2001). Agricultural Extension Systems: An international perspective.
North Chelrnsford, MA: Erudition Books. Courier Custom Publishing, Inc.

10. CANR International News/Office of International programs/Institute of International
Agriculture (F eb./March 2002). A focus on PEARL. 10, No.1. Institute of
International Agriculture, Michigan State University.

11. CANR International News/Office of International programs/ Institute of International

Agriculture (2001). PEARL Project: The Reach -—out. No 1. Institute of International
Agriculture, Michigan State University.

109

12. Carson, A.G. (2001). Human resource survey of agricultural extension workers in
~ sub-Saharan Afiica. In Kwarteng Joseph A. (Ed.), Extension education:
Reshaping African Universities and Colleges for the 21‘" century (pp. 23-
28). Geneva, Switzerland: Centre for Applied Studies in International
Negotiations.

13.Cernea, M. M., Coulter, J. K. & Russell, J. F. A. (1985).
Research extension farmer: A two-way continuum for agricultural
development. Washington, DC: World Bank

14.CIA World Factbook (2002). The world’s most crowded places. [Online].
Available at: http://www.mrdow1ing.com/800density.html

15.Crowder, L. V., & Anderson, J. (1996). Integrating agricultural research, education
and extension in Developing Countries. [Online]. Available at:

thpz//www.fao.orngd/EXdirect/EXan0009.htrn.

l6. Crowder, L. V., Lindley, W. 1., Bruening, T. H & Doron, N. (1999). Agricultural
Education for Sustainable Rural Development: Challenges for
Developing Countries in the 21st Century. Rome: FAQ

17. FAQ &World Bank (2000). Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems for
Rural Development (AKIS/RD): Strategic Vision and Guiding Principles.
Rome .

18. Foege, W. (1999). Good partnerships and productive partnerships. In Steven, A.
Breth (Ed.), Partnerships for rural development in sub- Saharan Africa
(pp.10-13). Geneva, Switzerland: Centre for Applied Studies in
International Negotiations.

19. Fowler, F. J. (1993). Survey research methods. 2d.ed. Applied social research
methods series. Vol. 1. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

20. Fowler, F. J. (1995). Improving survey questions. Applied social research methods
series. Vol. 38. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

21. Gay, L. R. (1987). Educational Research (3"d ed.). Merry Publishing Company.

22. ISAR (n.d.). About Rwanda. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.isar.cgiar.org/about/aboutrwanda.htm

23. International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR). Annual

Report1997. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.isnar.cgiar.org/publications/corporate/annual/ 1 997/boxes.htm

110

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

Leholm, A., Suvedi, M. & Vlasin, R (1998). Research-education-extension linkages.
Paper presented at the First International Congress on Agronomy,
Environment and Food Security for the 21" century. New Delhi, India:
Michigan State University.

Maguire, CJ. (2001). Agricultural education in Afiica: Managing change. In
Kwarteng Joseph A. (Ed.), Extension education: Reshaping African -
Universities and Colleges for the 21 ‘" century (pp 2943). Geneva,
Switzerland: Centre for Applied Studies in International Negotiations.

Michigan State University (2003). Extension and Outreach. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.msu.edu/extension/index.html

Ministry of Agriculture (1997). The National Agricultural Extension System.
Technical Document: TCP/FAO/RWA/5612. Kigali, Rwanda: MINAGRI.

Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (2002). National
Poverty Reduction Program &Statistics Department: A profile of poverty
in Rwanda. A report based on the results of the household living standards
survey. Kigali, Rwanda: MIN IFIN.

Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (2003a).
The General Census of Population and Housing Rwanda. Report on the
preliminary results. Kigali, Rwanda: MINIFIN.

Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (2003b).
Vision 2020. Draft 4, English. Kigali, Rwanda: MINIFIN

Munya, C. N., Adams, P.F. & Thomsom, J .S. (2002). Designing effective linkages for
sustainable agricultural extension information systems among developing
countries in Sub-Saharan Afiica. AIAEE. Proceedings of the 18'” Annual
Conference. Durban: South Afiica. 3 01 —3 07

Murray, L., & Brenda, L. (2000). Practitioner based enquiry: Principles for
Postgraduate research. New York: Falmer Press.

National University of Rwanda (2003). University Mission. [Online]. Available at:
1m://www.nur.ac.rw/mission.htm

34. Nezehose, J .B. (1990). Agriculture Rwandaise: Problematique et perspectives.

Rwanda: INADES. [Rwandan Agriculture: Problematic and perspectives]

111

35. Ngomane, T. & Flanagan, C. (2002). Hope and despair: Extension agents in a young
democracy. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension
Education. Vol. 9, No. 2, 37- 43.

36. Niangade, O. (1999). A research partnership with farmers in Mali. In Breth, Steven
A. (Ed.), Partnerships for rural development in sub- Saharan Africa
(pp.27-29). Geneva, Switzerland: Centre for Applied Studies in
International Negotiations.

37. Obimpeh, S. (1999). Partnerships: Perspective fi'om a Ministry of Agriculture. In
Breth, Steven A. (Ed.), Partnerships for rural development in sub-
Saharan Africa (pp.5-9). Geneva, Switzerland: Centre for Applied Studies
in International Negotiations.

38. Patten, M. L. (2002). Understanding research methods (3rd edition): An overview of
the essentials. Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.

39. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2d ed). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

40. Qamar, MK. (2002). Global trends in agricultural extension:
Challenges facing Asia and the Pacific region. [Online]
FAQ. Available at:
http://www.fao.org/sd/2002/KNO903a_en.htm

41. Rivera, W.M., Qamar, M. K. & Crowder, L.V. (2001). Agricultural and rural
Extension worldwide: Options for institutional reform in the developing
countries. Rome: FAQ

42. Roche, D. /BDPA/Forhom Institute (1998). Professional training and agricultural
Extension: Propositions for the setting up of a system of professional
continuing education within the National Agricultural Extension Service.
Mission report. Kigali, Rwanda: Rwandan Ministry of Agriculture.
TCP/FAO/RWA/561 2

43. Saguiguit, G. C. (1987). Higher agricultural education and rural development in
developing countries in Asia and the Pacific. UNESCO.

44. Simpson, B.M. & Owens M. (2002). Farmer field schools and the fiiture of

agricultural extension in Africa. Journal of International Agricultural and
Extension Education. Vol. 9, (2), 29-36.

112

45. Smith, D.L. (2000). Recruiting and retaining minority 4-H volunteers in Tampa Bay
Area, Florida: Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 2000.
Library Michigan State University, 134, 646, THS.

46. Swanson, B. E., Bentz, R. P., & Sofranko, A. J. (1997)
Improving agricultural extension. A reference manual. Rome: Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAQ).

47. University of Minnesota/National University of Rwanda/U SAID. (January 1993).
Building the capacity of the College of Agriculture (UN R) to Conduct,
Disseminate and Teach Adaptive Research in Rwanda. Final Report.

48. World Bank. (1999). Integrating universities into national agricultural research and
extension systems: Good practice for investment in agricultural university
programs. [Online]. Available at:
http://lnwebl 8.worldbank.org/ESSD/essdext.nsf/26ByDocName/AKISRes
garchExtensionEducation

49. World Bank (2002). Rwanda at a glance. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.wor1dbank.orgZdata/counfldata/aaglrwa aagpdf

50. World Bank (2003). Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems (AKIS).
- [Online]. Available at:

http://lnwebl 8.worldbankorgzESSD/essdext.nsf/26ByDocName/AKISRes

earchExtension.

 

 

51. Zinnah, M. M., & Naibakelao, D. (1999). Bringing African Universities into
Development: The SAFE program at the University of Cape Coast. In
Steven, A. Breth (Ed.), Partnerships for rural development in sub-
Saharan Africa (pp. 65-75). Geneva: Switzerland: Centre for Applied
Studies in International Negotiations.

113

 

1293 02736 6149