Email this article 
Hide
Show all
Facilitators and hindrances to farmers’ participation in production of farmer-learning videos in central Uganda: a thematic analysis
Abstract
Videos can complement extension services provision by improving dissemination of agricultural information to farmers. However, for videos to be effective, they need to have relevant video content. This study assessed enablers and hindrances to farmers’ participation in FLV production based on a coffee FLV. Identifying enablers and hindrances to participation of farmers in production of an FLV is essential for developing strategies that optimise their participation to produce relevant FLVs aligned to their contexts. A qualitative case study research design was employed. Data were collected through focus group discussions, key informant interviews and in-depth interviews, and analysed through thematic analysis guided by the Activity theory analytical framework. The study established that farmers’ attributes especially their competencies to accomplish assigned tasks in FLV production, and motivations, were salient enablers to their participation. The other enablers were related to how the FLV process was organised, which included availability and adequacy of requisite resources, existence of clear guidelines for production of FLV, utilisation of pre-existing relationships, skilfulness of video experts and field officers, and specificity of roles. The limited interactions among actors, differing expectations, and time constraints were the major hindrances to farmers’ participation in production of the FLV. Hence, video experts should provide opportunities for improving farmers’ competences through training, offering technical support, and providing for rehearsals to build confidence. Mechanisms for improving interactions between and among farmers and video experts to harmonise expectations, promote mutual understanding, and foster knowledge sharing are also needed.
Keywords
References
Akinnuwesi, B. A., Uzoka, F. M., Olabiyisi, S. O., Omidiora, E. O. and Fiddi, P. 2013. An empirical analysis of end-user participation in software development projects in a developing country context. The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, 58(6):1–25.
Amoako-gyampah, K., Meredith, J. and Loyd, K. W. 2018. Using a social capital lens to identify the mechanisms of top management commitment: A case study of a technology project. Project Management Journal, 49(1): 79–95.
Bandara, S. 2018. Activity Theory is an effective framework on qualitative analysis in social sciences studies. International Journal of Research Granthaalayah, 6(7): 85–95.
Bano, M., and Zowghi, D. 2015. A systematic review on the relationship between user involvement and system success. Information and Software Technology, 58:148–169.
Bello-Bravo, J., Abbott, E., Mocumbe, S., Ricardo, M., Mazur, R. and Pittendrigh R. B. 2020. An 89% solution adoption rate at a two-year follow-up: evaluating the effectiveness of an animated agricultural video approach. Information Technology for Development, 26(3): 577-590.
Bentley, J. W., Chowdhury, A. and David, S. 2015. Videos for Agricultural Extension. Note 6. Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services good practice note for extension and advisory services.
Blazek, M., and Hraňová, P. 2012. Emerging relationships and diverse motivations and benefits in participatory video with young people. Children’s Geographies, 10(2): 151–168.
Charmaz, K. 2014. Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Chizhik, E. W. and Chizhik, A. W. 2018. Using activity theory to examine how teachers’ lesson plans meet students’ learning needs. The Teacher Educator, 53(1): 67–85.
Chowdhury, A. H., Odame, H. H. and Hauser, M. 2010. With or without a script? Comparing two styles of participatory video on enhancing local seed innovation system in Bangladesh. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 16(4): 355–371.
Dennehy, D., and Conboy, K. 2016. Going with the flow: An activity theory analysis of flow techniques in software development. The Journal of Systems & Software, 0, 1–14.
Disterheft, A., Caeiro, S., Asenso-Okyere, K. and Filho, W. L. 2015. Sustainable universities - A study of critical success factors for participatory approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106: 11–21.
Doherty, A. and Hoye, R. 2011. Role ambiguity and volunteer board member performance in non-profit sport organisations. Non-profit Management & Leadership, 22(1): 107–128.
Engestrom, Y. 2008. Enriching activity theory without shortcuts. Interacting with Computers, 20, 256–259.
Engestrom, Y. 1999. Activity theory as individual and social transformation. In Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). Cambridge University Press.
Gleasure, R. and Morgan, L. 2017. The pastoral crowd: Exploring self-hosted crowdfunding using activity theory and social capital. Information systems Journal, 1-27.
Habibipour, A., Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., and Ståhlbröst, A. 2016. How to sustain user engagement over time: A research agenda [Paper presentation]. AMCIS 2016: Surfing the IT Innovation Wave, 22nd Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Diego, United States
Harris, U. S. 2009. Transforming images: Reimagining women’s work through participatory video. Development in Practice, 19(4–5): 538–549.
He, J., and King, W. R. 2014. The role of user participation in information systems development: Implications from a meta- analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(1): 301–331.
Hussain, S., Sanders, E. B.-N. and Steinert, M. 2012. Participatory design with marginalized people in developing countries: Challenges and opportunities experienced in a field study in Cambodia. International Journal of Design, 6(2): 91–109.
Iden, J. and Bygstad, B. 2018. The social interaction of developers and IT operations staff in software development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 36(3): 485–497.
Iyamu, T. and Ngqame, Y. 2017. Towards a conceptual framework for protection of personal information from the perspective of activity theory. South African Journal of Information Management, 19(1): 1-7.
Karanasios, S. 2014. Framing ICT4D Research Using Activity Theory: A Match between the ICT4D Field and Theory? Information Technologies & International Development, 10(2): 1–17.
Kuutti, K. 1996. Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction, 1744, 9-22.
Leavy, P. 2017. Research Design: Quantitative, Qualitative, Mixed Methods, Arts-Based, and Community-based Participatory Research Approaches. The Guilford Press.
Lin, F., Chaboyer, W., Wallis, M. and Miller, A. 2013. Factors contributing to the process of intensive care patient discharge: An ethnographic study informed by activity theory. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 50(8): 1054–1066.
Lu, Q., Chen, L., Lee, S. and Zhao, X. 2018. Activity theory-based analysis of BIM implementation in building O & M and first response. Automation in Construction, 85: 317-332.
Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries. (2016, April). Agriculture Sector Strategic Plan 2015/16-2019/20.
Murphy, T. 2022. Exposing the uncomfortable: Activity theory and the limitations of the academic in the world of TEL and programme development. Studies in Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(1).
Mwanza, D. 2001. Where Theory meets Practice: A Case for an Activity Theory based Methodology to guide Computer System Design. In: Proceedings of INTERACT’ 2001: Eighth IFIP TC 13 Conference on Human Computer Interaction, 9-13 Jul 2001, Tokyo, Japan. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/42795931_Where_Theory_meets_Practice_A_Case_for_an_Activity_Theory_based_Methodology_to_guide_Computer_System_Design
Mwanza, D. and Engeström, Y. 2005. Managing content in e-learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3): 453–463.
Nardi, B. A. 1996. Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction, 69102; 35-52.
Nov, O., Arazy, O. and Anderson, D. 2014. Scientists@Home: What drives the quantity and quality of online citizen science participation? PLoS ONE, 9(4): 0090375
Olphert, W. and Damodaran, L. 2007. Citizen participation and engagement in the design of e-government services: The missing link in effective ICT design and delivery. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(9): 491–507.
Salm, M., Bentley, J. and Okry, F. 2018. Learning through the eyes of others: Access Agriculture’s experiences with farmer-training videos in agricultural extension and education. Access Agriculture, CTA, & ICRA.
Shah, S. G. S., & Robinson, I. 2007. Benefits of and barriers to involving users in medical device technology development and evaluation. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 23(1): 131–137.
Sseguya, H., Mazur, R. E., Wells, B. and Matsiko, F. 2015. Quality of participation in community groups in Kamuli District, Uganda: Implications for policy and practice. Community Development, 46(1): 37–41.
Sulaiman, V. R., Hall, A., Kalaivani, N. J., Kumuda, D. and Reddy, T. S. V. 2012. Necessary, but not sufficient: Critiquing the role of information and communication technology in putting knowledge into use. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 18(4): 37–41.
Steinke, J., van Etten, J., Müller, A., Ortiz-Crespo, B., van de Gevel, J., Silvestri, S. & Priebe, J. (2021). Tapping the full potential of the digital revolution for agricultural extension: an emerging innovation agenda. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 19 (5-6): 549-565.
van Mele, P. 2011. Zooming-in zooming-out: A novel method to scale up local innovations and sustainable technologies. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 4(2): 131–142.
van Mele, P., Okry, F., Wanvoeke, J., Barres, F. N., Malone, P., Rodgers, J., Rahman, E., Salahuddin, A. 2018. Quality farmer training videos to support South–South learning. CSI Transactions on ICT, 6(3), 245-255.
Wu, C., Gerlach, J. H., and Young, C. E. 2007. An empirical analysis of open-source software developers’ motivations and continuance intentions. Information & Management, 44: 253–262.
Yadav, M. and Kumar, A. 2017. An Indian outlook on role clarity, organizational citizenship behavior, and gender relationship: Multiple Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) Approach. Jindal Journal of Business Research, 6(1): 63–75.
Yin, R. K. 2011. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. The Guilford Press.
Zossou, E., Van Mele, P., Vodouhe, S. D., & Wanvoeke, J. 2009. The power of video to trigger innovation: Rice processing in central Benin. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 7(2): 119–129.
DOI: 10.33687/ijae.011.001.4400
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2023 Irene Bulenzibuto Tamubula, Richard Miiro, Haroon Sseguya, Rebecca Mukebezi, Nada Siddig Abdalla Musa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
