Cargando…
How have smallholder farmers used digital extension tools? Developer and user voices from Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia
Digital extension tools (DETs) include phone calls, WhatsApp groups and specialised smartphone applications used for agricultural knowledge brokering. We researched processes through which DETs have (and have not) been used by farmers and other extension actors in low- and middle-income countries. W...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8907870/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35300045 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100577 |
_version_ | 1784665749330067456 |
---|---|
author | Coggins, Sam McCampbell, Mariette Sharma, Akriti Sharma, Rama Haefele, Stephan M. Karki, Emma Hetherington, Jack Smith, Jeremy Brown, Brendan |
author_facet | Coggins, Sam McCampbell, Mariette Sharma, Akriti Sharma, Rama Haefele, Stephan M. Karki, Emma Hetherington, Jack Smith, Jeremy Brown, Brendan |
author_sort | Coggins, Sam |
collection | PubMed |
description | Digital extension tools (DETs) include phone calls, WhatsApp groups and specialised smartphone applications used for agricultural knowledge brokering. We researched processes through which DETs have (and have not) been used by farmers and other extension actors in low- and middle-income countries. We interviewed 40 DET developers across 21 countries and 101 DET users in Bihar, India. We found DET use is commonly constrained by fifteen pitfalls (unawareness of DET, inaccessible device, inaccessible electricity, inaccessible mobile network, insensitive to digital illiteracy, insensitive to illiteracy, unfamiliar language, slow to access, hard to interpret, unengaging, insensitive to user's knowledge, insensitive to priorities, insensitive to socio-economic constraints, irrelevant to farm, distrust). These pitfalls partially explain why women, less educated and less wealthy farmers often use DETs less, as well as why user-driven DETs (e.g. phone calls and chat apps) are often used more than externally-driven DETs (e.g. specialised smartphone apps). Our second key finding was that users often made - not just found - DETs useful for themselves and others. This suggests the word ‘appropriation’ conceptualises DET use more accurately and helpfully than the word ‘adoption’. Our final key finding was that developers and users advocated almost ubiquitously for involving desired users in DET provision. We synthesise these findings in a one-page framework to help funders and developers facilitate more useable, useful and positively impactful DETs. Overall, we conclude developers increase DET use by recognizing users as fellow developers – either through collaborative design or by designing adaptable DETs that create room for user innovation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8907870 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89078702022-03-15 How have smallholder farmers used digital extension tools? Developer and user voices from Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia Coggins, Sam McCampbell, Mariette Sharma, Akriti Sharma, Rama Haefele, Stephan M. Karki, Emma Hetherington, Jack Smith, Jeremy Brown, Brendan Glob Food Sec Article Digital extension tools (DETs) include phone calls, WhatsApp groups and specialised smartphone applications used for agricultural knowledge brokering. We researched processes through which DETs have (and have not) been used by farmers and other extension actors in low- and middle-income countries. We interviewed 40 DET developers across 21 countries and 101 DET users in Bihar, India. We found DET use is commonly constrained by fifteen pitfalls (unawareness of DET, inaccessible device, inaccessible electricity, inaccessible mobile network, insensitive to digital illiteracy, insensitive to illiteracy, unfamiliar language, slow to access, hard to interpret, unengaging, insensitive to user's knowledge, insensitive to priorities, insensitive to socio-economic constraints, irrelevant to farm, distrust). These pitfalls partially explain why women, less educated and less wealthy farmers often use DETs less, as well as why user-driven DETs (e.g. phone calls and chat apps) are often used more than externally-driven DETs (e.g. specialised smartphone apps). Our second key finding was that users often made - not just found - DETs useful for themselves and others. This suggests the word ‘appropriation’ conceptualises DET use more accurately and helpfully than the word ‘adoption’. Our final key finding was that developers and users advocated almost ubiquitously for involving desired users in DET provision. We synthesise these findings in a one-page framework to help funders and developers facilitate more useable, useful and positively impactful DETs. Overall, we conclude developers increase DET use by recognizing users as fellow developers – either through collaborative design or by designing adaptable DETs that create room for user innovation. Elsevier 2022-03 /pmc/articles/PMC8907870/ /pubmed/35300045 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100577 Text en © 2021 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Coggins, Sam McCampbell, Mariette Sharma, Akriti Sharma, Rama Haefele, Stephan M. Karki, Emma Hetherington, Jack Smith, Jeremy Brown, Brendan How have smallholder farmers used digital extension tools? Developer and user voices from Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia |
title | How have smallholder farmers used digital extension tools? Developer and user voices from Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia |
title_full | How have smallholder farmers used digital extension tools? Developer and user voices from Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia |
title_fullStr | How have smallholder farmers used digital extension tools? Developer and user voices from Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia |
title_full_unstemmed | How have smallholder farmers used digital extension tools? Developer and user voices from Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia |
title_short | How have smallholder farmers used digital extension tools? Developer and user voices from Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia |
title_sort | how have smallholder farmers used digital extension tools? developer and user voices from sub-saharan africa, south asia and southeast asia |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8907870/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35300045 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100577 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cogginssam howhavesmallholderfarmersuseddigitalextensiontoolsdeveloperanduservoicesfromsubsaharanafricasouthasiaandsoutheastasia AT mccampbellmariette howhavesmallholderfarmersuseddigitalextensiontoolsdeveloperanduservoicesfromsubsaharanafricasouthasiaandsoutheastasia AT sharmaakriti howhavesmallholderfarmersuseddigitalextensiontoolsdeveloperanduservoicesfromsubsaharanafricasouthasiaandsoutheastasia AT sharmarama howhavesmallholderfarmersuseddigitalextensiontoolsdeveloperanduservoicesfromsubsaharanafricasouthasiaandsoutheastasia AT haefelestephanm howhavesmallholderfarmersuseddigitalextensiontoolsdeveloperanduservoicesfromsubsaharanafricasouthasiaandsoutheastasia AT karkiemma howhavesmallholderfarmersuseddigitalextensiontoolsdeveloperanduservoicesfromsubsaharanafricasouthasiaandsoutheastasia AT hetheringtonjack howhavesmallholderfarmersuseddigitalextensiontoolsdeveloperanduservoicesfromsubsaharanafricasouthasiaandsoutheastasia AT smithjeremy howhavesmallholderfarmersuseddigitalextensiontoolsdeveloperanduservoicesfromsubsaharanafricasouthasiaandsoutheastasia AT brownbrendan howhavesmallholderfarmersuseddigitalextensiontoolsdeveloperanduservoicesfromsubsaharanafricasouthasiaandsoutheastasia |