Analysis of communication approaches used in agricultural extension: Case of Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the communication approaches used by development actors to communicate with farmers in Wolaita Zone, Ethiopia. Communication is essential for local and agricultural development, and the appropriate use of communication approaches promotes development. Two types of data were used: the providers of extension services (state extension, research institutions, and non-government organizations) and the clients of extension services (a sample of 364 farm households and three focus group discussions with progressive farmers). The results found the state extension communicated with farmers using top-down approaches. The communication approaches used by state agricultural extension services were not in line with government policy. Agricultural technologies generated by research institutions were diffused to farmers in a one-way approach. However, non-government organizations used more integrated situation-based two-way communication approaches. The use of communication approach that promotes farmers’ participation was recommended as a way to improve extension service delivery.

KEYWORDS:

• Communication
• development
• approach
• extension
• participation

Introduction

This paper aims to analyze the communication approaches used by key development actors to communicate extension messages with farmers in the Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia. A great deal of scholarly inquiry has addressed communication’s strategic role in community development, particularly in agricultural endeavors (Imoh, 2013; Rodriguez & Andrade, 2018; Wijerathna & Wanigasundera, 2020). For many third-world countries, including Ethiopia, agriculture is the basis of their livelihoods, and it remains a significant contributor to the economy (Campos et al., 2018; Masambuka-Kanchewa et al., 2020). Ensuring agricultural development is indispensable for eradicating poverty and achieving sustainable development goals as envisioned by Agenda 2030 of the United Nations (Klapper et al., 2016; Rivera, 2004; Sandhu, 2021; Zakariyau, 2020).

Communication has been acknowledged as a crucial element for achieving agricultural development goals and is considered one of the triggering factors for promoting and facilitating development efforts. The empirical evidence suggests that agricultural development activities mainly depend on information exchange between and among farmers, on the one hand, and a broad range of other development actors. It is believed that development cannot be achieved unless all those involved are linked to addressing the development problems at the local levels (López & Bruening, 2002; Masambuka-Kanchewa et al., 2020; Rodriguez & Andrade, 2018). The main focus of communication in this regard is sharing development information for the local people who are not accessing it and facilitating their participation in the process of development (Manyozo, 2012; Mefalopulos & Kamlongera, 2004).

Research institutions and development organizations have been developing plenty of technologies capable of yielding high productivity. In order to boost agricultural productivity, those research outputs, farming technology, innovations, and other extension services should be disseminated to farmers using appropriate communication approaches (López & Bruening, 2002; Masambuka-Kanchewa et al., 2020). A communication approach is described as the use of communication techniques, methods, and media to address development issues most effectively (Mefalopulos & Kamlongera, 2004). Therefore, the conscious use of the communication approach helps the local people form sound opinions and make good decisions on the use of farm technologies (Wijerathna & Wanigasundera, 2020).

One of the best ways to support the farming community in this regard is the pooling of local knowledge and other scientific research outputs into the information network at the community level (Agbamu, 2000). The availability of such information could help farmers better understand the existing knowledge gap and put forward how to improve their farm practices by adopting technologies (Acunzo, 2014; Quarry & Ramirez, 2009). According to Acunzo (2014), during this process, much emphasis should be given to the framing of development messages and the selection of appropriate communication approaches that best suit the farmers’ context.

However, the selection of appropriate communication approaches and how to use them for agricultural development is considerably varied among communicators and development actors. These differences have mainly emerged due to differences in perceptions of the role, purpose, and functions of communication in development. Some development organizations conceive communication as a vehicle for telling people what to do; others see it as an opportunity for interaction, discussion, and the sharing of information (FAO, 2004; Masambuka-Kanchewa et al., 2020). In this regard, a considerable amount of literature has critiqued the two dominant theoretical conceptions of development communication approaches.

One of the overriding communication approaches in agriculture is the extension approach, usually conceptualized as the diffusion of innovation approach. This theory conceives communication as a vehicle to spread technological and social innovations perceived to bring change to the rural community. The diffusion approach assumes that information is an essential recipe that has to flow to those in need to modernize them (Mefalopulos, 2008; Rogers, 1976). The participatory communication approach, on the other hand, assumes that bottom-up and horizontal communication are prerequisites for genuine development. It believes dialogue and participation are crucial to empowering and mobilizing the people. It asserts that simply disseminating information will not result in the desired structural transformation; therefore, development initiatives must involve and ensure the participation of local people (Mefalopulos, 2008; Santucci, 2005).

However, it is recognized that utilizing a single approach may not be sufficient to attain development goals since the farming industry attracts a diverse range of actors (Naiboka, 2014; Santucci, 2005). As a result, the use of integrated communication approaches is gaining acceptance to fill the gaps left by the use of a single communication approach. For instance, linear top-down approaches may provide farmers with reliable, scientific, and expert information, whereas the bottom-up approach mobilizes farmers to participate in their own development processes. On the other hand, the use of new information and communication technologies provides avenues for the interactive exchange of information from multiple sources (Stacks et al., 2009).

Studies indicate that communication approaches have substantially shifted from technology-centered to people-centered approaches (Acunzo & Vertiz, 2014; Cho & Boland, 2003; López & Bruening, 2002; Rodriguez-Colombia, 2015; Van de Fliert et al., 2017). The technology-oriented linear approach of communication encourages the one-way flow of information from knowledgeable information sources to farmers with the goal of persuading them to change their behavior. However, Masambuka et al. (2020) argue that, in addition to providing agricultural information, farmers’ participation and interaction with key development actors must be established. Therefore, if development is to be successful, the involvement of the local community must be ensured, and either interpersonal or mass media communication methods need to be used to achieve this purpose.

According to recent evidence, 83% of Ethiopia’s total population lives in rural areas and relies on rain-fed agriculture for a living (World Food Program, 2020). Ethiopia’s economy is one of the most vulnerable in sub-Saharan Africa, with extremely low incomes and subsistence-level livelihoods (Giller, 2020; World Bank, 2020). Despite being endowed with untapped natural resources, Ethiopia has been unable to feed its population. Smallholder farmers cultivate crops on small plots of land using traditional agricultural practices. As a result, the country is reliant on commercial food imports and food aid (Diriba, 2020; World Food Program, 2020; Yokamo, 2020).

With these characteristics in common, the Wolaita Zone, one of the 13 administrative zones in Southern Ethiopia, has been identified as a food-deficit and drought-prone area nationally (Zeray & Dawit, 2017). It is also one of Ethiopia’s most densely populated zones, with a population density of 600 people per square kilometer (Bekele, 2017), and the most climate-vulnerable hotspots in Africa, underpinned by a very weak adaptive capacity (Aboye et al., 2022; Bedeke et al., 2018). This situation has made farmlands small, though the livelihood of the people relies heavily on agriculture.

Increasing agricultural productivity and meeting the ever-increasing food consumption demand is a critical challenge, and it remains an unfinished development goal that necessitates efficient interventions, such as the provision of extension services. In the Wolaita Zone, development stakeholders such as state extension, research institutions, and both local and international NGOs are working toward addressing food insecurity challenges and improving farming practices by providing extension services.

Despite the fact that these organizations have disseminated agricultural information, it is unclear how they use communication approaches. A better understanding of the institutional trends toward communication approaches, as well as an analysis of end users’ practices at the grassroots level, is helpful for practitioners, development actors, academia, researchers, policymakers, and program designers. With this in mind, this paper sets out to:

• identify and describe the modus operandi of extension services in the Wolaita Zone

• analyze how communication approaches are used by state extension agents, research institutions, and non-governmental organizations

Methods

Description of the study setting

Wolaita zone is situated 329 kilometers away toward the south of the national capital, Addis Ababa. It is located between the latitudes of 06°57 and 07°04 N and the longitudes of 037°35 and 037°58 E. The zone is bordered on the south by the Gamo-Gofa administrative zone; on the west by the Omo River, which separates it from the Dawro administrative zone; on the northwest by the Kembata-Tembaro administrative zone; and on the east by the Bilate River (Gazuma & Astatike, 2019). According to Wolaita Zone Finance and Economic Development Department (2022), the total population of the zone is 2,610,760 and the total area covered is 451,170.7 hectares.

Wolaita Zone is categorized into three traditionally classified agro-ecological zones: the low land (kola), which lies below 1500 meters above sea level; mid-highland (woina-dega), which lies between 1500 and 2300 meters above sea level; and highland (dega), which lies above 2300 meters. The annual rainfall ranges from 801 mm to 1600 mm, with the bimodal peak rainy seasons falling between March to May and July to September, with the average temperatures ranging from 15 to 31C^o. Agriculture is the primary source of livelihood for 92% of the rural population in the zone, and mixed farming that involves crop production and animal husbandry has been dominantly practiced (Cochrane & Gecho, 2018; Dana et al., 2020; Gazuma & Astatike, 2019).

This study applied mixed research methods. The use of qualitative and quantitative methods allowed the researcher to rigorously investigate the views, attitudes, and practices of key participants involved in communicating extension information. Mixed methods also helped to triangulate the data obtained and the study results. The present study drew on two types of primary data sources: providers of extension services and the clients of extension services. Data was collected from extension service providers such as development agents, researchers, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), while farm household heads and model farmers participated on the client side. For the secondary data, a desk review of relevant policy documents such as Rural Development Policy and Strategies of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia; Ethiopia’s Agricultural Sector Policy and Investment Framework 2010–2020; and the National Strategy for Ethiopia’s Agricultural Extension System 2017 was reviewed and critiqued.

The population of the clients of extension services were heads of farm households. Similar to the agrarian communities in Ethiopia, the farmers in the Wolaita zone are smallholder farmers who meet the conventional meaning of small farms (less than 2 hectares per household) (Betre, 2006). A multi-stage sampling procedure was used to select the study settings and subjects. First, out of the 16 districts in the zone, based on their proximity to and distance from the zonal capital-Woliata Sodo, the three districts, namely Duguna Fango, Boloso Sore, and Sodo Zuria, were purposely selected. Accordingly, kebeles (smallest administrative structure) within each district were again clustered into three categories. As a result, three kebeles per district totaling nine kebeles were randomly included in this study. Kothari’s (2004) formula was used to determine the sample size, and the size of sample units (households per kebele) was determined using proportionate to sample size techniques based on the list of farm households obtained from the kebele administration. Using a systematic sampling method with every 5^th value in the list, a total of 364 households were included in the survey.

A semi-structured questionnaire containing open-ended and closed-ended questions was used to conduct a face-to-face interview. The survey interview was conducted in June and July of 2020 with the help of three data collectors who had been recruited and trained by the researcher. On average, each questionnaire took 50 minutes, which was completed by the enumerators as the majority of the respondents were illiterate farm household heads. The questionnaire involves a set of questions about how the farmers receive agricultural information, their involvement in the communication process, and how they participate in development issues in order to make an informed decision on their farming. Questions regarding the opportunities to share their opinions with development workers and the extent to which agricultural information drives them to adopt modern farming practices were also included. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 26 was used to analyses the data collected. The data analysis involved descriptive statistics.

Purposive sampling was used to collect qualitative data from a wide range of participants. Three focus group discussions (FGD) with six to ten homogeneous groups of all model farmers with agricultural practices were held in the selected three districts of the Wolaita zone. The FGD participants were selected based on their characteristics such as agricultural profile, farm experience, past utilization of extension services, and farm information from key extension service providers. The main reasons why model farmers were selected in this study were due to their function as an instrument in organizing other farmers (Hailemichael & Haug, 2020) and the regular communication they had with key extension service providers. This could help researchers gain a more complete picture of how farmers communicate agricultural information and gather their perspectives and experiences. A semi-structured checklist was used to guide the discussion. The members of focus groups were asked open-ended questions on how communication approaches have been used by extension service providers and their interplay with key development actors in receiving agricultural information.

Key informant interviews were also held with nine extension agents who were purposefully selected based on their years of experience, educational background, and engagement with the farming communities. Participants in this category were asked how state extension services communicate with farmers and how extension agents engage farmers in the development process so as to improving their farming techniques. In addition, four faculty from Wolaita Sodo University and three researchers from Areka Agricultural Research Center who had worked in various research settings were interviewed to understand how research outputs, agricultural technologies, and innovations were communicated with the farming community.

Among the NGOs working toward promoting agricultural development in the Wolaita zone, expertise from Wolaita Development Association (WDA), Terepeza Development Association (TDA), and Concern Worldwide was selected based on their involvement in agricultural development programs. To explore their communication approach, four senior project staff and three field workers who were engaged in agricultural development programs were selected. They were interrogated about their roles and the roles of the farmers in the communication process; how they use communication methods to involve farmers; and whether the communication approaches they use encourage farmers’ participation and linkages among agricultural researchers, extension workers, and other development stakeholders to help farmers make informed farming decisions.

The interviews and focus group discussions were administered by the researcher, and were recorded for further transcription. All the interviews were conducted in the Amharic language (the country’s working language), while the focus group discussions were held in the Wolaitatto language (the local language of the community). The transcribed data was translated into English for analysis. Thematic categorization was employed to analyze the transcribed data and corroborate it with the results from quantitative data analysis. Three major theme categories were developed to frame the analysis: communication approaches used by state extension, research institutions, and non-governmental organizations working in the study area. Moreover, as subsequent thematic categories, the role of communicators (farmers and extension service providers) in the communication process, farmers’ participation in agricultural development activities, farmers’ interplay with extension service providers, and farmers’ motivation to adopt farm technologies disseminated by extension service providers were also developed to thoroughly understand the phenomenon under study.

Data presentation and discussion

The data presentation and discussion reflect the perspectives of both the providers of extension services and the clients. The first section describes the characteristics of farmer respondents, while the second section presents communication approaches used by state extension, research institutions, and non-governmental organizations.

Socio-economic characteristics of the farmer respondents

The average age of the respondents who provided data for this study was 45.6 years, with a range of 20 to 90 years. This indicates that the majority of respondents were of working age. This has the implication that the large proportion of the farmers are at a fertile maturity level to adopt extension services and understand development messages communicated by development workers. It was found that 76.4% of respondents were male, 23.6% were female, and 77.3% were married. The descriptive statistics of continuous explanatory variables and categorical variables are presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of continuous explanatory variables (n = 364).

Variables	Mean	Std.	Min	Max
Age (years)	45.6	12.75	20	90
Farming experience(years)	28.1	12.93	70	3
Land area	0.52	0.41	0	4
Distance from Farmers’ Training Center (km)	2.4	1.19	1	8
Distance to urban center (km)	12.5	11.05	0	46

Source: Survey data, 2020.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of categorical variables (n = 364).

Variable	Category	Number	Percent
Gender	Male	278	76.4
	Female	86	23.6
Education	Illiterate	201	55.2
	Primary	96	26.4
	Secondary	50	13.7
	Diploma & above	17	4.7
Marital Status	Married	282	77.3
	Single	11	3.0
	Divorced	27	7.4
	Widowed	44	12.1
Language	Wolayttato only	202	55.5
	Amharic only	18	4.9
	Both languages	144	39.5
Training Extension visit	Yes	128	35.1
	Yes	331	90.7

Source: Survey data, 2020.

The respondents had an average of 28.1 years of farming experience. The rich experience in farming would be an advantage for the farmers to identify and utilize extension services provided by development organizations. The scarcity of agricultural resources, particularly farmland, is another feature that characterizes smallholder farmers. The results of this study (Table 1) revealed that the average land holding of the households was 0.52 ha. This finding goes in line with previous empirical findings in Ethiopia which reported that the average land size of small-scale farmers is as low as below 1 hectare (Melketo et al., 2020).

Results show more than half of the respondents (55.2%) were illiterate or had a low level of education. This finding implies that the high rate of illiteracy could be a disadvantage for comprehending agricultural information delivered by extension service providers. It is worth noting that all of the respondents could understand and speak the local language (Wolayttato, which is a medium of extension communication in the study area). This implies that delivering extension messages in the local language is critical in order to better target the objectives of development. Only 35.1% of respondents had access to training, which means nearly two-thirds of farmers received no farm-related training. Findings show that the average distance from respondents’ homes to the farmers’ training center was 2.44 km, while it was 12.5 km from the nearest urban centers. This reveals that respondents travel long distances from their homes to urban centers.

Modus operandi of extension services in Wolaita Zone

The agricultural extension services provided by development organizations in Wolaita Zone share common attributes with those in all the other areas of Ethiopia. The state extension system is primarily public and hierarchically tiered under five administrative structures: federal, regional, zonal, district, and kebele levels. It extends to the grassroots kebele level by placing at least three development agents (or extension workers) with vocational expertise in crop production, livestock production, natural resource management, and home economics (Chipeta et al. 2015). The subject matter specialists, on the other hand, are overseen at least three farmer training centers in the district offices.

The desk reviews of policy and strategy documents toward agricultural extension services in Ethiopia indicate that individual farm visits, development groups, community meetings, field demonstrations, and training at the farmer training centers are the extension methods used to deliver extension messages to the farmers. However, unlike others, community meetings and individual farm visits are dominantly practiced methods in the Wolaita Zone. The Zonal Agricultural Office facilitates the implementation of extension services in accordance with the national agricultural extension strategy, which uses a participatory extension approach (Agricultural Transformation Agency, 2017; Chipeta et al., 2015; Diriba, 2020). DAs are graduates of agricultural, technical, and vocational education and training colleges, whereas university graduates serve as subject area specialists and provide professional support to state development agents.

‎ In terms of the extension agent-farmer ratio at the national level, 72,000 DAs served 16.7 million smallholder farmers in 2018 (Berhane et al., 2018). ‎‎ ‎‎Berhane et al. (2020) also reported that extension services had reached 80% of farm households in Ethiopia during 2018. The data obtained from the Wolaita Zone agricultural department indicate that 2,943 DAs were engaged in the provision of extension services to farmers in the Wolaita Zone. It was assumed that one development agent could reach eight farmers per day. They primarily provide extension services and disseminate agricultural knowledge and information that have been developed by various levels of agricultural offices (federal, regional, zonal, and district). They also connect farmers with other partner development organizations to make extension services more accessible to farmers.

In the state extension system, DAs were the potential providers of agricultural information and the main disseminators of farm technologies. Within a social network, farmers often interact with each other and with model farmers to exchange knowledge and information. Interpersonal communication was found to be the most commonly used method of communication. The findings show farmers have a very limited opportunity to take part in the communication process so as to share their views and express opinions. The national extension strategy states that the extension system needs to be interactive and responsive to farmers’ needs by encouraging active participation in problem identification, priority setting, planning, implementation, as well as monitoring and evaluation. However, in most cases, information exchange and the interactions between DAs and farmers take a top-down, non-participatory approach. This could point to a misalignment between agricultural extension policy and practices.

Research institutions also provide extension services to farmers. The agricultural research centers in Ethiopia have generated and developed agricultural technologies. To this end, the Areka Agricultural Research Center, situated in the Wolaita Zone, has conducted various agricultural research projects. Wolaita Sodo University, on the other hand, has produced a myriad of research outputs as a higher academic institution with agricultural science as one of its centers of excellence. The research outputs from both Wolaita Sodo University and Areka Agricultural Research Center, however, have not effectively reached the farmers due to poor information dissemination systems. Current practice shows that farmers’ roles are limited to being passive recipients of farm technologies diffused by these institutions.

Besides the state extension and research institutions, non-governmental organizations are also providing ongoing extension services and communicating agricultural messages to farmers in order to alleviate poverty and food insecurity. The Wolaita Development Association (WDA), the Terepeza Development Association (TDA), and Concern Worldwide are among the well-established development organizations with permanent residences in the Wolaita Zone. Both WDA and TDA are community-based local NGOs that were founded in response to local people’s socio-economic problems. They have been involved in integrated development programs that could improve the agricultural productivity of smallholder farmers and promote sustainable agricultural systems. These organizations primarily achieve their development objectives through communicating farm technologies that can have a potential transformative impact on the productivity of farmers. Concern Worldwide is also another international organization that has a long history of supporting the people of Wolaita through a range of innovative development programs designed to alleviate food insecurity.

The farmer-to-development worker ratio in the context of NGO largely depends on the nature of development programs. In other words, some development projects involve a large number of farmers, whilst others involve very small numbers of farmers. It was found that the aforementioned NGOs initiate development programs after a preliminary assessment to determine the needs and interests of the local people. They were, however, using various communication methods and approaches to communication with farmers. The following section presents how state extension, researchers, and non-governmental organizations use communication approaches to disseminate extension messages to the farming community in the Wolaita Zone.

Communication approaches used by the state development agents

Despite the disparities in implementation methods, all of the state extension agents who participated in this study defined their key roles as disseminating agricultural information, providing training, demonstrating innovations, and providing technical support. They also stated that they had worked on ad-hoc and other cross-cutting issues as directed by the local government. This means that, in addition to providing extension services, DAs are involved in manifold activities. Regardless of the other roles bestowed upon DAs, it was found that information dissemination is mainly carried out as a primary activity by DAs. One of the participants expressed this point of view as follows:

My role as an extension agent is either to convey timely agricultural messages or to visit farms concerning regular farming activities. But mostly, we [DAs] focus on sharing development information with the farmers in our villages. By doing this, we serve as a bridge between the government and the farmers. Of course, disseminating agricultural information alone is not enough to bring about the agricultural transformation that we all strive for. […] we need to think of changing our community too. I believe that one of the major reasons for low agricultural productivity is associated with the extension services that we provide and the way we communicate them to the farmers.

This implies that the majority of DAs’ time is spent on activities related to the dissemination of development knowledge and information. However, it is pertinent to note that DAs are more focused on delivering agricultural messages from the government (agricultural development authorities) to the people (farmers) than on linking farmers with the government. This portrays agricultural information flowing to the farmers in a top-down approach, where DAs are transmitters and the farmers are passive receivers of the information. The implication is that farmers” attitudes, perceptions, and opinions are not taken into consideration by researchers, government bodies, policymakers, and communicators and actors. Furthermore, those who designed or framed development messages have no mechanisms of checking whether or not their messages were communicated. Table 3 presents perception of the farmers toward their participation in interaction with development agents.

Table 3. Distribution of farmer respondents based on their perceptions toward participation in development (364).

Perception of farmer respondents	Category	Frequency	Percentage
Opportunity for participating in development	Yes	174	47.8
	No	190	52.2
	Yes	126	34.6
Able to express opinions with DA	No	238	65.4

Source: Survey data, 2020.

As shown in the table above, the vast majority (65.4%) of respondents stated that they had no rooms to express their opinions during interactions with DAs. This could be due to the fact that development agents often use community meetings to disseminate agricultural information to farmers. In such situations, only a few farmers (34.6%) are allowed to express their opinions, while the majority of the farmers listen to what others are saying.

Some of the DAs perceive that they are using participatory communication approaches to communicate with the farmers. According to the DAs, farmers’ participation is maintained by allowing them to ask questions during training, demonstration, and community meeting sessions. This implies that participation was misconceived as allowing farmers to ask questions about the messages conveyed. This misconception has resulted in marginalizing farmers’ needs and active participation in agricultural development schemes. According to Mefalopulos (2003), asking questions about the conveyed message is the lowest form of participation that deviates from the basic tenets of the participatory approach. As the survey data indicate (Table 3), 52.2% of respondents perceived they did not get a platform to participate when DAs share agricultural information and diffusion knowledge.

In response to a question regarding how DAs communicate agricultural information with farmers, one of the DAs described his experiences as:

Most of the time, I convey the agricultural messages that were outlined by the district or the zonal office of the agricultural and rural departments. I share this information with the farmers, either individually or in groups. During this process, farmers usually heed what I am conveying to them. However, they usually ask questions for clarity.

The preceding excerpt may explicitly reveal that DAs function as conduits that transmit information framed by agricultural offices. From a development communication perspective, such interplay makes the farmers mere recipients of the information and limits their active participation. Scholars such as Freire (1970), Mefalopulos (2008), and Servaes (2008) describe dialogue, critical thinking, problematization, and reflection as means through which participation is ensured in development. The present study revealed that DAs gave more emphasis to the effects of the messages (change in farming practices) than the message delivery process that brings the desired effects. The following is an extract taken from one of the senior development agents:

During communication, my focus is on inculcating knowledge and disseminating information that helps farmers to practice modern farming. While communicating with farmers, I make every effort to convince them. Most of the time, I push them to implement what I’ve shown or told them innovations or new farming practices. Some farmers were highly skeptical about the adaptability of technologies to their local context. I believe that people’s acceptance of information and adoption of technology is heavily influenced by their understanding of the benefits it offers.

According to the excerpt above, the communicator’s primary goal is to persuade farmers rather than to understand their needs and then motivate them to adopt. Farmers are viewed as submissive and subservient to state extension services, even when it is not in their best interests. Coinciding to this, findings from the focus group discussion with farmers revealed that farmers receive a large proportion of the state’s extension services without interest. They believe DAs do not fully understand their situation so that the majority of farmers’ interests have not been served and they lost trust. Members of the focus group expressed their feelings further by illustrating some of the incidents.

Last year, DAs have introduced a maize variety. Then they urged everyone to use it in that farming season. We had no option to refuse, so we used it. Sadly, we didn’t get any yield. Those farmers who were in lowland areas, on the other hand, had a high yield from the same variety. It was their [DAs] responsibility to identify and bring the seed variety that best suited our agro ecology.

When the focus group member said this, others nodded in agreement, and the room fell silent for a moment. Another member of the group related a similar incident that occurred as a result of using fertilizer that was not appropriate for their farming.

We were all aware that the fertilizer was not suitable for our land, as we have already used it. But the DAs and kebele leaders forced us to use it. We had no options so we used it. Since using that fertilizer, we have lost the fertility of our land. It took a long time to treat and refurbish our land.

Other DAs, however, claim to use training and demonstration methods to instill farm technology and disseminate knowledge and information. This is done, in particular, to scale up the research outputs generated by researchers. The following is an extract from the interview with one of the DAs:

As much as possible, I demonstrated to farmers how to properly apply emerging new technology and innovation. We carried out demonstrations at farmers’ training centers or on the farms of model farmers. Following demonstrations, we usually insist on farmers putting it into practice on their farms. When new farm practices are demonstrated, there is a high tendency for them to be accepted. Demonstrations build a high level of trust among farmers and increase the uptake of new farming technologies. However, due to a lack of necessary facilities at farmer training centers, this method is not widely used.

The above quotations could highlight that some of the DAs use demonstrations as a means to introduce technologies. However, there is less possibility to demonstrate to all the farmers as the majority of the farmer training centers in Wolaita Zone were not capable of giving training services and had no setup for demonstrating farmers. As a result, the delivery of practice-oriented state extension services has been hampered.

The findings from the focus group discussion, on the other hand, revealed that the majority of farmers felt DAs did not listen to them, valued their knowledge, or recognized their needs. They explicitly stated that they want to be heard by DAs and share their thoughts and opinions with them.

One of the focus group members best described this with a Wolaita proverb. He stated, “caagenaa harree xammates,” which means that “if you do not allow the donkey to bray, then their tiredness continues to accumulate.” There is a traditional belief among the community that when donkeys bray, it helps them to cast off tiredness and further motivates them to carry out their tasks. The implicit meaning of this metaphor is that farmers want to take a turn during communication with DAs, yet they are denied it. Therefore, farmers felt less engaged, which resulted in a lack of motivation to accept the change ideas evolving through DAs. A finding from the survey also indicates that 52.5% of farmers were not motivated to adopt technologies introduced by the DAs. This may be due to a lack of farmers’ active participation and understanding of the development agenda. This could imply that ensuring farmers’ participation is critical to achieving development goals.

Despite implementation gaps, Ethiopia’s agricultural extension strategy emphasizes the provision of extension services customized to farmers’ needs and interests (Agricultural Transformation Agency, ; Diriba, 2020). Findings from the focus group indicate that extension messages are better understood when they are disseminated in a two-way learning approach tailored to their situation. According to (Diriba 2020), any development initiatives should first focus on understanding the needs and interests of the local community and involving them in the development process. In this regard, development workers are supposed to create a platform that triggers dialogue that creates impetus and desire among the farming communities. One of the enormous roles of communication in development is bringing an attitudinal change and igniting the interest of farmers toward it.

Contrary to this, DAs used different persuasive techniques to convince farmers in the Wolaita Zone of Southern Ethiopia. The findings reveal that DAs provide extension services deemed important by the government. Moreover, they use non-participatory communication methods to persuade the farmers. The following verbatim expression mirrors how DAs have been convincing farmers.

Our job requires us to persuade farmers to adopt new ideas, innovations, and technologies. Therefore, we persuaded farmers to use fertilizers, seed varieties, and other farm technologies that would benefit their farm production. Farmers, on the other hand, were occasionally resistant to receiving these production inputs. As one of the persuasion techniques, we employ a traditional legal system known as “coppiya esiyogaa” to compel farmers to use farm inputs.

“Coppiya esiyogaa,” according to the respondent, is a local or traditional legal system used to punish individuals [farmers] who do not obey the law or order issued by local (village level) authorities. Through this traditional legal framework, DAs and village leaders prohibit farmers from plowing their fields until they comply with the law or the order [accepting production inputs]. The preceding excerpt exemplifies the extent to which technologies were persuasively disseminated to farmers without regard for their interests. It was found that the DAs were forcefully supplying farm inputs to the farmers. This denotes that farm inputs and new farmer technologies were provided to all the farmers with the sentiment of a one-size-fits-all basis. It is possible to deduce that farmers have either misunderstood the technologies or are unwilling to adopt them. This finding is inconsistent with the findings of Matebu (2006), who found that farmers in Central Ethiopia readily accept information communicated face-to-face by DAs rather than through mass media, as these sources give farmers the chance to interactively discuss problems and solutions and develop the feeling that they are considered knowledgeable and active participants. This difference in findings might be due to the disparity in study time frame and the prevailing dynamism in the extension system.

In general, the messages from the state extension dominantly utilize one-way, linear, and top-down communication approaches, which lack the participation of farmers. In turn, this has greatly contributed to farmers’ resistance to the adoption of agricultural technologies and emerging farming practices. This top-down approach is responsible for the limited involvement of the farmers in development activities, which results in low agricultural productivity in the Wolaita Zone of Southern Ethiopia.

Communication approaches used by research institutions

The results show that researchers at Areka Agricultural Research Center and Wolaita Sodo University have been generating knowledge and producing farm technologies for the farmers residing in the Wolaita Zone. The research outputs and farm technologies generated were disseminated to the farmers in various ways. It was found that the group method of communication was predominantly employed, while mass media methods were rarely used for event-based news reporting and campaign-oriented advocacy to mobilize farmers. Though attempts have been made to establish a mechanism through which research outputs are consistently communicated to the local community, large numbers of research outputs conducted by graduates and researchers have been shelved.

To share agricultural knowledge and information with farmers, the Areka Agricultural Research Center has developed an interactive method of communication. One of the most commonly used methods was the farmer-research-extension groups (FREG) at the village level. This group involves progressive (model) farmers so as to practice the technology on a small scale and then scale it up for the community. FREG was used to demonstrate new farm technologies, research outputs, and innovations. At the first stage, the researcher trains FREG to create awareness, familiarize them with the technology, build trust, and develop a mutual understanding of the technology. This setup was found to be a baseline for interaction between the researchers and farmers. The group members in FREG thoroughly discussed every aspect of the new research output or farm technology. This may allow the researchers to respond to the farmers’ concerns, receive feedback, and better solicit possibilities for reaching out to more farmers. This finding is in agreement with the findings of Matebu (2006), who reported group methods were often preferred by researchers to set the stage for farmers to learn from each other, raise different issues at a time, learn more in less time, and reach more people.

In the case of Wolaita Sodo University, farm technologies were either generated on research sites of the university or on the farms of model farmers. The farm technologies, innovations, research outputs, community services, and other relevant pieces of information were shared with the farmers as a means to bring about behavioral change in their farming practices. The researchers and subject area specialists were intervening in agricultural development programs based on the nature of their research outputs.

It was found that the researchers often contacted the farmers with the perception that the farmers were not aware of the benefits of the new farm practices and technologies. As a result, researchers believe that consistently insisting on farmers’ using farm technology is the best way to effect change. One of Wolaita Sodo University’s senior researchers best described this point of view in the following way:

Agricultural researchers and subject matter experts were involved in research projects deemed relevant to farmers, even if the farmers were not interested. Often, we [researchers] infuse and instill what we believe is best for their agricultural productivity. Farmers readily adopt new technologies if they believe they will benefit them in some way. But, mostly, they are struggling to maintain an indigenous way of farming. They are not easily convinced by what we conveyed to them. On top of that, the majority of our farmers are uncertain of the technology’s applicability. They need to prove whether the new farm technologies are better than what they had.

It is believed that scientifically proven technologies are much better than traditional farm practices in terms of productivity and yield. However, farmers were far behind in this level of understanding. This calls for concerted efforts to bring about a change in behavior through the use of participatory methods of communication that elicit dialogue and the exchange of ideas between researchers and the farming community. The majority of farmers, according to the participants, are resistant to change.

Conversely, the findings from the focus group discussions indicate that farmers lack trust and confidence in using the new farm technologies generated. They have stressed the importance of not only being informed and instructed about how technologies work, but also of being involved with and fascinated by them. Farmers’ interest in using farm technology grows when they can properly communicate where they are now and be clear about the way forward. It was found that those researchers who used appropriate communication methods and approaches effectively disseminated technology. In the following excerpt, one of the informants has shared his experiences of how he involved the local community when he communicated his new farm technology.

Of course, instilling new knowledge, technology, or innovation in farmers takes time. When introducing technology or research outputs, we [a team of researchers] use different techniques to inculcate our messages. Mostly, we start by socializing ourselves with the environment and contacting the farmers regularly. Then, we try to introduce the overall idea of the research output and technology. We spent a significant amount of time explaining how the technology benefits them in comparison to their current practices. This allows us to brief them on the technology’s applicability in their specific context. The dialogue we had with farmers provided an excellent opportunity to address all of their questions about the technology. We usually arouse their interest by encouraging them to freely talk.

The above narration explicitly indicates that communicating development with a farmer is a process, and dialogue is a way to bring development ideas into reality. It is possible to state that the information that is accompanied by dialogue is crucial to realizing the intended development goals. As Canton (2021) argues, people are receptive to new ideas provided that they are not reduced to the status of passive recipients. Farmers need to be allowed to converse on a one-to-one basis with researchers and innovators to bring about a sound change in their farming practices. Two-way communication creates fertile ground to better solicit and address actual needs.

Aside from that, farmers’ participation is a missing link in the interaction between farmers and researchers. It was found that agricultural development efforts were taking a one-way communication approach in which farmers were not partakers in the process. One of the researchers has explained the relevance of farmers’ participation in the following way:

Farmer participation is essential for the effectiveness of agricultural transformation, as it is for any development initiative. If farmers do not participate, either as a group or individually, there is a high possibility that technology transfer will be slow. Farmers run it if they are involved and interested in it.

The excerpt highlights the fact that farmers have to take part in decisions that are directly related to their livelihoods. It also signifies that agricultural development initiatives that were planned and implemented with the participation of end-users have a high degree of success. However, this requires mutual understanding between the communicators. Farm technologies communicated through demonstration, simulation, case study, and other participatory rural appraisal methods, according to studies, facilitate mutual understanding, motivate farmers, and inspire them to participate in agricultural development activities (FAO, 2004; Mefalopulos, 2003; Quarry & Ramirez, 2009).

Communication approaches used by non-governmental organizations

NGOs are becoming increasingly essential change agents, notably in agricultural and rural development schemes. As development partners, NGOs such as WDA, TDA, and Concern Worldwide have been involved in various agricultural development schemes in the Wolaita Zone. These organizations are assisting farmers in improving agricultural output and sustainably averting food insecurity challenges in the Wolaita Zone. Findings indicate that each of these organizations runs development programs in selected districts or geographical areas based on the nature of their development programs.

The data gathered through interviews shows that communication methods and approaches employed by development organizations vary depending on the nature and organizational structures of the respective organizations. However, interpersonal communication methods were dominantly employed by non-governmental organizations operating in the study setting. This finding coincides with the findings of Alemnew (2017), who pointed out that the dominant communication methods used by non-governmental organizations were interpersonal.

The present study found that the respective development organizations conduct a needs assessment to understand the farmers’ situation and identify their needs and interests before launching development programs. This could help them to map out how to address the needs and interests of the farmers in a way that brings about a sound change to their farming practices. For instance, Concern Worldwide has framed various interpersonal communication tools that promote community participation in development programs. The data obtained from the organization prove that the communication platforms established for this purpose have enabled Concern Worldwide to have a comprehensive dialogue with the community on development projects.

Through this communication platform, field workers of Concern Worldwide figure out how to best exploit the households’ existing potential to enhance their livelihoods. The field workers, along with household heads, then plan the activities that must be carried out in order to achieve the desired development. Based on this, a performance agreement is signed between the field worker and household head for close follow-up and support. In this course, farmers were thoroughly capacitated by the fieldworkers in order to achieve the intended development agenda. This could indicate that Concern Worldwide implements a bottom-up communication approach that involves farmers in problem identification, planning, and execution. This finding is different from the findings of Alemnew (), who reviewed the communication approach of CARE Ethiopia. According to the study, the local communities did not participate in the planning, problem identification, and evaluation stages; rather, every aspect of the development project had been predetermined by the project implementers.

Moreover, the data obtained through interviews with project coordinators of the organization reveals that Concern Worldwide uses various methods of communication to link with the local community. One of the methods was the Village Economic and Social Association (VESA), at which household heads meet on a weekly basis to communicate on common issues that need collective action. Along with this, the Social Analysis and Action (SAA) group is also used to identify the most commonly prevailing problems among the farmers in the village.

The focus group members also described that these communication networks have educated them on how to be productive in their farming activities. The following is an excerpt from one of the focus groups:

We get an opportunity when we meet with field workers to explain our livelihood challenges and learn how to overcome them. The important lesson that we learned from them was to understand our potential and then how to use it to be more productive in our farming activities. The group set-ups at local level were the places where we exchange our views and learnt from field workers.

These findings indicate that Concern Worldwide established a linked information network shared among the farmers and field workers so as to address agricultural development concerns and empower the farming community to overcome the livelihood challenges. Regarding this, one of the informants from Concern Worldwide has expressed his view as follows:

We have well-structured methods for communicating with farmers and entertaining their interests. We [Concern] always launch demand-driven development programs either in agriculture, health, or livelihood. We believe that the end-users [farmers’] active involvement in development has a vital role in the realization of development goals. We firmly believe that communication is a bridge that links our organization with the community.

The excerpt indicates that the organization gave due consideration to addressing the needs and interests of the farmers. On the other hand, focus group discussants disclosed that the close attachment they had with field workers significantly contributed to improving their farming practices. The following excerpt is taken from a focus group discussion.

The field workers are very supportive and concerned about changing our livelihoods. The new farm methods they introduced significantly helped us to see change in our lives. They help us become essential players in our own development.

It is possible to understand from the excerpt that farmers were involved in the agricultural development agenda and their participation has empowered them to be key role players in the development process.

Wolaita Development Association is also one of the local NGOs that have been serving the people of Wolaita for several years. WDA runs various development programs that are believed to enhance the lives and livelihoods of the local community. According to the findings from interviews with informants, WDA dominantly communicates agricultural messages to farmers through interpersonal methods rather than through mass media channels. It was found that agricultural information is distributed to farmers via one-on-one, group, or model farmer-based methods. However, mass media channels were also rarely used to disseminate agricultural information. It was indicated that WDA prefers to use an educational method of extension message design in order to raise community awareness and bring behavioral change in farming practices. In this regard, the field workers are playing a crucial role in mobilizing the farmers and acting as a conduit between the farmers and the organization.

Findings indicate that the WDA development approach is based on the principles of a participatory development approach that encourages the involvement of multiple stakeholders in the development process in order to attain the envisaged development goals. Relying on the basic tenets of the participatory approach, field workers share agricultural information with the farmers on a one-to-one basis or in farmer groups. In practice, however, field workers disclosed that farmers’ lack of awareness and enthusiasm for adopting modern farm technologies prompts them to persuade farmers to change their attitudes toward accepting new farm practices that have been promoted by the field workers. The following is an excerpt taken from a project staff:

The majority of farmers are uneducated and they are new to the technologies that we introduce. Therefore, we need to teach them how to effectively utilize modern farm inputs that can enhance their agricultural productivity. However, farmers didn’t understand that we were working to improve their livelihoods.

Furthermore, informants explained that the farmers’ participation is primarily confined to sharing opinions with field workers. This implies that WDA employs a context-based communication approach that intends to persuade farmers to change their minds. This could point out that WDA employs a top-down communication approach rather than a participatory approach as stipulated by the theory of participatory development communication. The informants argue that existing agricultural practices cannot be transformed and farmers’ livelihoods cannot be improved if farmers continue to resist change. Therefore, farmers should be persuaded to some extent in order to transform their current agricultural practices. The following excerpt was taken from one of the senior project staff:

In principle, we use a participatory and interactive approach to communicate with farmers. However, using this approach alone can’t make development activities as effective as expected. In most cases, farmers are accustomed to the traditional way of farming and feel comfortable with it, even though they are harvesting low agricultural output. The new knowledge that we share with them is mostly not compatible with their indigenous ways of doing agriculture. We train them to bring change in technology intake, yet, that is not enough to change these deep-rooted traditional farming practices.

As the preceding excerpt indicates, there is a general notion that farmers are resistant but accept farm technologies when they are convinced. Yet, the level of technology adoption by farmers does not effectively address the extent of the problem that farmers are currently dealing with. This finding confirms the findings of Ali and Sonderling (2017), who found that local NGOs in Ethiopia prefer to use a top-down communication approach to infuse the local community and mobilize them toward the planned development goals. Gessese (2020) also reported that development projects, particularly those involving non-governmental organizations, have failed to achieve development goals due to a lack of community participation.

Focus group participants, on the other hand, argue that all technologies introduced by the government or non-governmental organizations are not always useful in their context. As a result, they are unable to simply determine which farm technologies will benefit their farm. This scenario was described by one of the focus group participants as follows:

In terms of inculcating the new farm technologies, NGOs such as WDA are much better than state extensions since they explain to us until we fully understand their messages. Personally, I adopt new farm technology when I am confident that it will be useful to my farm. But it’s not easy to simply accept everything that has been communicated by the field workers.

TDA is also another church-based local NGO that operates in the Wolaita Zone. TDA runs various agricultural development initiatives to ensure the local community’s food security through the provision of need-based agricultural development schemas. The data obtained from informants revealed that TDA considers community participation and their active engagement as one of the pillars for successful development. It was also found that TDAs’ communication approach was drawn from the development models that the organization adapted. On this basis, TDA favors the use of a participatory communication approach supported by interpersonal methods that hinge on two-way communication with farmers. From the TDA perspective, communication was set to link farmers with farmers, farmers with field workers, and farmers with the organization.

According to informants, TDA placed a field staff in a project area at the grassroots, along with community facilitators, self-help groups, and other institutionally recognized social setups, to achieve these objectives. The informants replied that TDA gives a high emphasis on effective message design and the effects it can have on the attitudes of the farmers. Informants revealed that the messages have motivated the farmers and enhanced their participation in agricultural programs, which has resulted in a sound change in development projects such as conservation agriculture, climate change and resilience, and community mobilization for economic empowerment.

TDA uses sharing of best practices, publicizing case stories, and facilitating community dialogues as methods to disseminate agricultural knowledge and information to farmers. This platform has created an avenue for others to copy the technology from those who have used it previously. Findings from focus group discussion reveal that these methods motivate farmers to adopt technology. The following is an extract from a focus group discussion.

The new farm technologies we receive from NGOs like TDA have paramount value in enhancing our agricultural productivity. They are using various techniques to make their messages understandable. Experience sharing is one of the best ways to learn from others and adopt new farm techniques such as conservation agriculture.

Another focus group participant added that the TDA’s development programs were dynamic in nature and significantly contributed to increase his agricultural production. The following is an excerpt from a focus group discussion.

The agricultural knowledge we acquired from the project staff of TDA through the formal and informal groups has helped us to increase our agricultural productivity and has assisted in sustainably ensuring our food security. There are opportunities to share our concerns with project staff and learn how to fix them. It would be great if TDA programs benefited as many farmers as possible, yet the project only involves a small number of farmers.

Findings from an in-depth interview also indicate that farmers freely communicate their opinions and share their concerns when the field workers understand the local context and respect the indigenous knowledge of the farmers. One of the informants explained this situation as follows:

If you approach farmers as if you know everything, they will tell you that you don’t. They may not tell you directly, they might show it to you in action. For me, valuing their indigenous knowledge is an important aspect of communicating with them in order to change their perceptions.

The above extract implies that communication with farmers should start with an understanding of the local context and recognition of their traditional farm practices. This could build trust and enable farmers to better interact with development workers. As a result, development workers could inculcate development messages designed to reach the farmers. However, TDA communication approaches were not found to be institutionalized; instead, they were highly dependent on the communicators’ or field staff’s communication skills.

Conclusion and recommendations

The findings indicate that communication approaches differ across development organizations. Development agents with state extension services, for instance, primarily used a top-down communication approach. Agricultural information flows to the farmers in a one-way approach where DAs are the transmitters of the information while the farmers are the passive receivers. Regardless of the other roles bestowed, it was found that information dissemination was the primary activity of the DAs. However, farmers are often reluctant to accept extension services provided by state extension. In response, DAs use various persuasion techniques to diffuse agricultural knowledge. It was found that there was a wide gap between agricultural extension policy and practice. This has limited the farmers’ opportunities to express their attitudes, perceptions, and opinions.

The present study found that large numbers of research outputs generated by research institutions were not properly disseminated to farmers. The communication approach used tends to be top-down approach, which lacks the involvement of farmers. Farmers’ participation is largely limited when the researchers introduce farm technologies.

The finding indicates that NGOs framed various tools that promote the participation of the community in development. These tools were developed to allow the organization to have a comprehensive dialogue with the community to understand the needs and interests of the community. However, it was found that the communication approaches were not consistently used and were not institutionally established as a tool to achieve the desired development goals.

Based on this finding, the study recommends that the role of DAs should shift from being technology promoters to facilitators using dialogue and other participatory communication methods. Research institutions also should be encouraged to ensure the participation of farmers both in the generation of technology and the dissemination of its outputs. This study also calls for the policy recommendations to critically review the current policy regarding the use of communication approaches to deliver extension messages.

Recommendation for future research

Even though the present study identified the communication approach practiced by extension service providers, further research is required to fully understand the driving forces behind the adoption of a top-down communication approach and the impacts it has on the provision of quality extension services for ensuring sustainable agricultural productivity.

Acknowledgements

This study has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 778196. However, the contents of the paper reflect only the author’s view and that the Agency is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).