Evaluation of agricultural extension model sites approach in Iran

Abstract Evaluation provides effective feedback for development plans and programs. In this respect, it is of utmost importance to ensure that the outputs of agricultural extension and education projects are compatible with the ones expected. Therefore, the main purpose of this study was to evaluate agricultural extension model sites approach from actors’ perspectives and to analyze their gaps via the context, input, process, and product (CIPP) evaluation model. The study was quantitative, applied, survey-based, and causal-comparative in terms of nature, purpose, methodology, and type of research, respectively. The samples included 150 main and follower farmers from a total number of 40 model sites and 37 subject-matter experts selected using the random and purposive sampling methods, respectively. The data collection instrument was a researcher-made questionnaire, whose reliability was confirmed through computing Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (0.75 ≤ α ≤ 0.90) and its validity was established by a panel of experts. The data were further analyzed using the SPSS24 and comparative statistical tests. The comparison results demonstrated that the mean values of the experts’ views towards all items at different evaluation stages (i.e., context, input, process, product, output, and re-engineering) were higher compared with those of the farmers. Moreover, the farmers’ perspectives at the context and the input evaluation stages were not the same as those of the experts, and their satisfaction with the project had boosted as they had approached the output evaluation stage. The results of the gap analysis similarly indicated that the largest negative gap between the views of the experts and the farmers was associated with the input evaluation stage and the smallest gap was related to the site re-engineering. Accordingly, much more attention should be paid to building and maintaining the trust of farmers during the early stages of planning for and implementation of agricultural extension model sites.

[1]  Ibrahim,et al.  Challenges and prospects of privatization of agricultural extension service delivery in Nigeria , 2012 .

[2]  M. Muddassir,et al.  Factors influencing farmers' satisfaction with the quality of agricultural extension services. , 2021, Evaluation and program planning.

[3]  M. Shahpasand.  Model Sites: A New Direction towards Cooperation among Extension Agents, Field Experts, Researchers, and Farmers , 2020 .

[4]  O. Akinnagbe,et al.  Challenges of farmer-led extension approaches in Nigeria. , 2010 .

[5]  R. Nelson,et al.  Human and Technical Dimensions of Potato Integrated Pest Management Using Farmer Field Schools: International Potato Center and Partners’ Experience With Potato Late Blight Management , 2019, Journal of Integrated Pest Management.

[6]  N. Driouech,et al.  Agricultural extension and advisory services in Algeria at crossroads: pressing problems and innovative solutions. , 2013 .

[7]  Takuji W. Tsusaka,et al.  Is farmer-to-farmer extension effective? The impact of training on technology adoption and rice farming productivity in Tanzania , 2018 .

[8]  V. Rasheed Sulaiman,et al.  Extension: Object of Reform, Engine for Innovation , 2009 .

[9]  G. Thapa,et al.  The effect of agricultural extension services: Date farmers’ case in Balochistan, Pakistan , 2016, Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences.

[10]  Roger D. Norton,et al.  Agricultural Development Policy: Concepts and Experiences , 2004 .

[11]  R. V. Krejcie,et al.  Determining Sample Size for Research Activities , 1970 .

[12]  C. Onyango,et al.  Farmer Field School Effectiveness for Soil and Crop Management Technologies in Kenya , 2006 .

[13]  D. Alemu,et al.  Agricultural research and extension linkages: Challenges and intervention options , 2016 .

[14]  S. Panda,et al.  Changes in nitrate reductase activity and oxidative stress response in the moss Polytrichum commune subjected to chromium, copper and zinc phytotoxicity , 2005 .

[15]  R. Creaney,et al.  Achieving on-farm practice change through facilitated group learning: Evaluating the effectiveness of monitor farms and discussion groups , 2017 .

[16]  Learning to Think for Ourselves: Knowledge Improvement and Social Benefits among Farmer Field School Participants in Cameroon , 2007 .

[17]  Masoud Yazdanpanah,et al.  Measuring satisfaction of crop insurance a modified American customer satisfaction model approach applied to Iranian Farmers , 2013 .

[18]  Robert Tripp,et al.  What should we expect from farmer field schools? A Sri Lanka case study , 2005 .

[19]  Masoud Yazdanpanah,et al.  Investigating Iranian Farmers' Satisfaction With Agricultural Extension Programs Using the American Customer Satisfaction Index , 2017 .

[20]  P. Mosley,et al.  AID, GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE AND AGGREGATE WELFARE , 2005 .

[21]  E. Heinemann,et al.  Farmer empowerment through farmer field schools. , 2006 .

[22]  Catherine Laurent,et al.  Privatization of agricultural extension services in the EU : Towards a lack of adequate knowledge for small-scale farms? , 2013 .

[23]  E. Karimi,et al.  Analyzing Impacts of Farmer Field School on the Economic, Social, Production, and Knowledge Status of Greenhouse Owners: Evidence from Tehran Province and its Surrounding Counties , 2020 .

[24]  Kristin Davis,et al.  Impact of Farmer Field Schools on Agricultural Productivity and Poverty in East Africa , 2012 .

[25]  M. Janmohammadi,et al.  Influence of priming techniques on seed germination behavior of maize inbred lines (zea mays L.) , 2008 .

[26]  A. Asadi,et al.  Major Challenges of Iranian Rural Communities for Achieving Sustainable Development , 2008 .

[27]  P. Kenmore,et al.  Impact of educating farmers about biological control in farmer field schools. , 2005 .