November 2001

Participatory communication and adult learning for rural development

by the Communication for Development Group
Extension, Education and Communication
Research, Extension and Training Division

in collaboration with Gary Coldevin

Part 2 of 2

previously published in a special issue of the "Journal of International Communication" (vol.7 no. 2, 2001) on participatory communication

1 2

4. Parallel evolution of a participatory adult learning model

Hand in hand with the development of participatory theory and practice in communication has been a recognition of the importance of indigenous knowledge bases accumulated by farmers, and an examination of how new research recommendations might best fit into them. This reversal of the uni-directional passing on of research findings through extension to farmers, long advocated under the training and visit system (Benor and Cleaver, 1989), now implies that "farmers are the ones who must control the learning and be able to access information according to specific needs, times and means (Ramirez and Stuart, 1994, p. 4). Previously technologies were typically finalised in research institutions before farmers got to see them, essentially leaving them three choices: adoption, adaptation or rejection. When farmers make choices about what technologies are needed, and the knowledge and skills required to use them through what Rogers (1992; 1996) terms "a critical reflection on experience", the roles of research and extension are dramatically changed. Under the new paradigm, the "assertion of a knowledge gap, of a disparity between "experts" and local people is wrong - unless the "experts" through cooperation and learning from local people can apply their knowledge in the context and to the benefit of local "expertise"(Servaes and Arnst, 1992, p. 18).

The new role of the extension worker in the participatory learning process thus becomes one of facilitating problem definition and prioritizing technology solutions among farmers, through critical reflection of past experiences, and then designing and using training packages for presentation back to them. This has prompted a rethinking of the training of extension workers to ensure that more control of the extension process, knowledge sharing, and technology transfer requests will be mainly derived through farmer inputs. As Rogers (1996) suggests, this is easier to achieve through in-service training where field staff can reflect on actual practice. A growing trend for ensuring the inclusion of participatory and reflective extension skills in designing formal certificate and degree programmes in agricultural colleges, however, is through participatory curriculum development among the key stakeholders themselves. In this process, the farmers' role in the development of education and training programmes is especially important because farmers can voice their needs and gain a direct benefit from the outputs (Taylor, 1998).

Along with the levelling of extension services to match farmer demands, the shift from teaching to learning with them through practical applications has assumed vital importance. Roling and Pretty (1997, p. 183) put the case succinctly. "It is important to recognize that local people are always involved in active learning, in (re)inventing technologies, in adapting their farming systems and livelihood strategies. Understanding and supporting these processes of agricultural innovation and experimentation have become an important focus in facilitating more sustainable agriculture with its strong locality-specific nature". One of the more successful of these methodologies has been the Farmer Field School or FFS pioneered by FAO (Gallagher, 2000; FAO, 2000c).

FSSs were first established in Indonesia in 1989 as part of an FAO Integrated Pest Management (IPM) project. Courses take place in the field, field conditions define the curriculum, and real field problems are observed from planting of a crop to harvesting. An FFS is usually initiated by someone who has had experience at growing the crop concerned. For this reason, most IPM programmes have begun with training extension field staff in basic technical skills for managing an IPM crop. Each school lasts for one cropping season, with a group of about 25 people meeting on a weekly basis to study and make decisions based on the crop phenology (e.g., seeding, fertilizing, weeding, curbing pest encroachment). Instead of listening to lectures or watching demonstrations, farmers observe, record and discuss what is happening in the field. This discover-learning approach generates a deep understanding of ecological concepts and their practical application.

An FFS is always held in the community where the farmers live, with the extension officer traveling to the site on the day when the school meets. The field used for study is usually small, and either provided by the community or some other arrangement so that farmers can carry out risk- free management decisions that they might not otherwise attempt on their own farms. All field schools include field-based pre- and post-tests for the participants. Those with high attendance rates and who master the tests are awarded a certificate. Graduates routinely take over the job of extension facilitator by doing farmer-to farmer training or most of the functions of a follow-up season's training. The effects of IPM methods taught in FFSs are also compared with conventional practices. In one notable example drawn from Indonesia in 1993, the inputs and outputs of 10 rice farmers who participated in an IPM field school during one wet season were compared with those of 10 rice farmers who had never been FFS trained. Overall, the IPM farmers achieved 21% more rice harvest yield on a per hectare basis (6.9 tons versus 5.7 tons), for 97% of production costs, when compared to their non-IPM farmer counterparts. The significantly lower "input" costs for IPM farmers were largely attributed to minimal usage of commercial pesticides. Labour costs were also slightly lower for IPM farmers, possibly because of better land management (FAO, 1993, p. 72).

Hard lessons learned for the road ahead

1. The most obvious lesson from our review is that to be most effective a participatory communications and adult learning component should be built-in from the start of a project. The literature is now rife with confirmative statements to this effect. Two examples will suffice:¹⁵
   
   
   "If the goal of the development effort is to assist the poor, the endeavor should begin in their context, not in the planning office, not in the research station, and not from theories and constructs of far-removed institutions. … The claim is not that rural farmers are the foremost experts in macro-level planning but they are often the most qualified to decide how, or if, a given project's planning and objectives applies at the local level. … Participation is not a supplementary mechanism "diffused" to expedite external agendas, or a means to an end. It is a legitimate goal in itself". (Servaes and Arnst, 1992, p 18)
   
   
   
   "Access to and control of information sources are essential for poor people to participate fully in decisions affecting their lives and communities. Sustained social change is impossible without their full participation". (Rockefeller Foundation, 2000, p. 2)
   
   
   Unfortunately, all too often when communication is included, it is treated as an "add-on" type of materials production component to assist project objectives that may be well off the mark. Quite simple stated, "communication with target groups in the planning stage gives a better project design and better chances of creating a successful project" (Crowder, quoted in Rasmussen 2000).



2. Associated with getting planning for participating communication and adult learning started early on in project formulation is the importance of incorporating indigenous knowledge and practice. The adage of "start with what people already know and build on what they have" subsumes the notion that "indigenous knowledge can provide a different understanding and analysis of a situation which was formulated in response to the environment and relevant cultural issues" (Servaes and Anrst, 1992, p. 18). Further, "the location-specific nature of sustainable agriculture implies that extension must make use of farmers' knowledge and work together with farmers. (Roling and Pretty, 1997, p. 186). And finally, "experiences from around the world have shown that new "scientific technologies" whether agricultural or communication are not always the best strategy to adopt. Farmers' indigenous agricultural practices offer many answers and the best of both knowledge areas needs to be considered to meet local needs" (Protz, 1998, p. 2).



3. A third lesson relates to providing adequate funding from the start for communication and learning components. A rule of thumb estimate is to budget 10% (Fraser and Villet, 1994) but large projects may require proportionately less and smaller ones more. And based on the limited evidence thus far, training and technical support for ICT related projects will need substantially more funding than previously allotted for conventional media. Norrish (1998, p. ix) for example, points out that an average of 24% of the funding for a World Bank information technology component was spent on training and technical support. Also revealing are industry figures from United States of America, although not directly comparable to developing countries, which show that anything between 50 to 68% is spent on training.



4. Fourthly, and although not a new theme, building human capacity takes time, usually much more than provided for in a typical five year project. Balit (1988) notes that the most successful of FAO's projects with a communication for development component have had a running time of seven to ten years. Benor and Cleaver (1989) go even further when suggesting that support to extension systems should be designed with a long-term perspective (15 years at least). As they skeptically conclude, "The continent of Africa is littered with five-year projects, abandoned on 'completion' by farmers" (p. 2).



5. Given the location-specific nature of the PRA/PRCA process, a "small is beautiful" focus of projects should be at the community level. While a number of communities may be included in a given project, individual attention should be stressed such that each would build on its own strengths and unique opportunities. As Rolling and Pretty (1997) conclude from their review of extension's role in sustainable agricultural development, "Most successes are still localized. They are simply islands of success" (p. 181). And undoubtedly, it is much easier to encourage and facilitate what we might call the four pillars of collaborative development at the village level, namely, multi-stakeholder involvement or pluralism, transparent negotiations, representational participation, and accountability (Anderson, Clement and Crowder, 1998; Ramirez, 1998).¹⁶



6. Planning for gender sensitivity in communication strategies and media content continues to be haphazardly applied, particularly with regard to rural women's concerns. As Balit (1999) points out, women farmers are responsible for half of the world's food production and in most developing countries produce from 60 to 80% of food destined for household food consumption. The "feminization of agriculture" means that rural women are key actors on the development agenda. PRCA applications should address social, economic, cultural, and time constraints faced by women in producing and preparing food and factor these into the design of communication messages, appropriate channels to use, and best timing and locations for delivery.



7. The issue of the lack of evaluation continues to undermine the perception of the value of participatory communication and learning project components. Assessing and taking credit for outcomes and longer-term impact which rightly accrue from communication and learning activities, such as changes in awareness, knowledge, attitudes, skills and behaviour, should be applied more frequently. Time and time again one reads that a true assessment of the value of communication and training was not possible due to the lack of pre-testing or a benchmark survey. Building in both qualitative and quantitative baseline measures such as those advocated in PRCA ensures that shifts in indicators can be measured during project implementation, upon its completion, and well after to probe longer-term impact. Inferences as to the effects of media and learning strategies on agricultural production levels - as a result of practice changes - can also be made (e.g., results of IPM-FFS on increases in rice production in Indonesia). In short, we need to consolidate a portfolio of validated best practices to better enable project decision-makers to harness the power of communication interventions.
   
   One way to encourage more evaluation, and to curb the contention that PRCA is such a time consuming process, is to choose and apply only those PRA tools that will yield useful information; and the turn-around time for baseline quantitative surveys can be reduced by choosing smaller, but representative, samples and asking only what needs to be asked for formulating a communication strategy and media-mix.
   
   The issue of evaluation is taking on mounting importance since the day is rapidly approaching when donors will want hard evidence of the results of their project investments. Anecdotal, narrative descriptions of outcomes and impacts will no longer do. Results-Based Management or RBM (CIDA, 1999) which sets specific inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impact performance indicators is already being applied by SIDA, CIDA, USAID and some UN Agencies, e.g., UNFPA. Assuredly other, if not most, development agencies will follow. Mainstreaming gender into RBM and factoring it into the evaluation grid of project indicators is another very positive step in this movement.



8. The question of how to best achieve sustainability following project completion remains a constant challenge but some answers are starting to emerge. Among these:
   • a community focus with beneficiary participation is essential for setting achievable project objectives and creating local buy-in from the start;
   • extension communication and learning should build on indigenous know-how and consult research on technical problems for which there are no effective local solutions available;
   • sufficient time should be allotted to routinise project objectives;
   • follow-on activities should use local resources (staff, media equipment and facilities) and fall within the means of extension, and the community, to afford them.

In sum, perhaps the most instructive residue emerging from this paper is that researchers, educators, extensionists, communicators, and farmers must begin to act as a dynamic unit in synergizing and complementing each other toward getting the best out of methods and practices of participatory communication and learning. This implies each sector taking the lead at a given stage (e.g, communicators facilitating PRCA, farmers setting development priorities and their information and training needs, extension and media producers packaging research recommendations, skills training provided by educators and extension workers, and farmers training other farmers), but all working toward a common set of objectives. Finally, it should be kept in mind that most of the guidelines developed for participatory communication and adult learning thus far have been accumulated over three decades. The current rush to network the rural areas of the developing world, and to apply the inherent global resources of the Internet toward meaningful community progress, would be well served by observing the rather more slowly accrued hard-earned lessons from traditional and older electronic media applications.

Endnotes

¹A significant achievement in this direction is the increasing attention given to Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems for Rural Development (AKIS/RD) which link people and institutions to promote mutual learning and generate, share and utilize agriculture-related technology, knowledge and information. The system integrates farmers, agricultural educators, researchers and extensionists to harness knowledge and information from various sources for better farming and improved livelihoods (FAO/World Bank, 2000).
²A range of participatory methods and tools has been developed to help rural people diagnose problems, gather information, explore options, and commit themselves to action, often collective action. Education and training are no longer seen simply as processes of transferring knowledge or information, but rather as means to empower people to become critical thinkers and problem solvers who are better able to help themselves, and engage with others in order to learn, share information and address problems and priorities. This is very important for farmers whose ability to cope with the unpredictable is often the key to survival. (FAO/World Bank, 2000)
³Another major undertaking in this vein occurred in 1993 with the adoption of national Development Communication Policies in Mali and Guinea Bissau embodying recommendations that all development programmes and projects include a communication component. Other African countries following this lead include Central African Republic, the Congo (Rep) and Burkina Faso (Balit and Ilboudo, 1996). These policies are intended to cover not only agriculture, but health, nutrition, environment and education as well and fit well into the FAO Communication Group's multi-disciplinary approach to rural development. Increasingly, communication practitioners are performing a type of "ombudsman" or coordinator role wherein issues raised by communities are brought to the attention of relevant government and private agencies at local to national levels.
⁴Although there are some examples of open television broadcasting in rural development, e.g., India, generally its use has been limited because of high production costs and low access among rural populations (FAO, 1989). Video, on the other hand, has rapidly emerged as perhaps the most effective medium for a variety of information and training purposes.
⁵Overall, the results of all campaigns were impressive. For example, the rat control campaign in Bangladesh during 1983 raised the adoption of rat control practices among wheat farmers from 10 to 32%, resulting in an average harvest gain of 54 kg/hectare in treated fields. A follow-up campaign in 1984 with all types of farmers showed 47% practicing rat control before and 67% after the exercise with average harvest gains of 44 kg/hectare.
⁶Pretty (1995, p.61) in a typology of participation defines the following characteristics:

• Functional participation - People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined objectives related to the project, which can involve the development or promotion of externally initiated social organization. Such involvement tends to come after major decisions have been made, rather than during the planning stage.
• Interactive participation - People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans and the formation of new local institutions or the strengthening of existing ones. It tends to involve interdisciplinary methodologies that seek multiple perspectives and make use of systematic and structured learning processes. These groups have control over local decisions, and so people have a stake in maintaining structures or practices.
• Self-mobilization - People participate by taking initiatives independent of external institutions to change systems. They develop contacts with external institutions for resources and technical advice they need, but retain control over how resources are used. Self-initiated mobilization and collective action may or may not challenge existing inequitable distributions of wealth and power.

⁷Another advance made by FAO in the Philippines during this period was the undertaking of a modified version of RAAKS (rapid appraisal of agricultural knowledge systems) for visualizing farmers' communication networks in two barangays up to municipal level (Ramirez, 1995).
⁸Assistance to the project was also provided by the University of the Philippines, Los Baños (UPLB). Development Communication (DC) as an academic discipline was first introduced and has continued to flourish at UPLB since 1954. Currently, its College of Development Communication (CDC) has an average twenty-member faculty corps servicing campus-based undergraduate, Masters and Ph.D. programmes. In addition, CDC offers an MPS (Master of Professional Studies) at a distance through the University of the Philippines Open University (UPOU). The College also serves as a DC training centre for the Southeast Asian region. And since 1967, through its collaboration with Radio DZLB, the rural educational radio station of UPLB, it has supported a variety of field projects ranging from support for rural youth and 4H clubs to "schools on-the-air" with topics spanning improved farming techniques to maternal health and child care.
⁹Each CATS consisted of a karaoke system, two microphones, and a 500-watt amplifier housed in a studio and connected to four 100-watt loudspeakers attached to a metal tower. Total cost: US$2000. Construction of studio housing and towers was provided by the communities. "Broadcasts" can reach up to a two kilometer radius. A simplified version of CATS was also developed in Local Communication Units for the second phase of the PRODERITH project in Mexico from 1986 to 1995.
¹⁰Other popular one to two week workshops include Gender and Communication, Participatory Research Techniques, Quantitative Baseline Surveys, Village Theatre in Development, and Participatory Rural Radio.
¹¹Abstracted from e-mail correspondence with Philippe Van der Stichele, FAO Communication Officer, responsible for backstopping the SADC Centre.
¹²While a "telecentre" may be the common descriptor for such a facility, a variety of other terms is used such as, Multi-Purpose Telecentre (MPTC), Multi-Purpose Community Telecentre (MPCT), and Multi-Purpose Communication Center (MPCC). IDRC has reduced it to Multipurpose Community Telecentre or MCT.
¹³Even as this paper is written, for example, "iRadio" prototypes are being developed that will have a screen capable of downloading e-mail and doing Web browsing using battery power supply.
¹⁴Information obtained from senior author's personal involvement as extension communication specialist during project formulation.
¹⁵As further testimony, a recent Net-based development "The Communication Initiative" has among its mission statements, "to effectively advocate the importance of communication for sustainable development". The "Initiative" is a consortium of eleven partners comprising the BBC, CIDA, European Union, Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs, PANOS, Rockefeller Foundation, Soul City, UNAIDS, UNICEF, USAID, and WHO. Five major programming activities are being pursued: A Web site (www.commint.com) featuring communication trend summaries, a Network database of 5,000 people active in the field, "The Drum Beat" a bi-weekly electronic magazine featuring summaries of on-going projects, "The Media Beat" a bi-weekly scan of development communication articles drawn from on-line newspapers, and finally, a Strategic Development forum for sharing planning ideas of major development organizations.
¹⁶Pretty's (1995) top levels in his typology of participation, namely, interactive participation and self-mobilization are also best initiated at the individual community level.

References

Adam, Wenke 2000 "Multimedia in Mozambique - IT for the Poor?" (E-mail correspondence).

Adhikarya, Ronny 1994 Strategic Extension Campaign: A Participatory-Oriented Method of Agricultural Extension. Rome: FAO.

Anderson, J. Clement, J and Crowder, L.V. 1998 "Accommodating Conflicting Interests in Forestry Concepts Emerging From Pluralism" Unasylva, 49.

Anderson, J. Crowder, L.V., Dion, D. and Truelove, W. 1998 "Applying the Lessons of Participatory Communication and Training to Rural Telecentres" in Don Richardson and Lynnita Paisley (eds) The First Mile of Connectivity: Advancing Telecommunication for Rural Development Through a Participatory Communication Approach. Rome FAO.

Anyaegbunam, Chike, Mefalopulos, Paolo, and Moetsabi, Titus 1998 Participatory Rural Appraisal: Starting With the People. Harare: SADC Centre of Communication for Development.

Balit, Silvia 1999. Voices for Change: Rural Women and Communication. Rome: FAO.

Balit, Silvia 1998 "Listening to Farmers: Communication for Participation and Change in Latin America" in Loy Van Crowder (ed) Training for Agriculture and Rural Development - 1995-96. Rome: FAO, Chapter 4.

Balit, Silvia 1988 "Rethinking Development Support Communication" Development Communication Report, 62.

Balit, Silvia and Ilboudo, Jean-Pierre 1996 Towards National Communication for Development Policies in Africa. Rome: FAO.

Balit, Silvia, Rios, Cavelo and Masias, L. 1996 Communication for Development in Latin America: A Regional Expreience.

Benor, Daniel and Cleaver, Kevin 1989 "Training and Visit System of Agricultural Extension", Interpaks Exchange, 6, 2, 1-3.

Chambers, Robert 1992 Rural Appraisal: Rapid, Relaxed and Participatory. Sussex University, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.

CIDA 1999 Results-Based Management in CIDA: An Introductory Guide to the Concepts and Principles. Hull: CIDA.

Coldevin, Gary 1995 Farmer-first Approaches to Communication: A Case Study from the Philippines. Rome: FAO.

Coldevin, Gary 1990 Communication Strategies for Rural Development: A Case Study of the Use of Campaigns in Lesotho. Rome: FAO.

Coldevin, Gary 1988 "Video Applications in Rural Development" Educational Media International, 25,4, 225-229.

Coldevin, Gary 1987 Perspectives on Communication for Rural Development. Rome: FAO.

Coldevin, Gary 1986 "Evaluation in Rural Development Communications - A Case Study from West Africa" Media in Education and Development, 19, 112-118.

Coldevin, Gary 1979 "Broadcasting Development and Research in Tanzania" Journal of Educational Television, 5, 70-76.

Crowder, Loy Van 2000 "Farmer Information Networks (FARMNets) - A Tool for Sustainable Agricultural Production and Improved Food Security in Developing Countries". Rome: FAO.

Crowder, Loy Van, et al. 1998 "Knowledge and Information for Food Security in Africa: from traditional media to the Internet". Rome, FAO.

FAO 2000a The FAO Communication for Development Group". Rome: FAO.

FAO 2000b Virtual Extension, Research and Communication Network (VERCON). Rome: FAO.

FAO 2000c Community Integrated Pest Management. Rome: FAO

FAO 1999a The State of Food Insecurity in the World - 1999. Rome: FAO.

FAO 1999b Le Centre de Services de Production Audiovisuelle (CESPA) au Mali. Rome: FAO.

FAO 1996 Development of Rural Radio in Africa. Rome: FAO.

FAO 1994 Applying DSC Methodologies to Population Issues: A Case Study in Malawi. Rome: FAO.

FAO 1993 IPM Farmer Training: The Indonesia Case. Jogyakarta: FAO - IPM Secretariat.

FAO 1989 Guidelines on Communication for Rural Development. Rome: FAO.

FAO 1981 Communication for Rural Development. Rome: FAO

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

Fraser, Colin 1987 Pioneering a New Approach to Communication in Rural Areas: The Peruvian Experience with Video for Training at Grassroots Level. Rome: FAO.

Fraser, Colin 1983 "Adopting Communication Technologies for Rural Development" CERES, 95.

Fraser, Colin and Restrepo-Estrada 1997 Communication for Rural Development in Mexico: In Good Times and Bad. Rome: FAO.

Fraser, Colin and Villet, Jonathan 1994 Communication: A Key to Human Development. Rome: FAO.

Freire, Paulo 1972 Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin.

Gallagher, Kevin 2000 Farmers' Field Schools (FFS): A Group Extension Process Based on Adult Non-Formal Education Methods. Rome: FAO Global IPM Facility.

Hall, Bud and Dodds, Tony 1977. "Voices for Development: The Tanzanian National Radio Study Campaigns" in Peter Spain, Dean Jamison and Emile McAnany (eds) Radio for Education and Development. Washington: World Bank.

IDRC 1999 "Internet for All: The promise of Telecentres in Africa" IDRC Briefing. Ottawa: IDRC.

Mhonda, Eddington 1996 "The Radio Listening Clubs Experience - Development Through Radio" in Katja Jassey (ed) Engaging Participation: The Use of Video as a Tool in Rural Development. Harare: FAO.

Mody, Bella 1992 "Talking to Development Bankers: Extension Workers Speak Up" Development Communication Report, 79, 7-9.

Moetsabi, Titus 1998 "Participatory Approaches for Promoting Rural Connectivity: An Exploration of Issues" in Don Richardson, and Lynnita Paisley (eds) The First Mile of Connectivity: Advancing Telecommunication for Rural Development Through a Participatory Communication Approach. Rome: FAO, 182-190.

Norrish, Pat 1998 "New ICTs and Rural Communities" in Don Richardson, and Lynnita Paisley (eds) The First Mile of Connectivity: Advancing Telecommunication for Rural Development Through a Participatory Communication Approach. Rome: FAO, vii-x.

Population Reference Bureau 1999 World Population: More Than Just Numbers. Washington: 1999.

Pretty, Jules 1995 Regenerating Agriculture: Policies and Practice for Sustainability and Self-Reliance. London: Earthscan Publications.

Protz, Maria 1998 "Developing Sustainable Agricultural Technologies with Rural Women in Jamaica: A Participatory Media Approach", in Loy Van Crowder (ed) Training for Agriculture and Rural Development 1997-98. Rome: FAO.

Ramirez, Ricardo 1998 "Participatory Learning and Approaches for Managing Pluralism" Unasylva, 49.

Ramirez, Ricardo 1995 Understanding Farmers' Communication Networks: An Experience in the Philippines. Rome: FAO.

Ramirez, Ricardo and Stuart, Teresa 1994 "Farmers Control Communication Campaigns" ILEIA Newsletter, March.

Rasmussen, Finn 2000 "Communication for Development: The FAO Pioneers Use of Communication in Development Work", field paper prepared for Danida.

Richardson, Don 1997 The Internet and Rural and Agricultural Development: An Integrated Approach. Rome: FAO.

Richardson, Don and Paisley, Lynnita (eds) 1988 The First Mile of Connectivity: Advancing Telecommunication for Rural Development Through a Participatory Communication Approach. Rome: FAO.

Rockefeller Foundation 2000 Special Programs: Communication for Social Change. New York: Rockefeller Foundation.

Rogers, Alan 1996 "Participatory Training Using Critical Reflection on Experience in Agricultural Extension Training" in Loy Van Crowder (ed) Training for Agriculture and Rural Development 1995-96. Rome: FAO, pp. 86-103.

Rogers, Alan 1992 Adults Learning for Development. London: Cassell.

Rogers, Everett 1976 "Communication and Development: The Passing of the Dominant Paradigm" in Everett Rogers (ed) Communication and Development - Critical Perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 121-148.

Roling, Niels and Pretty, Jules 1997 "Extension's Role in Sustainable Development", in Improving Agricultural Extension: A Reference Manual. Rome: FAO, 181-191.

Sen, Amartya 1998 Development As Freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Servaes, Jan and Arnst, Randy 1992 "Participatory Communication for Social Change: Reasons for Optimism in the Year 2000" Development Communication Report, 79, 18-20.

Sison, Obdulia 1985 Factors Associated with the Successful Transfer of Rice Technology in the Philippines Masagana 99 Programme. Rome: FAO.

Taylor, P. 1998 "Participatory Curriculum Development for Agricultural Education and Training: Experiences from Viet Nam and South Africa" in Loy Van Crowder (ed) Training for Agricultural and Rural Development 1997-98. Rome: FAO.

Van der Stichele, Philippe and Bie, Stein 1997 "The Last Mile: How Can Farmers Take Advantage of New Media?". Rome: FAO.

Villet, Jonathon 1988 African Rinderpest Campaign Guide. Rome: FAO

Woods, Bernard 1996 "A Public Good, A Private Responsibility", CERES, 28, 2, 23-27.

World Bank, 1983 Basic Education and Agricultural Extension. Washington: World Bank Staff Working Paper 564.

Go back to Part 1