BY FARMER

FOR FARMER

Farmers themselves communicate their views/experience for fellow farmer.

Scientists/subject matter specialists/extension personnel
communicate their knowledge for farmers

Farmer to farmer interaction

Subject expert – farmer interaction

Usually follows a participatory style of communication

Directive style of communication

Principle of self help

Dependency on the outside system

Direct conversational style 

Indirect presentation style

Proactive approach

Reactive approach

Simple. Colloquial language

Complex, text book language

High readability

Low readability

Follows a natural rhythm and sequence

Follows a stereotyped, rigid and set pattern of writing

Flexible and informal writing

Scripted and formal writing style

Practical, nonacademic

Tends to be academic though not intentional

Primary resource for writing is one’s own experience

Primary resource is accumulated knowledge from other sources

 ‘Down to earth’ treatment of the subject

Superficial high profile treatment of the subject  

Frame of reference is always the fellow farmers

Not focused, addresses the general public 

Portrays farming situations realistically 

Dramatised presentations in many cases 

Depicts the natural setting

Tendency to signify laboratory settings  

Able to empathize with the farmers

Empathetic outlook mostly lacking

Writing comes from the heart

Comes from the brain  

Emotional content stands out

Idea content stands out

Less of cognitive content, more of practical hints

More of cognitive content, less of practical hints 

Stresses on application of the message

Not much stress given on application

More credibility assigned by farmers

Credibility assigned is low  

Accurate and reliable inference presented

Accuracy and reliability of writing doubted by farmers  

Process-oriented writing

Procedure-oriented writing

Presents seasonal, timely and needed information 

Not serious about seasonality and timeliness of information.

Gives complete information needed by the farmers  

Mostly incomplete in many respects

Convinced and confident writing

Dubious and not confident in many cases  

Open and free communication

Mostly closed, filtered communication  

Distortion of information completely absent or very less

Information is distorted in many cases

Seeks self insight

Avoids alienated writing

Organic and presence of human element felt in writing

Mechanical, alienated writing

No status distinctions/barriers in writing

Emphasis is on status distinction

Readily accepts and acknowledges ideas of other farmers

 Not open to other’s ideas 

Economics of the practice brought out in many cases

Economics avoided in many cases 

Covers both positive and negative aspects of an innovation

Tendency to project only positive aspects, and hide negative ones

The author owns the responsibility for the message given

Responsibility for the message is not owned

Readiness to admit one’s own mistakes in communication

Finds excuses for even one’s own mistakes. Blames others for mistakes

The writing is very much suggestive

Very much imposing

A broader outlook of the farming situation is obtained

Presents only a narrow, perceived frame of the farming situation

Security oriented writing

Competency oriented writing

Reflects the intention and purpose of sharing information

Reflects the intention of projecting one’s knowledge for the sake of one’s own need  

Concern for fellow farmers is primary

Primary concern is increased production

Equality of source and receiver is evident

Tries to project the superiority of the source over the receiver

Very much interested in receiving feedback about the message

Not much bothered about receiving feedback in most cases

Firm conclusions

Loose generalizations

LISA (Low input sustainable agriculture) approach stressed

Stress is on use more external inputs

The resultant motivation for farmers to adopt the practice is high

Motivation for farmers to adopt the practice is comparatively low