INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter free, while others may be from aity type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zed) Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313^761-4700 800/521-0600
MAKING THE VISIBLE INVISIBLE:
THE IMPACT OF EXTENSION AGENT ATTITUDES TOWARDS FARMERS
ON EXTENSION PROJECTS AND POLICY
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Joseph P. Owusu-Ansah, B.A., M.A., M.Sc.
*****
The Ohio State University
1996
Dissertation Committee: Approved bv
Dr. Cathy A. Rakowski
Dr. Joseph F. Donnermeyer Advisor Agricultural Economics Dr. Janet L. Henderson and Rural Sociology UMI Number: 9710639
UMI Microform 9710639 Copyright 1997, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Copyright by
J. P. Owusu-Ansah
1996 To
My Parents Agya Yaw Amankwaa and Afua Mansa-Atwemaa Birago ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to my major advisor, Dr. Cathy A.
Rakowski, under whose professional guidance the study was conducted, analyzed, written, and submitted.. Cathy’s interest in the study and her accumulated research experience guided me throughout the study. These qualities, together with advice on research analyses and data interpretation, will be remembered for years to come. I would also like to express sincere thanks to Dr. Joseph F. Donnermeyer and Dr. Janet
L. Henderson, graduate committee members, whose invaluable contributions and suggestions culminated in the completion of the dissertation. Many thanks also go to
Dr. Robert Agunga at the Department of Agricultural Education, Dr. Linda M. Lobao and Dr. Lynn Forster, both at the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural
Sociology, for their support and encouragement throughout the study.
My sincere gratitude goes to the Rockefeller Research Foundation for funding the dissertation research under the African Dissertation Internship Award Program.
Also, I would like to express earnest gratitude to the Elizabeth D. Gee Fund for
Research on Women and the Graduate Alumni Student Research Award, both at The
Ohio State University, for funding part of the study. Also, I would like to express thanks to Dr. Joseph F. Donnermeyer, with whom I worked as a graduate research assistant under the W. K. Kellogg Leadership Program.
As a self-sponsored, independent graduate student, I could never have completed my program in the Summer 1996 Quarter had I not received funding from the
University. In this regard, I am grateful to James M. Siddens, The Ohio State
m University Assistant Dean and Secretary; Dr. Kirby R. Barrick, Department of
Agricultural Education Chair; and Dr. John F. Greisberger, Director of the Office of
International Education (OIE) at The Ohio State University.
I am equally grateful to the Librarians at The Ohio State University whose unqualified patience sailed me through the tiresome period of literature research. I would like to recognize in particular Mary Key, Head Librarian, Agricultural Library;
H. Janette Holland, Agricultural Library Circulation Supervisor; and Virginia
Reynolds of the Women Studies Library, for “wiping away my tears” by helping me locate critically needed books and material. I am greatly indebted to you, Mary, Jan, and Reynolds.
My earnest gratitude also goes to the staff and officials at the Ministry of
Agriculture Headquarters at Entebbe and the Mukono District Extension Office for their cooperation and unwavering assistance. I am deeply indebted to Mr. Allen Kebba,
Mukono District Extension Coordinator (DEC) and the entire extension staff without whose support the study could never have been carried out.
Indispensable to the study were Gertrude Night (M.Sc), entomologist from
Makerere University, who was interpreter, language instructor, and personal secretary to the principal investigator (PI); James Mugerwa Salongo, County Extension
Coordinator (CEC), who was also team leader and liaison for the study; Susan
Nakiyingi, Assistant Agricultural Officer (AAO), who, together with James, directed the interviews with both farmers and field extension officers. Gertrude, James, and
Susan helped the PI train the enumerators for the study, among them, Henry Ojuiong,
IV Fred Ssango, Doreen Kabasindi Wandera, Christine Nakawuka, Agnes Atyang, Andrew
Joseph Wanduiu, and Giddeon Sensumika—graduate students of agriculture at the
Makerere University.
I would like to recognize the faculty and staff at the Department of Agriculture,
Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda, for the wonderful assistance they gave me while I was in Kampala. Thanks go to Dr. Adipala Ekwamu, who served as my facilitator; Dr. John S. Tenywa, who helped me with transportation arrangements; Mr.
A. R. Semana and Dr. Guy Denton, who helped to review the instruments for the study; Dr. Mary Silver, who provided accommodation for Dr. Cathy Rakowski while she was in Kampala; Mrs. Joy Tumuhairwe and Dr./Mrs. Mary Mutetika for their hospitality.
Also, I would like to recognize friends and families I rubbed shoulders with at
Kabanyolo, the Makerere University Agricultural Research Institute, where I stayed for twelve calendar months. Thanks a lot, Aunt Sarah Kaayah and children Najjuma,
Maama Kati, and Carol for providing me with the recipe for Saturday morning pork and teaching me how to cook matoke; Aunt Jane Mukasa, Canteen Manager, for your friendship and guidance; Imelda Nalukenge and her husband for your company; Dr.
John Tenywa and family for opening your doors to me throughout my stay at
Kabanyolo; Grace Venessa Williams, Cissey, Lydia Nakamalira for providing me with water and helping me do the laundry; and Pastor Robert James Kakande of the Live
Christian Center Missions for your visits. I am really grateful to you all. Sincere gratefulness also goes to my graduate student colleagues who helped me plan and carry out the study. I am thankful to my Ugandan peers, particularly
“Bossman” Ijoyi Fendru and “First Lady” Florence Wakoko on whose advice and guidance Mukono District was selected as location for the study, and to Mark John
Erbaugh who provided the logistics for the purchase of equipment needed for the study. Thanks, folks.
I would like to express thanks to my former graduate advisors at the University of Florida in Gainesville whose academic advisement made all the difference in my academic pursuits in the USA: Dr. Robert N. Pierce and Dr. Kurt E. Kent, College of
Journalism and Conununications; and Dr. Carl E. Beeman, Department of Agricultural
Extension and Education. Equally deserving recognition are certain individuals whose support and encouragement for my academic program knew no bounds. They are
Mrs. Victoria Osei, a Ghanaian resident in Columbus; Senior Nurse Doris Boateng and her husband. Dr. Joe Amoako of Ohio University, Athens; Senior Nurse Mrs. Rosina
Asamoa (Amma Ataa), resident in Athens, Ohio; and Dorothy Bikawaof Columbus, an
American, who proved to be an indispensable family friend—a dependable entity.
Lastly, but by no means the least, I am greatly indebted to my family, particularly my wife Afia Tiwaa, my children Abenaa Birago Busia, Kofi, Akwasi,
Kwame, and Owusu-Amankwaa; my parents Agya Yaw Amankwaa and Afia Mansa-
Atwemaa Birago; my sisters Afia Serwaa, Afia Pokuaa, and Abenaa Amankwaa; my elder sister Akosua Boatemaa (who passed away in 1978); and my step-brother Baffour
Osei Yaw Akoto. Their love and concern kept me “pushing” at all times.
VI VITA
1941 Bom at Duayaw-Nkwanta, Brong Ahafo, Ghana, West Africa.
1964 Teacher Certificate “A” at SL Joseph’s Teacher Training College, Bechem, Brong Ahafo, Ghana, West Africa.
1974 B.A., Social Sciences, University of Ghana, Legon, Accra.
1975-1978 Editor-In-Chief, The Standard, National Catholic Weekly.
1978-1981 Social Science Instructor, Public Schools, LAMCO, Yekepa, Liberia, West Africa.
1981-1984 M.A., Journalism and Communications, University of Florida, Gainesville.
1985-1989 M.Sc., Agriculture, University of Florida, Gainesville.
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Rural Sociology
Studies in Rural Sociology Dr. J. Donnermeyer Dr. L. Lobao Dr. D. Hansen Dr. T. Nappier
Studies in Sociological Theory Dr. J. Jenkins Dr. B. Kaufman Dr. Katherine Rowell
Studies in Research Methodology Dr. L. Miller Dr. D. McCracken Dr. E. Norland Dr. L. Krivo
Studies in Statistics Dr. W. Notz Dr. L. Krivo Dr. Haytor Dr. S. MacEachera Dr. E. Novak Dr. K. Namboodiri
vu Studies in Agricultural Extension Dr. J. Henderson Dr. R. Agunga Dr. Jo Jones Dr. J. Pittman Dr. L. Hedges Dr. E. Norland Dr. Thompson Dr. R. Clark
vm TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... iü
VITA...... vii
LIST OF TABLES...... xiii
LIST OF TABLES...... xv
CHAPTER PAGE
I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM...... 1 Significance of the Study ...... 9 Organization of the Dissertation ...... 11
II CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY...... 12 Introduction ...... 12 The Women-In-Development (WID) Literature ...... 17 The Knowledge Issue of Statistical Invisibility ...... 17 Bias Against Smallholders and Non-wage Work ...... 22 Studies of Bias in Development Programs and Policies ...... 24 Social Psychology and Attitudes Research ...... 29 Attitudes Formation and Change ...... 30 Policy Implications of Attitudes Research ...... 34 Attitudes and Extension Practices in Africa...... 35 Farming Ideology and Attitude Change ...... 38 The Question of Power ...... 39 Research Assumptions, Objectives, and General Hypotheses ...... 41 Objectives of the Study and Hypotheses ...... 43
m THE SETTING: CHOICE OF UGANDA AS STUDY SITE...... 45 Introduction ...... 45 Background ...... 48 The Republic of Uganda, East Africa...... 48 Mukono District ...... 62 Land Tenure...... 70 Cash Crops ...... 73 Agricultural Extension in Uganda ...... 74 Organizational Structure of the Ministry of Agriculture (1994) ...... 78 Extension in Mukono District ...... 82 Mukono District Farm Institute ...... 84 ix IV RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS...... 88 Introduction ...... 88 Research Design ...... 88 Rapid Reconnaissance Survey (Sondeo) ...... 91 Survey Research and Instruments ...... 94 Sampling Procedures ...... 98 Field Extension Officers ...... 98 Farmers...... 99 Data Analysis...... 101
V FARMERS’ REALITY IN MUKONO DISTRICT...... 105 Introduction ...... 105 Socio-Economic and Demographic Characteristics ...... 106 Household Structure ...... 106 Marital Status...... 107 Household Head ...... 107 Ethnicity ...... 108 Religion ...... 109 Migratory Status...... 109 Age ...... 110 Farmers’ Educational Levels ...... I ll Farm and Nonfarm Incomes ...... 112 Land Tenure...... 113 Agricultural Production and Practices ...... 118 Farming Tasks and Labor Availability ...... 121 Use of Hired Labor ...... 133 Tools and Machinery ...... 134 Labor Availability: Differences by Marital Status ...... 135 Decision Making ...... 141 Problems Farmers Encounter in Their Work ...... 151
VI EXTENSION ATTITUDES TOWARD FARMERS...... 155 Introduction ...... 155 Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Held Extension Officers ...... 156 Ethnicity ...... 157 Religion ...... 158 Migratory Status ...... 160 Age ...... 161 Marital Status...... 162 Household Head ...... 163 Educational Levels ...... 164 Income ...... 166 Findings on Knowledge and Attitudes ...... 168 Knowledge of Production Practices ...... 170 Hypothesis 1 ...... 170 Hypothesis 2 ...... 172 Hypothesis 3 ...... 174 Knowledge of Decision Making in Farm Households ...... 175 Hypothesis 4 ...... 175 Hypothesis 5 ...... 177 Hypothesis 6 ...... 179 Extension Attitudes Toward Farmers ...... 180 Hypothesis 7 ...... 181 Hypothesis 8 ...... 184 Hypothesis 9 ...... 187 Hypothesis 10 ...... 190 Policy Formulation and Implementation ...... 192 Policy Recommendations ...... 198 Hypothesis 11 ...... 198 Extension-Farmer Interaction ...... 200 Hypothesis 12 ...... 203 Farmers’ Opinion on Extension ...... 209 Problems Field Extension Officers Encounter in Their Work ...... 215
Vn DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND POUCY RECOMMENDATIONS...219 Introduction ...... 219 Research Problems and Objectives ...... 220 Mukono District Farmers and Their Extension Experiences ...... 221 Characteristics and Attitudes of Mukono District Extension Officers ...... 225 Mukono District Extension Officers’ Knowledge of Farmers and Farming 228 Attitudes, Beliefs, and Practices...... 229 Farmers’ and Extension Officers’ Accounts ...... 231 The Effectiveness of Extension Services ...... 232 Recommendations ...... 23 6 Empirical Knowledge and Theory ...... 237 Methodological Issues ...... 239 Recommendations for Future Research ...... 241 Contextual Variables ...... 241 Logistical Problems: Extension Policy and Practice ...... 243 Communication Flows and Training ...... 244 Evaluation of Extension ...... 245 Extension Strategies at the Local Level ...... 245
BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 248
XI APPENDICES...... 284 A. The Questionnaires...... 284 Farmer Questionnaire ...... 285 Extension Questionnaire ...... 296
B. Permission to Conduct Study ...... 309 Filing Application ...... 310 Letter from Entebbe ...... 314 Letter from Mukono District Extension Office ...... 315 Letter to RCs ...... 316 Letter to Farmers ...... 317 Letter to Extension Officers ...... 318 Reminders...... 319
XU LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
3.1 Yields for Selected Crops in Mukono District, 1993 ...... 68
3.2 Number and Area of Plots under Cultivation for Selected Crops in Mukono District ...... 69
3.3 Districts with 50 or More Agricultural ExtensionStaff in the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry, and Hsheries ...... 83
5.1 Farmers’ Marital Status by Sex ...... 107
5.2 Ethnic Grouping of Farmers by Sex ...... 108
5.3 Farmers’ Religion by Sex...... 109
5.4 District of Origin by Sex of Farmer ...... 110
5.5 Age Distribution by Sex of Farmer ...... I l l
5.6 Farmers’ Educational Levels ...... I l l
5.7 Farmers’ Estimated Yearly Cash Income ...... 112
5.8 Principal Sources of Cash Income by Sex ...... 113
5.9 Size of Plot by Marital Status ...... 114
5.10 Size of Cultivated Land by Sex ...... 115
5.11 Income by Size of Land Holding ...... 116
5.12 Rights to Own Land by Sex ...... 118
5.13 Production by Women Farmers ...... 119
5.14 Production by Men Farmers ...... 120
5.15 Diversification of Production by Sex ...... 121
xiii 5.16 Labor Availability for Preparing Land by Sex and Marital Status ...... 123
5.17 Labor Availability for Planting by Sex and Marital Status ...... 124
5.18 Labor Availability for Weeding (thinning) by Sex and Marital Status ...... 125
5.19 Labor Availability' for Harvesting by Sex and Marital Status ...... 126
5.20 Labor Availability for Spraying by Sex and Marital Status ...... 127
5.21 Spraying by Destination of Produce ...... 127
5.22 Labor Availability for Fertilizing (mulch, manure) by Sex and Marital Status ...... 129
5.23 Labor Availability for Transporting Crops Home by Sex and Marital Status ...... 130
5.24 Labor Availability for Transporting Crops to Market by Sex and Marital Status ...... 131
5.25 Labor Availability for Storing Food by Sex and Marital Status ...... 132
5.26 Farmers’ Use of Hired Labor by Marital Status ...... 133
5.27 Frequency of Farm Tool Use by Marital Status ...... 134
5.28 Frequency of Tool Ownership by Marital Status ...... 134
5.29 Frequencies of Selected Characteristics of Farmers by Marital Status ...... 135
5.30 Produce for Market of Home by Marital Status ...... 136
5.31 Married Farmers: Decision Making Regarding What to Plant by Sex ...... 142
5.32 Married Farmers: Decision Making Regarding When to Plant by Sex ...... 143
5.33 Married Farmers: Decision Making Regarding What to Harvest by Sex ...... 143
5.34 Married Farmers: Decision Making Regarding Sale of Crops by Sex ...... 144
5.35 Married Farmers: Decision Making Regarding Use of Farm Income by Sex ...... 145
5.36 Married Farmers: Decision Making Regarding Savings by Sex ...... 146
xiv 5.37 Married Farmers: Decision Making Regarding Taking Loans by Sex ...... 148
5.38 Whether to Get a Loan by Sex and Marital Status ...... 148
5.39 Married Fanners: Decision Making Regarding Trying Innovations by Sex 150
5.40 Problems Farmers Encounter in Their Work ...... 151
5.41 Whether Farmers seek Extension Help by Sex ...... 152
5.42 Projects Farmers would like to see Extension Established ...... 153
6.1 Ethnic Distribution by Sex ...... 157
6.2 Religious Affiliation by Sex ...... 158
6.3 Religious Affiliation and Farmer Participation ...... 159
6.4 District of Origin by Sex ...... 160
6.5 Age Distribution ...... 161
6.6 Marital Status of Field Extension Officers by Sex ...... 162
6.7 Household Head by Sex of Officer ...... 163
6.8 Educational Levels by Sex ...... 164
6.9 Age and Educational Level of Field Extension Officer by Sex ...... 166
6.10 Yearly Cash Income ...... 167
6.11 Knowledge of Production Practices by Sex...... 171
6.12 Knowledge of Production Practices by EducationalLevel ...... 173
6.13 Knowledge of Production Practices by Age ...... 174
6.14 Knowledge of Decision Making by Sex ...... 176
6.15 Knowledge of Decision Making by Educational Level ...... 178
6.16 Knowledge of Decision Making by Age ...... 179
6.17 Extension Attitudes Towards Farmers by Sex ...... 182
XV 6.18 Extension Attitudes Towards Farmers by Age ...... 185
6.19 Extension Attitudes Towards Farmers by Educational Level ...... 188
6.20 Attitude Type by Sex, Age, Education, Marital Status ...... 191
6.21 Policy Recommendations by Sex ...... 199
6.22 Farmers’ Reports on Suppliers of Agricultural Inputs ...... 201
6.23 Farmers’ Reports on Information Sources ...... 202
6.24 Extension Activities by Sex of Farmer ...... 203
6.25 The Association Between Farm Size, Extension Visits, and Attendance at Extension-Organized On-Farm Demonstrations ...... 205
6.26 Extension Visits by Farmers’ Sex and Marital Status ...... 206
6.27 Extension Visits by On-Farm Demonstrations Attended ...... 207
6.28 Attendance at On-Farm Demonstrations by Sex and Marital Status ...... 207
6.29 Learning New Practices from Extension by Sex and Marital Status ...... 208
6.30 Farmers’ Opinion on Extension by Gender ...... 210
6.31 Do Farmers Consider Extension Important to Increased Agricultural Production? ...... 211
6.32 Farmers’ Opinion by Age, Sex, Years of Education ...... 212
6.33 Opinion Type by Sex, Age, Education, Marital Status ...... 214
6.34 Problems Reid Extension Officers Encounter in Their Work ...... 215
6.35 Extension Agent Solutions to Problems ...... 216
XVI LISTOFHGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1 The Map of Uganda, East Africa...... 53
2 Map of Uganda Showing the Kingdom of BUganda ...... 55
3 A Map Showing the Six Counties of Mukono District ...... 66
4 Organizational Structure of the Ministry of Agriculture (1994) ...... 79
xvu CHAPTER I
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Since 1975, a growing body of research has helped to alleviate the problem of the "statistical invisibility" of women farmers—the absence of accurate information on women's role in agricultural production. This statistical invisibility was cited by re searchers and policy analysts as one of the most important reasons for women's exclu sion from policies and programs designed to increase food production and rural well being in Africa (Tiano 1988; Jaquette 1990; Blumberg 1991, 1995). Specialists in the field of women in development encouraged and provided funding for research in the belief that knowledge would lead to improved agricultural policies and extension pro grams. Yet recent studies suggest that gender bias still is widespread in extension prac tices and among extension officers (Adams 1990; Elson 1991; Besteman 1995b).
Accurate information about women's roles in farming appears to be a necessary but not sufficient condition to improve women farmers' situation relative to men. On the plus side, improvements in the empirical knowledge base-combined with the in creasing popularity of "grassroots" and "participatory" development strategies—have led to concerted efforts by international agencies to promote more gender-aware poli cies, the integration of women into mainstream projects, and special projects targeting women, most of whom produce on a small scale and mainly for home consumption
(Tinker & Jacquette 1987; Elson 1991; Tinker 1990, 1995; Rakowski 1995). In many cases, government reports from Third World countries show great im provement in the collection, coding, and presentation of data on women in agriculture and national development plans often give special attention to the problems of women farmers and smallholders in general. Some countries have even established ministries or special presidential commissions to study the situation of women and recommend policies and programs (Staudt 1985, 1990; Stichter & Parpart 1990; Safilios-Rothschild
1994).
Nonetheless, contemporary analysts and program evaluators still identify gender gaps in production, income, and access to productive resources as major factors con tributing to the poverty of women and children around the world and to the continuing food crisis in Africa (Moser 1989; Tinker 1990; Elson 1991; Blumberg 1991; Blum berg, Rakoswski, Tinker, & Monteon 1995). For instance, recent studies of food pro duction, credit, and extension in Africa in particular continue to detect significant ob stacles to women farmers' access to credit, technology, training, and extension services.
In some cases, research points to policy makers and agricultural extension offi cials who still discuss farming as if women were invisible or undesirable. In others, it appears that even where national statistics and accounting systems have been improved, poor dissemination of this information among field extension officers may obscure knowledge about women and the contributions they make toward food production
(Beneria 1982; Chambers 1983; Dennis 1991). In still other cases, the emphasis on cash production for export created pressures to ignore the needs of smallholders and food producers; this may have compounded gender bias in policy and/or in extension prac tices. Therefore, biased extension practices may result from a combination of gender bias and bias against smallholder farming or food production in general (since women farmers overwhelmingly are smallholders and small-scale producers of foodstuffs for home consumption and local markets). Thus, gender bias may not be the only or most important factor shaping field extension officers' interaction with women farmers. As a result, even when national decision makers target women farmers as beneficiaries of training and extension, national policies may not be relevant to the day-to-day experi ence of agricultural extension (Safilios-Rothschild 1984, 1994; Chambers & Ghildyal
1985; Roling 1990).
There are other factors that may have interfered in the design and implementa tion of programs to support women farmers and these complicate our understanding of the local-level dynamics at play. The increasing attention allocated to the issue of
"women in development" developed in a period of world recession (1980s), debt crisis, growing concern with environmental problems, the spread of AIDS and other diseases like malaria and tuberculosis, and the implementation of structural adjustment policies designed to increase income through exports and to cut back on government expendi tures. Economic crisis creates logistical problems for the implementation of policies.
Therefore, funding difficulties, other agendas, and pressures to emphasize export pro duction competed with policies that targeted women's food production. Additionally, the competition for increasingly scarce resources would have made more difficult the cultural and legal reforms necessary to support women's increased access to and con trol over resources Chambers & Ghildyal 1985). Many African countries continue to implement colonial legislation that prohibits communal land holdings or women's ownership of land. These explanations are often referred to in the literature (Moser 1989, 1993; Tinker 1990; Elson 1991). Other pos sible explanations include organizational inefficiencies in government agencies, prob lems with disseminating information, budgetary cuts, and a lack of awareness or com mitment to more gender sensitive programs among local-level extension officers
(Afshar 1991; Moser 1993). Each of these factors must be built into a study of gender bias in extension practices.
So much of the literature has emphasized either studies of women in farming
(production of empirical data) or of policies and policymakers that the impact of em pirical data and top-down policy mandates on local projects and practitioners remains a relatively unexplored issue. And, not only is there scant information on whether or not the growing body of information on women in farming actually reaches the local field extension officers responsible for implementing extension projects, there is little or no research on the conditions under which—when it does reach them—it has a sig nificant impact on extension work with women farmers or women's participation in extension projects (Ashby 1981; Beneria 1982a; Anderson 1982; Agarwal 1985;
Besteman 1995c; Rakowski, 1995).
Yet, case studies of selected development projects suggest it is the "carpenters"
(local level field extension officers), not the "architects" (national policymakers) on whom policy implementation depends (Rogers 1980; Tinker 1981; Staudt 1982a; 1990;
Rockefeller Foundation 1985a). Furthermore, there are few studies which assess the responses of field extension officers to policy or programmatic mandates. How is pol icy interpreted, transformed, or circumvented at the local level (Rogers 1980; Buvinic
1986; Tiano 1988; Moen 1989; Mehendale, 1991; Morvaridi 1995). Is it considered
relevant to practical application? And what factors or characteristics impact extension officers' receptivity or resistance to policy mandates or information?
Few high level policymakers or international consultants design policies with
knowledge of the obstacles to and support needed at the local level for implementation
(Cloud 1985; Cloud & Knowles 1988). In fact, the literature has tended to focus on gender bias among government officials, colonial policies, and the ethnocentrism im plicit in modernization approaches or held by international advisors (Boserup 1970;
Rogers 1980; Jensen 1990). This includes unfavorable attitudes toward smallholders and production for the local market. Biases against women and smallholders and in fa vor of cash (export) production have also been detected among extension field officers and the men farmers with whom they work (Buvinic 1986; Moen 1989). One predomi nant issue is the extent to which women's farming is impacted by and threatens their responsibilities as wives and mothers and male authority in general. To the extent that extension officers are men, they are likely to identify with the concerns expressed by their male clientele, even when ordered to work on women's income generating proj ects (Buvinic 1986; Besteman, Warner, & Howard-Powell 1995).
Many studies of gender attitudes and workplace discrimination have been carried out in the industrialized countries (Wagner, Ford, & Ford 1986; Walker & Fennell
1986; Ibrahim 1989). Some references to attitudes and biased behavior discussed in the literature defer to patriarchal traditions, frustration and aggression under stressful conditions, scapegoating, and authoritarianism as explanations for the marginalization of women and ethnic minorities (Feagin and Eckberg 1980; Rockefeller Foundation
1985b; Brehm 1988; Mason, Boersma, & Faulkenberry 1988; Spring 1988). This un
derestimates the potential importance of deliberate economic discrimination in order to
protect the interests and privileges of certain groups and makes difficult an under
standing of the origins of bias, the relationship between attitudes and behavior, and the
mechanisms necessary to overcome bias and encourage implementation of corrective
policies and programs. Furthermore, these remain unexplored in the case of agricul
tural extension projects in Third World countries.
Despite the emphasis on producing empirical evidence on women's roles as
farmers, there appears to have been no investigation conducted to ascertain whether the
biases and misconceptions held by policymakers, extension officers or others really are
reduced by education and exposure to empirical evidence that belies beliefs and atti
tudes. Are knowledge and first-hand experience with women and men farmers suffi cient to dispel attitudes, norms and beliefs regarding the appropriateness of women's
roles in farming? What relative importance can be attributed to attitudes, knowledge, or other factors in extension practices at the local level?
Rnally, discussions of extension officers' biases against certain types of farmers,
though infrequently mentioned in the literature, typically crop up in conference discus sions of extension issues. Among others, discussions at which this author was present have included concerns with bias against farmers of certain ethnic origin, bias against smallholders, and bias against (or in favor of) farmers of differing educational levels, geographic location, ages. These discussions underscore the need for studies of extension agents' attitudes and knowledge of different groups of farmers and their understanding of and reaction to policy mandates issued by national and regional policymakers. Such a study can make a significant contribution toward understanding the possible role played by bias as one factor that can be addressed if women farmers are to benefit from whatever ex tension and other agricultural support programs are targeted for their local areas. It is this gap in the literature that this dissertation seeks to fill through a study of extension officers' attitudes toward and knowledge of farmers in Uganda. To do so, the study drew ideas from studies of attitude and ideology, primarily in urban workplace settings or among professionals and bureaucrats.
For instance, existing studies of gender ideology, attitudes, and behavior in di verse settings, especially industrialized countries, suggest that knowledge of women's and men's real roles may fail to have a positive impact on—in this case—extension practices because there is no guarantee that knowledge will eradicate negative attitudes toward certain groups (Seideman 1981; D'Onofrio-Flores 1982). In some cases, people selectively remember those pieces of information that are consistent with or confirm their pre-existing beliefs. This indicates the tenacity of patriarchal, ethnocentric or class-based beliefs about appropriate roles for women or minorities and the impact of notions of "modem" versus "backward" farming systems (Tinker 1981;Tadesse 1982b;
Ahmed 1985; Agarwal 1985, 1991; Tinker & Jacquette 1987; Tinker 1995). It may also reflect the relationship between beliefs and attitudes and the holder's sense of self or his/her concrete experiences. In such cases, the holder may have a heavy investment in maintaining the belief system. Attitudes may, then, obscure reality. In the case of the 8 women farmers of Africa, this can contribute a new source of invisibility for their roles in agricultural development—making the visible invisible. It is this notion—that attitudes can render "invisible" women's work even when extension officers observe or have other sources of knowledge of this work—that is the research problem and basis for this dissertation.
Dissertation research included a consideration of extension field officers' knowl edge of farming practices, local culture and values, the gender division of labor, and policy mandates. Because national-level data on farming is highly aggregated, disserta tion research also included a study of farming practices, the local division of labor, and farmers' reported experiences with extension and other sources of credit, technical training, agricultural inputs, machinery, and labor.
Information was obtained through a survey and observation of women and men farmers. In this way, extension officers' knowledge and attitudes could be compared with actual productive practices and local culture, and officers' reports of their activi ties and programs could be checked against farmers' reports. Because attitudinal bias along a gender dimension could overlap with other types of bias, other forms of po tential bias identified as relevant for the Ugandan context were incorporated into the study. These included ethnicity, size of land holding, household type (e.g., polygynous or monogamous), age, type of production (products, home consumption or market), religious affiliation, and others. Because some studies in other settings find attitudes as sociated with the characteristics of those who hold them, the study included a compari son of extension officers' attitudes and knowledge on the one hand and their demo graphic, socio-economic, and background characteristics on the other. This dimension of the research was expected to suggest ways for identifying extension officers "at risk" of bias for purposes of education.
SigniRcance of the Study
Dissertation research and findings were expected to contribute to both applied and scholarly objectives in Rural Sociology.
Studies of attitudes (beliefs, norms, and prejudice) are needed to assess the causes of both positive and negative attitudes held by field extension officers toward women farmers, and the extent to which those attitudes impact extension interaction with farm ers. Policymakers need information on the way in which attitudes, dissemination of in formation on women farmers, face-to-face interaction with farmers and other factors impact the work behavior of extension officials and field extension officers. They need to know what personal characteristics and experiences are associated with field exten sion officers' attitudes about men and women's "appropriate" (as opposed to real) roles as farmers. This information can be a critical component in developing more effective policies, better means for informing field extension officers about women farmers' tasks and needs, and mechanisms to ensure policy implementation at the local level.
The study was designed to enhance its potential for contributing to sociologists' understanding of the cultural specificity of existing theories and methods in attitude and bias research and to test theories of the relationship between attitudes, knowledge, and the characteristics of those studied. Are the relationships discussed in findings from workplace studies in the US, for instance, replicated in rural Africa? Why or why not?
Another issue was whether or not the concepts, scales, and methods developed for in 10 vestigating attitudes and gender bias in Western, industrialized settings were readily adaptable and useful to such research in rural Africa.
Since the study focuses on the relationship between attitudes, policy mandates, and extension practices, it also was designed to have the potential of contributing to the fields of "program evaluation" or "impact assessment." Among other questions is that of what assumptions underlying theories and methods in program evaluation would have to be modified to assess the impact of policies? For instance, given economic cri sis and logistical problems in poor countries, is implementation an appropriate indica tor of the success of policies and educational programs to change attitudes and prac tices? What "intervening variables" need to be considered in assessing the impact of policies or knowledge on attitudes and practices? Can the experience of carrying out this study teach us something about the degree of flexibility required for cross-cultural and context-specific evaluations?
Finally, though not anticipated prior to field work, during the year of research it became increasingly likely that the findings of the study would not replicate some of the better known conclusions regarding women and farming in Africa. On the one hand, even before data analysis was completed, interviews with extension agents and farmers suggested that extension agents did not hold (did not reveal) the kind of bias found in most other studies. On the other, the family farming system in the region studied (which has been identified in the literature as the most common farming system in many African nations, Latin America, and Asia) intersected with the division of la bor and local culture in ways that were making it difficult to distinguish between farming by women and farming by men. That is, people did not report their practices II in a way that corresponded to a "gender division of labor" in fanning. Therefore, one unexpected outcome of the study is a reconsideration of some widely-accepted notions regarding gender and farming and decision making. This aspect of research also led to a reconsideration of research methods and changes that would have to be made for fu ture research design.
Organization of the Dissertation
The dissertation is organized into the following chapters: Chapter II presents an overview of the two bodies of literature that informed the design of this study and the hypotheses that guided research. Chapter IE discusses the selection of the research set ting and provides background information that will help contextualize research find ings. Chapter IV outlines the research design and field work methods. Chapter V pres ents the findings from the study of farmers. Chapter VI presents findings from the analysis of extension officers' characteristics, attitudes, and reported practices. The fi nal chapter discusses the outcomes of the study, including the significance of findings for theories of attitudes and bias, empirical contributions to knowledge of extension and farming, questions raised regarding widely-held assumptions about the gendered nature of extension and farming, and lessons learned regarding the appropriateness of different research methods for this type of study. CHAPTER II
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY
Introduction
As pointed out in Chapter I, the statistical invisibility of women was identified by early Women-In-Deveiopment (WID) specialists as an important causal factor in the marginalization of women, their needs, and their interests from development policy objectives and programs. This was designated by Tinker (1981) as the progressive
"underdevelopment of women relative to men" because women were denied equal ac cess to the "training and tools" associated with technology transfer and economic re structuring (Chaney & Schmink 1980; Anderson 1982; Afonja 1990) and were in creasingly relegated to subsistence production and non-wage work (the so-called
"informal sector") (Beneria & Sen 1982; Birdsall & McGreevey 1983; Joekes 1987;
Blumberg 1989; Besteman et al. 1995).
The emphasis on knowledge (statistics about women, training for women, gen- der-sensitivity training for men) has, at times, led to an overly simplistic assumption that pervades much of the policy literature and some of the early WID literature: the increasing visibility of women through empirical research on their economic roles will encourage/guarantee their inclusion in development policy objectives and programs and their access to education, training, and technology. In fact, the issues are far more
12 13 complex. Among others, studies of changes in WID strategies reveal the importance of resistance. Strategies to target women or gender sensitize projects changed rapidly over time, from an emphasis on welfare and equity for women, to an emphasis on women to improve the efficiency and success of projects, to women as a means for guaranteeing the welfare of children, to women's empowerment as grassroots actors and citizens.
These changes in strategy both responded to changes in development policy and ap proaches and as a means to justify the targeting of women in mainstream projects
(Buvinic 1983, 1986; Lewis 1986, 1990; Moser 1989; Blanc & Lloyd 1994; Dixon,
Hall, Hardaker, & Vyas 1994; Kottel 1995).
In other cases, policymakers, development consultants, and government bureau- crats—most of whom were men—showed varied responses to international pressures to target women in development. These included some cases of great resistance to inte grating women when it threatened deeply held beliefs about male dominance and women's domestic roles or it could disrupt the balance of power among stakeholders and opponents (Tinker 1990). These studies and others that focused on development policies and programs at the international level (The World Bank, United Nations, US
Agency for International Development, among others) suggest either explicitly or im plicitly the importance of examining the complex conditions under which women are or are not "integrated" into development, including the diverse cultural, social, politi cal, economic, and psychological factors that influence integration (Tinker 1990; Elson
1991; Akeroyd 1991; Blumberg 1995; Leonard 1995). 14
Even in cases where genuine efforts have been made to introduce policies and programs that promote gender equity by targeting women, integrating them into proj ects with men, and gender-sensitizing practitioners, problems remain that impede suc cess. Again, studies have identified numerous factors—cultural, social, political, eco nomic, and psychological—that influence local-level project design and implementation.
Sociologists, economists, and anthropologists have pieced together a wealth of infor mation on the cultural, social, political and economic factors among beneficiaries
(primarily) and practitioners (secondarily) that play important roles. Taken together, such studies again underscore the complexity of the dynamics at work and have con tributed to a type of "checklist" of variables to help policymakers control project de sign and implementation, including the need for cultural sensitivity and the impact of place and time on projects (Rogers 1980; Beneria & Sen 1981; Buvinic 1986; Ewell
1990).
However, most considerations of cultural and psychological factors a) are buried within studies whose primary focus lies elsewhere (see, for instance, Buvinic 1986 for an example of project evaluation) and b) have emphasized cultural values and beliefs
(including support for male dominance) held by groups, whether practitioners or men
"beneficiaries." Little or no attention appears to have been given to differences within groups with the exception of comparisons women versus men (Rogers 1980; Buvinic
1986).
Among the recommendations of such studies, training of practitioners (to sensi tize them) and participation of beneficiaries continue to be the major focus in the 1990s
(Friedmann 1992; Moser 1993; Kottel 1995). In fact, these two strategies bring the dis- 15 cussîon full circle back to the role of "knowledge" in gender equity in development.
Assumptions include that training will impart information that will sensitize practitio ners to the potential contributions and needs of women and men and will lead to im proved strategies for achieving gender equity. Participation, on the other hand, is as sumed, among others, to be the appropriate means for incorporating "people's knowl edge and values" into project design, thereby reducing potential resistance by adapting projects to fit people's values, capacities, needs, and lifestyles (Carr 1989; Friedmann
1992). Ironically, major drawbacks to even these improved approaches are the implicit assumptions that a) value conflicts occur between practitioners and beneficiaries, b) lack of accurate information about objectives, strategies and people is the princi pal/only reason for insensitivity among practitioners, and c) there is little variance in values within groups (practitioners or beneficiaries)—in direct contradiction to other studies emphasizing differences among women and men. Yet, even those studies' rec ommendations to overcome practitioner bias emphasize a) using women (assumed more sympathetic to gender equity), b) sensitizing men through training, c) increasing the role of people (gender unspecified usually) in project planning and implementation
(thus, balancing the relative power of people vs. practitioners or planners), and d) in troducing mechanisms to hold practitioners accountable to people (for instance, people-
-gender unspecified—evaluate practitioner performance or may even pay for their services) (Carr 1989; Friedmann 1992).
Ironically, although numerous feminist ethnographic accounts point to tensions between women and men of beneficiary communities (attributed mainly to different interests and values associated with their gendered social roles and to power differ 16 ences), no studies or project evaluations could be found that looked at the importance of differences in values, interests, or beliefs among beneficiaries or development workers as they impact project implementation in rural Africa. Though it may seem commonsensical, in reality this is a glaring gap in the literature—and not just for gen der differences. Beneficiary communities and development workers may be stratified by class, caste, ethnicity, age, gender or other characteristics. Therefore, it is reason able to assume there will be differences in interests, values, and beliefs among targeted groups and the practitioners employed to work with them. So whose interests and val ues will be defended by those selected to "participate" on behalf of the community or among those hired to implement projects? What role is played by practitioner differ ences in approaching and soliciting input into project design and implementation? What factors explain the behavior and beliefs of those involved and, therefore, the outcome of participation? How might these factors be dealt with to eliminate bias? These ques tions must be considered if gender equity is to be a realistic goal. They also are im portant for a study of bias in the design and implementation of projects.
As stated in the preceding chapter, this dissertation focuses on the potentially critical role of social-psychological factors, in particular the attitudinal biases held by individuals, that are likely to impact the interpretation of information and response to policy mandates. The dissertation began with the assumption that individuals are active agents in processing the information provided to them and that they make value judg ments in doing so. Therefore, the field of social psychology would provide useful con cepts and methods for measuring bias and understanding its origins. At the same time, because of the emphasis in the WID literature on knowledge as a factor in more equita 17 ble policies and projects (a factor also explored in the social psychological literature on attitudes), the dissertation would have to include a consideration of the relationship between knowledge (broadly conceptualized as information from diverse sources and practical experience) and attitudinal bias. Since the extension officers to be studied op erate within a particular cultural context and interact with selected individuals
(members of groups), the dissertation also would have to include a consideration of the relationship between the attitudes and practices of extension officers, those of the farm ers who comprise their target groups, and the content of policies and institutional practices. Finally, the dissertation considered selected organizational, socio-economic, and institutional features of the context within with extension services are designed, communicated, and implemented.
Because two broad but distinct bodies of literature inform this study—The
Women-In-Development (WID) literature and the Social-Psychological literature on attitudes—this chapter presents an overview of the more important studies, ideas, and theories that have had an impact on the development of the hypotheses and the research design of this dissertation. Following the overview, the general hypotheses and objec tives that guided research are presented.
The Women-In-Development (WID) Literature
The Knowledge Issue of Statistical Invisibility
Despite complaints regarding statistical representations of women's work, there is ample evidence that African women play an important role in agricultural produc tion in general and are involved in virtually all aspects of subsistence food cultivation 18 in particular (Spring 1987; Spring & Wilde 1991; Henderson 1994). Although women tend to be neglected by mainstream agricultural development efforts, in many places their critical role in farming is increasing relative to men (Jiggins, Maimbo, & Masona
1995).
Estimates based on field work observations indicate that women form at least 46 percent of the labor force in sub-Saharan Africa and supply more than 80 percent of agricultural labor (Dixon 1982). They contribute about 70 percent of the labor in volved in food production, 66 percent of all hours spent in agriculture, 60 percent of marketing time, and more than 80 percent of the hours spent in food processing
(Jiggins 1986). African women generate more than 30 percent of all rural household incomes through small scale agricultural industries, trading, craftwork, and casual la bor (Jiggins 1989:983). Nearly 70 percent of rural households in sub-Saharan Africa are headed de jure or de facto by women (Tinker 1985; Jiggins 1986, 1989; Afshar
1991), and this is increasing in many places (Jiggins et al, 1995). Yet women headed households are the most likely to be denied direct access to agricultural inputs and ex tension services, modem farming techniques, technology, tmd government subsidies
(Staudt 1985, 1990; Spring 1987; Overholt, Anderson, Cloud, & Austin 1985; Jiggins,
Maimbo, & Masona 1995). For example, in 1984 Botswana women produced 70 per cent of food for domestic consumption, but they received less than 15 percent of gov ernment subsidies for agricultural production (Jiggins 1986).
As a result of differential treatment, women have steadily lost ground in pro duction agriculture relative to men—Tinker's concept of "the underdevelopment of women" (1976). Their capacity to improve food production has been severely con- 19
Strained by gender discrimination, drought, desertification, poor infrastructure, a focus on extension for cash/nonfood crops, and by discrimination against and the paucity of
information on smallholder production (Rogers 1980; Beneria 1982; Staudt 1985; Bu
vinic 1986).
National statistics and accounting systems reflect a gross underestimation of women's participation in economic activity. While national accounting systems measure economic activity in terms of gross national product (GNP), they also define economic activity to include only goods and services exchanged in the market. Accounting sys tems tend to omit subsistence activities of production and incomes, especially when those subsistence activities are largely women's work (Boserup 1970; Staudt 1985;
Tinker 1989; Kaawha, 1994). Therefore, women's production is undercounted and un dervalued, and in most instances left unmeasured (Jiggins 1986; Spring 1987; Beneria
1982; Safilios-Rothschild 1984; Cloud & Knowles 1988).
What is measured is determined by international survey models that assume both a market economy and a male social role as worker and breadwinner role. Often, the individual researcher's perception of what is of economic importance adds additional bias, for instance when an interviewer asks leading questions that encourage women to choose between identifying themselves as housewives or farmers, but not both. This leads to flagrant misinformation on production.
A Food and Agriculture Organization (FAG) and World Bank cooperative pro gram in Northern Sierra Leone, for instance, failed to measure the crucial role women played in rice production in the West African country. Yet another study found that 80 percent of all rice growers in the region were women. In Niger, another study found 2 0 that 95 percent of all rural women are heavily involved in rice production, producing at least 17 tons of rice for domestic consumption (Jiggins 1986). Similarly, in Nigeria, official statistics failed to record women's participation in agriculture in the 1970s since the notion of "family farming system" identified for the African region does not belie notions of men as farmers and women as helpers and housewives (Adekanye
1985; Jiggins 1986).
Indeed, very few independent African nations have accurate or detailed statistics on women's real roles in large-scale or household-based agriculture (Jiggins 1986). In many parts of Africa, household-based agriculture is a major source of food and in come and both husband and wife (wives) as well as other family members participate— hence, the notion of "family" as the unit of production (Obbo 1985; Spring 1987;
Kaawha, 1994). It is ironic that this notion has achieved widespread acceptance in pol icy statements on food production, even as national statistics continue to fail to account for women's domestic contributions to livelihoods in general and their unpaid agricul tural work specifically.
In GNP (gross national product) statistics and standard household surveys based on international models, work is defined as participation in paid production, an in come-generating activity outside the home (Buvinic 1986; Tinker & Jacquette 1987).
Where women's work is unpaid, it is classified as something other than work and, as a result, its importance is lost. The fact that women's agricultural work in Africa typi cally is a dimension of their social responsibilities to produce, process, prepare, and serve food as "mothers" and "wives" further reinforces the mistaken notion of non work (Amadiume 1988; Anker 1994; Whitehead 1994). Even women themselves tend 21 to identify themselves and their activities in terms of their social roles rather than as an
"occupation"—a notion linked to the "modem" male social role of "worker and bread winner." And, because men and women tend to work on separate plots, often men's plots are referred to as "the farm" while women's plots are downgraded to "gardens"- whether or not scale of production has been taken into account (Bagchi 1987; Jiggins
1989; Sen 1980, 1982, 1990).
In conclusion, national statistics describe African women as marginally involved in agriculture, but the evidence suggests they are the major producers in terms of value, volume, and hours worked in the Helds (Jiggins 1986; Buvinic 1986). The im pact of this discrepancy is clearly illustrated in the following example from Malawi.
Even as national records indicated economically active women constituted just 12 per cent of the official labor force in 1977, revised records revealed that 51.6 percent of women actively participated in household-based agriculture and other economic ven tures (Jiggins 1986). Lest the impression be given that this is a problem of "national" accounting systems and statistics, consider the following. International Labor Organi zation (ILO) statistics also show the tendency among researchers and farmers them selves to underreport women as workers in agriculture or any other type of non domestic production. In its actual and projected activity rates on Africa (1975-2000),
ILO figures showed 51.6 percent of men as economically active in 1975, 49.3 percent in 1985, and 47.8 percent by the year 2000 compared to 24.4 percent for women in
1975, 22.9 percent in 1985, and 22 percent by the turn of the century (Beneria 1982a,
1982b). Thus, together, national and international statistics reinforce bias against and 22 misconceptions of the role women play at all levels of economic activity, but particu larly in agriculture (ILO 1984; Jules-Rosette 1988),
Bias against Smallholders and Non-wage Work
Assumptions regarding gender roles is not the only source of bias in statistics, policies, or programs. There also is an important bias against smallholder farmers and food production for local consumption. Because women are more likely than men to be smallholders, subsistence producers, and to produce for local consumption, the bias against smallholders exacerbates gender bias. Despite the acknowledged importance of household-based agriculture (family farming systems) as a major source of food and income in rural areas, extension staff design field research methods and systems of production which favor cash production (especially for export) and men specificall\
(Spring 1988; Skjonsberg 1989; Afshar 1991; Besteman et al. 1995).
This shortcoming has been documented even for United Nations and World Bank supported projects, despite the fact that both organizations profess to recognize and support women's contributions to food production in Africa. Despite new research ap proaches like farming systems research and extension (FSR/E) methods of diagnostic surveys, agronomic trials on farmers' farms, evaluation, and policy research still give little or no attention to the role women play in agricultural production and seldom in clude women in the decision making process (Poats, Schmink, & Spring 1988; Jiggins
1989). Participation apparently is becoming identified as a men's activity. As a result, information about the role of women in food production continues to fall outside ex tension channels (Bryceson 1985; Bisilliat & Fieloux 1987; Poats, Schmink, & Spring
1988; Snyder & Engel 1990). 23
A second factor supporting bias against women producers—and smallholders in general—is that their needs are subordinated because much of their work—agricultural and non-agricultural—is done without pay in wages or is exchanged through informal, non-registered or even non-market (in the formal sense) relations (Rogers 1980; Obbo
1985; Bradshaw 1985; Tadria 1987; Dennis 1991; Blumberg 1995). Non-market and non-registered market relations reinforce statistical invisibility. In some cases women's work is deliberately overlooked because of pressures to promote male privi lege and authority—just as smallholder production is subordinated to export produc tion. This occurs despite studies warning that many structures in African societies would collapse if nonmarket relationships and women's work are withdrawn com pletely (Brydon 1985; Heyzer 1986. 1988; Brydon & Chant 1989; Blumberg 1989,
1995).
These biases are major factors constraining women's and male smallholders' ac cess to the services and inputs supplied through extension channels. They undermine women's traditional role in food production in the "interest" of producing modem male farmers producing for export (Tinker 1981 ; Agarwal 1985; Carr 1989). The re sult is that extension reinforces and exacerbates the income and productivity disparities between men and women and between production for export and production for local markets, intensifies obstacles to women's productive roles, has serious consequences for women's (and children's) health and well-being, and has negative impacts on the availability and costs of foodstuffs in local, rural, and urban markets (Staudt 1991).
Not insignificant is the potential for increased economic dependence of women on men and the loss of women's decision making power (Blumberg 1978, 1991; Blumberg et 24 al. 1995). These problems are compounded by tendencies among development planners and policy makers to fail to value the community and environmental management roles of women or to understand the way in which their productive roles intersect with community life and conservation.
Gender-based and other biases constrain women's access to extension services and inputs supplied through extension chaimels, particularly in areas where extension staff is mostly male and Held methods discriminate against women. Income disparities and failure of development planners to recognize the triple burden of women— production, reproduction, and management roles—all have negative impacts on women's agricultural productivity (Rogers 1980; Buvinic 1986; Cloud 1986; Tinker
1989). Yet, the relative success of targeting men varies from place to place. For in stance, land, technology and training for men undermines women's traditional role in food production in some places (and planners offer no meaningful alternatives or sub stitutes for women agriculturists). In others, it leads to declining production levels be cause of men's reticence to engage in "women's work" or to the irony of rising pro ductivity and incomes for men paralleled by decreasing incomes and nutritional levels for women and children (because displacement of women as farmers did not displace their social obligation to provide children's food) (Tinker 1976, 1989; Charleton,
1984; Blumberg et al. 1995).
Studies of Bias in Development Programs and Policies
The above discussion provided evidence of the importance of smallholders and subsistence farming in general and women in particular (Beneria and Sen 1982; Agar- 25 wal 1985; Gladwin and McMillan 1989; Carloni 1990). The discriminatory practices outlined above can be only partly explained by ignorance (concluded through the dis cussion of statistical problems) since policymakers have experienced over two decades of research and policy reform intended to "fully integrate" women into agricultural development and properly document female farmers' contributions to food production
(Rogers 1980; Jaquette 1990; Jensen 1990; Papanek 1990; Tinker 1995). Other expla nations for continued problems and discriminatory practices include bias originating in negative attitudes, including patriarchal notions, the notion that smallholder agriculture is backward and traditional, not modem, and ethnic prejudices (among others).
In fact, critics of extension practices and technical advisors ("old professionals") explicitly blame personal preferences and attitudinal bias for the failure of extension programs to have appropriate impacts on the groups who most need them. For in stance, Chambers (1983) criticizes professionals for preferring to work with more ur ban and educated groups-especially ethnic majorities—over the uneducated rural poor-
-and for preferring men over women. To this Mueller (1987) adds a criticism of the implicit bias in the wording of agency priorities and the ideological positions that un derlie them (such as neo-liberal economics), since these are not easily adaptable to the needs and interests expressed by women.
Recent studies target direct bias as one of the most critical constraining factors which limit women's ability to increase agricultural productivity (Elson 1991; Dennis
1991). And Staudt (1985:71) describes a "mobilization of bias" which makes women's political disadvantage in the development process conspicuous and their contributions to food production negligible. Jiggins (1989) argues that the consistent neglect of gen 26 der relations as a variable important to the design and implementation of agricultural projects has held productivity and welfare below their realistic potential. Although evi dence is sparse, bias also may play an important role in the "apparent" inefficiency and poor results of extension work with smallholders since policies and programs reflect more clearly the goals of policy makers than the needs and interests of smallholders.
Other important factors associated with bias in the allocation of resources to back cer tain policies or programs include logistical barriers to program implementation (lack of vehicles, shortage of persoimel), communication problems (extension agents do not understand or receive word on policies), or the inadequate translation of policy into concrete and implementable programs (Chambers 1983; Fliegel 1993).
Analyses of policy and policymakers in national and international development agencies document their frequently negative attitudes toward women farmers (Boserup
1970; Rogers 1980; Staudt 1985; Jiggins 1989). This includes frequent references to women's productive work as secondary and subordinate to men's work. In fact, when
"women's projects" target production and income, expertise offered for the imple mentation of these projects is often low and budgets are incredibly minimal (Buvinic
1986). As a result, poor women are often left on their own to implement development projects for which they have neither the resources nor the expertise. In other cases, the volunteers and unpaid staff, poorly trained in production and hired because of their willingness or experience in working with women, frequently turn development proj ects intended to raise the living standards of low income women into welfare and home economics programs that foster domestication and dependency (Buvinic 1986). 27
Many development programs in Africa are run by men with technical training.
These men decide development priorities and the allocation of development resources with little or no training in sociology or anthropology. They bring their personal expe riences and beliefs to the job (Buvinic 1986). For most of these development strate gists, gender issues are inconsequential in development planning. Some indicate a belief that giving prominence to gender issues undermines the legitimacy of research and confidence in its results. Such attitudes fail to recognize women as clients and impor tant constituents of agricultural research and production and they assume that research that is gender sensitive is biased whereas research that ignores gender is not (Buvinic
1986; Jiggins 1989). In fact, very few agricultural extension projects use women in ex perimental research.
Most research and extension staff are men who design field research methods and systems of production in male-oriented terms and incorporate men farmers into their studies. The farming systems research and extension (FSR/E) definition of rec ommendation domain, diagnostic surveys, on farm trials, evaluation, and policy re search all give very little or no attention to women or women's issues in production agriculture (Jiggins 1986; Spring 1987; Besteman 1995c)). For most FSR/E research ers, development strategists, and extension workers, knowledge about the role of women in food production lies outside extension channels and objectives (Jiggins
1989). The general attitude seems to be that women possess no special skills, knowl edge, or experience not possessed by men. But the evidence from gender sensitive re search suggests otherwise (Rogers 1980; Jiggins 1986; Akeroyd 1991; Carloni, 1990;
Blumberg 1995). 28
It is fairly obvious by now that women's roles in the productive and reproduc tive sectors of African societies have not been factored into development programming or extension work (Spring 1987). Training, credit, and extension facilities have largely been directed toward men. In most places, women continue to be treated as second class citizens in development programs (Obbo 1980; Rogers 1980; Ceesay-Marenah 1982;
Spring 1987; Blumberg 1991; Besteman 1995b). However, some countries have taken the lead in gender-sensitizing policies and programs, including extension.
There are diverse reasons for this. In some cases, these changes have been brought about because women-under increasing pressures as farmers, mothers, heads of household and as former combatants in successful insurgencies—organize and de mand it. Women's organizing has received encouragement from empowerment ap proaches among WID offîces and policies that promote participation and grassroots initiatives in general (Bukh 1980; Carr 1989; Leonard 1995). In other cases, interna tional pressures by development funders, international conferences and agreements on women's rights, and the growing body of empirical evidence from gender-aware re search provide incentives for receptive policy makers. In Africa, in particular, the spread of AIDS by nonmonogamous men has focused attention on women's economic dependence and inability to control sexual access or use of protection by HIV-infected husbands; it also has contributed to new attention on women-headed households and child welfare issues.
The question remains, however, as to whether more gender-sensitive policies and program mandates at the top or more accurate empirical accounts can actually lead to change at the local level. This question will be increasingly important in light of the 29 widespread application of structural adjustment policies, long-term economic crises, expanding poverty, and greater competition for scarce resources among groups broken down along ethnic, geographic, and other factors. Therefore, the timing is appropriate for a study of gender, smallholder, and ethnic bias in local-level extension work. Such a study should focus both on the role played by attitudes in practices and the factors that contribute to or break down attitudinal bias. To construct hypotheses regarding these factors, the field of social psychology provides useful concepts and methods.
Social Psychology and Attitudes Research
This study was grounded in the theory that bias towards women farmers in Afri can extension is a function of macro and micro-level factors. These include attitudes based on and formed within social structures that support and reflect social stratifica tion by class, ethnicity, size of landholding, destination of production, and other factors that vary in specific contexts. However, the study was more directly concerned with assessing micro-level factors through interviews and observation. Macro-level factors were examined primarily as background factors.
In this study, attitude is understood to be the readiness of individuals to respond in a particular way to the attitude object or issue. Attitude also is conceptualized alter nately as an evaluation, a feeling, or a reaction (Kiecolt 1^88:275). More specifically, it is the favorability or unfavorability of feelings towards the attitude object or issue
(Berry 1982; Kiecolt 1988). In this study, the primary focus is on attitudes held by ex tension officers toward attitude object(s) that include women farmers, smallholder farmers in general, and farmers of certain ethnic, age, and class characteristics. A 30 smaller component of the study also focuses attention on the attitudes of farmers to ward extension services and toward the gender division of labor in their social group.
The study also is grounded in the theory that extension officers' attitudes will be associated in some way with their behavior -that is, the design and implementation of extension practices (Breckler 1984; Chaiken & Stangor 1987). Furthermore, to the extent that behavior is associated with concrete experiences with farmers and farming practices, the relationship between attitudes and behavior may be multidirectional
(Cushman & McPhee 1980). However, since this study is not experimental and does not take place in a controlled, laboratory setting, it will not be possible to assess causality.
Any conclusions drawn regarding causality must be tentative and exploratory.
Attitudes Formation and Change
Current social psychological theories posit that attitudes emerge from both cul ture (values, norms, ideology) and structures (social organization and institutions) and are the result of interaction between contextual and individual variables. The individual is not a passive receptor of attitudes, but an active participant. And there will be differ ences in individual responses to the transmission of attitudes because individuals vary in personal capacity and the salience of attitudes transmitted at the same time that the means and content of attitudes vary during transmission (Cushman & McPhee 1980; ffillgard 1980).
Nonetheless, attitude theory posits that attitudes within a social context are the result of certain commonalties shared by members of the group toward an attitude ob ject (Kiecolt 1988). Attitudes typically are formed through membership in the social 31 group to which people belong and are transmitted to members of the social group through the socialization process (McGuire 1985; Morgan 1985; Kiecolt 1988). Theo ries of the socialization process include assumptions that many differences between men and women are culturally acquired from childhood to adulthood and these are incorpo rated into the individual's identity and sense of self as a social being and member of a group or society. In this way, "individuals are socialized to an ideology of gender that emphasizes the oppositeness of the sexes" (Mason 1984:165). This includes the sex- typing of occupations and social roles. In turn, sex-typing is reinforced by its incorpo ration into social institutions, laws, and personality traits. Therefore, women and men are likely to differ significantly in attitudes as well as behavior.
A major focus of attitude studies is the way in which, within the social context, people's attitudes are shaped and determined not only by socialization and the content of culture, but also by social interactions, patterns of social relationships, the content of social transactions among interacting individuals, and the characteristics of the refer ence group (Eiser 1987; Kiecolt 1988). Among the characteristics theorized to predict attitudes (supported by empirical studies in industrialized countries) are socioeconomic status, education, location, religion, sex, and ethnicity (Fazio 1986; Kiecolt 1988).
These characteristics are associated with group membership, subcultures, experiences, and socialization. Therefore, a study of attitudes should include a consideration of these most basic characteristics of research subjects and their association with variations in attitudes. 32
Furthermore, factors of attraction, familiarity and similarity play roles in the formation and change in attitudes. In the study of attitudes toward farmers held by ex tension officers, the extent to which distributions in the two groups are similar or dis similar by sex, ethnicity, age, educational level, place of origin, religion, incomes and other demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the two groups should be as sociated with the degree of favorability of attitudes held by extension officers. Simi larly, the greater the similarity across each of these variables, the greater the likelihood that extension agents have accurate knowledge of farming practices and needs associ ated with each of those variables. This will be mediated by the degree of experience of extension officers in working with farmers of differing characteristics.
Social psychological approaches to attitude research distinguish between three dimensions of attitude formation—connative, affective, and cognitive (Feagin 1980).
Through the cognitive process, agricultural specialists and extension officials form be liefs about women farmers, the attitude object, based on new information and experi ence as well as past socialization. Cognition and cognitive dissonance are much studied features of attitude research and the findings are mixed. On the one hand, studies find that behavior is a better predictor of attitude than attitude is of behavior and this is ex plained by cognitive dissonance. That is, getting a subject to engage in behavior that goes against beliefs or attitudes in the absence of force or high rewards creates a situa tion of cognitive dissonance which generates discomfort in the individual. Individuals are likely to shift their attitudes so that they are more in line with their behavior as a means of resolving the dissonance (Rshbein & Ajzen 1974; Festinger 1957; Fishbein &
Ajzen 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein 1980; Ajzen 1982). 33
However, commitment to the initial attitude also is a factor and varies according to the degree of salience of the attitude to the individual's sense of self and to the direct experience of the individual with situations relevant to and confirming of the attitude.
Lack of salience and/or experience is associated with low commitment to attitudes and more rapid attitude change with exposure to new experiences or information Lord,
Lepper, & Mackie 1984; Montero 1990). In the case of extension officers, it will be important to attempt to develop some means for assessing commitment to specific atti tudes as well as experience and the strength or relevance of competing information and pressures for change (for instance, in the form of gender-sensitive extension policies imposed from above, the ways in which extension performance is evaluated, amount and content of experiences).
The affective dimension is concerned with public and reference group evalua tions of attitudes (favorable or unfavorable) toward women as food producers. To the extent that pressures by those whom they desire to please are placed on extension offi cers to change practices, they might also change attitudes (Petty & Cacioppo 1981 ; Pet tigrew 1987; ). But they may be subject to competing pressures from more than one reference group, including groups of origin, colleagues, policymakers above them, farmers, and others.
The affective dimension also includes consideration of notions of "attraction," usually associated with perceived similarity or shared experiences. Attitudes are more likely to be favorable towards attitude objects who are similar to the attitude holder (in this case, the extension officer) than toward those who are dissimilar (Veitch and Grif- fit 1976; Wicklund & Brehm 1976; Weidemarm 1985; Wolkowitz 1987; Zajonc & 34
Markus 1984). This again emphasizes the importance of comparing demographic and socio-economic characteristics of extension ofHcers and farmers.
The conative dimension of attitude formation and change emphasizes behavioral intentions toward the attitude object encapsulated in change in attitude, beliefs, and be havior. For example, an extension officer with no prior experience working with women and no particular desire to do so might become convinced by policymakers that project success depends on the active participation of women (belief change). This in creases favorability towards (liking for) women farmers (attitude change). Subse quently, the extension officer would be more ready change extension practices neces sary to actively incorporate women and women's issues in projects (behavior change).
This is only one example of the possible scenarios of the relationship among attitudes, beliefs, and behavior that were considered in developing the research design and de ciding on a feasible focus.
Policy Implications of Attitude Research
Regardless of level of funding, policies to target women farmers will fail to achieve their intended objectives as long as extension agents and others who design and implement projects hold opposing attitudes (Buvinic 1986; Elson 1991). At the same time, low levels of funding can be efficient and show important results when those who design and implement projects hold supportive attitudes. Where negative attitudes are widely held and resources to change those attitudes are extremely limited—as is the case of Uganda and most developing countries—agricultural policy makers need some sim ple mechanisms to identify the source and expression of attitudes and pinpoint the ex tension agents most likely to hold negative attitudes. Only then can they be targeted for 35 training and intervention. Additionally, agricultural policy makers need simple mecha nisms to identify logistical, communication, and administrative problems whose impact might otherwise be confused as a problem of attitude.
Attitudes and Extension Practices in Africa
In summary, individual characteristics of agents can serve as indicators of the source of attitudes and provide a mechanism for identifying extension agents, logistical factors, and other areas requiring intervention. Among the variables likely associated with attitudes are demographic and social characteristics such as ethnicity, religion, age, marital history, division of labor in household of origin and current household, place of origin, income, educational level, content of socialization (including formal education and the media), occupational history, and experience with women and men farmers (Beere 1990).
Attitudes formed by way of socialization and early experiences occupy positions of centrality in the individual's personality and are resistant to change even as a result of subsequent experiences. (This reinforces the need for specialized intervention and consciousness raising.) Excellent examples of this come from African history, espe cially attempts by colonizers to change attitudes and behavior, and subsequent post colonial efforts to revise values, beliefs, and behaviors imposed by colonial powers.
In Africa, beliefs and other personality constructs such as opinions, values, and motives about the different roles men and women play in agriculture, patriarchal no tions about women farmers, favorable and unfavorable evaluation of the contributions women make toward food production, notions of modernity and backwardness in agri 36 culture, and intentions to transform extension projects to conform to values and norms are a result of the fusion of local and ethnic traditions with the legacy of dependency and discrimination of colonialism. For instance, European colonizers deprived rural women of agricultural resources such as land, labor, and credit in the name of
"modernization" (Bradshaw 1985; Feagin & Eckberg 1988). Depriving women of these resources created pressures for female economic dependency which persist in the post colonial era and favored male control over women. Colonizers also created pressures for male wage work (e.g., the head tax) and emphasized export production over pro duction for local markets. It is difficult to assess the impacts of these policies since cur rent international economic policies reflect these same values and modernization strate gies.
Cultural change has been selective, however. The sexual division of labor and the system of reproduction still allocated food production and responsibility for feeding children to women, even as colonial reinforcement of male wage work and privilege contributed to the exclusion of women from wage work and extension programs which target cash cropping (Overholt et al. 1985). In principle, women and their activities are marginalized ideologically and, under selected conditions and activities, in real terms
(Rogers 1980; Yates 1982; Cloud 1985; Parpart & Staudt 1989; Montero 1990; Dennis
1991).
The discussion of colonial influences is not a mere deviation from the discussion of attitude formation and change. In fact, one explanation for contemporary attitudes toward women and toward smallholder agriculture is the theory of internal colonialism that posits that discriminatory practices and privileges were created when colonizing 37
Europeans deprived women of agricultural resources such as land and labor (Feagin and Eckerb 1980). Colonialism fostered a public-private dichotomy~a patriarchal mode of production which perpetuates male control over women. Not only were atti tudes imposed through education and behavioral modification, they were structured into the material bases of the system of reproduction and in human sexuality. This was reinforced by the emerging objective economic interests of men under a system of capitalism that sought primarily male wage workers whose stability and commitment would be encouraged through the economic dependence of women and children. Poli cies that target men and marginalize women have the effect of creating a privileged po sition for men by denying women access to the training, tools, and resources channeled to men.
Under ideal circumstances, productive and reproductive systems would intersect with and reinforce each other. Theoretically, their complementarity would enhance the acquisition of gender ideology and expectations by individuals through socialization
(though neo-Marxists and socialist feminists would be quick to point out that there are many tensions and contradictions). But, the process of transforming African societies was selective and incomplete under colonialism. Therefore, the contradictions in the system are extreme. One might go so far as to say that there is little evidence of coher ence between gender or capitalist ideologies regarding "modem" women and men
(though they continue to be transmitted as ideal types) and real patterns of social or ganization and production in rural farming communities, at least Thus, another form of dissonance is introduced into the study and is likely to impact both the attitudes and the behaviors of extension officers and farmers too. How they handle these contradic 38 tions can be at least partially observed in the Held and through discussions of the fit between extension objectives and practices.
Farming Ideology and Attitude Change
Ideology legitimizes inequality and discrimination. Defined as "a set [or system] of ideas or beliefs shared by individuals who belong to specific social groups," ideol ogy supports exploitative relations of production in particular social situations in part by making such exploitation appear legitimate and even natural (Montero 1990:45).
Ideology can create false consciousness and changes with particular socioeconomic and political undercurrents. As false consciousness, ideology maintains and exaggerates the benefits of existing relationships and structures. It blurs creative potential and makes change difficult. It mediate the comprehension of reality. As a psychological categoiy , ideology permits a socio-historical framing of what may otherwise be dismissed as con fused or contradictory behavior. The study of the beliefs that comprise gender ideol ogy and farming ideology can help explain the contradictions between belief and reality and pinpoint beliefs that are more or less resistance to intervention and change
(Montero 1990).
Ideology as a cognitive process helps the individual justify political, economic, and social orders characterized by inequality and exploitation (Zajonc & Markus 1984;
Kiecolt 1988a; Kiecolt 1988b). Though ideology usually expresses the point of view of the dominant group—in this case, policymakers, development strategists, and extension officials—the study also will consider the degree of overlap between gender and farm ing ideology held by extension officials and those held by women and men farmers. 39
In this way, the study will examine a) potentially competing belief systems and b) the degree of consistency and overlap (or contradiction) among ideologies held by differ ent groups. The degree of overlap or contradiction is related to notions of the impor tance of similarity and attraction in attitude formation and change.
Enlightened national policies represent an important source of potential attitude change because they mandate change in practices (behavior). Recent policies of the
Ugandan Ministry of Agriculture mandate the incorporation of women into the exten sion service as officers and as farmers; they also mandate extension services for local food production as well as for cash production. These policies may threaten, weaken, or displace existing ideologies developed under alternative conditions (colonialism, in tervention by development advisors) held by some groups even as they provide support alternative ideologies which may be held by others (and consistent with real farming practices). Critical to the understanding the issue of displacement are not only the atti tudes held by extension officers and farmers, but also the conditions of agricultural production in a given setting. For this reason, the field work documented farming practices and compared these to attitudes and ideals.
The Question of Power
Development researchers and some planners have recently considered women's relative economic power as the most important determinant of other inequalities in cluding those of access to and control over land, labor, credit, and information. Many propose that participation in production agriculture or paid work is a precondition for economic power. For most, whether or not women's productive work is translated into power depends on the "strategic importance and indispensability of the female produc- 40
ers and or their products" (Blumberg 1978:27). While theories of gender stratification
and women's empowerment are still incipient and qualitatively better empirical evi
dence is needed, most studies use measives of decision making and assessments of
women's status (value, importance, recognition of contributions) as a proxy for
"women's power." This study incorporated into the research design an assessment of
both farmers' and extension officers' assessments of the gendered nature of decision
making in farming and in household affairs. Construction of a decision making matrix
allowed a comparison between women and men's assessments of their relative power
and between farmers' and extension officers' assessments of the gendered nature of
power, particuleu-ly in farming.
However, negative attitudes toward women farmers and a mismatch between of
ficers' and farmers' reports may result from limited information about the contribu
tions women make in agriculture and other areas of social life (Staudt 1989; Jiggins
1989). Furthermore, distorted information about women and men farmers, coupled
with gendered and ethnocentric values that conflict with reality, may lead change
agents and extension officials to engage in "downward social comparison, " a socio-
psychological phenomenon by which men/the educated/the urban/ethnic majorities
maintain a superordinate-subordinate relationship with women/the uneducated/the rural
poor/ethnic minorities by perceiving the latter as inferior and the former as superior
(Brehm 1988:82). Under these conditions, extension officers may perceive the provi sion of services as a zero-sum game where women's (minorities/uneducated/the poor) improvement would narrow men's (majorities-educated-privileged) relative advantage, or even result in a decline in the latter's absolute welfare. In turn, a decline in male 41 farmers' welfare might threaten generalized male dominance and impact agents' gender relations. Because at least some WID research has speculated that it is this dominant relationship that male policymakers and extension officials seek to maintain- consciously or unconsciously (Rogers 1980; Buvinic 1986; Montero 1990; Afshar
1991), this study included structured conversations with extension officers and farmers in order to assess whether or not possible resistance to gender-sensitive policies and practices might be associated with a commitment to male dominance and a perception of male-female relations as one of competition rather than complementarity or coop eration (Sen 1990).
Research Assumptions, Objectives and General Hypotheses
Although diverse factors contribute to attitude formation and change, this study was designed around the following theoretical assumptions:
1) Attitudes result from socialization and cumulative experiences associated with individual membership in specific reference groups. Membership and the content of socialization and experiences can be detected through demographic and socio-economic characteristics such as marital status, ethnicity, religion, occupation, education, place of origin, division of labor in the family, and sex.
2) Attitudes can be changed by knowledge of women's roles and the importance of smallholder production in general, and knowledge is conditioned by concrete and cumulative experiences as well as the availability and dissemination of accurate infor mation about smallholders in general and women in particular. Attitudes should be compared with knowledge. 42
3) Attitudes may be conditioned by commitment to or stakes in particular eco nomic interests and privileges. These are associated with the class, ethnicity, gender and age structure of rural communities, inheritance patterns and concentration of land holdings, patterns of access to and control over productive resources, market orienta tion and type of agricultural production, content and level of extension services, and relative male dominance in the local context Therefore, structures of power should be assessed.
4) Attitude formation and change reflect the persuasiveness and pervasiveness of gender ideology as well as ethnic and class ideologies and conflicts. These may be ex pressed in prejudicial attitudes and behavior and in customs and traditions, bureaucratic practices, and gender, ethnic, and class stratification within the household, the commu nity, the region, and the nation-state. Ideological bias intersects with economic interests and privileges, access to information real roles and contributions, and concrete and ciunulative experiences (Rogers 1980; Spring 1988; Dennis 1991).
5) A fifth assumption, reasonable given the WID literature and preliminary data from Uganda, is that neither women farmers nor smallholder food producers have been fully integrated into extension programs prior to the 1990s. Therefore, it is pos sible to compare extension officer attitudes and practices with past and current policies developed at the national level.
6) Extension officer attitudes that are not consistent with policy changes will have a negative impact on extension practices. That is, extension officers are in a posi tion to continue discriminatory practices if they do not have incentives or reasons for changing their own attitudes. 43
7) Finally, knowledge of women's and smallholders' roles in agricultural pro duction is likely to be subordinated by attitudes toward the appropriateness of such roles. That is, even when national policy mandates encourage the inclusion of women farmers and smallholders in extension programs, extension agents' positive attitudes toward men farmers and cash cropping will take precedence.
Objectives of the Study and Hypotheses
Specifically, using the case of Mukono District in Uganda, the study sought to:
1. Investigate the production practices of smallholder farmers, extension-farmer interaction, farming tasks, labor availability, and decision making in farm households.
2. Examine the socio-demographic characteristics of farmers and field extension officers—age, gender, education, income, ethnicity, religion, marital status, district of origin, status in the household, and household division of labor and structure.
3. Determine the extent to which selected socio-demographic characteristics of field extension officers are associated with their perceptions of (attitudes towards) small holder farmers and with extension practices.
4. Determine the extent to which field extension officers are knowledgeable about
(a) production practices of smallholder farmers; and (b) decision making on selected farming tasks.
5. Compare farmers' opinions regarding extension practices with those of field ex tension officers. Research was organized around the following general, guiding hypotheses:
1. Male extension officers are more likely to hold negative attitudes toward women farmers and are less likely to have accurate knowledge of and experience with women farmers than women extension officers.
2. Extension officers are most likely to hold positive attitudes toward and have ac curate knowledge of farming practices, the division of labor, and decision making for those farmers with whom they share characteristics (age, place of origin, ethnicity, education, marital status, income, gender).
3. Men farmers are farmers who engage in cash production are more likely than women farmers and food producers to have benefited from extension services.
4. Farmers whose characteristics resemble those of extension officers are more likely to benefit from extension services than those who are unlike extension officers.
5. Extension officers with more experience in the region and/or who have received more training and policy education will have more positive attitudes toward women, smallholders, and food producers than those who have less experience and training. CHAPTER III
THE SETTING: CHOICE OF UGANDA AS STUDY SITE
Introduction
A study of extension officer attitudes toward smallholders in general and women specifically, the relationship between demographic and socio-economic characteristics of officers and their attitudes, the relationship between attitudes and extension practices, and the relationship between knowledge and experience on the one hand and attitudes and practices on the other requires a context which meets certain minimum characteristics. First, smallholder agriculture should be widespread and women's participation in farming should be high. Second, there should be a well-developed extension system with many years of documented experience. Third, policymakers at the top of the extension system should be favorable to extension work with women and, if possible, with smallholders in general. Fourth, the site should show relative political stability in the recent past and be free of armed conflicts that could be disruptive of farming and of extension work. Mukono District in Uganda, located about 20 kilometers (12.4 miles) from Kampala, Uganda's capital city, exhibits these characteristics and was selected for the study.
45 46
Other factors influenced the selection of Uganda in general and Mukono District specifically. First, The Ohio State University, under the auspices of the U. S. Agency for International Development (USAID) program, was involved in establishing an agricultural extension and education department at the Makerere University in
Kampala. The objective of the project has been to design agricultural education programs that emphasize the centrality of farmers in the nation's agricultural development efforts.
Second, several Ugandan professors and extension officials were in residence at
Ohio State. They provided detailed information about the site. Some of these students and one North American student were carrying out related research in Uganda, two in
Mukono District. And they helped put the principal investigator (PI) in touch with other students and professionals engaged in research in Mukono. This guaranteed access to multiple sources of information on diverse issues related to farming and extension.
Third, Uganda's official language is English even though it is an ethnically diverse country. This facilitates research on extension officers who share a language while also allowing the incorporation of attitudes toward certain ethnic groups into the research design (most rural adults continue to use traditional languages in daily exchanges though those with schooling have learned English). At the same time, southern Uganda has not been subject to the armed ethnic conflicts that characterize some other African states, although such conflicts are active in northern Uganda. 47
Mukono District itself presents additional features beneficial to the study. It is a stable, fertile region relatively free from ethnic or other conflicts. Because of its stabili^ and agricultural potential, it has been one of the major targets for extension services over the last decade. It also has benefited from its proximity to Makerere University, once considered the "Harvard” of Africa and site of agricultural research programs funded by diverse international agencies. As a result,
Mukono District has been the site of numerous agricultural research projects.
Mukono's proximity to Kampala, the national capital, also suggested the region might be privileged in terms of access to policymakers and public services and agricultural markets.
Finally, Mukono District is in southeast Uganda and, although AIDS is a problem throughout the country, the greatest concentration of AIDS cases and AIDS orphans is in the southwest, bordering Rwanda. A major problem in the southwest is the need for extension services to work with child farmers who are increasingly left with farming responsibilities as adults become ill and die. The study might not have been feasible as designed in a region where child farmers are important since issues other than gender and ethnicity would be of greater priority. Nonetheless, the principal investigator (PI) left open the possibility that child farming might also have emerged in Mukono and was prepared to assess extension officers’ attitudes toward working with children if warranted. This was not the case, however. 48
Once in Uganda, some faculty at Makerere University proposed a change of research site from Mukono, arguing that it was already a well-studied region, to districts in central Uganda. However, the suggested districts had been the site of ongoing civil war and the extension service had not been active until recently.
Extension officers would be less experienced, farming less well documented, and the population would include returned refugees and displaced persons. These factors would have negatively impacted the variables of knowledge and experience critical to assessing attitudes. Therefore, Mukono District was maintained as the study site.
Thus, Uganda in general—and Mukono District in particular—constitute an appropriate research setting. Smallholder agriculture is widespread and production is high. Women are numerically important as food producers. Extension work has an established track record in the district and work was said to be well-organized and well-documented. The district is politically stable and easily accessible. And inter- institutional linkages facilitated in-country contacts and assistance during and prior to fieldwork.
Background
The Republic of Uganda, East Africa
Additional minimum details on Uganda's history, economy, geography, and population will provide an understanding of the broader context within which farming has evolved. Uganda's history and population characteristics have shaped the development of its economy, its priorities, the attention it has received from 49 international agencies, its institutions and infrastructure, and the relative importance of agriculture in the economy.
Uganda is and always has been primarily an agricultural nation. Agriculture contributed about 85% of the country's export earnings of more than $2.5 billion in
1983 (Samuelson 1990). The economy is largely agricultural.' More than 90 percent of the nation's 1994 estimated population of 19,859,000 live in the rural areas and depend on agriculture for a livelihood. While agriculture accounts for about 51 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP 1991), it also constitutes more than 90 percent of Uganda’s $208 million export earnings ($208 million in 1990) (Time, Inc.
1993), and employs approximately 80 percent of the nation’s work force (World Bank
1993a; Time, Inc. 1993; World Bank 1994; Rwabwogo 1994). Agricultural output, including subsistence and food crops (for local markets) such as cassava, sweet potatoes, matoke (green bananas), millet, sorghum, and vegetables, “comes almost exclusively from about 2.5 million smallholders—80 percent of whom have less than 2 ha. each” (World Bank 1993a:viii).
Tobacco, cocoa, cotton, tea, and coffee are the principal cash crops. Tea and sugar are grown on large plots and they cover about 40,(X)0 ha of the 1990 estimated total cultivated area of 4.6 million ha. (World Bank 1993:15). Of the total land area under cultivation, 36 percent (1.7 million ha) is devoted to perennial crops, such as ( 1 ) bananas, which cover nearly 1.4 million ha, (2) coffee, which is grown on 0.25 million ha., (3) sugar, which takes about 20,000 ha. of land, and (4) tea, which, like sugar, occupies 20,000 ha. of cultivated land.
' Information in this section depends heavily on World Bank documents from the World Bank Library in Kampala and the 1994 Uganda District Information Handbook 50
Annual crops are mostly food crops. They occupy 2.9 million ha. of land, of which 1 million ha. are in cereals, 0.8 million in rootcrops, 0.7 million in pulses, and
0.4 million in oilseeds. Cotton and tobacco, another two important annual crops, are grown on 70,000 and 4,000 ha respectively (World Bank 1993a). Coffee-robusta and arabica—constitutes about 90 percent of the nation's export earnings.^ There is also the fishing industry, with its headquarters in Jinja. The fishing industry is largely in the hands of the people who live along the shores of Lake Victoria and the Nile River
(World Bank 1993a; Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia 1996; Grolier
Encyclopedia 1996).
Thus, the agricultural sector in Uganda comprises (1) food production, which makes up about 71 percent of the agricultural GDP; (2) livestock products which constitute about 17 percent of the GDP; (3) export crops which make up only 5 percent of the GDP; (4) while the fisheries sector accounts for 4 percent of the GDP; with (5) forestry accounting for the remaining 3 percent (World Bank 1993a:viii). Farmers produce food crops largely for subsistence. Only about 33 percent of farm produce
(food stuff) is marketed, compared to about 67 percent of livestock, and 100 percent of all export crop output (World Bank, 1988, 1993a, 1994a; Time, Inc. 1993; Rwabwogo
1994).
Lakes, swamps, and forest reserves aside, more than 75 percent of Uganda’s total land area of 236,040 square kilometers (about 18 million ha)^ is available and or
^ Time Inc. Magazine Company and Compact Publishing, 1993. gives coffee 97 percent of Uganda’s 1990 export trade. Uganda’s trade partners include: (1) USA. 25 percent; (2) United Kingdom. 18 percent; France. 11 percent; and Spain. 10 percent The rest, 36 percent, consists of Germany, the former Soviet Union, and Africa, particularly the East African nation of Kenya. ^ Total land area is the sum of all land and water areas delimited by international boundaries and or coastlines, while land area is the aggregate of all surfaces delimited by international boundaries and or coastlines, excluding inland water bodies such as lakes, reservoirs, and rivers (The CIA World Factbook. Time. Inc. 1993:1). 51 suitable for cultivation and pasture (World Bank 1993a, 1994b; Time, Inc. 1993;
Rwabwogo 1994). About 23 percent of the total land area is arable land, while 9 percent is devoted to permanent crops; meadows and pastures occupy 25 percent of the land, forest and woodland have 30 percent, the rest, 13 percent, consists of irrigated land (Time, Inc. 1993).
But the 1990 estimates show that only 4.6 million ha of the total land area are under cultivation, 1.7 million ha of which is devoted to perennial crops—1.4 million ha for bananas, 0.25 million ha for coffee, 70,000 ha for cotton, 4,000 ha for tobacco, while sugar and tea each covers 20,000 ha of land. Thus, of the 2.9 million ha devoted to annual food crops, cereals alone occupy 1 million ha, while rootcrops (tubers), pulses, and oilseeds cover 0.8, 0.7, and 0.4 million ha of land respectively (World
Bank 1993a: 17).
With a population of over 19 million, production land area is about two acres per capita and, according to official statistics, agriculture employs 83% of the nation's
5.7 million "officially" registered labor force, of which at least 33% are women
(World Bank 1993a; Naluwanga-Sebina & Natukunda 1988). Since definitional and methodological problems are still in place, these figures undoubtedly under-represent both subsistence agriculture in general and women's participation specifically.
The basic unit of production is identified by policymakers and researchers as the small-scale family farm, with an average size of four acres. Both men and women are widely acknowledged as cooperative producers who engage in multiple production practices. These include combined cash and food production, crops and animal husbandry, monoculture on some land and intercropping on other land, and combining 52 farming with other income generating activities such as handicrafts, wage work primarily in agriculture, and the provision of services such as hauling water and food processing. A purposive communication entity designed to help farmers meet their basic needs, the objective of the now widespread agricultural extension service is to convey to farmers information on technology and new methods of farming (Opio-
Odongo 1988; Sibyetekerwa 1988; NaJjingo-Kasujja 1990).
Uganda is a former British Colony in east central Africa and shares borders with
Tanzania and Rwanda in the South, Zaire in the West, Sudan in the North, and Kenya in the East (Figure 1). Uganda is landlocked, with no direct access to the sea, however,
Lake Victoria is a major source of water, fishing, and transportation to the south.
Uganda is located at the equator, and most of the territory is a fertile plateau, with several rivers and lakes, the most important of which are Lake Kyoga, Lake Albert,
Lake Edward, Lake Victoria, and the Nile River. Uganda has several mountains, with
Margherita Peak in the southwest at 16,794 ft (5,119 m) as the nation's highest. With a total area of 236,040 sq. km (91,135 sq. mi.) of which land comprises 199,710 sq. km, landlocked Uganda is slightly smaller than the state of Oregon (World Bank 1993a;
Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia 1996; Grolier Encyclopedia 1996).
With a tropical climate, rainfall is fairly distributed throughout the country. The country generally experiences two dry seasons-between December and February, and
June and August. The country is endowed with natural resources, including copper, cobalt, limestone, and salt. (World Bank 1993b; Time, Inc. 1993; Concise Columbia
Electronic Encyclopedia 1996; Grolier Encyclopedia 1996). 53
(Sudani Uganda W Kaabong
Gulu / o' M oroto
S o ro ti
Hoima S aiiibury||||l|i||
F o rt <» r-d Tor or o Por ta l Mubende Kampala J in ja K a T o n g o
Masaka, E d ijë tr d Mbarara
iiillilR ^an. T a n z a n i a # !
Figure 1. The Map of Uganda, East Africa
Source: Apple Computer Electronic World Atlas, 1994. 54
Approximately 70 percent of Uganda's population belongs to the Bantu-speaking ethnic groups, with the remainder consisting largely of Nilotic speakers. Although
Swahili is widely spoken, English was established as the official language under British colonial administrations. In an effort to emphasize shared interest and nationalism,
post-colonial administrations have maintained English as the official language. To emphasize individual identities and loyalties as "Ugandans," the state prohibits censuses and surveys from asking about ethnicity, though some researchers ask about the
language spoken at home as a means of identifying ethnic backgrounds.
Uganda was first inhabited by Bantu-speaking people who migrated into east central Africa and settled in the area now called Uganda around AD 1100 (Time, Inc.
1993; Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia 1996; Grolier Encyclopedia 1996).
Between the 14th and 19th centuries, the Bantus had organized themselves into several powerful, independent kingdoms, including the kingdoms of Bunyoro and Buganda, two of the four traditional kingdoms in Uganda. When J. H. Speke and H. M. Stanley visited Buganda in 1862 and 1875 respectively, they opened the area to British influence. The British declared Buganda a protectorate in 1894 and extended British administration to other kingdoms in the territory of Uganda (Figure 2). Buganda comprises seven regions, among them, Kampala, Luwero, Masaka, Mpigi, Mubende,
Mukono, and Rakai (Hansen & Twaddle 1988).
In 1955, when the British adopted constitutional changes that led to Uganda’s political independence, British Colonial Administration over Uganda began to change dramatically. A ministerial system of government was established. Under this system, indigenous Ugandans were appointed ministers for the Legislative Council. 55
A
MOYO
/ ARUA KITGUW KOIIOO W GULU •
•NEBBI
MOROTO LIRA APAC
SOflOTl MASINOI
KUMI
KOIMA KAMUll
JORORO MUBENOE IGANGA KABAROLE IINJ, MUKONI K im pila MPIGI*
BUSHENYlf m BARARA
RAKAI Ahcr I97E
km 100
Figure 2. Map of Uganda showing the Kingdom of Buganda
Source; Hansen & Twaddle 1988:86 56
By increasing the number of members to the Legislative Council through popular elections, the Council, working in concert with the London Constitutional
Conference of September 1961, helped to establish the timetable for independence.
Uganda remained a British colony until October 9, 1962, when, under a new federal constitution, Uganda attained political independence from the British, with Milton
Obote as the first prime minister and, subsequently, the first dictator (World Bank
1993a; Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia 1996; Grolier Encyclopedia 1996).
The Federal Constitution of 1962 returned a large measure of autonomy to the four traditional kingdoms of Buganda, Bunyoro, Ankole, and Toro (Time, Inc.
1993:1). Under this arrangement, the Kabaka (king) of Buganda retained many traditional prerogatives such as collecting taxes from his subjects and rallying the people for political purposes under a common banner. The three other kingdoms-
Ankole, Bunyoro, and Toro were also granted similar autonomy under the 1962
Constitution (Time, Inc. 1993:2). The first general elections held in Uganda one year before independence were meant to usher in the two party system of government for
Uganda. Competing in the elections were the two major political parties in Uganda, the Uganda People’s Congress (UPC) led by Milton Obote and the Democratic Party
(DP) under the leadership of Benedicto Kiwanuka. The Buganda Government boycotted the elections. When the DP narrowly won the elections, Kiwanuka became leader of government affairs in Uganda’s internal self-government status. Because the
DP could not command a majority in parliament, another general election was held one month later. By forming a coalition with the Kabaka of Buganda, Sir Edward
Frederick Mutesa II, Obote’s UPC won the elections (Time, Inc. 1993). 57
It was this coalition government under the premiership of Obote that led Uganda to full political independence on October 9, 1962 (Time, Inc. 1993:2). Under the constitutional amendments of September 1963, the Kabakka was elected Uganda’s first president, with Obote wielding executive government powers as prime minister (Time,
Inc. 1993:2). But the UPC-Kabaka coalition was short lived. Through defections from the Kabaka camp and the opposition Democratic Party, UPC became the dominant party in parliament. With this support, Obote declared Uganda a-one-party state; abolished the two-party system, and suspended altogether the 1962 Independence
Constitution. By arbitrarily dismissing the Kabaka as president, Obote assumed all government powers and established a dictatorship. The new constitution promulgated in September 1967 declared Uganda a republic and gave Obote unlimited powers as president of Uganda As president, Obote abolished the traditional kingdoms and assumed the powers of the kings himself (Time, Inc. 1993:3).
Obote's dictatorial powers were, however, short lived. On January 25, 1971,
Obote was overthrown in a military coup led by Major General Idi Amin. “Amin declared himself president, dissolved the parliament, and amended the constitution to give himself absolute power” (Time, Inc. 1993:3). Amin, thus, transformed Uganda into a dictatorship. Between 1971 and 1979, Amin maintained absolute power through widespread bloodshed and program of systematic terror through assassination, arrest, and detention without cause or trial. His actions devastated Uganda’s agriculture-based economy. Accusing foreign nationals—Europeans, Asians, and Arabs, who constituted approximately one percent of Uganda’s population-of dominating the commanding heights of the economy, Amin expelled all foreigners from Uganda, nationalized 58 industries, seized land, and neglected the nation’s agriculture-based institutions, including Makerere University and agricultural research stations. Also, Amin undermined world peace and security by openly supporting international terrorism against Israel, for example, the July 1976 Entebbe Airport drama in which “pro-
Palestinian skyjackers” held 105 hostages, most of whom were Israelis, until Israeli commando units freed the hostages “after a-15-minute blaze of gunfire” (Time, Inc.
1993:6).
By so doing, Amin plunged the nation into widespread civil and political strife.
His corrupt administration drained national coffers. Physical infrastructure deteriorated rapidly, and public services contracted or disappeared. A significant portion of Uganda's population was involved in clandestine or open guerrilla activities to overthrow Amin. Women were well represented in the clandestine movement at this time and in the subsequent struggle to again remove Obote when he returned to power, a factor some observers point to as the basis for subsequent gender-based legal reforms and women's participation in politics and civil organizations once democracy was restored. As the 1993 Almanac CIA World Factbook states, “Idi Amin’s 8-year rule was marked by economic decline, social disintegration, and massive human rights violations. The Acholi and Langi people of Uganda were particular objects of Amin’s political persecution because Obote and many of his supporters belonged to those ethnic groups.” More than 3(X),(XX) Ugandans perished under Idi Amin’s reign of terror
(Almanac 1993). 59
On April 11, 1979, with the help of Tanzanian troops who backed educated
Ugandan exiles and the clandestine movement, Amin was ousted from office. Between
April 1979 and December 1980 when general elections were held, Ugandans witnessed a series of mushroom administrations. First, was President Yusuf Lule, whose Ugandan
National Liberation Front (UNLF) ruled Uganda through an interim administration established immediately Amin was removed from office. Disagreements over presidential powers between Yusuf Lule and the National Consultative Council (NCC) established by the UNLF government, led to the replacement of Yusuf Lule (June
1979) with Godfrey Binaisaas the new president. In May 1980, Binaisa was removed from office over the extent of presidential powers (Almanac 1993).
A military commission was appointed the same month with Paulo Muwanga as chairman until the December 1980 elections that returned Obote to power a second time as president Muwanga was appointed vice president. In his attempt to expunge military insurgency led by Yoweri Museveni’s National Resistance Army (NRA),
Obote embarked upon a reign of terror, culminating in one of the worst human rights violations Ugandans had ever experienced, particularly in the Luwero area, north of
Kampala, where Museveni comes from. On July 21, 1985, the military led by
Lieutenant General Basilio Olara-Okello from the Acholi ethnic group, proclaimed a military government an forced Obote into exile in neighboring Zambia (Almanac
1993; (Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia 1996; Grolier Encyclopedia 1996; Kizito
1995a). 6 0
The new military regime, headed by General Tito Okello, attempted to work in concert with the Museveni forces, but negotiations soon broke down following reckless assassinations and massive human rights violations. Museveni’s NRA quickly gained control, and on January 26, 1986, captured Kampala, forcing General Okello and his entourage into exile in Sudan (Almanac 1993).
Again, a clandestine resistance movement arose in an effort to implement a true democracy. Obote was deposed on January 29, 1986, by rebel forces led by Yoweri
Kaguta Museveni, now the president of Uganda'*. To rally nationwide support for the
NRA government, Museveni has restored all the traditional monarchies including
Buganda—the largest of Uganda's four traditional kingdoms. Headed by the Kabaka of
Buganda, Ronald Muwenda Mutebi, whom Museveni helped to crown in 1994, the
Bagandas, also known as Gandas, constitute more than 30 percent of Uganda's population (Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia 1996; Grolier Encyclopedia 1996;
Kizito 1995b).
Although the monarchies ha\ c been restored, the kings have none of the political powers they once enjoyed under the British Colonial Administration. The\ act only as ceremonial heads, wielding very little or no political influence over their people
(Kizito 1995b). Instead, Museveni has introduced his own version of a democratically- organized civil system of "Resistance Councils" throughout the country. Resistance
Councils have taken over the political powers once exercised by ethnic group chiefs.
Today, RCs, as they are popularh called in Uganda, act as local government agents.
"* Museveni was elected and sworn in as president in May 1996 after a landslide victory in presidential elections in which the National Resistance Army (N'R.A) was the only political party permitted to campaign and organize political rallies throughout the country. 61
presiding over meetings at the local level, making decisions on behalf of the people, and executing government policies initiated at the national level (Troutt 1994).
The above description should not be taken as evidence that ethnic and other forms of political conflict are not prevalent in Uganda. There are guerrilla insurgencies scattered limited to northern Uganda, including an ethnic-religious group whose reign of terror and practice of kidnapping young women and men and forcing them to join the movement has been covered in The New York Times several times in
1996. Nonetheless, these insurgencies are not considered by political observers to pose a significant threat to the stability of the country or to the democracy.
In summaiy , after nearly two decades of civil wars and political instability,
Uganda is relatively at peace with itself. An end to internecine warfare has brought in its trail a nascent democracy. And democratic stability in turn has much support and assistance from foreign governments, international organizations, and development agencies. Funding for agriculture and extension work has increased considerably. Field extension officers are becoming increasingly well educated. The Ministry of
Agriculture (MOA) hopes that highly educated corps of extension workers might translate into better and meaningful interaction with farmers in the remote areas of the country relative to extension visits, on-farm demonstrations, and increased field experiments at the agricultural research stations. 62
Mukono District
Mukono District is about 20 kilometers (12.4 miles) from Kampala, the capital of Uganda. With an area of 14,242 square kilometers (5,554 square miles), Mukono
District lies in the south central region of Uganda and shares borders with Jinja to the east, Kampala and Luwero to the west. Lake Kyoga to the north, and Lake Victoria to the south (Rwabwogo 1994). About 9650 sq. km (3730 sq. mi.) of the total land area is covered with open water and swamps. Forests occupy 444 sq. km (171.5 sq. mi.). This represents about 32.8 percent of the total land area. Though mostly sandy and clayey, the soils are generally fertile for crop production as the result of heavy rains between
March and April, and October and November, the two major rainy seasons in the district (Tumushabe 1994; Rwabwogo 1994). The mean annual rainfall, 900-1000 mm
(35.4-39.4 inches), supports agriculture, the mainstay of the district's economy
(Tumushabe 1994; Rwabwogo 1994).
The district comprises six counties (Mukono, Nakifiuna, Ntenjeru, Buikwe,
Bbaale, Buvuma), 31 subcounties, parishes, and villages, the latter referred to administratively as subparishes (Rwabwogo 1994). The district's population of about
816,200 is made up of 407,900 men and 408,300 women. Only 11.4 percent of the people live in urban areas (Rwabwogo 1994). The rest are rural dwellers who live in villages and farms scattered over the district (World Bank 1993a). About 55 percent of the population (490,000) are 18 years old or younger. The literacy rate is 60 percent for men and 40 percent for women (Uganda Government 1991; Tumushabe 1994;
Rwabwogo 1994). 63
Mukono District's infrastructure is well-developed when compared with most
Districts in the country. The total road network is about 813 km (508 mi.) of which
306 km (191 mi.) are considered first class by local standards (Rwabwogo 1994). Un like most African countries, Uganda does not have a public transit system of buses.
Therefore, rural people rely on taxis, bicycles, and trucks. The trucking industry' is controlled by firms and individuals known as “carriers.”
Three principal categories of trucking carriers can be delineated for Mukono
District as in other areas of Uganda. The first are the private carriers comprising large scale farmers and private entrepreneurs who use trucks. Some transport only their own produce from farm to market, or to processing centers. Other private truck ers also use trucks to transport processed products to markets, move or transfer prod ucts (raw material and finished goods) from one plant to another. The second category consists of contract carriers. These carriers enter into contractual agreements (on both short and long term bases) with firms and private farmers to transport raw materials and finished products. They work exclusively for those named in the contract firms and individuals involved in the contract. The third category of carriers are less formal
“common” carriers. They serve the general public and, in paiticular, farmers with limited resources on their services.
Besides these three trucking carriers, three other types of carriers operate in
Mukono District— taxis (passenger service vehicles), and people who trans port by foot. Foot operators are hired on a daily basis to carry raw, unprocessed agri cultural products—food crops in particular—to the nearest trading center. Taxis are usually 14-passenger service vehicles (mini-buses) that, together with boda-boda, ply 6 4 the main routes to and from Kampala. Boda-Boda operators, recent entrepreneurs in the field of transportation, use bicycles to transport goods and people. The term emerged in the 1970s when President Idi Amin plunged the country into civil war for nine years. With the economy in shambles, most vehicles broke down. Lack of parts made it difficult to repair them. Bicycle operators began to transport people fleeing from the war to one or another borders. Boda-boda is a phonetic rendition of border- to-border. In Mukono District, as in other parts of Uganda, agricultural produce is generally transported by several means to the trading centers for marketing.^
Primary school enrollment is 43.2 percent in the urban areas and but only 11-14 percent in the rural areas (Tumushabe 1994; Rwabwogo 1994). The district has 44 health centers, five of which are hospitals. But estimates indicate 52 percent of the people live more than 5 kilometers (3 mi.) away from a health center and few have personal transportation means. Common diseases recorded in the District include malaria (22.6%); respiratory tract infections (19%); intestinal worms (11%); diarrhea
(8.5%). About 40 percent of diseases recorded in the District are AIDS related.
Figures from the World Health Organization (WHO) show AIDS is on the increase in
Mukono District though it still is not considered among the Districts most affected by the disease (Tumushabe 1994).
Located in the central region of Uganda, Mukono District is part of the Luwero
Triangle where Museveni’s “People’s War Against Dictatorship” was launched in the early 1980s (Figure 3). The District suffered heavily under the dictatorships of Idi
Amin and Milton Obote. Roads, schools, health units, administrative centers, and
^ Information for this section comes from interviews and informal conversations with individuals and taxi drivers at Kampala taxi stations in 1994. 65 general infrastructure were destroyed (Republic of Uganda 1994; Tumushabe 1994).
Mukono District started a reconstruction process when Museveni's National Resistance
Movement (NRM) came into power in January 1986. Agricultural rehabilitation, health care, education, and improved infrastructure are now priorities for Mukono's administrative agencies (Mukono District 1994). 66
POPULATION OENSITY (PtasoNSPtp auoi-Lwo w asi
lAUtATX 300 - 361
M O - 29 9
200 - 269
8AALE 150 -199 LUWERO 100 - 169
KAMUU nMTTnaauT B»«B«rraouo«r tttt* ic. iMiaua. tcoea uiBu icn.at) TCMMI u ou tc(n5) NAKIFUMA
lUSUlt
IGANGA KAMPAU
KUXKilU MPIGI
• I y,
KAUNCALA
Rgure 3, A Map of Mukono District Showing Mukono County and Nakifuma County, Site of the Study
Source: Rwabwogo 1994:86 67
Lying between 1,158 meters (3,798 ft) and 1,219 meters (3,998 ft) above sea level, Mukono District is characterized by high temperatures and heavy rainfall.
Temperatures range between 16 and 27 degrees Celsius (60-80 degrees Fahrenheit), with the annual rainfall averaging 900-1000 millimeters (36-40 inches). Rainfall peaks are recorded in March-April and October-November, the district's two major rainy seasons (Mukono 1994). For instance, between April and June 1991, Mukono District received more than 470 millimeters of rain in 44 days (Rwabwogo 1994). High temperatures and heavy rainfall contribute to successful agricultural development in the region (World Bank 1993; Mukono 1994; Rwabwogo 1994).
Agriculture in Mukono District emphasizes the production of (1) local food crops, such as tubers (cassava, sweet potatoes, yams, cocoyams); vegetables (tomatoes, beans, groundnuts, okra, onions); maize (com); bananas (matoke, amenvu, bogoya, ndiizi); fruits (oranges, pineapples, passion fruit); (2) export crops (cotton, sugar cane, tea, coffee); and (3) livestock (cattle, pigs, poultry, sheep, goats). People who live along the shores of Lake Victoria do some fishing. Banana and robusta coffee are the most important cash crops in the district (sold locally or for export). Robusta coffee, tea, and sugar cane are the principal export crops in the region. But yields of food crops such as sweet potatoes, cassava, and maize often exceed banana and coffee yields.
For example, in 1993, Mukono District produced nearly 42,000 metric tons of sweet potatoes, compared to 3,500 metric tons of coffee and 2560 metric tons of bananas
(Table 3.1). 6 8
Table 3.1. Yields for Selected Crops in Mukono District, 1993
Type of Crop Output in Metric Tons
1993 1992
Sweet Potatoes 41943.64 49940.00 Cassava 29035.90 33946.00 Maize 8314.16 5240.00 Yams 4 4 4 9 3 0 5587.97 Coffee 3500.00 N'A Bananas—matoke, ndiizi, amenvu, bogoya 2560.60 2180.60 Tomatoes 2556.20 520.0 Gioudnuts (peanuts) 1978.80 9 5 4 3 0 Fniit-pineapples, oranges, passion fruit, avocado 1693.50 2193.50 Source: Mukono District 1994:v-vi. NA: Not Available
The livestock industry consists largely of cattle. The 1994 Agriculture Data List shows Mukono District has 130,000 heads of cattle, 60,967 goats, 16,632 sheep, and
29,298 pigs (Mukono 1994). Ashing in Mukono District is part of Uganda's $10 million fishing industry along the shores of Lake Victoria. Uganda controls about 50 percent of Lake Victoria, Africa's largest lake, and is a leading producer of fish on the continent In 1994, Uganda exported 7224 tons of fish, earning the nation $7.2 million in hard currency (Kizito 1995a).
Although agriculture constitutes the base of Mukono District's economy,
agricultural output comes from 127,642 smallholders, who represent approximately
4.3 percent of the Uganda's 3 million smallholder farming population (Republic of
Uganda 1992; World Bank 1993a; Mukono 1994). Smallholder farmers in Mukono
District carry out subsistence agriculture on 243,676 hectares of land (601,880 acres)— about 2 hectares (5 acres) per farmer. (Table 3.2). 69
Table 3.2. Number and Area of Plots Under Cultivation for Selected Crops in Mukono District.
Type of Crop Number of Plots Area in Hectares Maize 31944 5636 Beans 63409 10439 Groundnuts (peanuts) 35231 3090 Sweet Potatoes 57011 6581 Cassava 128946 18137 Coffee 200749 55577 Bananas Cooking type (matoke, ndiizi) 104574 24427 Beer type (amenvu) 32818 11144 Dessert type (bogoya) 5055 2071 Source: The Republic of Uganda, 1992.
The 1990-91 National Agricultural Census Report shows average land size varies from eight acres (3.2 ha.) nationally to six acres (2.4 ha.) in the Central Region, and 10 acres (4 ha.) in the Eastern Region (The Republic of Uganda 1992; World Bank
1993a). Cultivated land areas vary according to the type of crop produced. Farmers tend to allocate more land to cash crops than crops grown largely for subsistence
Agriculture is largely subsistence. About 65 percent of the population grow food for home consumption. Farmers in the District, particularly those in the rural areas, including Mukono and Nakifuma Counties where the study was conducted, practice a combination of crop production techniques, among them intercropping or combining plots for banana-coffee, banana-cassava, vanilla-banana, millet-maize-sorghum, and combined food cropping and livestock. The planting season begins in March, culminating in intensive harvesting activities in July and August. Conducting the study in both periods offered the investigator the opportunity to observe agricultural practices and farmer-extension interaction at critical points. 70
Land Tenure
Before the 1975 Land Reform Decree promulgated under Idi Amin's presidency, four main types of land tenure were practiced in Uganda—mailo tenure, freeholding, leaseholds, and customary tenure. Customary tenure, the oldest and most widely used system in Uganda and much of Africa, did not recognize the rights of individuals to own (buy and sell) land, only their rights to "possess" and "use" land. Possession and use of land were subject to the supervision of the extended family, clan, or the commu nity, the communal groups which "owned" land (Kasfir 1988; MISR/LTC 1989; World
Bank 1993a; Troutt 1994). Only the communal group's head had the right to dispose of land and could prevent the transfer of land to people the group considered undesirable.
Under the customary system, land holdings (use/possession rights) could be passed on as inheritance (MISR/LTC 1989; World Bank 1993a).
Technically, the mailo tenure system is a modified or restricted freehold tenure system that was introduced in the Buganda kingdom (central Uganda and the area that encompasses the setting for the study) in 1900 as part of the Buganda Agreement with the British. The mailo tenure system affirms the individual's right to land ownership.
Although legally replaced by other systems, in fact both customary and mailo systems continue to be practiced. This can lead to considerable confusion regarding ownership rights and sale of property. Mailo was the only land tenure system recognized by the
Milton Obote 1967 Republican Constitution of Uganda (MISR/LTC 1989).
The Crown Land Ordinance of 1903 gave the British colonial administration authority over land in the kingdoms. This ordinance created freehold tenure, a second land tenure system. There are three freehold types—"freeholds" (generally called 71
"public land"), "adjudicated freeholds," and "native freeholds," the latter practiced primarily in the Ankole and Toro kingdoms that also were part of Uganda (MISR/LTC
1989). Under the adjudicated freehold system, the Crown had the power to grant land titles to Ugandans. Chiefs in Ankole and Toro received land from the Crown under the native freehold system and this land could be transferred only to indigenous Afri cans in those territories. Though chiefs exercised a great deal of power over land use, the Crown retained overall power to inspect land or revoke tenancy if development conditions were not met (MISR/LTC 1989). However, this system was only selectively enforced by the British, leading to co-existing alternative systems, particularly in cen tral Uganda (MISR/LTC 1989).
In the leasehold system practiced mostly outside Buganda, the renter paid the landowner/landholder rent for using land. Cash payments to the landowner transferred rights to possess land, occupy land, and use land for agricultural purposes. Lease agreements could be made through either a private lease or with government interven tion (MISR/LTC 1989; World Bank 1993b; Troutt 1994). Thus, like the customary and freehold tenures, the leasehold system recognized the rights of the individual to use land, but did not recognize transfers of ownership of land.
These systems remained intact in modified form even after Uganda attained po litical independence from the British in 1962 (Kasfir 1988; MISR/LTC 1989; World
Bank 1993b; Troutt 1994). But the mailo system remained the most popular in
Buganda. The Registration of Titles Act of Uganda was passed two years after inde pendence and confirmed individual rights to own land by giving landlords certificates of land titles. The 1964 Act thus reaffirmed individual rights institutionalized by the 72
Buganda Kingdom Parliament that spelled out land ownership rights for both the mailo owner and the kibanja holder—mailo landholders—(MISR/LTC 1989:15; Troutt 1994),
Subsequent legislation through 1974 modified the mailo tenure system to make it rela tively easy for title holders to transfer titles or sell land to financial institutions or use it as collateral in return for loans for agricultural development in the district
(MISR/LTC 1989; World Bank 1993b; Troutt 1994). Today, nearly 100 years after it was first introduced into Buganda, the mailo system still recognizes private ownership of land, fosters security of tenure, and affirms the individual's right to convert land into a negotiable asset (MISR/LTC 1989; World Bank 1993).
The 1975 Land Reform Decree of Idi Amin sought to change all this by nation alizing land and expunging all forms of freeholds in the country. The Decree gave landlords— clan heads and chiefs—the right to lease land on a long term basis (99 years in some cases) for economic development. This change removed control from the for mer kingdoms and from communal groups. But it fell short of an egalitarian land pol icy (Kasfir 1988:158). For one thing, the Decree gave landlords discretionary powers of eviction, and for another, it impaired the rights of customary tenant holdings on both public (Crown land) and mailo land, although some kibanja holders felt the 1975
Decree strengthened their position as tenants vis-à-vis mailo owners (Troutt 1994). Ac cording to analysts, the 1975 Decree favored landlords at the expense of tenants (Kasfir
1988; MISR/LTC 1989). The 1975 Decree is still in effect, but it has not been effec tively enforced. Therefore, people have made decisions locally regarding which system to implement In Mukono District, 7,800 sq. km. (3,000 sq. mi.) of land are still held 73 in mailo tenure (Kasfir 1988). The two major cash cropping systems—bananas and cof fee—are produced almost entirely on mailo holdings.
Cash Crops
Two types of coffee , robusta coffee and arabica, are produced in Uganda.
While robusta coffee is important in the Central Region—including Mukono—arabica,
Uganda’s second type of coffee, is cultivated in the Bugisu and Sebei regions ((World
Bank 1993; Republic of Uganda, 1994). Although arabica accounts for between four and ten percent of the nation’s coffee production, it fetches a higher price on the world market. For example, in November 1995, the world market price for arabica was nearly $1.11 for a pound (half a kilogram), compared to about $0.61 per pound
(half a kilogram) of robusta coffee (UCDA, 1995). Coffee accounts for more than 70 percent of Uganda’s gross national product (GNP) (World Bank 1993). Estimates show total land area under coffee is 272,000 hectares. Robusta coffee occupies
250,000 ha, while arabica has 22,000 ha (World Bank 1993:73).
Mukono District is also known for the production of matoke (green bananas), another cash crop. Throughout Uganda, the coffee market is controlled by the Uganda
Coffee Development Authority (UCDA), a national policy and monitoring body created in 1991 by the Museveni Administration. The UCDA is now the leading coffee body in East Africa. Operating under the aegis of Museveni’s NRM Government, the
UCDA fixes farmgate prices for coffee. Farmgate prices fluctuate between 500 and
1000 Ugandan Shillings ($0.50 and $1.00) for a kilogram (2.2 pounds) of kibiko— uncleaned robusta coffee (UCDA 1995). Coffee production in Uganda for the 1990-91 season was approximately 116,000 metric tons, valued at nearly $120 million (World 74
Bank 1993b). The coffee output represents a decline in coffee production by approximately 55 percent from the 1972 peak of 213,000 metric tons. Mukono
District supplies about 3.5 percent of Uganda’s coffee production (Mukono District
1994).
Agricultural Extension in Uganda
When the British declared Uganda a protectorate in 1894, they realized the country lacked the mineral resources that were the basis of the economy in other
African protectorates. As a result, the British Colonial Administration emphasized an agricultural production program. Under the program, Ugandan farmers produced crops such as tea, cocoa, coffee, and cotton for export.
To help promote export production, the British established the Department of
Agriculture in 1910 at Kampala. A commodity oriented subdivision of the British
Colonial Administration, the Department of Agriculture soon established experimental farms at Kampala, Kakumiro, Fort Portal, Masaka, Namemage, and Kadunguru. The
Department also set up seed selection centers in Serere and Bukalasa (Opio-Odongo
1988; Semana 1988; Ministry of Agriculture-MOA 1994). Encouraged by the success of the experimental farms and the seed selection centers, the Department of
Agriculture achieved a vigorous export trade between 1921 and 1953 and in 1922
Makerere University was founded in Kampala.
When the seed selection centers at Serere and Bukalasa were upgraded to experimental stations for seed production, the British found it necessary to train qualified Ugandan nationals as research assistants to help British agricultural officials carry out various agriculture-related tasks throughout the county. As a result, the 75
Department of Agriculture also opened two-year agricultural training centers for agricultural assistants at Bukalasa in Buganda and Arapai in Teso. Called "farm institutes," the training centers gave indigenous Ugandans practical training in research, agriculture, and data collection (Opio-Odongo 1988; Republic of Uganda
1990; MOA 1994).
In 1959, one year after Makerere University began offering bachelor's degree programs in agriculture, the Bukalasa and Arapai Farm Institutes were upgraded to three-year diploma agricultural training centers. When Uganda attained political independence from the British in 1962, the expectations were that the government would embark upon vigorous agricultural programs to support agricultural extension efforts at home and promote exports abroad (Opio-Odongo 1988; MOA 1994).
But, as discussed above, political independence with an elected government was short lived. As a result of its subsequent political strife and a series of coups and counter coups, agricultural development came to a halt. Extension and research institutions were destroyed by corruption, mismanagement, and inefficiency. Extension was neglected. Equipment was lost and not replaced. Transportation services became non-existent, making it difficult to transport goods or people. Salaries were left unpaid for months. The extension service virtually collapsed.
This collapse of extension remained in effect until 1986 when the World Bank, with the cooperation of Museveni's National Resistance Movement (NRM) government, offered assistance through the Training and Visit System, a technology dissemination approach that provides linkages among researchers, extension agents, and farmers. The
Museveni administration had its own vision for the country's agriculture and believed 76 the economy could be resuscitated through agriculture. Even as early as 1986, the government implemented plans to revamp the ministry of agriculture. It was at this point that Victoria Seldtoleko was appointed Minister of Agriculture (a position held until December 1994 when she resigned and went to work for the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization-FAO). In 1987, the government launched the
Rehabilitation and Development Plan (1987-1991) to promote agriculture and improve and stabilize the economy (MOA 1994).
The Rehabilitation and Development Plan of 1987 emphasized a critical role for organized research in Uganda's agricultural development efforts. The reorganization of the Ministry of Agriculture targeted correcting wasteful use of resources that resulted when each department carried out separate, independent extension activities.
Ministry documents discuss analyses that advised a system of one grassroots extension approach that would remove overlapping authority and duplication of efforts. The new system was to encourage efficiency and the effectiveness of extension programs. This strategy resulted in the founding of the National Agricultural Research Organization
(NARO) which uses an extension approach to rural development that was in place in the early 1970s (The Government of Uganda 1988; MOA 1984, 1994).
The National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) consolidated previously scattered and uncoordinated agricultural research institutions throughout the country. Under the unified approach, operations of the three Ministries previously involved in extension—the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Ministry of
Animal Industry and Fisheries, and the Ministry of Regional Cooperation—were combined into this unified semi-autonomous organization (MOA 1984). 77
The unified approach aims to achieve efficiency tlirough training and retraining on the job, regular supervision, and structured in-service training, farmer training through on-farm demonstrations, and the training and visit systems. Under NARO, the various sections of the Ministry of Agriculture (livestock, veterinary, crop, cooperative, fisheries, animal research, forestry, and training) also were combined into a unified entity to maximize extension worker time and increase farmer productivity
(The Government of Uganda 1990; MOA 1994). Previously, there was a separate extension office for each distinct productive activity and support task. Today, NARO controls the Agricultural Research Institutes at Kawanda, Namulonge, Serere, the
Animal Research Husbandry Institute at Entebbe, the Highland Agricultural Research
Institute at Kalengere, the Nakawa Forestry Research Institute, Jinja Fisheries, the
Trypanosomiasis Research Institute at Tororo, and the Animal Production Institute at
Mbarara (The Government of Uganda 1988).
NARO's unified approach, aided by the Training and Visit System of the World
Bank, introduced a new Agricultural Extension Program (AEP) in 1992. The program, funded by the International Development Association of the World Bank and the government of Uganda, aims at improving (1) efficiency in the delivery of extension services; (2) the training capacity and skills of farmers and field extension officers (FEOs); (3) the adoption of improved farming techniques; and (4) the efficiency in management services in the MOA to support delivery and sustainability of extension services in Uganda. These policy objectives have been incorporated in the organizational structure of the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) at both the national and district levels (MOA 1984). 78
Organizational Structure of the Ministry of Agriculture (1994)
As is the practice in most developing countries of Africa, the extension service in
Uganda falls under the direct control and administration of the Ministry of
Agriculture. The Ministry of Agriculture in Uganda consists of three major departments—Agriculture, Fisheries, and Veterinary (Animal Industry). Each of these departments has a separate director and a number of officials who help carry out the day-to-day administration of the departments. Heading all three departments is the
Minister of Agriculture, who is also MOA's Chief Executive (Najjingo-KasuJja 1990;
Padde 1993; MOA 1984, 1994).
The Minister of Agriculture is assisted by a Permanent Secretary and a host of officials, including directors, commissioners, district agricultural officers (DAOs), and senior agricultural officers (Figure 4). These officials formulate the policy objectives of the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA). Among these objectives are (1) ensuring an adequate supply of food and nutrition for the Ugandan people; (2) improving the living standards of Ugandans, particularly those who live in the rural areas, through meaningful rural development programs; (3) equipping farmers with technology and new methods of farming; (4) increasing yields and productivity through improved farming systems and extension activities coordinated by the nation's research stations;
(5) improving land, soil, and water conservation; (6) promoting the production of raw materials; (7) increasing exports; (8) targeting women farmers, and (9) creating employment opportunities for people who depend on agriculture for a livelihood-men and women farmers alike (Najjingo-Kasujja 1990; Padde 1993; MOA 1984, 1994). 79
Minister of Agriculture
Permanent Secretary
Director of Fisheries Director of Agriculture Director of Veterinary
Research CA/D&P CA/E&P CA/T&ICA/P
ACA/D AC A/F ACA/s(R) ACA/I ACA/SS ACA/Cr ACA/C I SAO/credit ACA/M PAE SAO/I .S A O /H E ACA/A SAO/YRJ SAO/Cr SAO/C A C A /r 1 SAO/irrigation SAorr SAE SAO/H DIVAC SAO/P District Office (DAO/DEC) I Extension Officers Subject Matter Specialists (SMS) County Extension Coordinators (CEC) Field Extension Officers (FEOs) College of Agriculture DFIs
Fann Families
Figure 4. Organizational Structure of the Ministry of Agriculture (1994)
Source: Padde 1993; MOA 1984 8 0
Key: MOA Organizational Structure
AA Agricultural Assistant AAO Assistant Agricultural Ofllcer ACA/A Assistant Conunissionerfor Agriculture/Administration ACA/C Assistant Commissioner for Agriculture /Coffee ACA/Cr Assistant Commissioner for Agriculture/Cotton ACA/D Assistant Commissioner for Agriculture/Development ACA/F Assistant Commissioner for Agriculture/Food ACA/I Assistant Commissioner for Agricultural Inputs ACA/M Assistant Commissioner for Agricultural Mechanization ACA/r Assistant Commissioner for Agricultural Training ACA/SS Assistant Commissioner for Agricultural Support Services ACAS/R Assistant Commissioner for Agriculture in charge of Regions AO Agricultural Officer DAO District Agricultural Officer CAyr&i Conunissioner for Agricultural Training and Information CA/D&P Commissioner for Agricultural Development and Projects CA/E&P Conunissioner for Agricultural Extension and Production CA/P Commissioner for Agricultural Plaiming CEC County Extension Coordinator OH District Farm Institute DIVAC Director for Informaltion and Visual Aids Center FA Held Assistant FEO Field Extension Officer P.AE Principal Agricultural Economist SAE Senior Agricultural Economist SAO/C Senior Agricultural Officer, Coffee SAO/Ciedit Senior Agricultural Officer.Credit SAOCr Senior Agricultural Officer, Cotton SAO/H Senior Agricultural Officer, Horticulture SAO/HE Senior Agricultural Officer, Home Economics SAO/I Senior Agricultural Officer, Inputs SAO/Irrigation Senior Agricultural Officer, Irrigation SAO/P Senior Agricultural Officer, Potatoes SAO/T Senior Agricultural Officer, Training SAO/YFU Senior Agricultural Officer, Yoimg Farmers of Uganda
Source: Padde 1993 81
While the directors of the three MOA departments (Agriculture, Fisheries, and
Animal Industry) advise the permanent secretary on policy formulation and agricultural extension issues, senior agricultural officers report directly to assistant commissioners in the Ministry (Figure 4), Senior agricultural officers in turn supervise the work of agricultural officials within the extension system in the 39 districts of the country. As Figure 4 shows, the most important agricultural officials operate from the
Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) headquarters at Entebbe. All officials at the headquarters hold at least a bachelor's degree in agriculture (Najjingo-Kasujja 1990;
Padde 1993; MOA 1984, 1994).
The MOA has branches in each of the 39 districts of Uganda. In each district, the
Department of Agriculture is headed by the district agricultural officer (DAO), also called the district extension coordinator (DEC), who must hold a minimum of a bachelor's degree in agriculture. The DAO is vested with supervisory powers over all agricultural officials in the district—from the county extension coordinator (CEC) to subject matter specialists (SMS) to field extension officers (FEOs). The DAO is responsible for the overall implementation of the policy objectives of the Ministry of
Agriculture, particularly policies related to extension programs and projects (Padde
1993; MOA 1984, MOA 1994).
Thus, policy is initiated at the Ministry of Agriculture headquarters in Entebbe and passed onto the DAOs in the districts who work with their subordinates to implement official decisions arrived at by trained professionals and technicians
(national level bureaucrats). However, it is the field extension officers, often the least trained personnel in the administrative echelon of the extension system, who implement 82 decisions, introduce technology and new farming methods to farmers, and are charged with helping to improve the living standards of rural farmers (Najjingo-Kasujja 1990;
Padde 1993; MOA 1984, 1994). Thus, communication is basically top-down—from the
Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) headquarters to District Extension Coordinators to
County Extension Coordinators, to the field extension officers who then pass it on to farmers. Similarly, field extension officers pass on the problems they encounter in their work to their superiors through the same channels. However, SMS are almost always at hand to help field extension officers solve farmers’ agronomic problems.
Extension in Mukono District
In Mukono District, the District Agricultural Officer (DAO) who is also
the District Extension Coordinator (DEC), is responsible for the overall planning and implementation of extension programs and projects (Figure 2). Assisted by subject matter specialists (SMS) and county extension coordinators (CEC), the DAO identifies priority programs and training needs of extension staff and farmers. The coordinator plans and organizes courses for extension staff at the Mukono District Farm Institute located at Ntaawo, five near Mukono City. He also monitors and evaluates performance of extension staff, particularly, field extension officers who are in daily contact with farmers throughout the district.
Generally, three main categories of extension staff can be identified throughout
Uganda. First are the Agricultural Officers (AOs), who hold a bachelor's degree in agriculture; second are the Agricultural Assistants (AAs), who are secondary school and middle school certificate holders; third are Assistant Agricultural Officers
(AAOs), who hold diplomas from the nation’s agricultural training institutions. There 83 are also Held Assistants (FAs), who are new recruits. With no specified qualifications other than some secondary school or middle school education, FAs are employed as extension staff in areas where there is a shortage of trained extension personnel.
Throughout Uganda (including Mukono District), the extension agent-farmer ratio is 1:2000. Ninety-six field extension officers of Uganda's 2,108 men and women extension officials work in Mukono District (Table 3.3).
Table 3.3. Districts with 50 or More Agricultural Extension Staff in the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry, and Fisheries
District Women Men Total N % N % 1. Toro 9 4 .8 178 9 5 .2 187 2. Soroti 9 5.1 166 9 4 .9 175 3. Lira 5 4 .6 103 9 5 .4 108 4. Mpigi 41 41.0 59 5 9 .0 100 5. Mukono 21 21.9 75 78.1 96 6. Kami 3 3 .5 84 9 6 .5 87 7. Mbale 17 20.5 66 7 9 .5 87 8. Entebbe 22 28.6 55 7 1 .4 77 9. Bushenyi 10 13.9 62 86.1 72 10. Apac 2 2 .8 69 9 7 .2 71 II. I&barole 10 14.5 59 8 5 .5 69 12. Gulu 3 4 .4 66 9 5 .6 69 13. Mbaiara 7 10.6 59 8 9 .4 66 14. Kabale 2 3.3 69 9 6 .7 61 15. Iganga 4 6 .9 54 93.1 58 16. Masaka 13 22.8 44 7 7 .2 57 17. Kamuli 2 3 .7 52 96.3 54 18. Mubende 16 30.2 37 6 9 .8 53 19. Kitgum I 1.9 51 98.1 52 20. Jinja 13 26.0 37 7 4 .0 50 Source: Mengo 1994
Mukono is among the 20 districts in the country that have 50 or more field extension officers. Also, Mukono District ranks fifth in the number of women field extension officers in the country 84
In Mukono District, most of the extension staff is made up of field extension officers, the local level agents on whom policy implementation rests. This cadre of men and women agricultural specialists are the change agents, teachers, organizers, helpers, facilitators, and catalysts who make things happen.
As Rgure 4 shows, farmers, the ultimate consumers of extension knowledge, are at the bottom of the administrative spectrum. Theoretically, farmers in Mukono
District do not work in isolation. Through extension visits, on-farm demonstrations, and in-service training at the District Farm Institute, farmers in Mukono District should have opportunities to engage in a meaningful interaction with researchers, subject matter specialists, and field extension officers on issues that affect farms and families. In reality, farmers are often isolated and have inadequate access to extension services. The role of the Mukono District Farm Institute is critical to the provision of services.
Mukono District Farm Institute
The Mukono District Farm Institute (DFT) at Ntaawo is one of 16 District Farm
Institutes in Uganda established in 1961 (Government of Uganda 1990). Funded by the
United States Agency for International Development (USDA), Uganda's District Farm
Institutes were set up originally to provide residential and day training to farm families throughout the country. In the 1960s and early 1970s, the DFIs served as demonstration centers for improved agricultural practices, on-farm research and demonstration locations, and improved seeds and livestock distribution centers
(Government of Uganda 1990). The DFIs had excellent outreach programs that helped 85 to facilitate extension-farmer interaction individually and collectively through farm meetings and conferences at the community level.
But, as a result of the civil and political unrest that engulfed the nation between
1971 and 1985, particularly in the Idi Amin era. District Farm Institutes (DFIs) became dysfunctional. Facilities and farms were damaged (Government of Uganda
1990). Without equipment, agricultural specialists and extension officers found it difficult to carry out the objectives that gave rise to the farm institutes. Even in 1996, only ten of the nation's original 16 DFIs have the facilities and staff necessary to resume residential training. Mukono District Farm Institute (DFI) at Ntaawo is one of them.
Mukono District Farm Institute (DFI), like the other DFIs in Uganda, functions directly under the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Rsheries. It's primary objectives are: (1) to offer short residential and non-residential practical training programs for rural farmers on improved crop and animal husbandry practices; (2) to provide facilities for in-service training programs to the agricultural, veterinary, and fisheries staff; (3) to provide facilities for the monthly training programs designed specifically for field extension officers throughout the district; and (4) to equip extension officials, subject matter specialists, and field extension officers with new technology, improved seeds, and new methods of farming through on-farm demonstrations and experimental trials on the model farm at the institute (Personal conununication with DFI principal, April 1994). 8 6
The model farm helps researchers and specialists perform on-farm
demonstrations and conduct experimental trials on crop varieties, disease control, crop
spacing and planting in lines, fertilizer application, mulching, manuring, pruning, and
desuckering, and livestock management. On-farm demonstrations and experimental
trials usually focus on the five major areas of Mukono agriculture. These areas include:
(1) horticulture—avocado, passion fruits, pineapples, oranges; (2) vegetables—local
varieties such as ntula (garden eggs, egg plant), and exotic varieties such as tomatoes,
lettuce, okra, and onions; (3) annual crops—maize, potatoes, beans; (4) perennial crops-
-cassava, coffee, cocoa, bananas; and (5) pasture establishment and management- grasses and legumes. Subject matter specialists and District Farm Institute staff actively participate in demonstrations and experiments at the farm institute (Personal communication with DFI principal, April 1994).
The farm institute should be the hub of extension activity in the district.
Theoretically, it should be the conduit from which the extension staff disseminate new knowledge and ideas into Mukono District's rural areas—ideas that purport to bring about change and improve the living conditions of rural farmers and their families
(MOA 1994). By disseminating knowledge and practical ideas about farming through demonstration projects and site visits, extension in Mukono District should provide direct assistance to farmers to help them identify and analyze their production problems and to become aware of the opportunities for improvement (Adams 1992: ix). Thus, in Mukono District, knowledge, communication, and farm families are expected to be the principal components of extension activity (Najjingo-Kasujja 1990;
Adams 1992; MOA 1984, 1994). 87
Unfortunately, theory is not necessarily reality. As a result of past political instability and economic mismanagement, particularly in the Idi Amin era, the district farm institute is today used mostly for monthly extension review sessions and in- service training programs for agriculturists and extension staff. Few farmers attend extension-organized on-farm demonstration activities. Equipped with facilities such as classrooms, dormitories, kitchen, and recreation hall, the Mukono District Farm
Institute also serves as a meeting place for non governmental organizations (NGOs) active in the region. In spite of its shortcomings, the District Farm Institute remains an important component of the organizational structure of Mukono District agriculture.
To reach its potential requires increased funding and administrative reforms. CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
Introduction
This chapter outlines the methodological procedures of the study. It is organized into four sections: (1) Research Design; (2) Instrumentation; (3) Sampling Procedures; and (4) Data Analysis.
Research Design
The study used a multi-method research design to explore (I) field extension officers' attitudes towards farmers in Mukono District and their reported experiences working with farmers; (2) field extension officers' knowledge of productive practices, roles, and decision making among women and men farmers; (3) socio-demographic characteristics of extension officers; (4) the relations between characteristics and attitudes towards farmers; (5) productive practices, roles, and decision making as reported by farmers; (6) socio-demographic characteristics of farmers and their households; (7) characteristics of farms and support services in the local area; (8) farmers' attitudes toward and experiences with extension; and (9) characteristics of contextual variables such as the organization of extension, health and educational problems and services, transportation systems, farming research systems, and national policies (economic and non-economic) that impact extension and farming. 89
Data for the study were collected by way of both quantitative and qualitative research techniques, including document research; participant observation; Rapd
Recoimaissance Appraisal (RRA); survey research with a partially pre-coded questiormaire; and semi-structured, in-depth interviews with selected extension officers, policy makers, university researchers, farmers, local leaders, and others.
Held work assistance (rapid reconnaissance survey and administration of the instrument) was provided by field extension officers in Mukono District and graduate students of agriculture from Makerere University in Kampala. The Department of
Agriculture and Forestry at the Makerere University and the Mukono District
Extension Office provided logistical support such as transportation, technical advice, and communication.
The reconnaissance survey team consisted of two field extension officers familiar with agriculture in Mukono District and who translated the questionnaires into
Luganda (the dominant language in Mukono District); an entomologist from Makerere
University who also was proficient in Luganda; a driver, Ganda by ethnicity (the dominant ethnic group in the district); and the principal investigator (PI), a Ghanaian by birth. The principal investigator (PD provided in-depth training to the team about the objectives and methodology of the study and worked with them on translations of the questions to assure uniformity and accuracy. The reconnaissance team participated actively throughout the study—helping with the preliminary analyses of the study, revising the instruments, communicating with contact persons, conducting informal interviews with farmers, and administering the instruments for the study. 90
Document Research
The study began with the examination of materials available through the library system and the Office of International Programs in Agriculture at the Ohio State
University in Columbus and at the Land Tenure Center at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. Later document research was expanded to government agencies in
Kampala, Uganda, and libraries and private collections at Makarere University in
Kampala. Ugandan institutions included the Faculty (Department) of Agriculture and
Forestry, Faculty of Social Sciences, and Faculty of Women's Studies at Makarere; the
Ministry of Agriculture Headquarters at Entebbe; and the World Bank Uganda Library in Kampala. Documents accessed included dissertations and dissertation abstracts, research reports, plans and policy documents, census data, and articles from newspapers and magazines. During the period of document research in Uganda, the principal investigator also made the necessary arrangements for authorization for research from the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) Headquarters at Entebbe and
Mukono City (Appendix B), and he met with faculty at Makarere University who provided technical advice and arranged logistical support for the study.
Document research provided background information on programs in health and agriculture in Uganda. Some of the documents provided conclusions of previous studies on (1) the effects of health problems on agriculture in Mukono District, (2) the impact of drought on food supply and health in Mukono District, (3) agricultural extension programs and services, (4) the status of women and women's participation in development plans and programs in Uganda, and (5) assessments of the problems faced by Ugandan women. Three dissertations on Ugandan agriculture provided valuable 91 background information because they included research in Mukono District. Two of these were under preparation at Ohio State prior to field work for this study and during the writing of this dissertation. The first, by Mark Erbaugh, focused on production; the second, by Ijoyi Fendru, focused on access to credit; while the third dissertation, by Elizabeth Troutt from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, focused on land tenure systems. However, none of the documents or studies consulted specifically considered attitudes of field extension officers towards rural farmers nor did they include evaluations of the implementation of policies or their impact on extension work.
Rapid Reconnaissance Survey (Sendee)
Additional background information was obtained through Sondeo, a rapid reconnaissance survey technique (Hildebrand 1986) also known as Rapid Rural
Appraisal (RRA) (Moose 1994). The reconnaissance survey was conducted in Mukono
County and Nakifuma County, the two counties selected for the study.
RRA is a modified survey technique for collecting information on agricultural needs of rural people in developing countries. It relies on triangulation (matching information acquired from several sources), is cost-effective and exploratory, and is not intended for use in causal analysis or hypotheses testing. Triangulation includes interviews with key informants, library research, and field observations. Because it uses multiple sources and multiple methods, the triangulation technique helps cross- validate data acquired from other sources on farmers and the links between farmers' productive, reproductive, and community roles (Hildebrand 1986; Moose 1994). 92
The basic objective of the reconnaissance survey was to generate information at the community level through active local participation so the study could meet the information needs for which it was designed (Hildebrand 1986; Moose 1994). That is, with information gleaned from RRA, the investigator is able to a d ^ t the research design and instruments to the local setting (Hildebrand 1986). One result is more accurate and culturally appropriate research instruments. The reconnaissance survey also contributed to the process of rapport building, permitted testing the extent to which the research design was readily accessible to the population and how it could be modified to meet the purpose and objectives of the study.
Additionally, the reconnaissance survey provided the principal investigator and the research assistants with the opportunity to observe farmers at work on their farms, engage in informal chats with extension officers and farmers, observe farmers and extension officers at meetings at the District Farm Institute (DFI) at Ntaawo in Mukono
County, and conduct unstructured, informal interviews with knowledgeable people, including local teachers and religious and community leaders. By so doing, the team obtained a clear estimation of agricultural and non-agricultural labor, a representation of seasonal patterns relative to rainfall, workloads, food availability, and types of food grains produced and consumed in the district. The investigator also was able to anticipate potential problems, identify logistical difficulties for random sampling of farmers or transportation, and obtain the collaboration of leaders in requesting farmers' cooperation with the study. 93
The reconnaissance survey exercise lasted two weeks. By the end of the exercise, the team also was able to map out the area and compile lists of households (by family
"head") with the help of local government representatives known in Uganda as
Resistance Council ofUcials. Together, the team discussed the extent of farming in the
District, food and cash crops grown, the presence of extension officers in the villages, the extent of interaction between extension and farmers, division of labor In the household, and agricultural tasks performed at home and on the farm. These discussions led to the final revision of the survey instruments and the selection of farmers interviewed.
The team also had useful discussions with farmers (men and women farmers alike) on their constraints and opportunities relative to food production, accessibility of extension information and knowledge, and the extent to which rural farmers were involved in extension projects in the district. In this sense, the reconnaissance survey served as a diagnostic tool and provided the initial overview of the study area as well as general information on local resources, land use, problems, opportunities, and methods of farming in Mukono and Nakifuma Counties in Mukono District
Although not anticipated prior to the RRA, the local-level Resistance Coimcil officials in Mukono and Nakifuma Counties played an important role in the research design and farmer cooperation. They were presented with copies of letters from the
Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) Headquarters at Entebbe and Mukono City authorizing the study. After discussing the purpose and objectives of the research and how it might benefit farmers, they offered their assistance in identifying local volunteers who accompanied the team to houses and villages selected for the study. 94
Survey Research and Instruments
Survey instruments were developed and administered to two distinct populations: extension officers (field agents) and farmers (women and men separately). The instruments consisted of partially pre-coded and partially open-ended items especially designed to meet the needs of the study. Initially, the PI expected to administer both a socio-economic questionnaire and an attitude questionnaire to extension officers. Once in the field and after conducting RRA interviews with selected extension officials, it was decided not to use standard attitude questionnaires because the construction of the items would not be culturally appropriate or contribute in a meaningful way to the objectives of the research.
Questionnaires had been drafted at Ohio State University with input from
Ugandan and researchers who had worked in Uganda (at the time, Ohio State was carrying out several ongoing projects in and around Kampala). Subsequently, the RRA and discussions with the research team contributed greatly to a first revision of both instruments. Both instruments were field tested several times for content, validity, and appropriateness of questions.
Final testing of instruments took place in Uganda. The extension officer questionnaire was field-tested in Kampala, using as subjects agricultural extension officers enrolled in master's degree programs at the Makarere University. The final field-test of the farmer-instrument took place in Mukono District, using as subjects 39 randomly selected farmers from households in Kiyola Central (Mukono County) and
Walubira (Nakifuma County). These farmers were excluded from the actual study. 95
The farmer-questionnaire field test was conducted under real research conditions. Two research assistants administered the instrument after four weeks of intensive survey research training and practice in Mukono City. The field test lasted two weeks. Results were used to improve coding of the final instrument and assess the practicality of the statistical analyses procedures intended for the actual study. Final decisions were made by the PI in consultation with the interviewers and advisors from the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, Makarere University. It was at this point that the decision was made to expand the survey instrument for farmers to include questions that paralleled the attitude portion of the extension officers' instrument. That is, farmers also would be asked questions regarding their opinions of and experience with extension and alternative sources of technical advice and agricultural inputs.
The final instruments (Appendix A) consisted of three major sections for both extension officers and farmers: (I) a semi-structured interview-format set of questions on farming practices, the division of labor, household/family characteristics, and decision making; (2) an attitude-knowledge or attitude-experience set of questions, and
(3) a set of socio-economic questions. The first section of the instrument, semi structured interview-format questions, was designed to obtain information on (in the case of extension officers, assess their knowledge of) the general situation of rural women and men, workloads, division of labor, access to and control over land and other productive resources, sources and kind of income, crops, tools and tasks, sources of credit, sources of labor inputs, participation in other income generating activities, access to extension assistance, type and size of farm, number of children, number of wives or co-wives, family structure, obstacles, and needs encountered for production. 96
The second section of the \xi&\mmsni--attitude-kno\vledge questions—assessed the real knowledge and attitudes of extension officers with respect to women and men's roles in society in general and in farming in particular; recorded farmers' knowledge of and attitudes toward extension officers and extension programs, their experiences with extension; and assessed the attitudes of both towards men versus women's control over and responsibility for production, and attitudes towards cash and export production versus subsistence production or production for local markets. The attitude- knowledge questionnaire component incorporated information gleaned from document research and from RRA interviews with farmers and extension officers. The objective was to produce data with which to (a) test the extent to which extension officers are knowledgeable about gendered farming practices in Uganda and their District by comparing farmers' and extension officers' answers on production and social organization, and (b) assess the attitudes and compare the reports of extension officers and farmers on extension practices locally.
Specifically, the knowledge component directed at extension officers measured their knowledge of: (1) factors that influence men and women farmers' productive capacity; (2) farmers' differential access to and control over resources such as land, labor, technology, credit, market, education, and training; (3) household activities and the division of labor, including childrearing, cooking, food processing and storage, decision-making, wage work, migration; (4) access to and control over extension and other support resources; (5) the barriers smallholders in general and women in particular face in food production and how those barriers can or cannot be overcome. 97
The attitude component assessed values and beliefs regarding appropriate: (1) roles of men and women in society, agriculture, and rural development; (2) gender division of labor in the household; (3) gendered obligations and opportunities; (4) economic, domestic, political-legal and general social status of men and women; (5) responsibilities of household members for decision-making, time allocation for activities performed, and women's contribution to household incomes.
All attitude questionnaire items were precoded and set up in a Likert-type scale fashion (agree, undecided, disagree). Answers were used to devise a measure of gender ideology on which respondents were ranked on a continuum from "highly gender rigid" (supportive of male dominance, devalue women as citizens and producers) to
"low gender rigidity" and from "highly ethnocentric" (biased against those characteristics that describe local farmers—poverty, low education, ethnic group, age, religion, life style) to "low ethnocentrism."
A set of socioeconomic questions constituted the third and final section of the instrument. This section was designed to obtain information on selected socio- demographic characteristics expected to be associated with extension officers' attitudes toward farmers and their real knowledge of farmers' needs and roles in agriculture.
Among those characteristics are age, education (level and content), religion, employment status, place of origin, marital status (including number of wives for men), number of children, income generating activities in the household, income levels and sources, type of crops produced (if also farm), division of labor in household of origin (parents) and current household. The socioeconomic questionnaire was used subsequently to assess the relationship between selected characteristics and knowledge 98 or attitudes of extension officers. With the exception of questions on families of origin, basic demographic and socio-economic data also were obtained from farmers.
Sampling Procedures
The target population for the study consisted of men and women farmers and men and women field extension officers from Mukono District.
Field Extension Officers
A list of men and women field extension officers from all the six counties in
Mukono District was obtained from the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) documents in
Mukono City. The April 1994 rosters of Agricultural Extension Project (AEP) staff showed 96 field extension officers in Mukono District, 21 of whom were women.
Thirty-two men extension officers were randomly selected for the study, using
Uniform Random Numbers (URN) procedures, a randomization technique available on
SYSTAT a Macintosh statistical packet. The proportion of extension officers to be included in the study was predetermined according to suggested Ns for the statistical procedures to be used in the analysis. The plan was to interview 50 extension officers.
Because their numbers were low, all 21 women extension officers in the District were included in the sample, bringing to 53 the number of extension officers in the sample.
Field extension officers were administered mailed questionnaires for several reasons. Extension officers are stationed throughout Mukono District and are expected to spend their time going from village to village. Transportation and communications systems made it too difficult to reach each one. With frequent turnover of extension officers, transfers, and unscheduled relocation, it would have been difficult to reach 99 prospective respondents to schedule interviews ahead of time or locate those who could not be located at the scheduled time for the interview. Extension officers are highly educated, all having completed high school and many with university level education.
Therefore, in the interest of time, budget constraints, and inadequate social infrastructure, questionnaires were distributed to the 53 field extension officers through the Mukono District Extension Office in Mukono City in May 1994. That is, the office delivered the questionnaires to each officer. In preparation, the PI attended several meetings of extension agents in order to explain and discuss the research and stimulate cooperation from respondents. By July, 75 percent of extension respondents had returned their completed questiormaires. Reminders were sent to the rest. By
October, all 53 questionnaires had been completed and returned. Questiormaires were collected by the PI at the Monthly Trairting Sessions at the Mukono District Farm
Institute at Ntaawo. This provided additional, informal opportunities to discuss the study and extension practices with officers individually and in small groups.
Farmers
The interviews with were carried out face-to-face with individual farmers in their homes or on the farm. One hundred eleven (111) households were interviewed from the 3,355 known households in the two counties selected for the study—Mukono
County and Nakifuma County. These counties were selected for logistical reasons: it was easier to arrange transportation for field work. This was a sample size of 3.3%.
Initially, farmers to be interviewed were selected randomly on the assumption that all or almost édl households would include at least two farmers—a husband and 1 0 0 wife—and possibly more. The names of all household heads (information compiled by the extension office and partially corroborated by local leaders) were entered into a data spreadsheet Using the Uniform Random Numbers (URN) randomization techniques, 100 households were randomly selected for the study. From these, 100 men and 100 women would be interviewed (a husband and no more than one wife). When some of the randomly selected households were identified as including only one farmer, the sample was adjusted to add new randomly selected households until the final sample reached 200 farmers—89 married couples and 22 single farmers.
Unexpected events intervened between the time the sample was selected (April) and the instruments were administered (July). Nineteen of the 200 farmers selected for the study had passed away, while 15 others had moved to unknown locations. Conse quently, 34 next-door substitutes were selected from the same vicinity for the study.
The final count for farmer respondents (with substitutes) remained 200 farmers—95 men and 105 women.
The following criteria were developed for the selection of interviewees:
1. Where the household included a man with one wife, every effort was made to interview both husband and wife separately on the same day. Men and women farmers were interviewed by men and women research assistants respectively.
2. Where the household included a man with multiple wives, every effort was made to interview the husband, together with one randomly selected wife, was interviewed separately on the same day. In polygamous homes, the interviewer asked all wives to pick up cards shuffled in their presence. The woman who picked the card with YES written on it was automatically selected for the study. 101
3. Some households included only one farmer (who was unmarried, widowed, separated, or divorced). In this case, the single farmer was interviewed.
Three weeks before the farmer interviews, special letters addressed to contact persons—the local volunteers contacted during the RRA exercise—were dispatched through the Mukono District Agricultural Extension Office in Mukono City. The letters listed (I) names of all contact persons in the study areas; (2) all households and individuals within the households selected for the study; and (3) date and approximate time the team would arrive for the interviews. Follow-up letters were dispatched one week before the instrument was administered to insure respondents were ready to receive the team of investigators. The contact persons helped the team of investigators locate respondents in the areas of the study. All contact persons were paid for their assistance on a daily basis. Farmers were not paid for interviews.
Data Analysis
Data analyses were carried out using ethnographic procedures (for open-ended responses and other qualitative data collected) and SPSS statistical package for social science research. At the time of the research, the PI could not readily lay hands on a computer software that met the specific needs of the qualitative data generated in the study. As a result, open-ended questions and qualitative information gathered in the form of interview transcripts (both formal and informal interviews), “verbal proto cols,” “ethnographic field notes” (Fielding & Lee 1991:2), and observations were handled “non-quantitatively.” Information gathered by non-quantitative, ethnographic procedures included notes taken during (1) field tests, (2) open-ended questionnaire 102 items QI30-Q134; (2) rapid rural appraisal, and (3) proceedings at the Monthly
Training Sessions at the Mukono District Farm Institute (DFI), Ntaawo. Data collected in this way were coded manually and analyzed, using descriptive procedures such as frequency tabulations and percentages (Tables 5.40 through 5.42; Tables 6.34 and
6.35).
Quantitative data were analyzed primarily by using descriptive statistics and chi- square test of independence. Descriptive statistics were used to organize and summarize data collected on the dependent and independent variables identified in the study. The dependent variable was attitudes towards farmers, while the independent variable included demographic variables such as age, gender, education, marital status, income, and ethnicity. Data on the variables of interest were organized and summarized using measures that are easily understood by readers and observers (Agresti & Finlay 1986).
Organization and summary of data include frequency tables, percentages, measures of central tendency (with an emphasis on the mean, mode, and median), measures of variability, including the range and standard deviation. In this way, descriptive statistics helped to summarize information on the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents—men and women farmers and men and women field extension officers.
Descriptive statistics were expected to detect significant independent variables
(for instance, socio-economic or demographic characteristics) that might be included in a multiple regression or factor analysis on extension officers' attitudes. However, there were few such significant relations and further analysis was not warranted. Chapters
VI and VII address the situation. 103
Since the study investigated issues of practical significance, the Chi-square test of independence procedures were used. As Keller, Warrack, and Bartel (1988:473) explain, “the chi-square distribution is one of the most widely used statistical distributions or conducting tests of hypotheses in practical situations.” Chi-square procedures were used as a measure of squared deviations between observed and theoretical numbers in terms of frequencies in categories or cells of a table, determining whether such deviations are due to sampling error or some interdependence or correlation among the frequencies (Isaac & Michael 1981; Norusis
1994a). Chi-square test of independence procedures were sufHcient to establish the association between knowledge, attitudes, and selected socio-demographic variables.
Chi-square test of independence procedures were thus used to establish the asso ciation between knowledge, attitudes, and selected socio-demographic variables. As a result of the largely nominal nature of the data collected, 2x2 chi-square contingency tables were used to determine whether or not two classifications of a population of nominal data are statistically independent. Field extension officers’ attitudes towards farmers were measured on a nominal scale using dichotomous (binomial) categories such as Agree, Disagree.
The chi-square model used in this study is:
%2= Z (Oi - ei)2
ei 1=1
where:
X2 = chi-square value; 104
k = the number of cells in the contingency table;
O = observed frequencies;
e = expected frequencies.
Chi-square statistical tests were used in the study because (1) the data set consisted of both interval and nominal variables; (2) the data were drawn from a normal population; (3) the overall sample size of the study was greater than 100 for farmers; (5) in the case of extension officers where the sample size was less than 100,
Fisher's exact test in the SPSS statistical packet made it possible to determine the relationship between two variables if any of the expected cell value in a 2x2 table is less than 5 (Norusis 1994b:111); and (6) the two samples of the study—farmers and field extension officers—are independent of each other (Isaac & Michael 1981:158; Keller,
Warrack, & Bartel 1988; Norusis 1994a).
In summary, qualitative and quantitative procedures were used in the analyses of the data collected for the study. While ethnographic procedures were used for qualitative information gathered, quantitative data were analyzed using measures of dispersion and chi-square test of independence. Chi-square statistical tests were used in the study because ( 1 ) data set consisted of both interval and nominal variables; (2) the data were drawn from a normal population; (3) the overall sample size of the study was greater than 100; (5) in the case of extension officers, where the sample size was less than 100, Fisher’s exact test based on the SPSS statistical packet made it possible to determine the relationship between two variables if any of the expected cell value in a 2
X 2 table is less than 5 (Norusis 1994b:111); and (6) the two samples—farmers and extension agents—are independent of each other (Isaac & Michael 1981:158). CHAPTER V
FARMERS' REALITY IN MUKONO DISTRICT
Introduction
To test the relationship between extension agents' attitudes toward farmers, extension practices, and knowledge of farmers' reality, as pointed out in Chapter IV, it was necessary to study farmers and farming in Mukono. Multiple techniques were used, but most information came directly from survey interviews with and observations of the 200 farmers sampled, supplemented by interviews with local leaders during Rapid Rural Appraisal. Data on the productive practices of farmers served as baseline data against which extension knowledge and attitudes were be compared. They also facilitated descriptive analyses of gender and farming.
This chapter outlines the basic characteristics of farmers, farming practices, decision making about farming, the division of labor by sex., and farmers experiences with and opinions of extension services. The Chapter is organized around themes of (1) socio-economic and demographic characteristics of farmers and their households, (2) land tenure, (3) agricultural production patterns, (4) farming tasks and availability of labor, (5) decision making, (6) farmers' problems relations and with extension services and other sources of support. 106
Socio-economic and Demographic Characteristics
Household Structure
The most common type of household in Mukono District is an extended family unit that includes a nuclear family unit comprising husband, wife, and children, with additional relatives including nephews, nieces, uncles, grandparents, and grandchildren.
Monogamous couples—with or without members of the extended family or children— represent 62 percent of the farmers studied. There also are polygamous families which consist of husband, multiple wives, with children and other relatives. Women in polygamous relationships sometimes live under the same roof, although the usual practice is for each wife to live in a separate house with her children and other relatives. Twenty-seven percent of the farmers in the study are in polygamous relationships. There also are single farmers (never married, separated, divorced, and widowed) living alone or with children and other relatives. Eleven percent of the farmers studied declared this situation.
Extended family households tend to be crowded. The mean for this sample is 7.7 members (with a standard deviation of 4.9.), but the number of members ranged from
1 to 32 members. Children make up an important percentage of household members.
More than 43 percent of the farmers interviewed had between one to five children of their own living with them, and 40 percent had between 6-10 children living with them. About 10 percent of the farmers had more than 10 children. Two men farmers with multiple wives had between 26-31 children. Only 7.5 percent of the farmers had no children of their own. Some households also had children who were not the 107 offspring of farmers. They were siblings, children taken in, cousins, or other extended family members.
Marital Status
Of the 200 farmers interviewed, 178 (89%) were married (Table 5.1). Sixty-two
(65.3%) of the 95 men farmers lived in monogamous relationships, while 27 (28.4%) practiced polygamy.
Table 5.1. Farmers’ marital status by sex
N^rital Status Men Women Total N % N % N % Married 89 93.7 89 84.8 178 89.0 Single 4 4.2 1 1.0 5 2.5 Widowed, Divorced, Separated 2 2.1 15 14.2 17 8.5 Total; 95 100 105 100 200 100
Eighty-nine men and women were married farmers living with their spouses.
One third were in polygamous relationships. Of the polygamous men, 21 had two wives; five had three wives; and one lived with four wives. In most cases of polygamous relationships, more than one wife was a farmer (though only one was interviewed). Six men were single, divorced, widowed, or separated. Sixteen of the
105 women farmers in the study were single-never married, divorced, widowed, or separated.
Household Head
Since the extension service registers households according to the name of the
"head," farmers were asked to name the person they would identify as household head for official purposes. Ninety percent of the men and 82 percent of the women assigned household headship to a man. Only 3.8 percent of women and 3.2 percent of men assigned the title to women. Of the rest, 15 women (14.3%) said relatives or parents 106 were household heads, compared to 5.3 percent of the men who designated parents.
When a woman is named as household head, it is usually a situation where (1) her husband is ill or absent (employed elsewhere); (2) she is divorced, separated, or widowed, or (3) she "solves most household problems." When a man is named as household head, respondents say it is because (1) the husband is the head; (2) the man
"provides" for the family (even when the wife also is a farmer); (3) he built the house; or (4) he owns the land farmed by family members.
Ethnicity
One hundred and sixty-seven farmers in the study (83.5%) are Ganda (Baganda), the dominant ethnic group in Mukono District and central Uganda. The Ganda also tend to be over represented among national and regional authorities, possibly because
Kampala is located in the territory historically known as BUganda. The remaining respondents (6.5%) are distributed among 18 other ethnic groups, including the Aluku,
Alur, Dama, Gisu, Gwere, Iteso, Japadhola, Kiga, Mukebo, Nyarwanda, Nyoli, Rundi,
Rwanda, Samya, Soga, Toro, and Zaire. More men than women are Ganda (Table 5.2).
Table 5.2. Ethnic groupings of farmers by sex
Men Women Total N % N % N% Ganda 82 863 85 81.0 167 83.5 Other 13 13.7 20 19.0 33 16.5 Total 95 100 105 100 200 100
The farmers interviewed did not report any incidents of ethnic conflict nor were any detected or referred to during field work. 109
Although English is the national language (as is the case in former British colonies), all respondents speak Luganda, Mukono District's major language. The fact that the Ganda predominate among the elite and decision makers in Kampala undoubtedly is associated with the fact that Mukono District is considered one of the most privileged in terms of infrastructure and services, including extension. Even so,
Gandans constitute only about eight percent of Uganda's 19 million population (Kizito,
May 1995).
Religion
Religion, like ethnicity, is a cultural force that often divides populations.
Potentially, both ethnic and religious differences between farmers and extension officers could impact extension attitudes. For this reason, farmers were asked about their religious affiliation. Catholicism, Protestantism, and Islam are the three dominant religions in Mukono District Eighty-four farmers (42%) are Catholic, 64 (32%) are
Protestant and 52 (26%) are Muslim (Islam) (Table 5.3).
Table 53. Farmers' religion by sex
Religion Men Women Total N %N % N % Christian 71 74.7 77 7 3 3 148 74.0 Muslim (Islam) 24 2 5 3 28 2 6 7 52 26.0 Total 95 100 105 100 200 100
Migratory Status
Farmers from different regions may have differing levels of experience with various food products and farming practices. Also, whether or not farmers and extension officers share places of origin could be a variable impacting attitude.
Therefore, farmers were asked about their place of origin. Table 5.4 shows 129 110
(64.5%) of the farmers come from Mukono District; 15 percent come from Mpigj; the rest, 20.5 percent, come from 16 other Districts.
Table 5.4. District of origin by sex of farmer
District of origin Men Women N% N % Mukono District 76 80.0 53 50.5 Mpigi District 8 8.4 22 21.0 OÜier II 116 30 28.6 Total 95 100 105 100
Women are less likely than men to have grown up in Mukono District (half the women compared to 80% of the men). This may impact the farming in negative ways.
First, women are likely to have less familiarity with local soils and ecological conditions, perhaps with locally grown produce and practices. Second, women are less likely to be familiar with support systems and networks for farmers, including extension services. Third, women may be more dependent on husbands or the authority of husbands' families unless the women migrated to Mukono with their families as children. However, no information is available on the age at which women arrived in
Mukono or the circumstances under which they came (with husband, with parents or other relatives).
Age
Age is a variable associated with experience, education, openness to innovation, farming practices and decision making power in the household. Farmers' ages may influence extension agent attitudes. That is, extension agents may prefer to work with certain age groups and not with others. Therefore, farmers were asked their age. The Ill study included three 17-year old farmers, two of whom were women, married but with no children of their own. The third was a single man (Table 5.5).
Table 5.5. Age distribution by sex of farmer
Men Women Total N %N % N % Under 19 3 3.2 2 1.9 5 2.5 19-29 13 13.7 25 23.8 38 19.0 30-39 14 14.7 28 26.7 42 21.0 40-49 22 23.2 25 23.8 47 23.5 50-59 17 1 7 9 20 19.0 37 18.5 6 0 -k 26 27.4 5 4.8 31 15.5 Total 95 100 105 100 200 100
Most women farmers (74.3%) are between 19 and 49 years of age, compared to only 51.6 percent of the men farmers. Only 5 women farmers (4.8%) are 60 years and above, compared to 26 men farmers (27.4%) between 60 and 94. Women's ages range from 17 to 70, while men's range from 17 to 94. The mean age for women is 38; for men, it is 47.4.
Farmers' Educational Levels
Only 12 percent (24) of all farmers have no formal classroom education.
However, eight percent of the men, compared to 15.2 percent of women, have no formal classroom education. Women's educational levels were lower than those of men in general (Table 5.6).
Table 5.6. Farmers' Level of Education
Level of Education Men Women Total N% N % N % No School 8 8.4 16 15.2 24 12.0 Primary 61 64.2 78 74.3 139 69.5 Middle 8 8.4 0 0 8 4.0 Secondary 18 18.9 11 10.5 29 14.5 Total 95 100 105 100 200 100 112
It is at the primary level where 74.3 percent of the women and 64.2 percent of the men ended their education. Therefore, many farmers are functionally illiterate.
Men are more likely than women to continue through middle school (8.4% of men) and secondary school (18.9% of men compared to 10.5 percent of women). The average years of education for men and women is 6.7 and 5.3 respectively.
Farm and Nonfarm Incomes
Farm households often include members who earn wages. Even full-time farmers may migrate seasonally, hold part-time jobs locally, or produce goods and services part-time with which to supplement their farm production and incomes.
However, cash cropping is the major source of cash income. By selling farm produce at home and on the market and through their nonfarm work, Mukono farm households generate income to purchase what they do not produce and to cover school and health care fees and other expenditures (Table 5.7).
Table 5.7. Farmers' Estimated Yearly Cash Income
Men Women Total US dollars N % N % N' % 0-499 82 86.3 97 92.4 179 89.5 500-999 9 9.5 8 7.6 17 8.5 1000-1499 3 3.2 0 0 3 2.0 1500-2000 1 1.1 0 0 1 0.5 Total 95 100 105 100 200 100 Note; Farmers' yearly income was estimated from the monthly gross income they reported. The exchange rate at the time of the study was US$1.00 = 1000 Uganda Shillings.
Most farmers in the sample sell or exchange some of their produce, but the total market surplus is generally not much larger than what is needed for the maintenance of the family. Thirty-four women (32.4%) and 45 men farmers (47.4%) said coffee is 113 their major source of cash income. In addition, 38.1 percent of the women and 36.8 percent of the men said food crops are a source of cash income. As Table 5.7 illustrates, cash incomes are generally low for all farmers, probably due to a combination of factors including the low level of surplus produced and government price controls.
Women's reported incomes are lower than men's. While 4.2 percent of men farmers earn between $1000 and $2000 a year, no woman earns more than $999 a year. Overall, women's average income was 55 percent lower than men's. Besides farming and livestock production, 48.6 percent of the women and 23.2 percent of the men earn occasional cash income through beer brewing and handicraft production.
Sources of wage work and self-employment include hiring out labor to other farmers, trading, brick making, beer brewing, handicrafts, and teaching (Table 5.8).
Table 5.8. Principal Sources of Cash Income by Sex
Men Women N % N % No cash income 0 0 5 4.8 Farming income primarily 83 87.4 79 75.2 Handicrafts and beer brewing 6 6.3 16 15.2 Self-employed and related 4 4.2 5 4.8 Teaching primary school children 2 2.1 0 0 Total Note: 1. Farming income includes income from coffee, food stuff, and livestock. 2. Handicrafts include pottery and weaving (mat, basket, bags). 3. Self-employed includes trading, brickmaldng and beer brewing.
Land Tenure
As mentioned in Chapter IE, the medio tenure-which recognizes individual rights of ownership—is the system practiced in Mukono District. Official data place the average farm size in the district at 2.40 ha. Thus, food and cash crop production in 114
Mukono, like the rest of Uganda, is characterized by small holdings whose farmers— men or women—can acquire and possess land in their own right (Kaffir 1988). This was confirmed by the farmers interviewed.
Farm size among the sampled farmers varied by the marital status of farmers.
The average farm size for married farmers is 5.98 acres (2.39 ha.) versus 3.75 acres
(1.50 ha.) for single farmers (Table 5.9). Size of farm and marital status were associated with income level. However, it was not clear whether married farmers were better off before or after marriage or what role marriage might have played in farm size.
Table 5.9. Size of Plot by Marital Status.
Plot Size Married Farmers Single Farmers All Farmers N % N%N % 1-5 acres 109 68.6 16 80.0 125 69.8 6-10 acres 27 17.0 4 20.0 31 173 11-15 acres 8 5.0 0 0 8 4.5 16-20 acres 10 6.3 0 0 10 5.6 21-25 acres 2 1.3 0 0 2 1.1 26-30 acres 2 1.3 0 0 2 1.1 31-35 acres 1 0.6 0 0 I 0.6 Total 159 100 20 100 179 100 Note: Total excludes respondents unable to give the size of their plots.
Based on the average farm size in this study, farmers were classified as (a) very small producers and (b) larger producers. Very small producers are defined as farmers with up to five acres of cultivated land; while larger producers are those with 6 or more acres of cultivated land at the time of the study. As can be seen in Table 5.10, men are slightly more likely than women to be larger producers, but the majority of farmers cultivate less than 6 acres. 115
Table 5.10. Size of Cultivated Land by Sex
Men Women Total N % N % N % Less than 6 acres 62 66.7 63 733 125 69.8 6 + acres 31 333 23 26.7 54 30.2 Total 93 100 86 100 179 100
Note; Total excludes respondents unable to give the size of their plots
Thus, Mukono District, like other districts of Uganda, comprises smallholders for the most part. That means for extension activity to be meaningful to and improve the productivity and well-being of the average farmer, extension programs and projects, in-service training, on-farm demonstrations, technology, and new farming methods should be geared to the needs of smallholders. Furthermore, since women and men both can own land and, therefore, cultivate separate plots, extension should target both women and men, not households heads. Nonetheless, extension records of "farms" are compiled according to "head of household," giving the impression of a family farming system where women and men hold cultivate plots held Jointly and where some individual "head" represents a decision making authority over the family farm.
As will become clear below, this is not the case. Farming in the households surveyed is clearly farming by individuals even though these individuals may pool all or some of their produce and income to the benefit of the household.
There are several means by which farmers can acquire additional land to increase the area under cultivation and their output. When asked to indicate methods by which they acquired land for agricultural purposes, 59 percent of the farmers said they acquired land by purchase; 22 percent said they received land as a gift from spouses, 116 parents, and relatives; 17 percent inherited land, and 3 percent rented land. Ninety-six percent of respondents said both men and women can buy, inherit, or rent land.
Logically, the amount of land under cultivation for cash crops is associated with income from farming (Table 5.II).
Table 5. II. Income by Size of Land Holding
$50Of <$500 Total Acres N % N % Less than6 10 52.6 115 71.9 6 or more 9 47.4 45 28.1 Total* 19 100 160 100 *Total excludes non-respondents.
Table 5.11 suggests a linkage between size of landholding and income. In general, farmers with less than five acres of land under cultivation tend to earn less than $500 a year.
Farmers were asked how much of their land was under cultivation with cash crops (including export crops and those for local markets) or crops primarily for household consumption primarily (though surplus might be sold in the local market or exchanged with neighbors). It was difficult for most farmers to conceptualize and respond this way since farmers use intercropping and other forms of mixed systems.
However, women were slightly less likely than men to be able to distinguish between land uses (16% of the women could not do so, all of the men could). For those farmers who could estimate land use, women were only slightly more likely than men to indicate a portion of the land was dedicated exclusively to the production of cash crops, particularly coffee, since women are more likely than men to depend on coffee as their sole source of cash income. 117
Approximately one fourth of the men but only 14 percent of the women rent land to expand production. Men indicated that the principal reason for renting land is exhaustion of fertility of their plots while women indicated they rented because they did not hold enough land to meet their needs. Among those farmers who do not rent land, almost all the men indicated they have enough land or that they don't have access to the labor necessary to expand production. Women also indicated that, for the most part, they have "enough land" for their needs. However 28 percent of the women said they could not afford to rent land even when needed, compared to only 12.5 percent of the men.
Interviews revealed that land tenure patterns are not entirely equitable. In the case of single farmers (those without partners and who are usually the sole farmer in the household), half of the six single men owned the land they cultivated while in the other cases land was owned by other family members (a parent, for instance). In the case of sixteen single women, over half (53%) owned the land they cultivated. In the other cases, land was owned by a former (deceased, divorced) spouse or extended family member. In the case of married farmers (both of whom were interviewed in most cases), 92 percent of the women said they cultivated land owned by the spouse and the rest cultivate land owned by another male family member. Only 3.4 percent of the women owned the land they cultivated. Married men, on the other hand, reported that in 90 percent of the cases they owned the land they cultivated. In 3.4 percent of the cases, men said land was owned jointly by them and their spouse, but in the rest of the cases it was owned by another male family member. 1 1 8
Patterns of land ownership among the 200 farmers sampled diverged from normative statements. A majority of respondents stated that women and men both could own, buy, and rent land even when it was clear that men were almost exclusively
"owners" (Table 5.12).
Table 5.12. Rights to own Land by Sex
Men's Responses Women's Responses
Men can own land 98.9% 100% Women can own land 94.6% 88.7%
Furthermore, 97 percent of the women and almost 80 percent of the men said the primary source of land was through the mailo system (which, as stated above, acknowledges individual ownership rather than communal holdings). Almost one fifth of the men, but less than 3 percent of the women, said they also have access to public land (the "official" system). Single farmers were slightly less likely than married farmers to say they had access to public land. And only 20 percent of the women rented land compared to 30.5 percent of the men.
Agricultural Productiou Patterns
Unlike coffee which is under control of the Uganda Coffee Development
Authority (see Chapter III), the prices of food crops such as maize, beans, groundnuts, sweet potatoes, cassava, bananas, fruit, and vegetables are not subject to the same degree of government control, at least not directly. One basic reason is that coffee is grown primarily for cash, while food crops are produced largely for subsistence. The differences in volumes of production discourage government intervention in food crops with two exceptions—green bananas (matoke) and vegetables. Conversely, 119 although matoke and vegetables are cash crops, the lack of an efficient marketing system stifles initiatives for large-scale production. The farmer has access to two imperfect marketing channels -the local market and the small-scale produce buyer at the trading centers. Trade between buyer and seller is direct and there are no fixed prices. As a result, prices oscillate greatly. The price for a bundle of matoke, for example, varies from 2500 Ugandan Shillings ($2.50) to 3000 Ugandan Shillings
($3.00) on the same market, taking into account size and maturity of fruit.
In Mukono District, since cash crops are crops produced for market and home consumption, people find it difficult to differentiate. Nonetheless, farmers were asked to provide rough estimates. These varied slightly by sex. (Tables 5.13 & 5.14).
Table 5.13. Production by Women Farmers
Production Destination
Home Marketing Home& Other* Total Consumption Only Marketing N % N % N % N % N % Vegetables 61 58.1 0 0 44 41.9 0 0 105 100 M^ze 60 57.1 0 0 36 3 4 3 9 8.6 105 100 Tubers 58 55.2 0 0 43 41.0 4 3.8 105 100 Matoke 57 5 4 3 5 4.8 37 35.2 6 5.7 105 100 Fruits 72 68.6 0 0 16 15.4 17 16.3 105 100 Coffee 2 1.9 88 83.8 5 4.8 10 9.5 105 100 Livestock 34 32.4 8 7.6 50 47.6 13 12.4 105 100 *Don’t produce
The most common items produced in Mukono (and by the farmers sampled) include matoke (green bananas), vegetables (onions, greens), and tubers (sweet potatoes, yams, cassavas, and cocoyams), all of which are staples for home consumption and in great demand for local markets and nearby urban areas.
Occasionally, crops produced primarily for the market may also include local fruits 1 2 0 and exotic fruits such as avocados, passion fruit, and oranges. Aside from coffee, cotton and tobacco or produced by a few farmers as cash crops.
Tables 5.14. Production by Men Farmers
Production Destination
Home Marketing Home Other* Total Consumption Only Consumption Only and Marketing N % N % N % N % N % Vegetables 39 41.5 1 1.1 53 55.8 2 2.1 95 100 Maize 41 43.2 1 1.1 38 40.1 15 15.8 95 100 Tubers 41 43.2 1 1.1 52 54.7 1 1.1 95 100 Matolœ 44 463 2 2.1 36 37.9 13 13.7 95 100 Fruits 53 57.0 2 2.2 18 19.0 22 23.7 95 100 Coffee 3 3.2 71 76.3 4 4.2 17 183 95 100 Livestock 21 22.6 9 9.7 54 56.8 11 11.8 95 100 * Don't produce
Tables 5.13 and 5.14 show that with the exception of coffee, women farmers are somewhat more likely than men farmers to produce food crops and livestock for home consumption primarily. In general, men are more likely to produce for the market.
Women farmers are more likely than men farmers to raise livestock and tubers
(chicken, pigs, goats, sheet, cattle), primarily for home consumption. But contrary to other studies that find cash cropping to be primarily the domain of men farmers
(Davidson 1988; Papart and Staudt 1989), the study shows at least one third of the women farmers are engaged in cash cropping compared to half the men and women are somewhat more likely than men to produce coffee as a source of cash. No figures were available on yields. Reasons women are more likely than men to produce coffee as a cash crop may include the relative lack of wage earning opportunities for women in Mukono District, women's lower educational levels, and women's limited mobility. 121
Since intercropping is widespread and specialization is low, farmers were asked to estimate the relative importance of the three types of crops produced—cash crops
(primarily for market), food crops (home and market), and livestock (primarily home)
(Table 5.15).
Table 5.15 Diversification of Production by Sex
Men Women Total N % N%N % Food crops, cash crops, livestock 74 77.9 89 84.7 163 81.5 Food and cash crops only 8 8.4 9 8.6 17 8.5 Food and livestock only 5 5.3 6 5.7 11 5.5 Mostly food crops 5 5.3 1 1.0 6 3.0 Cash crops and livestock only 2 2.1 0 0 2 1.0 Mostly livestock 1 1.0 0 0 1 0.5 Total 95 100 105 100 200 100
Seventy-eight percent of 95 men farmers and 84.8 percent of women farmers interviewed said they concentrated on producing a combination of food crops, cash crops, and livestock (Table 5.15). The rest produce primarily either food crops, some combination of food crops and cash crops, or food crops and livestock. Only six farmers (3%) said they produce mostly food crops, but no farmer reported exclusive production of cash crops. This distribution was similar for married and for single farmers.
Farming Tasks and Labor Availability
Although farmland belongs primarily to men, the men and women sampled tended to farm separate plots and/or to divide up responsibilities for farming. This division of labor is flexible and changes at times. In some cases, it includes each farmer assuming responsibility for a particular plot or type of produce; in others, men and women do not differentiate between "husband's" or "wife's" plot, but refer to "the 1 22 farm" as a collective endeavor. This complicates looking at the "division of labor" in farming practices. Nonetheless, farmers were asked to think about the sources of labor that were available to them for specific farming tasks that were needed to produce the crops for which they were responsible. During RRA and initial interviews with farmers, nine discrete tasks were identified: (1) land preparation, (2) planting, (3) weeding, (4) spraying of pesticides, (5) chemical fertilization, (6) harvesting, (7) preparing/storing food for home consumption, (8) transporting produce home, and (9) transporting crops to the market.
It should be noted that for most questions of labor use and decision making, married couples were not always in agreement. Men and women both showed a tendency to overestimate their own importance for most farming tasks. In the case of single farmers, help was sought in a few cases. In general, when children's labor was involved, children assisted women in field task—both when men participated and when women alone were responsible. In general, the labor of children, extended family members, and hired labor does not substitute that of adult farmers; it supplements adult labor. Therefore, the data presented below or organized to emphasize the division of labor between women and men. It was not an objective of this study to explain differences in the answers of married couples; therefore, these differences are presented for purposes of comparison. Following the discussion of the division of labor by tasks, an analysis of the differences among married and single farmers is presented.
The first farming task studied, land preparation, refers to clearing and preparing the land, including manuring, cutting of existing vegetation, and ploughing the plot for the next growing season (Table 5.16). 123
Table 5.16. Labor Availability for Preparing Land by Sex and Marital Status
Married Fanners Single Fanners Primary Labor Source* Men Women Men Women N%N % N % N % Self 19 21.3 16 18.0 4 66.7 8 50.0 Spouse 7 7.9 5 5.6 ---- Together 48 53.9 51 57.3 ---- Others** 15 16.9 17 19.1 2 333 8 50.0 Total 89 100. 89 100 6 100 16 100
Note: Includes only those households that indicated task carried out ^Children may also be involved. **May include hired labor, adult children, other relatives, neighbors, but excludes the labor of the farmer interviewed and the spouse.
Land preparation involves the use of hand held tools such as hoes, slashers, pangas (machete). Very few farmers in the rural areas use the tractor. All farmers prepare a plot of land carefully before planting crops. Although land preparation has been identified as men's responsibility in most studies of African agriculture, this was not the case in farming practices among the sample farmers. In over half the cases of married couples, men and women reported that they assist each other in the preparation of land for planting. Single farmers sought the assistance of extended family members and women also turned to children for help in preparing land.
The second task, planting, refers to digging the soil and sowing the seeds.
Farmers use the hoe, pangas, axe, and ox-ploughs for planting. The choice of seeds depends on the prevailing farming system, what the farmer wants to plant on the farm, and availability of alternatives. The planting operations include seeds selection, seed treatment, initial application of fertilizer (the use of organic or inorganic fertilizer), and spacing. 124
Table 5.17. Labor Availability for Planting by Sex and Marital Status
Married Fanners Single Farmers Primary Labor Source* Men Women Men Women N%N % N % N% Self 4 4.5 27 30.3 3 50.0 14 87.5 Spouse 11 12.4 0 0 ---- Together 72 80.9 59 663 ---- Others** 2 2.2 3 3.4 3 50.0 2 12.5 Total 89 100 89 100 6 100 16 100
Note: Includes only those households that indicated task carried out * Children may also be involved. **May include hired labor, adult children, other relatives, neighbors, but excludes the labor of the farmer interviewed and the spouse.
Extension introduces new planting techniques such as spacing to farmers at extension-organized on-farm demonstrations and at refresher courses at the Mukono
District Farm Institute at Ntaawo. However, as will be seen below, not all farmers have access to extension advice.
Single women farmers and half the single men farmers reported they relied almost exclusively on their own labor for planting. However, single men farmers also turned to the labor of extended family members. Almost three fourths of the men and
59 percent of the married women farmers reported that husband and wife together provide the labor for planting. However, over one fourth of the women farmers stated they relied on their own labor alone for planting of their plots.
The third task, weeding, is a post-planting operation. Weeding involves removal of "pest" vegetation, pruning, and thinning. All farmers must weed or thin their crops periodically to clear plants that inhibit seed growth. Most farmers use hoes, pangas, axe, and diggers-shovels, spade (Table 5.18). 125
Table 5.18. Labor Availability for Weeding (thinning) by Sex and Marital Status
Married Farmers Single Farmers Primary Labor Source* Men Women Men Women N% N %N % N % Self 4 4.5 33 37.1 4 66.7 15 93.8 Spouse 14 15.7 1 1.1 -- — — Together 63 70.8 52 58.4 - - — — Others** 8 9.0 3 3.4 2 3 3 3 1 6.2 Total 89 100 89 100 6 100 16 100 Note: Includes only those households that indicated task carried out * Children may also be involved. **May include hired labor, adult children, other relatives, neighbors, but excludes the labor of the farmer interviewed and the spouse.
Extension help is minimal. In most studies of farming systems in Africa, weeding is identiOed as women's work. In this sample, among married couples this is a task carried out by wife and husbemd together or primarily by the wife. Again, single women reported an almost exclusive reliance on their own labor for weeding and thinning, compared with two thirds of the single men farmers. Almost three fourths of married men indicated this was a task that engaged the labor of both husband and wife or, in 15.7 percent of the cases, the wife alone. In contrast, although 58.4 percent of the married women farmers also indicated the labor of both husband and wife was important, over one third of the women farmers said they alone or with children were primarily responsible for weeding and thinning.
Harvesting, the fourth farming task, refers to plucking, picking, digging up mature produce from food plants. In a mixed farming system, particularly the coffee and banana systems of Mukono District, harvesting is labor intensive. 126
Table 5.19. Labor Availability for Harvesting by Sex and Marital Status
Married Single Farmers Farmers Primaiy Labor Source* Men Women Men Women N % N % N % N % Self 8 9.0 29 32.6 2 33.3 15 93.8 Spouse 5 5.6 I 1.1 - - — — Together 67 75.3 54 60.7 - - — — Others** 9 lO.l 5 5.6 4 66.7 1 6.2 Total 89 100 89 100 6 100 16 100 Note: Includes only those households that indicated task carried out ^Children may also be involved. **May May include hired labor, adult children, other relatives, neighbors, but excludes the labor of the farmer interviewed and the spouse.
In most cases, labor is provided by family members but some farmers are able to supplement domestic labor with seasonal hired labor from neighboring countries, particularly Rwanda and Burundi (World Bank 1993; Troutt I994).But hired labor whether full-time, part-time, or casual, does not a substitute for family labor; hired laborers almost always work together with family labor.
Single women harvest alone or with children while single men rely heavily on the labor of others for harvesting. Among married couples, men are more likely than women to state that husband and wife harvest together (75.3% to 60.7%). About one third of the women stated they harvested alone or assisted by children. More men than women stated they also turned to hired labor or extended family members for assistance (10.1% vs. 5.6%).
Spraying, the fifth farming task explained in this study, refers to the use of agents that help kill plants or insects considered harmful to increased agricultural production (Table 5.20). These chemical agents include fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides. Spraying takes place off and on during the growing season. 127
Table 5.20. Labor Availability for Spraying by Sex and Marital Status
Married Single Farmers Farmers Primary Labor Source* Men Women Men Women N % N % N % N % Self 32 58.2 6 11.4 2 100 4 100 Spouse 5 9.1 28 52.8 --- Together 16 29.1 14 26.4 -- - Others** 2 3.6 5 9.4 -- — - Total 55 too 53 too 2 100 4 100 Note: Includes only those households that indicated task carried out * Children may also be involved. **May May include hired labor, adult children, other relatives, neighbors, but excludes the labor of the farmer interviewed and the spouse. Extension advice on spraying is crucial to successful application of chemicals.
Through visits and on-farm demonstrations, extension helps farmers to coordinate economically and environmentally acceptable methods of spraying and pest control. However, only 57 percent of the farmers use commercial or natural sprays on their crops with any frequency (Table 5.21).
Table 5.21 Spraying by Destination of Produce
Spray Don't Spray Chi-square value OF p-value N %N% Coffee Home 0 0 5 6.9 Market 99 100 67 93.1 7.08 1 .012* Fruit Home 70 73.7 54 85.7 Market 25 26.3 9 143 3.25 1 072 Maize Home S3 52.5 38 58.5 Market 48 47.5 27 41.5 .572 1 .449 Matoke Home 56 50.0 45 56.3 Market 56 50.0 35 43.8 .731 1 .393 Vegetables Home 48 42.9 52 61.9 Market 64 57.1 32 38.1 6.969 1 .008* Tubers Home 149 45.0 50 58.8 Market 60 55.0 35 41.2 3.676 1 .055* ^Significant at p < .05 128
Single women are the least likely to spray. In contrast, between 59 and 62 percent of married men and women spray, with men slightly more likely than women to spray. This suggests that the economic situation and potentially the older ages or health status associated with single farmers reduce their possibilities of acquiring sprays or their perception of the need to spray or their access to extension assistance.
More than 50 percent of the farmers (men and women farmers alike) indicate that spraying is an activity where men predominate.
In a little over one fourth of the cases, men and women work together in spraying. Women are more likely than men to use the labor of adult male children for spraying as well. When the type of produce and whether production was for the market or exclusively for home consumption were considered, it was found that market production significantly increased the likelihood of spraying but only for coffee, vegetables, and tubers. Some evidence exists of spraying for certain fruit crops, especially for market production (Table 5.21).
The sixth farming task, fertilization, refers to the use of natural or manufactured material that is added to the soil to increase plant growth during the growing season.
Plants may wither without nutritional elements such as nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium. In Mukono District, an important extension education topic for farmers is the use of fertilizers, especially the use of mulch and manure in areas where chemical
(inorganic) fertilizers are not readily available. Fertilization in this study, therefore, refers to the application of natural (organic) fertilizers such as mulch and manure as well as to chemical fertilizers. (Table 5.22). 129
Table 5.22. Labor Availability for Fertilizing (mulch and manure) by Sex and Marital Status
M arried Farmers Single Farmers Primary Labor Source* M en W om en M e n W om en N%N % M % N % Self 10 16.7 46 68.7 2 100 13 92.9 Spouse 5 8.3 8 11.9 - - — - Together 41 68.3 13 19.4 -- — — Others** 4 6.7 0 0 -- 1 7.1 Total 60 too 67 100 2 100 14 too Note: Includes only those households that indicated task carried out * Children may also be involved. **May include hired labor, adult children, other relatives, neighbors, but excludes the labor of the farmer interviewed and the spouse.
Manure includes the dung of poultry and the excreta of livestock—cows, pigs, goats, and sheep. Mulch is the use of biomass, dead plzmts, leaves, and straw to inhibit weed growth and conserve soil moisture. Fifty-seven farmers (28.5%) stated that they do not use chemical or organic fertilizers. Women were more likely than men to fertilizer and they used mulch or manure almost exclusively (75.3% and 67.4% respectively). When men fertilize, they report that they use their own labor and that of the spouse(s)—in most cases, they work together. When women fertilize, they rely primarily on their own labor (68.7%). However, in one fifth the cases women also indicated that husband and wife fertilize together and in almost 12 percent of the cases, that the husband alone supplied labor. JP would it be true that husbands crops are more likely to get chemical fertilizers and that husbands are more likely to be involved if chemicals are used while women are more likely to be involved if organic materials are used. 130
The seventh fanning task, transporting crops home, is a post-harvest operation.
Harvested produce (particularly food stuff) is usually transported home in baskets, sacks, on bicycles, or occasionally by hired trucks-depending on distance and location of farm and homestead (Table 5.23).
Although wife, husband, children, and relatives all provide labor for transporting produce home from men's fields and married women's fields, both married men and married women farmers mention women's labor as more important.
Approximately 72 percent of the time women alone or with children do it. Particularly noteworthy is the importance that married men farmers give to women's role in transporting produce home. On the other hand, women farmers indicate they rely on the spouse in about one fourth of the cases while they (alone, with children or with husband's assistance) transport produce about two thirds of the time. Single women are most likely to transport crops home alone or with the help of children and other relatives.
Table 5.23. Labor Availability for Transporting Crops Home by Sex and Marital Status
Married Single Farmers F arm e rs Primary Labor Source* M en W om en M e n W om en N % N % N % N % S e lf 7 7.9 27 30.3 2 33.3 14 87.5 S p o u se 15 16.8 22 24.7 ---- T o g eth e r 57 64.0 32 36.0 ---- O th ers* * 10 11.2 8 9.0 4 66.7 2 12.5 T otal 89 100 89 100 6 100 16 100 Note: Includes only those households that indicated task carried out * Children may also be involved. **May include hired labor, adult children, other relatives, neighbors, but excludes the labor of the farmer interviewed and the spouse. 131
Extension help is limited, although field extension officers often advise farmers on proper storage and food security and on keeping produce clean by washing it before transporting to the market.
Transporting crops to the market, the eighth farming task, is another post harvest operation (Table 5.24). Transporting produce to the market is one of several routine tasks that farmers engage in all year round. Approximately 85 percent of the men and 73 percent of the women farmers transport crops to the market (trading centers) and produce may go from home or directly from the farm. Married farmers, especially men, are more likely to take produce to the market (Table 5.24). The figures in Table 5.24 suggest it is primarily men who supply the labor for transporting crops to the market or the nearest trading center. In some cases, they may turn to family members or hired labor for assistance. Some farmers go on foot, while others use boda-boda, or taxis (Table 5.24).
Table 5.24. Labor Availability for Transporting Crops to Market bv Sex and Marital Status
Married Farmers Single Farmers Primaiy Labor Source* Men Women Men Women N % N % N % N % Self 58 753 6 9.1 3 75.0 10 90.9 Spouse 6 7.8 47 71.2 --- Together 7 9.1 5 7.5 --- Others** 6 7.8 8 12.1 1 25.0 1 9.1 Total 77 100 66 100 4 100 11 100 Note: Includes only those households that indicated task carried out * Children may also be involved. **May May include hired labor, adult children, other relatives, neighbors, but excludes the labor of the farmer interviewed and the spouse. 132
Other farmers may have middlemen come to pick up produce at home or on the farm. Also, there are others who sell produce directly to the public either from their backyards or from wooden stalls in front of the house.
The ninth and final farming task identified by farmers is storing food for home consumption. This refers to preparing and keeping a certain quantity of produce at home for family consumption (Table 5.25). Storing food at home for family consumption, to a great extent appears to be more the responsibility of women than of men. Women are mentioned (alone or working with others) approximately 76 percent of the time, compared to 66 percent of the time for men. Men and women frequently do it together, but women's labor is more likely to be involved in assisting men than men's labor is in assisting women. Most farmers store food in one form or another, using a variety of storage facilities—bags, bottles, baskets, sacks, boxes, self-made shelves, and platform (Table 5.25).
Table 5.25. Labor Availability for Storing Food by Sex and Marital Status
Married Farmers Single Farmers Primary Labor Source* Men Women Men Women N % N % N' % N* % Self 18 23.0 39 47.0 4 100 13 100 Spouse 12 15.4 17 20.5 ---- Together 46 59.0 27 32.5 ---- Others** 2 2.6 0 0 ---- Total 78 100 83 100 4 100 13 100 Note: Includes only those households that indicated task carried out * Children may also be involved. **May May include hired labor, adult children, other relatives, neighbors, but excludes the labor of the farmer interviewed and the spouse. 133
Spices such as onions, pepper, and ginger are often dried and stored in bottles and containers. Fresh food and staples such as matoke, vegetables (tomatoes, greens, beans), and tubers (cassava, cocoyam, yams, potatoes) are also stored, but in limited quantities—what the family can consume at a time. Farmers who say they do not store fresh food often have a supply of food for at least 24 hours. Storing food in limited quantities is critical to food security since there are no modem storage facilities to keep produce fresh for longer periods. Since most farmers live on the farm, fresh food
(including vegetables) is usually available.
Use of Hired Labor
When farmers were asked to indicate whether they use hired labor, many farmers (married and single farmers alike) said they use hired labor for one farming task or another but usually infrequently (Tables 5.26).
Tables 5.26. Farmers' Use of Hired Labor by Marital Status
Married Single Chi-square Value DF p-value
N % iV % Don't use hired labor 92 51.7 15 68.2 Use hired labor 86 48.3 7 31.8 2.142 1 143* * Not significant at p < .05.
No statistically significant differences were found in the use of hired labor for production purposes. Single farmers are as likely as married farmers to use hired labor. Hired labor is needed the most for weeding, land clearing, planting, and harvesting. 134
Tools and Machinery
There appears to be very little investment in modem machinery and tools for cultivation. Typically, cultivation is by hand held hoe (Table 5.27).
Table 5.27. Frequency of Farm Tool use by Marital Status
Farm Tool Married Farmers Single Farmers N % N % Hoe 178 100.0 20 90.9 Panga 170 99.4 20 90.9 Slasher 132 74.2 10 45.5 Sprayer 87 48.9 4 18.2 Spade 34 19.1 2 9.1 Tractor 21 11.8 1 4.5 Truck 4 2.2 2 9.1 Ox-plough 4 2.2 0 0
In many Mukono District farm households, hoes, pangas, slashers, sprayers, spade, and ox-ploughs represent the entire capital investment in tools. Only about 3 percent of the farmers in the study use hired tractors. But how many of the tools used on the farm belong to the household? When farmers were asked to indicate which of the tools they use on the farm belong to the household, a majority of farmers said they or someone in the household owned handheld tools. Including the hoe, panga, axe, and the slasher. In other cases, households included bicycles, sprayers, and wheelbarrows, but no farmer owns a tractor, a truck, or a passenger service vehicle (Table 5.28).
Table 5.28. Frequency of Tool Ownership by Marital Status
Farm Tool Married Farmers Single Farmers N% N% Hoe 178 100.0 20 90.9 Panga 165 92.7 18 81.8 Axe 155 87.1 14 63.6 Slasher 117 65.7 7 31.8 Bicycle 112 62.9 7 31.8 Sprayer 41 23.0 2 9.1 Spade 22 12.4 1 4.5 \^eelbairow 19 10.7 2 9.1 135
The lack of trucks and vehicles among rural farmers coincides with farmer reports of use of hired transport or walking to cart produce home and to the market.
Labor Availability: Comparison of Married and Single Farmers
Labor Availability: Differences byM arital Status
Analyses of labor availability for single and married farmers who engage in a particular task show single farmers, comprising the never married, separated, divorced, and the widowed are less likely than married farmers to have access to labor within the household since there are fewer adults and children. These households also show some differences in average income, but are very similar in their age distributions.
Often, in single households, the farmer is the only adult. However, Additionally, single farmers tend to have fewer children at home. Their income levels are also likely to be slightly lower than the income levels of married farmers (Table 5.29).
Table 5.29. Frequencies of Selected Characteristics of Farmers by Marital Status
Married Farmers Single Farmers N%N% Farmers' Age 50 years and above 60 33.7 8 36.4 Less than 50 years 118 66.3 14 63.6
Household Members 1-19 people 172 96.6 22 100 20-32 people 6 3.4 0 0
Yearlv Income $500 or more a year 20 11.2 1 4.5 less than $500 a year 158 88.8 21 95.5
Farmers' Own Children 0-19 children 175 98.3 22 10 20-31 children 3 1.7 0 0 136
However, as Table 5.26 shows, there is a greater potential need for hired labor.
In spite of relatively low incomes in single households, single farmers are as likely as married farmers to use hired labor.
A comparison between single and married farmers shows there are no statistically significant differences as to whether they produce exclusively for home consumption or for the market. Single farmers are as likely as married farmers to produce for home consumption and for the market with percentages substantively different for vegetable production (Table 5.30).
Table 5.30. Produce for Market or Home bv Marital Status
Married Single Chi-square DF p-val Farmers Farmers Value N % N % Coffee Home consumption 4 2.6 1 5.0 Market 147 97.4 19 95.0 .344 1 .558 Fruit Home consumption 108 78.3 16 80.0 Market 30 21.7 4 20.0 .031 1 .860 Maize Home consumption 82 54.7 9 56.3 Market 68 4 5 3 7 43.8 .014 1 .904 Matolæ Home consumption 90 52.6 11 52.4 Market 81 47.4 10 47.6 .001 I .983 Vegetables Home consumption 86 49.4 14 63.6 Market 88 50.6 8 36.4 1.578 1 .209 Tubers Home consumption 86 50.0 13 59.1 Market 86 50.0 9 40.9 .645 I .422 Livestock Home Consumption 50 31.6 5 31.3 Market 108 68.4 11 68.8 .001 1 .974 *Not significant at p < .05.
Although the number of cases is low (6 men, 16 women), some farming trends were detected among single farmers. For instance, a significantly greater proportion of the single men farmers had access to the labor of others (extended family members. 137
hired labor, neighbors, grown children) than did women. In most cases where the
labor of others was available for farming tasks, these were for harvesting or
transporting crops home (66.7% of the cases of single men) or planting (half the single
men). In one-third of the cases, others were available for clearing land and
weeding/thinning. However, children were available only for transporting crops to
market in only 25% of the cases of single men farmers. Therefore, single men rely on
their own labor as the primary source of labor for clearing land and weeding
(thinning) (66.7%), planting (50%), harvesting and transporting crops home (33.3%), transporting crops to market (75%), and spraying or applying fertilizer (all of the 6 cases).
Single women farmers show very low availability of extended family members or hired labor (generally less than 13%) except in the case of clearing of land (where
25% have access to primarily extended family members in or outside the household who do this task). Single women, however, turn to children’s labor in up to 25% of the cases, especially for assistance with clearing land, planting, harvesting, transporting crops home and transporting crops to market. Single women’s own labor is the primary source of labor for all tasks (between 75-I(X)% of the labor). In fact, these women claim exclusive or almost exclusive responsibility for storing food, spraying and applying fertilizer (in the cases that these tasks are carried out). Women’s labor is the sole source of labor for clearing land in half the cases and they work with child labor in an additional one fourth of the cases (total 75%). Women alone supply labor between 62-73% of the time for planting, harvesting, getting crops home, and getting 138 crops to market. And they bear principal responsibility for weeding/thinning (helped by children only 13% of the time).
The results of the analysis on availability of labor indicate that about one fourth of the single women farmers but no single men have access to children's labor for most tasks. Single men have greater access to assistance from extended family members and hired labor. However, with the exception of plzmting, harvesting and getting crops home, single farmers, unlike married farmers, rely on themselves as the primary source of labor for all farming tasks.
Four trends stand out when comparing the responses of married men and women farmers. First, both married men and married women farmers have access to several sources of available labor for farming tasks. These sources Include the partner and children (primarily the case of women), or extended family members or hired labor
(important only for clearing land and less so for assisting men with weeding/thirming, harvesting and getting crops home). Second, both married men and married women are highly likely to attribute to themselves a greater importance in many of the farming tasks. That is, men are more likely to say their labor is an important input while women are more likely to say that their labor is. Although it is possible that the men and women interviewed farm separate plots or grow different crops for which they have primary or sole responsibility (very common), they still access each other's labor for their own farming tasks. Third, in half or more of the cases and for most tasks, men and women both provide the labor, sometimes in conjunction with children.
Regrettably, the study did not anticipate and cannot address the issue of why there are differences in the responses of married men and married women, most of whom are 139 married to partners also included in the sample of farmers. Fourth, children's labor is more important to farming by married persons than by single persons. This may be due to the presence of more children in the household and related to age differences between married and single farmers.
Married women state that they are the sole source of labor about half the time
(42-58%) for only two tasks: storing food and applying fertilizer (mulch and manure).
They state that men are the sole source of labor at least half the time for only two tasks: spraying (52.8% of the time) and transporting crops to market (71% of the time). However, when we add up all the categories in which women mention their own labor as a source (whether alone or with others), we find that women's labor is available to them in 75% or more of the cases in all but three tasks. Women's labor is available for getting crops to market in less than 17% of the cases, for spraying (38% of the cases), and for getting crops home (66% of the cases).
In comparison, married women state that men's labor is available (alone or with others) in between 53-79% of the cases in all except one task: applying mulch or manure (31% of the cases). Furthermore, children's labor is available (almost always to work with women or with men and women together) most frequently for planting, weeding/thinning, and harvesting (about half the cases) and least frequently for spraying, fertilizing, getting crops to market, and storing food (less than one fifth of the cases).
In general, married women say their labor inputs are highest for planting, weeding/thinning, harvesting, and applying fertilizer (though they seldom are the sole source of labor). They also say that husbands' labor is available for most tasks in about 140 two thirds of the cases, with the exceptions of spraying and getting crops to market
(about three fourths of the cases) and storing food or applying fertilizer (half of fewer of the cases). Men and women work together half the time or more for about half the tasks (clearing land, planting, weeding/thinning, harvesting) but less for other tasks. In conclusion, according to married women's responses, the tasks most identified with women's labor are planting, weeding/thinning and harvesting while those most likely to include husband's labor are spraying and getting crops to market. The tasks most identiHed with the assistance of children are harvesting, weeding/thinning, and planting, but then in half or fewer of the cases.
Married men farmers' responses diverge somewhat For instance, married men state they are important as the exclusive source of labor only for getting crops to market (75% of the cases) and spraying (58%) and that women's labor alone is not important for any of men's farming tasks (only 1-10% of the cases say a particular task uses women's labor alone). On the other hand, married men state that women's labor is available for most tasks (in conjunction with the labor of men and sometimes others).
Women's labor is available in 75-93 percent of the cases for planting, weeding/thinning, fertilizing, harvesting, getting crops home, and storing food. Their labor is least available to men for spraying or getting crops to market (38% and 17% of the cases respectively). In three fourths or more of the cases, men contribute their own labor to all tasks although they are not the sole source of labor in most cases (with the exception of getting crops to market). As a result, men and women work side by side in men's farming tasks in over half the cases (and sometimes over 80% of the cases) in all tasks except spraying and getting crops to market. Children's labor should 141 be available to married men and to married women, but children seldom work with men alone. In most cases, they work with women or with men and women together.
Decision Making
The sociological literature and the literature on women in development stress greater decision making power for men. They also indicate that women's decision making power is likely to be highest where their inputs to household survival, and particularly to surplus production and cash incomes, is high relative to men. Extension services, because they target the household, may fall prey to another trend discussed in the literature—to target male household heads for training under the assumption that they will pass information on to others in the household who also farm. Most studies find that men do not pass information on. If extension is to be evaluated and knowledge assessed, it is important to determine decision making patterns among farmers, particularly for farming tasks.
This study explored decision making in nine areas: ( I ) what crops to plant on the farm; (2) when to plant; (3) when to harvest crops; (4) when to sell crops harvested from the farm; (5) what to do with farm income; (6) what proportion of farm income to save; (7) what family members will eat at home; (8) whether to get a loan; and (9) trying innovations. Farmers were asked about who participates in decision making for the produce for which the interviewed farmer would be primarily responsible.
The first decision making area, what to plant on the farm, refers to the type of crops farmers will produce in a given season—cash and food crops alike—and, potentially, to a division of labor in production. Single farmers almost exclusively 142 make decisions alone although a few indicate they may request the input of children or extended family members. In about half the cases of married farmers, both husband and wife say the decision is made by wife and husband together (Table 5.31 ).
Table 5.31, Married Farmers: Decision Making Regarding What to Plant by Sex
M arried Farmers Who decides Men Women N%N % Self 25 28.1 25 28.1 Spouse 14 15.7 1 1.1 Together 63 70.8 52 58.4 Others* 8 9.0 3 3.4 Total 89 100 89 100 Note: Includes only those households that indicated task carried out. * May include adult children, other relatives, but excludes spouse.
As Table 5.31 suggests, men are slightly more likely to make decisions for wives
(22.5% of the time) than women are to make decisions for husbands (12.3%). In only a little over one fourth of the cases, the individual farmer decides alone. This reinforces the notion of a family farming system and may be related to land tenure patterns.
The second decision making area—when to plant—refers to the best point at which to drill the soil and put in seeds. The decision involves whether to begin planting in the early rainy season or postpone planting till the latter part of the rainy season.
Planting time often varies by the type of crop. Maize, for example, is nearly always sown in the first rainy season (Table 5.32). 143
Table 532. Married Farmers: Decision Making Regarding When to Plant by Sex
Married Farmers Who decides Men Women N %N % Self 17 I9.I 36 40.4 Spouse 13 14.6 9 10.1 Together 59 6 6 3 44 49.4 Others* 0 0 0 0 Total 89 100 89 100 Note: Includes only those households that indicated task carried out. * May include adult children, other relatives, but excludes spouse.
Here we find that men are far more likely than women to report that the decision of when to plant is made by the couple together, although in almost half the cases women report it as a joint decision. However, women also are far more likely to report that they make the decision alone (40.4%) than do men (19.1%). No input is solicited from others.
The third decision making is when to harvest crops from the farm. The decision to harvest crops depends on several factors, among them, crop maturity, labor availability, weather conditions, and in some cases, storage facilities. Single women reported they make this decision alone; about one third of the single men request input from other persons, the rest decide alone (Table 5.33).
Table 5.33. Married Farmers: Decision Making Regarding When to Hard est by Sex
Married Farmers Who decides Men Women N % N % Self 10 11.2 40 44.9 Spouse 11 12.3 7 7.9 Together 59 6 6 3 44 49.4 Others* 65 73.1 40 44.9 Total 89 100 89 100
Note: Includes only those households that indicated task carried out * May include adult children, other relatives, but excludes spouse. 144
In the case of married couples, men are far more likely than women to indicate that the couple decides together (73.1% of the men compared to 44.9% of the women).
An equal number of women indicated this was a decision they made alone. Almost equal numbers of men stated they or the wife made the decision alone, compared to only 7.9 percent of the women who said the husband made the decision. The decision of when to harvest shows one of the highest levels of input by women of all decision making areas, although men are more likely to identify it as a joint decision than are women.
The fourth decision making area in the study, when to sell crops harvested from the farm, refers to decisions regarding whether and when to market farm produce to generate income. In the case of single farmers, two thirds of the men and almost all the women decide alone. Both married women and married men report an important role for men in this decision although they did not indicate why men would play a greater role (for instance, access to information on the market). Almost 52 percent of the women and 43.8 percent of the men state the man makes the decision alone. In most other cases, both men and women indicate the decision is a joint one.
Table 5.34. Married Farmers: Decision Making Regarding Sale of Crops by Sex
Married Farmers Who decides Men Women N % N % Self 39 43.8 6 6.7 Spouse 5 5.6 46 51.9 Together 44 49.4 35 39.3 Others* I 1.1 2 2.2 Total 89 100 89 100
Note: Includes only those households that indicated task carried out * May include adult children, other relatives, but excludes spouse. 145
The fifth decision making area is that regarding the use of farm income. This includes use for purchases, investments, school fees, and others. As indicated above, farm income consists largely of money farmers get from selling produce either at home or on the market. Farmers utilize farm income for several purposes—children's education, health, and domestic needs. Farmers also use farm income for buying farm tools and household goods such as hoes, pangas, slashers, sprayers, bicycles, and cooking utensils. When there is a need for hired labor or rented land, farm income pays for that too.
In the case of single farmers, two thirds of the men and almost all the women decide alone. Both married men and married women farmers indicate this is an area where men wield the control (Table 5.35).
Table 5.35. Married Farmers: Decision Making Regarding Use of Farm Income by Sex
Married Farmers Who decides Men Women N % N % Self 38 42.7 6 6.7 Spouse 3 3.4 45 50.6 Together 47 52.8 38 42.7 Others* I 1.1 1 1.1 Total 89 100 89 100 Note: Includes only those households that indicated task carried out. *May include adult children, other relatives, but excludes spouse.
Forty three percent of the men and over half the women reported that the decision over spending money was made by the husband alone. Half the men but only
43 percent of the women indicated it was a joint decision. Few men or women indicate that women make decisions in this area. If this accurately represents the division of power in the household, it is one factor that would impede the ability of women to 146 increase their productivity and income. On the one hand, they might not have access to funds to rent land (as many indicated) or purchase inputs. This could explain why fewer women than men spray crops or use chemical fertilizers. On the other hand, if women have little control over their income, this would be a disincentive to engage in cash cropping or to request training and extension services.
The sixth decision making area is what proportion of income to save. Savings may be held at the bank or kept at home for immediate domestic use. However, not all farmers choose or are able to save a portion of their income. More than 50 percent of all farmers say they never save. Single men are the least likely to save (33% do not), while married men and women are the most likely to save (50.6% and 39.3% do respectively). About 69 percent of single women farmers also save at least some of the time (Table 5.36).
Table 5.36. Married Farmers: Decision Making Regarding Savings by Sex
Married Farmers Who decides Men Women N % N % Self 40 50.0 8 10.5 Spouse 4 5.0 42 55.3 Together 36 45.0 26 34.2 Others* 0 0 0 0 Total 80 100 76 100 Note: Includes only those households that indicated task carried out. *May include adult children, other relatives, but excludes spouse.
Of those who do save, single farmers have absolute control over the decision of whether or not to set aside income in the form of savings. In the case of married farmers, this is another area in which men wield the greatest power. Half the men and more than half the women say men have exclusive decision making power over whether or not to save. Almost half the men but onlv one third of the women sav this is 147 a joint decision. But few say women decide alone. Those farmers who save reported they do so for three basic reasons—health costs (most important), school fees (least important), and basic family needs (intermediate). Included in family needs Is care and maintenance of the family farm for increased agricultural productivity.
What family members will eat at home, the seventh decision making area, refers to food processing and cooking for domestic consumption. Traditionally, in most
African societies women are in charge of decisions on what family members will eat and how much each member will get. Part of this responsibility is that women must produce and care for vegetables and staple foods such as sweet potatoes and bananas
(matoke). In Mukono, when bananas reach maturity, it is the woman's duty to ensure that there is a daily supply for family consumption. Therefore it was a great surprise to find that in the case of married couples, both women and men said men were involved in decision on what to eat in at least 20-24 percent of the time. Although women make this decision exclusively in at least three fourths of the households, it is a joint decision or a man's decision in the remainder. Single farmers decide alone or, in the case of women, together with children.
The eighth decision making area is whether to get a loan. Taking a loan refers to applying for financial assistance from sources such as the bank, credit union, cooperative society, or merchants to meet agricultural and other domestic needs. Not all farmers have access to or choose to take out loans. In fact, almost half (46.5%) say they never try to get loans (Table 5.37). 148
Table 5.37. Married Farmers: Decision Making Regarding Taking Loans by Sex
Married Farmers Who decides Men Women N % N % Self 29 49.2 3 7.9 Spouse I 1.7 30 78.9 Together 29 49.2 5 13.2 Others* 0 0 0 0 Total 59 100 38 too Note: Includes only those households that indicated task carried out *May include adult children, other relatives, but excludes spouse.
This includes more than half of all women (56-57%), half of all single men, but only 33.7 percent of the married men. This could mean that, married men as a group, have the greatest access to loans for reasons that remain unexplored among this population (Table 5.37). However, extension work which favors men, men's ownership of land (collateral), men's greater rights of mobility, and potentially discriminatory practices by lenders all may be important factors.
Single farmers decide alone whether or not to take a loan. Fewer than half the women farmers would consider taking a loan in their own name (Table 5.38).
Table 5.38. Whether to get a loan by sex and marital status
GetaLoan Don't Get Loan Chi-square Value DF p-value N % N % All Farmers Women Farmers 45 42.9 60 57.1 Men Farmers 62 65.3 33 34.7 10.065 I .002*
Married Farmers Women Farmers 38 42.7 51 57.3 Men Farmers 59 66.3 30 33.7 9.991 I .002*
Single Farmers Women Farmers 7 43.8 9 563 Men Farmers 3 50.0 3 50.0 .069 1 .783 *Significant at p < .05. 149
For those who would, the majority leave this decision in the husband's hands.
Two thirds of the husbands would consider a loan; half would make the decision alone and half would make it jointly with the wife or wives. Once again, it would appear that decisions that involve money and interacting with formal institutions favor men over women. These differences are significant as shown in Table 5.38.
But when we look at the source of loans, we find that women are as likely as men to be aware of the Uganda Commercial Bank (UCB), probably the main source of formal loans for both men and women. About 80 percent of women farmers and 69 percent of men farmers selected UCB as the financial institution they are aware of the most (and where they might probably go for loans), compared to 11.5 percent for
Sembule Investment Bank; 7.7 percent for Credit Unions; and less than 1 percent for
Standard Bank and Merchants (including Traditional Money Lenders). The UCB is one of 13 commercial banks in the formal sector of Uganda's financial system and is fully owned by the government (The World Bank 1993a; Fendru 1995). With branches all over the country, the UCB appears to be the financial institution accessible to most
Ugandans. This probably explains why most farmers selected UCB as the financial institution they are aware of the most.
Trying innovations, the ninth and final decision making area, refers to new farming methods farmers have learned from extension, shopkeepers, or neighbors.
Innovations include methods of desuckering bananas, spraying the farm, spacing crops, fertilization, and new seed varieties (Table 5.39). 150
Table 5.39. Married Farmers: Decision Making Regarding Trying Innovations by Sex
Married Farmers Who decides Men Women N % N’ % Self 47 54.7 10 15.9 Spouse 8 9.3 35 55.6 Together 31 36.1 18 28.6 Otters* 0 0 0 0 Total 86 100 63 100 Note: Includes only those households that indicated task carried out *May include adult children, other relatives, but excludes spouse.
Not all farmers are willing to or have tried innovations. In fact, one fourth of single women and one third of single men indicate they do not try new practices or products. Those who do, however, make the decision alone. Among married farmers, almost all men indicate they occasionally try innovations compared to under three fourths of the women. In fact, even though women and men indicate high decision making power for women in other areas of production, it is predominantly men who determine whether or not innovations will be introduced on men or women's plots
(Table 5.39). Again, this might be a result of men's greater access to information, including extension. The fact that most men but fewer women are willing to try innovations may be an indication that providing information to men alone is not sufficient to introduce changes to all women even though they may reach some women.
Farmers' ability and willingness to experiment or innovate ma\ also depend on the problems they encounter in their work as farmers, how they solve those problems, and the extent to which they seek extension help in problem solution. 151
Problems Farmers Encounter In Their Work
The farmers sampled were asked about the problems they encounter in their work and whether they seek extension help in solving those problems (Table 5.40).
Table 5.40. Problems Farmers Encounter in Their Work
Problems Men Farmers Women Farmers N % N % Inputs 58 61.1 52 49.5 Coital 49 51.6 31 29.6 Pests 40 42.1 63 60.0 Tools 36 37.9 23 21.9 Labor 28 29.5 37 35.2 Markets 18 19.0 18 17.1 Extension 17 17.9 11 10.5 Weather 12 12.6 24 22.9 Land 9 9.5 6 5.7
Among the problems or things that farmers need to improve productivity and incomes are inputs (chemicals, sprays, fertilizer), eapital (lack of monev for inputs), pests, tools, labor, markets for agricultural produce, lack of extension agents, weather
(too much or too little rain), and lack of land. It is interesting to note that only 7.5 percent of farmers in the study mentioned land as a problem and only 14 percent mentioned extension as a problem.
In fact, farmers claim little interaction with extension services. There are many potential reasons for this. For instance, some farmers may not be fully aware of its potential or may judge its services to be irrelevant or unrealistic for their problems.
Some farmers expressed the opinion that extension can make important contributions extension even when they do not consider lack of access to extension to be a problem.
It may be that farmers are simply too busy producing to ha\ e sought out extension.
What is clear, though, is that for the most part farmers do not express a high degree of regard for extension services nor do they take the time to seek them out. 152
There are some gender differences in the responses. For instance, the top four problems named by men are agricultural inputs, capital, pests and lack of better tools.
Women, on the other hand, cited pests, inputs, lack of labor assistance, and capital in that order of importance. There are several possibilities that explain women's problem of labor (not shared by men). For instance, there may be a relationship between men's control over use of income and the inability of women to hire labor assistance. It may be that the time women spend assisting men with their plots takes away from women's own work. It also may be that men do not provide as much labor as women would like.
However, these issues remain unexplored.
Respondents also were asked whether they seek extension help in solving the problems they encounter in farming (Table 5.41 ).
Table 5.41. Whether Farmers Seek Extension Help by Sex
Men Farmers Women Farmers N % N % Seek help 16 16.8 6 5.7 Don't seek help 79 83.2 99 94.3 Total 95 100 105 100
Only II percent of the 200 farmers in the study said they seek extension help in solving some of the problems they encounter in farming. Women are less likely to seek help than men, but the overwhelming majority of farmers, 89 percent, do not seek extension help. Most farmers stated that they do not seek extension help because (1) they have never heard of extension agents (though their household is on the extension list); (2) there are no extension agents located in or near the villages, (3) they believe that extension does not pay attention to farmers in the villages, (4) they don't know where to contact extension agents, (5) they became discouraged when they could not 153 find an extension agent, and (6) looking for extension agents takes time away from important tasks.
When farmers were asked to list projects they would like to see extension establish for farmers in the rural areas, the overwhelming majority (72.5%) said they would like extension to establish income generating enterprises (IGEs), compared to
27.5 percent who would like to see extension establish training prcjects.(Table 5.42).
The income generating enterprises farmers would like to see the most include those based on livestock (dairy and poultry farms), banana farms, potatoes and vegetable (horticulture) plantations, fruit (passion fruit) production, milk production, and apiary (bees for honey). Training projects in which farmers expressed an interest include pest control, teaching agriculture in schools, and réintroduction of the tractor- for-hire services.
Table 5.42. Projects Farmers would like to see Extension Established
Projects Men Farmers Women Farmers N % X % Income Generating Enterprises (IGEs) 69 72.6 76 72.4 Training Projects 26 27.4 29 27.6 Total 95 100 105 100
The tractor service program was first introduced in 1963 under the Obote
Regime. The objective was to give farmers access to the use of machinery in farming.
Tractor service stations were established all over the country- and tractor drivers were hired to help farmers who wished to use tractors on the farm. Between 1966 and 1967, the government imported nearly 900 tractors for the program. A basic advantage of the program was that it gave smallholder farmers the opporiunil) to use tractors on small plots without having to buy one themselves. But the program was poorly 154 planned. Implemented with neither foresight nor efficient management, the program was soon abandoned. The tractors were unsuitable for Ugandan soils. Maintenance was poor and parts not readily available for repairs. Utilization rates were low relative to land size. More than 80 percent of the tractors remained idle most of the year.
Moreover, the use of tractors became a political tool. Farmers who did not subscribe to
Obote's one-party political ideology were denied access to the program.
In summary, the study shows Mukono District farmers are largely small holders, cultivating plots no larger than five acres. A family farming system, farmers in the district produce most of the food crops they consume-bananas, tubers, and vegetables.
They also produce coffee as a cash crop. Both men and women are actively involved in the production of coffee and food crops. A labor intensive production system, decision making on labor availability and other important farm tasks is usually joint.
There is a large measure of cooperation among farm households and members of the extended family with respect to decision making, division of labor, and labor availability. Both married and single farmers often rely on extended family members for help in carrying out an agricultural task—weeding, ploughing, and planting, for example. This shows farming in Mukono District is largely a family affair. Although most farmers, especially women, neither receive extension visits nor interact often with extension agents, the study shows the overwhelming majority of farmers believe extension is critical to successful agriculture in Mukono District. The extent to which farmers interact with extension agents is addressed in Chapter VI. It includes a section discussing farmers' experiences with and opinions of extension services. CHAPTER VI
EXTENSION ATTITUDES TOWARD FARMERS
Introduction
In Chapter II, five guiding hypotheses were presented as the bases for the study of extension officer attitudes and practices:
1. Men extension officers are more likely to hold negative attitudes toward women farmers and are less likely to have accurate knowledge of and experience with women farmers than women extension officers.
2. Extension officers are most likely to hold positive attitudes toward and have accurate knowledge of farming practices, the division of labor, and decision making for those farmers with whom they share characteristics (age, place of origin, ethnicity).
3. Men farmers and farmers who engage in cash production are more likely than women farmers and food producers to have benefited from extension services.
4. Farmers whose characteristics resemble those of extension officers are more likely to benefit from extension services than those who are unlike extension officers.
5. Extension officers with more experience in the region and/or who have received more training and policy education will have more positive attitudes toward women, smallholders, and food producers than those who have less experience and training.
155 156
Chapter VI summarizes the findings of the study of field extension officers' attitudes. In this chapter, we explore extension officers' attitudes toward smallholder farmers, compare knowledge of production practices and decision making on agricultural tasks with those reported by farmers, look to the socio-demographic characteristics of field extension officers as possible factors to explain attitudes, and discuss the problems faced by extension officers. The chapter considers differences in farmers' and extension officers' reports of extension activities, and farmers' opinions of the usefulness of extension. The chapter discusses the following: (I) socio- demographic characteristics of field extension officers, (2) findings on knowledge and attitudes; (3) extension attitudes toward farmers; (4) policy formulation and implementation; (5) policy reconunendation; (6) extension-farmer interaction; (7) farmers' opinions on extension; and (8) problems field extension officers encounter in their work.
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Field Extension Officers
As Chapter II indicates, “an attitude is an individual's prevailing tendency to respond favorably or unfavorably to an object, person, or group of people, institution, or event,” (Grolier Encyclopedia 1995). A basic assumption in this study is that attitudes toward farmers are the result of socialization and cumulative experiences that can be detected through demographic and socioeconomic characteristics such as age, education, gender, marital status, religion, migratory status, income, and ethnicity
(Eiser & Pligt, 1988). The assumption is that these variables depict social characteristics that shape the way Mukono District field extension officers perceive
Mukono District farmers as important contributors to national development. Given the 157 extent to which socio-demographic variables are associated with attitudes toward farmers, selected extension agent characteristics were studied.
Ethnicity
Table 6.1 shows that almost 74 percent of field extension officers in the study are Ganda, the dominant ethnic group in Mukono District.
Table 6.1. Ethnic Distribution by Sex
Ethnicity Men Women Total N % N % N % Ganda 22 68.7 17 81.0 39 73.6 Other* 10 31.3 4 19.0 14 26.4 Total 32 100 21 100 53 100
* Eight ethnic groups: Soga, Gisu, Gwere, Iteso, Mugwe, Nyankole, Nyeyoli, Ruli.
Ganda is also the dominant ethnic group in Mukono District and 83.5 percent of the farmers sampled are Ganda. The similarity between these two groups should, theoretically, increase the likelihood that field extension officers will be knowledgeable about the farmers they serve in Mukono District. A common ethnic group and a common language should also facilitate a meaningful extension-farmer interaction through extension visits, extension-organized on-farm demonstrations, and the introduction of new farming methods and practices. More women farmers belonging to the Ganda ethnic group may also increase the likelihood that women field extension officers would be more knowledgeable about and show more favorable attitudes toward women farmers specifically and the population of Ganda smallholders in general. 158
Religion
Religion is a feature of culture that often intersects with and reinforces ethnicity.
Three fourths of the farmers are Christian and one fourth are Muslims. Therefore, another extension officer characteristic studied is religious affiliation. Table 6.2 shows that more than 90 percent of the field extension officers in the study are Christians
(Catholics and Protestants), while less than 10 percent are Muslim.
Table 6.2. Religious Affiliation by Sex
Religious Affiliation Men Women Total N % N % N % Catholic 7 21.9 6 28.6 13 24.5 Protestant 23 71.9 13 61.9 36 68.0 Muslim 2 6.2 2 9.5 4 7.5 Total 32 100 21 100 53 100
Because of religious conflicts between Christians and Muslims in the past, particularly under the Idi Amin regime, and traditions in the Muslim community that forbid "strangers" interacting with Muslim women in the absence of the husband, it was assumed that religious affiliation would be significantly associated with extension activity and recommended practices, such as extension visits, attendance at on-farm demonstrations, and learning new farm practices from extension. This assumption was tested.
The analyses in Table 6.3 shows that there are no significant differences among
Christian and Muslim farmers relative to attendance at extension-organized on-farm demonstrations, learning new farm practices (innovations), and extension visits. Many farmers do not receive extension visits irrespective of religious affiliation. Neither do the overwhelming majority of farmers learn new practices from extension nor attend extension-organized on-farm demonstrations. 159
Table 6.3. Religious Affiliation and Farmer Participation
Christian Muslim Chi-square DP p-value farmers farmers Value N % N % On-farm Demonstratioas Attend 28 18.9 10 19.2 Do not attend 120 81.1 42 80.8 .002 1 .961*
New Farm Practices Learn 112 75.7 38 73.1 Do not learn 36 243 14 26.9 .139 1 .710* Extension Visits Receive visits 118 79.7 39 75.0 Do not receive visits 30 20.3 13 25.0 .510 1 .475*
*Not significant at p <.05
The analyses suggest that religion would not be a factor that impedes meaningful extension-farmer interaction. Three factors may explain the lack of association between religious affiliation and extension-farmer interaction. First, some field extension officers (at least 7.5% of the sample) are Muslim and they may orient
Christian officers or attend to the needs of Muslim farmers who request assistance.
Second, the relative peace and stability that prevail in southern Uganda today dispel fears of religious and political strife that has characterized the nation for the past two decades. The third reason may be found in the organization of agriculture and extension service under Victoria Seldtoleko. Under Sekitoleko's administration and in direct response to her policies, field extension officers periodically issued invitations to farmers (irrespective of religious affiliation) to meet with the extension staff to discuss issues of special interest to the farming community-regardless of the preferences or attitudes of extension officers. A fourth factor could be the lack of obvious indicators of religious affiliation among farmers and extension agents. » 160
Migratory Status
Table 6.4 shows that approximately 47 percent of the field extension officers in the study have Mukono as their district of origin; 13 percent come from Mpigi (to the west), while the rest, 40 percent, come from 12 other districts, among them Bushenyi,
Iganga, Jinja, Kampala, Kamuli, Kumi, Luwero, Masaka, Mbale, Mubende, Pallisa, and
Tororo.
Table 6.4. District of Origin by Sex
District of Origin Men Women Total N % N % N % Mukono District 18 56.2 7 333 25 47.2 Mpigi District 3 9.4 4 19.1 7 13.2 Other 11 34.4 10 47.6 21 39.6 Total 32 100 21 100 53 100
Table 6.4 suggests that field extension officers and farmers do not share a common origin. Almost half the women officers and one third of the men are from regions other than Mukono or Mpigi while over 88 percent of the men farmers and 71 percent of the women farmers are from Mukono or Mpigi. This might suggest a low level of familiarity with farming practices and customs among Mukono farmers. Even so, all extension officers and farmers speak a conunon working language-Luganda. On the one hand, a common language should facilitate meaningful extension-farmer interaction, regardless of district of origin. On the other, a common language suggests that district of origin and ethnicity may not be useful variables to predict levels of knowledge and attitudes. A common language suggests possible similarities in culture, which may include agricultural practices and values. 16 1
Age
The age distribution of field extension officers (Table 6.5) shows Mukono
District field extension officers, particularly women extension officers, are relatively young. The mean age for women field extension officers is 29.6, compared to 32.9 for men. The overall mean age is 31.6. This is in stark contrast to farmers who tend to be older. The mean age for women farmers is 38, compared to 47.4 for men farmers.
Table 6.5. Age Distribution
Age Men Women Total N % N % N % 19-29 II 34.4 15 71.4 26 49.1 30-39 15 46.8 4 19.1 19 35.8 4 0 -4 9 6 18.8 2 9.5 8 15.1 Total 32 100 21 100 53 100
More than 70 percent of women field extension officers are under 30 years of age, compared to 34.4 percent of men field extension officers in the same age group.
Younger age of women field extension officers suggest recent hiring. About 29 percent of women field extension officers and nearly 66 percent of the men are between 30 and 49 years of age. That means approximately 49 percent of the field extension officers in the study were probably bom in the post Idi Amin era, compared to 51 percent bora after Idi Amin's presidency.
This has positive and negative implications for the relative success of extension in Mukono District. On the negative side, both extension officers and farmers may hold negative attitudes toward farmers because of age differences. Extension officers may see farmers as overly conservative, ignorant, and unwilling or unable to change lifelong practices. Farmers may view extension officers as less experienced or authoritative. Age-related issues of status may interfere in interaction. 162
On the positive side, the relatively young ages of field extension officers suggest that, given the right incentives, the present corps of field extension officers—the majority of whom are women—can stay in the extension service for years to come, gathering expertise and sharing accumulated experience with farmers. Also, since women farmers tend to be younger than men, the incorporation of young women into the extension service could directly increase the participation of women. And, as will be shown below, more women farmers might attend on-farm extension activity if women field extension officers invite them than when men officers do so.
Marital Status
Marital status of field extension officers was examined because of the potential relationship between officers' attitudes and their values regarding family forms
(monogamous vs. polygamous) and gender roles. The majority of extension officers
(77.4%) are married. The rest, 22.7 percent, are either single (never married), widowed, divorced, or separated (Table 6.6).
Table 6.6. Marital Status of Reid Extension Officers by Sex iVIarital Status Men Women Total N %N % N % Mamed 28 87.5 13 61.9 41 77.4 Single 3 9.4 7 3 3 3 10 18.8 Widowed, Divorced, Separated I 3.1 1 4.8 2 3.8 Total 32 100 21 100 53 100
Extension officers are somewhat less likely than farmers to be married, especially women. Although this suggests that they would probably have fewer domestic responsibilities and could spend more time with farmers, it also potentially creates a barrier between officers and farmers. Men farmers may be less likely to want wives to interact with single men farmers. Women farmers may not see Women 163 extension officers as fully understanding their constraints and responsibilities. Women extension officers also may fail to identify with the concerns of women farmers as wives and mothers. On the other hand. Women extension officers may have chosen their profession because they do not want a "traditional" gender role. Or they may be at risk of leaving the extension service when they do marry and have small children.
These possibilities were beyond the scope of this study, and the increase among women in extension is recent (directly related to a mandate of the Minister). This merits further study in the future after a period of time has passed and at least some women have married.
Household Head
Another characteristic of field extension officers that was examined is the makeup of their families, especially the designation of a household headship. When extension officers were asked to identify the household head in the family, nearly 57 percent selected "the husband" as household head. The rest, 43 percent of extension respondents, selected a couple or another members of the extended family as household head. No one selected "the wife" (Table 6.7).
Table 6.7. Household Head by Sex of Officer
Household Head Men Total Women N % N % N % Husband (man) 23 71.9 7 33.3 30 56.6 Both Wife and Husband 5 15.6 6 28.6 11 20.8 Other* 4 12.5 8 38.1 12 22.6 Total 32 100 21 100 53 100 *Other members of extended family 164
Although beyond the scope of this study, it is interesting to note that no woman extension officer considers herself the head of her household. Perhaps because of the youthfulness of women officers, most still reside in their parents' household. It also is interesting that, compared to farmers, extension officers, especially women, are slightly more likely to see headship as a status shared by a couple. This may, in fact, introduce into extension work a greater attention to working with farmer couples and avoidance of the practice detected throughout Africa of assuming husbands will transmit information to wives. Nonetheless, the majority of extension officers still may hold normative expectations of male authority in the household and this may impact their work with men and women farmers. On the positive side, it can sensitize them to decision making constraints for women; on the negative side, it may lead them to defer to male authority rather than support women farmers' decision making authority .
Educational Levels
Table 6.8 shows that about 19 percent of the field extension officers in the study have a college education (bachelor's and master's degrees in agriculture and veterinary science). However, the majority do not and many have not even completed high school
(Table 6.8).
Table 6.8. Educational Levels by Sex
Educational Level Men Total Women N' % N %N % At least some Secondary School 26 8 1 3 12 57.1 38 71.7 Diploma (Certificate) 2 6.2 3 143 5 9.4 Bachelor’s Degree 3 9.4 6 28.6 9 17.0 Master’s Degree 1 3.1 0 0 1 1.9 Total 32 100 21 100 53 100 165
Clearly, the extension officer population in Mukono District exhibits great variation in educational level and this may have an impact on their effectiveness and rates of turnover. Those less educated may be less likely to understand or obey policy mandates. Those with more education are likely to be more dissatisfied with the low salaries and difficult conditions of work. Moreover, higher education also creates the possibility of a communication gap between better educated officers and farmers who are functionally illiterate. In particular, better educated extension officers may be less respectful of "local knowledge" and more authoritarian in their interaction with farmers. Though not a focus of this study, these factors may exhibit their impact in farmers' opinions of extension services below.
Approximately 28 percent of field extension officers in the study have education beyond the diploma level (Table 6.9). The diploma and above level comprises extension officers, men and women field extension officers alike, with (1) two or three years of special training in agriculture from one of the nation’s agricultural training institutes; (2) a bachelor’ degree (B.Sc.) in agriculture from a recognized university; and (3) a master’s degree (M.Sc.) in agriculture. No field extension officer had the doctorate in agriculture or related fields at the time of the study. Field extension officers with less than diploma education consist of those with (1) at least primary 8 school certificate; (2) high school or middle school certificate, and (3) some secondary school education. These extension officers usually do not have formal classroom education in agriculture. Rather, as recruits, they are trained on the job, particularly through the monthly training sessions at the Mukono District Farm Institute (Ntaawo)
(Table 6.9). 166
Table 6.9. Age and Educational Level of Reid Extension Officers by Sex
Women Men Total
N % N% N % Educational Level Less than diploma 12 57.1 26 8 1 3 38 71.7 Diploma+ 9 42.9 6 18.8 15 2 8 3
Age Under 30 years of age 15 71.4 II 34.4 26 49.1 30 + years 6 28.6 21 65.6 27 50.9
Of those with more than diploma education, nearly 43 percent are women. The rest have at least some secondary school education. ‘ This could indicate (1) that alternative opportunities for well-educated women are lacking, (2) that in order to be hired, women must meet higher standards than men, or as Tables 6.5 and 6.9 show (3) that younger extension officers are increasingly well-educated and women tend to be younger than men in this population. Therefore, age, sex, and educational level covary.
Income
Salaries and wages in Uganda tend to be very low. As a point of comparison, assistant professors at Makerere University may earn as little as $300 a month—$3,600 per year. The yearly income of field extension officers in the study (Table 6.10) shows the vast majority (92.5%) of extension officers earn less than $2000 a year.
' Secondary School education is up to 16 years of formal education; diploma or certificate in agriculture entails two or three years of agricultural education in a farm institute (agricultural training centers) for post-secondary school students. Applicants with some secondary school education are also admitted to diploma programs in agriculture; bachelor’s degree (B.Sc.) in agriculture is additional four years of instruction in a university; a master’s degree (M.Sc.) in agriculture usually takes three years after completing B.Sc.. 167
Table 6.10. Yearly Cash Income
icome (US$) Men Total Women N % N % N% $0-$499 19 59.4 14 66.6 33 623 $500-$999 2 6.3 1 4.8 3 5.7 $1000-$1499 9 28.1 3 143 12 22.5 $1500-$1999 0 0 1 4.8 1 1.9 $2000-$2499 1 3.1 2 9.5 3 5.7 $2500 $2999 0 0 0 0 0 0 $3000-$3499 0 0 0 0 0 0 $3500 $3999 1 3.1 0 0 1 1.9 Total 32 100 21 100 53 100
Only four extension officers (7.5%) earn between $2000 and $4000 a year. The mean income is $720.72 for men extension officers, compared to $714.86 for women extension officers. The maximum income for men and women field extension officers is $3,600 and $2,790 respectively. This indicates that women may not be paid more for their higher educational levels or that seniority and experience greatly impact salary levels.
In summary, the study shows field extension officers differ, to a greater extent, from the farmers they serve. Extension officers tend to have higher incomes; a majority of the officers come from districts other than Mukono; and as was expected, field extension officers—especially women field extension officers—tend to be younger and better educated than farmers (Table 6.4). But language serves as a common denominator that binds both agents and farmers together. Using language as the basic commonality, it was assumed that extension agents would understand and sympathize with farmers under their care in the district. But whether or not a lingua-jranca is sufficient condition to understanding farmers can be ascertained by assessing the extent to which selected demographic characteristics of field extension officers are associated 168 with knowledge of farmers’ production practices and attitudes toward smallholder farmers.
Findings on Knowledge and Attitndes
The tendency of field extension officers to perceive farmers in favorable or unfavorable terms is described in this study as attitudes. In this sense, attitude toward the attitude object can be either positive or negative. It is negative in the sense that it connotes prejudice, or positive in the sense that it depicts high values (Petty and
Cacioppo 1981). Because field extension officers' attitudes toward farmers could not be measured or observed directly, attitudes toward the attitude object were inferred through the perceived responses of extension officers toward the attitude object by way of a questionnaire.
The questionnaire was designed to solicit two components of responses-conative and cognitive responses. While the cognitive component sought to explore knowledge about farmers and extension, the conative (behavioral component) sought responses to what action, given the expressed needs of and knowledge about farmers, field extension officers would take toward farmers relative to increased productivity and improved living standards through extension initiated projects. Within this framework, it was postulated that field extension officers' subjective knowledge of and or beliefs about farmers would be associated with their attitude toward Mukono District farmers.
Subjective knowledge or beliefs may originate from a combination of characteristics (the correlates of attitudes), among them gender, education, age, family structure, district of origin, income, ethnicity, religion. But the lack of significant differences between farmers and extension officers, and colinearity made it almost 169 impossible to use ail the identified correlates of attitudes. As a result, only age, education, gender, and marital status were used for the tests. These variables—age, education, gender, marital status—in one way or another, depict social characteristics that shape the attitudes of field extension officers toward smallholder farmers. The assumption is that these socio-demographic variables, among other extrinsic variables, are associated, in one way or another, with the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of extension officers toward smallholder farmers. Based on this and the conceptual framework of the study, specific hypotheses were formulated and tested. All hypotheses were tested in terms of p-value at the pre-specified alpha level =.05. Alpha is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis (Ho) is true.
Hypotheses were constructed around the following issues and themes.
A. Extension officer knowledge of production practices among smallholder farmers. Hypotheses were constructed to test the association between (a) knowledge and gender; (b) knowledge and education; and (c) knowledge and age.
B. Extension officer knowledge of decision making in farm households on selected farm tasks. Hypotheses were constructed to test the association between (a) knowledge and gender; (b) knowledge and education; and (c) knowledge and age.
C. Extension officer attitudes toward smallholder farmers. Hypotheses were constructed to test the relationship between attitudes, gender, age, education, and marital status.
D. Extension officer policy recommendations for smallholder farmers. An hypothesis was constructed to test the relationship between gender and policy recommendation. 170
E. The association between farm size and extension-farmer interaction.
F. Opinions of farmers on extension activity.
Nine socio-demographic variables of field extension officers were assumed to be associated with extension agent knowledge of farmers and their attitudes toward farmers. These variables include ethnicity, religion, age, gender, education, income, migratory status, marital status, and household head. However, because preliminary analyses showed no significant association between extension agent knowledge and attitudes toward farmers, it was decided to use variables deemed most relevant to the major hypotheses of the study -age, gender, and education—for hypotheses 1 through
10. Because of the nature of hypotheses 11 and 12, a fourth variable, marital status, was included.
Knowledge of Production Practices
Hypothesis 1: Women field extension officers will be more knowledgeable about production practices of Mukono District smallholder farmers than men field extension officers. To test this hypothesis, a knowledge scale was developed based on farmers' responses to Question 3 of the questionnaire designed for the study (Appendix A).
Using modal category procedures for the knowledge scale, the original response categories for Question 3 were collapsed into 5 or fewer categories. Categories that added up to 80 percent and above of farmer responses were considered "correct," while categories with less than 80 percent of farmer responses were considered
"incorrect." Responses from field extension officers were then recoded through the process of transformation as either "correct" or "incorrect." (Table 6.11). 171
Table 6.11. Knowledge of Production Practice by Sex
Correct Incorrect Chi-square DF p-value N % N % Value Land Prenaiation Women extension officers 20 95.2 1 4.8 Men extension officers 31 96.9 1 3.1 .094 0.760*
Planting crons on the farm Women extension officers 21 100.0 0 0 Men extension officers 31 96.9 1 3.1 .669 0.413*
Weeding the farm Women extension officers 21 100.0 0 0 Men extension officers 31 96.9 1 3.1 .669 0.413*
Snraving the farm Women extension officers 15 71.4 6 28.6 Men extension officers 27 84.4 5 15.6 1.292 0.256*
Annlving mulch (fertilization) Women extension officers 16 76.2 5 23.8 Men extension officers 23 71.9 9 28.1 .121 0.727*
Harvesting crotJS Women extension officers 20 95.2 1 4.8 Men extension officers 29 90.6 3 9.4 .657 0.534*
Transrx)rting crons home Women extension officers 20 95.2 1 4.8 Men extension officers 30 93.8 2 6.2 .053 0.819*
Transnorting crons to the market Women extension officers 11 52.4 10 47.6 Men extension officers 24 75.0 8 25.0 2.892 0.089*
Storing food Women extension officers 20 95.2 1 4.8 Men extension officers 30 94.8 2 5.2 .053 0.819*
*Not significant at p < .05.
Field extension officers were asked to indicate the labor sources available to farmers in performing nine selected agricultural production tasks. Among these tasks are (I) land preparation, (2) planting, (3) weeding, (4) spraying, (5) fertilization, (6) harvesting crops, (7) transporting crops home, (8) transporting crops to the market, and (9) storing food. Tables 6.11 through 6.13 present the results, using gender, education, and age as factors explaining variance in knowledge. 172
The low Chi-square values and high p-values of the test (Table 6.11) mean that differences between men and women field extension officers regarding knowledge of the nine selected production practices of Mukono District farmers are not statistically significant at p < .05. Gender and knowledge of the production practices of smallholder farmers are independent of each other. Men field extension officers are as likely as women to possess relatively accurate knowledge about the production practices of Mukono District smallholder farmers, perhaps because of their experience in the district Thus, there is not enough sample evidence to reject the null hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2: Field extension officers with college education will differ significantly in their knowledge of the production practices of Mukono District farmers from field extension officers with less than college education. Table 6.8 showed that the educational levels of Mukono District field extension officers (men and women extension officers alike) ranged from some secondary school to a masters degree. To produce a 2 x 2 Pearson chi-square Table, responses to Question 76 of the questioimaire designed for the study were recoded through the process of transformation. Based on the transformation process, recorded educational levels of field extension officers were collapsed into two categories—Diploma and above. Less than Diploma (Table 6.12).
The low Chi-square values and high p-values mean that differences in educational attainment of field extension officers regarding knowledge of the nine selected production practices of Mukono District farmers are not statistically significant at p < .05. That means educational level and knowledge of the production practices of smallholder farmers are independent of each other. 173
Table 6.12. Knowledge by Educational Level
Correct Incorrect Chi-square DF p-value Knowledge Knowledge Value
N % N % Land Prenaiation Diploma+ 14 93.3 1 6.7 Less Than Di^csna 37 97.4 1 2.6 .482 1 .487
Planting crons on the farm Diploma+ 15 100 0 0 Less Than Diploma 37 97.4 1 2.6 .402 1 .717
Weeding the farm Diploma+ 15 100 0 0 Less Than Diploma 37 97.4 1 2.6 .402 1 .717
Snraving the farm Diploma+ 9 60.0 6 40.0 Less Than Diploma 33 86.8 5 13.2 4.711 1 .040*
Annlving mulch/manure Diploma+ 10 66.7 5 3 3 3 Less Than Diploma 29 763 9 23.7 .515 1 .348
Harvesting crons Diploma+ 14 9 33 1 6.7 Less Than Diploma 35 92.1 3 7.9 .023 1 .684
Transnorting crons home Diploma+ 14 933 1 6.7 Less Than Diploma 36 94.7 2 5.3 .040 1 .640
TransTXHting crons to the market Diploma+ 12 80.0 3 20.0 Less Than Diploma 23 60.5 15 39.5 1.818 1 .178
Storing food Diploma+ 15 100 0 0 Less Than Diploma 35 92.1 3 7.9 1.255 1 360
*Significant at p < .05.
The educational level of field extension officers makes little if any difference in the extent to which extension officers are knowledgeable about the production practices of smallholder farmers. However, with respect to spraying the farm, Table 6.12 shows field extension officers with less than diploma education are more likely than field 174 extension ofHcers with more than diploma education to possess relatively accurate knowledge about farmers' production practices.
Hypothesis 3: Field extension officers 30 years and older will differ significantly in their knowledge of the production practices of farmers from field extension officers under 30 years of age (Table 6.13).
Table 6.13. Knowledge by Age
Agricultural Task Correct Incorrect Chi-square DF p-value Knowledge Knowledge Value N % N % Land Preparation 30 years and above 26 963 1 3.7 Under 30 years of age 25 96.2 1 3.8 .001 1 .745*
Planting crops on the farm 30 years and above 27 100 0 0 Under 30 years of age 25 96.2 1 3.8 1.058 .491*
Weeding the farm 30 years and above 27 100 0 0 Under 30 years of age 25 96.2 1 3.8 1.059 .49 U
Annlving m nlch/m anuTE 30 years and above 20 74.1 7 25.9 Under 30 years of age 19 73.1 7 26.9 .007 .934*
Harvesting crops 30 years and above 26 9 6 3 1 3.7 Under 30 years of age 23 88.5 3 11.5 1.165 .29 U
T ransnorting crops home 30 years and above 25 92.6 2 7.4 Under 30 years of age 25 96.2 1 3.8 .315 .514*
Transnorting crops to the market 30 years and above 19 70.4 8 29.6 Under 30 years of age 16 61.5 10 38.5 .461 .497*
Spraying the farm 30 years and above 21 77.8 6 22.2 Under 30 years of age 21 80.8 5 19.2 .072 .788*
Storing food 30 years and above 26 96.3 1 3.7 Under 30 years of age 24 92.3 2 7.7 .395 .486*
*Not significant at p < .05. 175
To test Hypothesis 3, the ages of field extension officers, ranging from 19 to 49
(Table 6.5) were collapsed into two age groups: (a) 30 years and older, and (b) under
30 years of age. The two age categories were based on the overall mean age (31.6) of
the field extension officers who participated in the study. The results of the test show
that differences in age of field extension officers regarding knowledge of the nine
selected production practices of Mukono District farmers are not statistically
significant at p < .05. That means young extension agents are as likely as old extension
agents to have accurate knowledge of the production practices of Mukono District
farmers. Age and knowledge of production practices of farmers in Mukono District
are independent of each other.
Knowledge of Decision Making in Farm Households
Hvpothesis 4: Women field extension officers will be more knowledgeable about
decision making on selected farm tasks among Mukono District smallholder farmers
than men field extension officers.
To test this hypothesis, a knowledge scale was developed based on farmers'
responses to Question 4 of the questionnaire designed for the study. Using modal category procedures for the knowledge scale, the original response categories for
Question 4 were collapsed into 5 or fewer categories. Categories that added up to 80
percent and above of farmer responses were declared "correct," while categories with
less than 80 percent of farmer responses were declared "incorrect." Responses from
field extension officers were then recoded through the process of transformation as either "correct" or "incorrect (Table 6.14). 176
Table 6.14. Knowledge of Decision Making by Sex
Correct Incorrect Chi-square DF p-value N % N % What to plant on the farm Women extension ofllcers 21 100 0 0 Men extension officers 30 93.8 2 6.3 1.364 1 .243*
When to plant crops on the farm Women extension officers 20 95.2 1 4.8 Men extension officers 24 75.0 8 25.0 3.684 1 .055*
Trvine innovations on the farm Women extension officers 18 85.7 3 14.3 Men extension officers 28 87.5 4 12.5 .035 1 .851*
When to harvest crops Women extension officers 20 95.2 1 4.8 Men extension officers 27 84.4 5 15.6 1.490 1 .222*
When to sell crops from the farm Women extension officers 21 100 0 0 Men extension officers 29 90.6 3 9.4 2.087 1 .149*
Whether to set a loan Women extension officers 21 100 0 0 Men extension officers 31 96.9 1 3.1 .669 1 .413*
What familv members will eat Women extension officers 21 100 0 0 Men extension officers 30 93.8 2 6.3 1.364 1 .243*
Whether to buy farm inputs Women extension officers 21 100 0 0 Men extension officers 31 96.9 1 3.1 .669 1 .413*
What to do with farm income Women extension officers 21 100 0 0 Men extension officers 31 96.9 1 3.1 .669 1 .413* *Not significant at p < .05.
A chi-square test of independence was conducted using knowledge and gender as the factors of interest. In Question 4, field extension officers were asked to indicate who makes decision on nine selected agricultural activities in Mukono District farm households. Among the activities are (1) What crops to plant on the farm, (2) When to plant crops, (3) Trying agricultural innovations, (4) When to harvest crops, (5) When 177 to sell crops, (6) Whether to get a lozm, (7) What family members will eat at home, (8)
Whether to buy farm inputs, and (9) What to do with farm income.
The null hypothesis (Ho) is that men and women field extension officers do not differ significantly in their knowledge of who makes decisions on specific agricultural activities in Mukono District farm households. Tables 6.14 through 6.16 present the results and conclusions of Hypothesis 2 at the pre-specified value of p <05. The analyses suggest that differences between men and women field extension officers regarding knowledge of the nine selected decision making activities among Mukono
District farmers are not statistically significant at p <05. Men field extension officers are as likely as women field extension officers to have accurate knowledge about decision making in Mukono District households. Gender and knowledge of smallholder farmers’ decision making are independent of each other.
Hvpothesis 5: Field extension officers with college education will differ significantly in their knowledge of decision making in rural households from field extension officers with less than college education. To test Hypothesis 5, the educational levels of field extension officers (Table 6.8) were collapsed into two categories— diploma and above, less than diploma. Differences in knowledge of decision making were then tested, using 2 x 2 chi-square statistical procedures. Presented in Table 6.15 are the results and conclusions of the test. The low Chi-square values and high f>-values mean there is not enough sample evidence to reject the null hypothesis. This means that differences in educational attainment of field extension officers regarding knowledge of the nine selected decision making activities among Mukono District farmers are not statistically significant at p < 05 (Table 6.15). 178
Table 6.15. Knowledge of Decision Making by Educational Levels
Correct Incorrect Chi-square DF p-value Value N % N % What crops to plant on the farm Less than diploma 36 70.6 2 100 Diploma+ 15 29.4 0 0 .820 .510*
When to plant crops on the farm Less than diploma 32 72.7 6 66.7 Diploma+ 12 2 7 3 3 33.3 .499*
Trvine irmovations on the farm Less than diploma 33 71.7 5 71.4 Diploma+ 13 2 8 3 2 28.6 .649*
When to harvest crops Less than diploma 33 70.2 5 83.3 Diploma+ 14 29.8 1 16.7 .448*
When to sell crops from the farm Less than diploma 35 70.0 3 100 Diploma+ 15 30.0 0 0 1.255 360*
Whether to eet a loan Less than diploma 37 71.2 1 100 Diploma+ 15 28.8 0 0 .402 .717*
What familv members will eat Less than diploma 36 70.6 2 100 Diploma+ 15 29.4 0 0 .820 .510*
Whether to buv farm inputs Less than diploma 37 71.2 1 100 Diploma+ 15 28.8 0 0 .402 .717*
What to do with farm income Less than diploma 37 71.2 1 100 Diploma+ 15 28.8 0 0 .402 .717*
*Not significant at p < .05.
Field extension officers with less than diploma education are as likely as field extension officers with more than diploma education to have accurate knowledge about who makes decisions on the nine selected activities in rural households. Educational level and knowledge of field extension officers on decision making in the household appear to be independent of each other (Table 6.15). 179
Hypothesis 6: Held extension officers 30 years and older will differ significantly in their knowledge of decision making in farm households from field extension officers under 30 years of age (Table 6.16).
Table 6.16. Knowledge of Decision Making by Age
Agricultural Task Correct Incorrect Chi-square DF p-value Knowledge Knowledge Value N % N % What to olant on the f arm 30 years and above 27 ICO 0 0 Under 30 years o f age 24 9 2 3 2 7.7 2.158 1 .236*
When to niant crops in the farm 30 years and above 22 81.5 5 18.5 Under 30 years of age 22 84.6 4 15.4 .092 1 .525*
Trvine innovations 30 years and above 25 92.6 2 7.4 Under 30 years of age 21 80.8 5 19.2 1.615 1 .194*
When to harvest crons from the farm 30 years and above 26 9 6 3 1 3.7 Under 30 years of age 23 88.5 3 11.5 1.165 1 .291*
When to sell crons 30 years and above 26 9 6 3 1 3.7 Under 30 years of age 24 9 2 3 2 7.7 .395 1 .486*
What familv members will eat 30 years and above 27 100 0 0 Under 30 years o f age 24 9 2 3 2 7.7 2.158 1 .236*
Whether to get a loan 30 years and above 27 100 0 0 Under 30 years of age 25 96.2 1 3.8 1.058 1 .491*
What to do with farm income 30 years and above 27 100 0 0 Under 30 years of age 25 96.2 1 3.8 1.058 1 .491*
What proportion of income to save 30 years and above 26 9 6 3 1 3.7 Under 30 years of age 25 96.2 1 3.8 .001 1 .745*
*Not significant at p < .05.
To test this hypothesis, the ages of field extension officers who participated in the study were collapsed into two categories—Under 30 years of age and 30 years and 180 above. The results of the test, presented in Table 6.16, show that there are no statistically significant differences in knowledge of decision making in farm households relative to age. Held extension officers imder 30 years of age are as likely as field extension officers 30 years and older to possess accurate knowledge about decision making in farm households in Mukono District.
Extension Attitudes Toward Farmers
This section covers the attitudes of field extension officers toward farmers in the rural areas of Mukono District. Because the basic assumption in this study was that attitudes may or may not be a function of knowledge, the variables presumed to be associated with attitudes were examined separately. The same variables—gender, age, education, and marital status-that might be associated with knowledge of the production practices of farmers and decision making of selected tasks in farm households (Tables 6.II through 6.16) could also be associated with attitudes toward farmers independent of their impact on knowledge. Also, impacting on knowledge and attitudes is the social setting under which field extension officers operate, interact, and relate with farmers.
The interrelationship between farmers and field extension officers, the range, diversity, and the way field extension officers, collectively and individually, construct their social setting, and how the social setting influences attitudes or constraints extension work, constitute major categories of a social phenomenon associated with selected socio-demographic characteristics of extension agents. Among these characteristics are age, gender, education, and marital status (Davidson & Jaccard
1979; Brehm & Brehm 1981; Lord, Lepper, & Mackie 1984). 181
While these characteristics affect field extension officers attitudes toward farmers, they can also lead extension officers to ignore what they know about farming and farmers, thereby engaging in practices that are incompatible with project and pohcy implementation.
Given these assumptions, it is postulated that attitudes can create economic and cultural barriers, and even promote gendered ethnocentrism—a sociological phenomenon that inculcates the notion that a group of people, men farmers, for example, is superior and possesses unlimited access to extension visits and extension activity, or even that men farmers possess the only right way of doing farming in the rural areas of Mukono District.
Thus, where extension attitudes are biased in favor of men farmers, or become entrenched in ethnocentric policies, the tendency is to stifle initiative and the productive capabilities of another group of farmers—women farmers, for example. In this way, attitudes tend to make the real and the most visible farmers invisible. On the bases of these assumptions, the following hypotheses (Tables 17 through 20) were formulated and tested for the study, using gender, age, education, and marital status as the variables of interest
Hypothesis 7: The attitudes of men field extension officers toward Mukono
District farmers will differ significantly from the attitudes of women field extension officers. Because of small numbers, the three response categories of 20 selected Likert-
Type attitude questions for field extension officers (Agree, Don't know. Disagree) were collapsed into two—Agree, Disagree—for a 2 x 2 Pearson chi-square test analysis.
Table 6.17 presents the results. 1 8 2
Table 6.17. Extension Attitudes Toward Farmers by Sex
Disagree Agree Chi-square OF p-value=* N % N % Value
Agriculture in Uganda should aim at producing cash crops for export Women extension officers 16 80.0 4 20.0 Men extension officers 23 793 6 20.7 .003 1 .623
Men farmers should provide all the labor input on the family farm. Women extension officers 19 90.5 2 9.5 Men extension officers 25 86.2 4 13.8 .210 1 .501
Women farmers should produce only food for family consumption Women extension officers 18 85.7 3 143 Men extension officers 25 78.1 7 21.9 .477 1 .376
Men farmers should make the decisions on how land is used Women extension officers 8 42.1 11 57.9 Men extension officers 11 36.7 19 63.3 .145 1 .703
Inadequate access to land should not affect women farmers' ability to increase food production Women extension officers 5 23.8 16 76.2 Men extension officers 3 10.0 27 90.0 1.781 1 .182
Women farmers should not use inputs such as fertilizers to increase food production Women extension officers 19 100 0 0 Men extension officers 30 93.8 2 6.3 1.236 1 .390
Fertilizers should be used only for the production of cash crops such as coffee and sugarcane Women extension officers 19 95.0 1 5.0 Men extension officers 28 93.3 2 6.7 .059 1 .651
Extension programs are useful to women farmers. Women extension officers 1 4.8 20 95.2 Men extension officers 0 0 30 100 1.457 1 .412
Extension programs are useful to men farmers. Women extension officers 1 5.0 19 95.0 Men extension officers 1 3.2 30 96.8 .102 1 .635 183
Table 6.17. Extension Attitudes Toward Farmers by Sex (continued)
Disagree Agree Chi-square DF p-value* Value N % N % Men fanners should participate in extension training programs more than women farmers. Women extension officers 13 72.2 5 27.8 Men extension officers 14 45.2 17 54.8 3.371 1 .066
Extension training programs involve as many women farmers as men farmers. Women extension officers 9 45.0 II 55.0 Men extension officers 14 50.0 14 50.0 .117 1 .732
Most women farmers would participate in extension training programs if women extension officers invite them. Women extension officers 6 40.0 19 60.0 Men extension officers 17 68.0 8 32.0 3.007 1 .083
More women farmers would participate in extension training programs if childcare facilities were available. Women extension officers 4 23.5 13 76.5 Men extension officers 3 13.6 19 86.4 .637 1 .350
Women farmers should have direct access to loans and credit Women extension officers 4 20.0 16 80.0 Men extension officers 6 23.1 20 76.9 .063 1 .547
Men farmers should have direct access to loans and credit Women extension officers 6 30.0 14 70.0 Men extension officers 11 40.7 16 64.7 .574 1 . 449
Women farmers cannot have credit without support (permission) from their husbands. Women extension officers 12 60.0 8 40.0 Men extension officers 12 46.2 14 53.8 .869 1 .351
Men farmers carmot have credit without support (permission) from their wives. Women extension officers 19 95.0 1 5.0 Men extension officers 27 90.0 3 10.0 .408 1 .472
Women farmers should not borrow from the bank because they may not be able to repay the loan. Women extension officers 9 50.0 9 50.0 Men extension officers 16 51.6 15 48.4 .012 1 .913 184
Table 6.17. Extension Attitudes Toward Farmers by Sex (continued)
Disagree Agree Chi-square DF p-value* Value N % N Men farmers should not borrow from the bank because they may not be able to repay the loan. Women extension officers 13 68.4 6 31.6 Men extension Officers 18 643 10 35.7 .086 1 .769
Extension officers and farmers should play an important role in agricultural and eccmomic development of Uganda. Women extension officers 0 0 20 100 Men extension officers 1 3.1 31 96.9 .637 1 .615 *Not significant at p < .05.
The analyses show there is not enough sample evidence to reject the null hypothesis of no difference at p < .05. The figures in Table 6.17 suggest that men and women field extension officers do not differ significantly in their attitudes toward and beliefs regarding farmers in the rural areas of Mukono District Thus, Mukono District field extension officers, irrespective of gender, have similar attitudes toward smallholder farmers.
Hypothesis 8: The attitudes of young field extension officers (under 30 years of age) toward smallholder farmers will differ significantly from the attitudes of older field extension officers (30 years and above). The low chi-square values and high p- values show there is in not enough sample evidence to reject the null hypothesis (Table
6.18). There are no statistically significant differences between the attitudes of young and old field extension officers toward Mukono District farmers. With respect to credit, however, the analysis shows field extension officers 30 years and above are more likely than field extension officers under 30 years of age to agree men farmers cannot have credit without support (permission) from their wives. 185
Table 6.18. Extension Attitudes Toward Farmers by Age
Disagree Agree Chi-square DF p-value* Value N N Agriculture in Uganda should aim at producing cash crops for exrx)rt. 30 years and above 22 84.6 4 15.4 Under 30 years of age 17 73.9 6 26.1 .861 .283
Men farmers should provide all the labor input on the family farm. 30 years and above 22 91.7 2 8 .3 Under 30 years of age 22 84.6 4 15.4 .588 .3 7 4
Women farmers should produce only food for family consumption. 30 years and above 22 81.5 5 18.5 Under 30 years of age 21 80.8 5 19.2 .0 0 4 .947
Men farmers should make the decisions on how land is used. 30 years and above 9 36.0 16 64.0 Under 30 years of age 10 41.7 14 58.3 .166 .684
Inadequate access to land should not affect women farmers' ability to increase food production. 30 years and above 22 84.6 4 15.4 Under 30 years of age 17 73.9 6 26.1 .861 .283
Women farmers should not use inputs such as fertilizers to increase food production. 30 years and above 25 96.2 1 3 .8 Under 30 years of age 24 96.0 1 4 .0 .001 .745
Fertilizers should be used only for the production of cash crops such as coffee and sugarcane. 30 years and above 24 96.0 1 4 .0 Under 30 years of age 23 92.0 2 8 .0 .355 .500
Extension programs are useful to women farmers. 30 years and above 0 0 26 100 Under 30 years of age 1 4 .0 24 9 6 .0 1.061 .490 1 8 6
Table 6.18. Extension Attitudes Toward Farmers by Age (continued)
Disagree Agree Chi-square DF p-value* Value N % N % Extension training programs are useful to men farmers. 30 years and above 1 4.0 24 96.0 Under 30 years of age 1 3.8 25 96.2 .001 I .745
Men farmers should participate in extension training programs more than women farmers. 30 years and above 15 60.0 10 40.0 Under 30 years of age 12 50.0 12 50.0 .495 I .482
Extension training programs involve as many women farmers as men farmers. 30 years and above 12 5 2 .2 11 4 7 .8 Under 30 years of age 11 44.0 14 56.0 .321 I .571
Most women farmers would participate in extension training programs if women extension officers invite them. 30 years and above 11 52.4 10 47.6 Under 30 years of age 12 63.2 7 36.8 .474 1 .491
More women farmers would participate in extension training programs if childcare facilities were available. 30 years and above 4 20.0 16 80.0 Under 30 years of age 3 15.8 16 84.2 .117 1 .531
Women farmers should have direct access to loans and credit 30 years and above 6 28.6 15 71.4 1.060 1 .251 Under 30 years of age 4 16.0 21 84.0
Men farmers should have direct access to loans and credit 30 years and above 7 29.2 17 70.8 Under 30 years of age 10 43.5 13 56.5 1.042 1 .307
Women farmers should not borrow from the bank because they will be unable to repay the loan. 30 years and above 12 48.0 13 52.0 Under 30 years of age 13 54.2 11 45.8 .186 1 .666 187
Table 6.18. Extension Attitudes Toward Farmers by Age (continued)
Disagree Agree Chi-square DF p-value Value N % N %
Women farmers carmot have credit without support (permission) from their husbands. 30 years and above 25 96.2 I 3.8 Under 30 years of age 21 87.5 3 12.5 1.270 1 .275
Men farmers cannot have credit without support (permission) from their w ives. 30 years and above 9 37.5 15 62.5 Under 30 years of age 15 68.2 7 31.8 4.330 1 .037*
Extension officers and farmers should play an important role in the agricultural and eccmomic development o f Uganda. 30 years and above 0 0 27 100 Under 30 years of age 1 4.0 24 96.0 1.101 1 .481 ♦Significant at p < .05
Hypothesis 9: Reid extension officers with more than diploma education will differ significantly in their attitudes toward farmers from field extension officers with less than diploma education. The results show field extension officers with more than diploma education are more likely than field extension officers with less than diploma education to disagree with the notion that men farmers should participate more in extension training programs than women farmers. With respect to credit, on one hand, the analysis shows that field extension officers with less than diploma education are more likely than field extension officers with more than diploma education to agree that men should have direct access to loans and credit (Table 6.19). 188
Table 6.19. Extension Attitudes Toward Farmers by Educational Levels
Disagree Agree Chi-square DF p-value Value N % N % Agriculture in Uganda should aim at producing cash crops for export. Less than diploma 27 6 9 .2 9 90.0 Diploma+ 12 3 0 .8 1 10.0 1.761 .180
Men farmers should provide all the labor input on the family farm. Less than diploma 31 7 0 .5 4 66.7 Diploma+ 13 2 9 .5 2 3 3 3 .036 .591
Women farmers should produce only food for family consumption. Less than diploma 31 72.1 7 70.0 Diploma+ 12 2 7 .9 3 3 0 .0 .018 .587
Men farmers should make the decisions on how land is used. Less than diploma 16 8 4 .2 20 66.7 Diploma+ 3 15.8 10 3 3 3 1.837 .175
Inadequate access to land should not affect women farmers’ ability to increase food production. Less than diploma 5 6 2 .5 31 72.1 Diploma+ 3 3 7 .5 12 27.9 .299 .435
Women farmers should not use inputs such as fertilizers to increase food production. Less than diploma 35 7 1 .4 2 100 Diploma+ 14 28 .6 0 0 .788 .522
Fertilizers should be used only for the production of cash crons such as coffee. Less than diploma 33 7 0 .2 2 66.7 Diploma + 14 2 9 .8 1 3 3 3 .017 .666
Extension programs are useful to women farmers. Less than diploma 0 0 36 7 2.0 Diploma+ 1 100 14 28.0 2.448 .294 189
Table 6.19. Extension Attitudes Toward Farmers by Educational Levels (continued)
Disagree Agree Chi-square DF p-value Value N % N %
Extension programs are useful to men farmers. Less than diploma 1 50.0 35 71.4 Diploma+ 1 50.0 14 28.6 .425 I .506
Men farmers should participate in extension training programs more than women farmers. Less than diploma 16 593 19 86.4 Diploma+ 11 40.7 3 13.6 4.364 1 .037*
Extension training programs should involve as many women farmers as men farmers. Less than diploma 16 69.6 17 68.0 Diploma-t- 7 30.4 8 32.0 .014 1 .907
Most women farmers would participate in extension training programs if women extension officers invite them. Less than diploma 18 783 12 70.6 Diploma + 5 21.7 5 29.4 .307 1 .424
More women farmers would participate in extension training programs if childcare facilities were available. Less than diploma 5 71.4 23 71.9 Diploma+ 2 28.6 9 28.1 .001 1 .654
Women farmers should have direct access to loans and credit Less than diploma 24 66.7 7 70.0 Diploma + 12 333 3 30.0 .040 1 .582
Men farmers should have direct access to loans and credit. Less than diploma 18 60.0 15 88.2 Diploma + 12 40.0 2 11.8 4.136 1 .042*
Women farmers cannot have credit without support (permission) from their husbands. Less than diploma 15 62.5 18 81.8 Diploma + 9 37.5 4 18.2 2.113 1 .146
Men farmers cannot have credit without support from their wives. Less than diploma 32 69.6 4 1(X) Diploma+ 14 30.4 0 0 1.691 1 .256 190
Table 6.19. Extension Attitudes Toward Farmers by Educational Levels (continued)
Disagree Agree Chi-square DF p-value Value N % N % Women fanners should not borrow from the banks because they will be unable to pay back the loan. Less than diploma 17 68.0 18 75.0 Diploma+ 8 32.0 6 25.0 .294 1 .588
Men farmers should not borrow from the banks because they will be unable to pay back the loan. Less than diploma 22 71.0 11 68.8 Diploma + 9 29.0 5 323 .025 1 .565
Extension officers and farmers should play an important role in the development of Uganda. Less than diploma 1 100 36 70.6 Diploma + 0 0 15 29.4 .413 1 .712
^Significant at p < .05.
The figures in Table 6.19 show field extension officers with less than diploma education are more likely than field extension officers with more than diploma education to agree that men farmers should participate in extension training programs more than women farmers. In the same token, field extension officers with less than diploma education are more likely than field extension officers with more than diploma education to agree that men farmers should have direct access to loans and credit. No significant differences were found in the other items.
Hypothesis 10. Attitudes held by extension officers toward Mukono District smallholder farmers will be more negative among men, older officers, the better educated, and married officers than among women, younger officers, the less well educated, and single field extension officers. To test this hypothesis, a new variable
"Attitude Type" was derived through the process of transformation, using the SPSS 191
6.1.1 statistical packet The mean attitudes scores of 20 selected attitudes items from the
Questionnaire designed for the study (Appendix A) was calculated from the formula:
Let Average = Avg (XI, X2, X3...X20). Mean attitude scores > 2.0 were classified as
"positive," while mean attitude scores < 2 were labeled "negative." To establish the statistical significance of these differences (positive or negative attitudes) and the extent to which positive or negative attitudes are associated with gender, age, level of education, and marital status, statistical significance tests were conducted, using chi- square test of independence procedures. Table 6.20 presents the results.
Table 6.20. Attitude Type by Gender, Age, Education, Marital Status
Negative Positive Chi-square DF p-value Attitudes Attitudes Value N % N %
Gender Women extension officers 2 3 3 3 19 40.4 Men extension officers 4 6 6 .7 28 59.6 .112 1 .553*
Age 30+ years 3 5 0 .0 24 51.1 Under 30 years of age 3 5 0 .0 23 48.9 .002 1 .647*
Level o f Education Less titan diploma 5 8 3 3 33 70.2 Diploma+ 1 16.7 14 29.8 .451 1 .448*
N^farital Status Married 4 6 6 .7 37 78.7 Single 2 33 .3 10 2 1 3 .442 1 .412* *Not significant at p < .05.
The results of the chi-square test of independence (Table 6.19) indicate that there is not enough sample evidence to reject the null hypothesis. Men field extension officers are as likely as women field extension officers to hold positive or negative attitudes towzu’d smallholder farmers, irrespective of age, level of education, or marital 192 status. Thus, gender, age, level of education, marital status, and attitudes are independent of one another.
Policy Formulation and Implementation
As stated in Chapter HI, the extension service in Uganda is under the direct control and administration of the Ministry of Agriculture. The Ministry of Agriculture consists of three major departments—Agriculture, Fisheries, and Veterinary (Animal
Industry), and is headed by the Minister of Agriculture. Each of the three departments has a separate director and a number of officials who help to formulate policy objectives for the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) (Najjingo-Kasujja 1990; Padde 1993;
MOA 1984, 1994).
Among the current policies are (1) ensuring an adequate supply of food and nutrition for the Ugandan people; (2) improving the living standards of Ugandans, particularly those who live in the rural areas, through meaningful rural development programs; (3) targeting and equipping farmers (men and women farmers alike) with technology and new methods of farming; (4) increasing yields and productivity through improved farming systems and extension activities coordinated by the nation's research stations; (5) improving land, soil, and water conservation; (6) promoting the production of raw materials; (7) increasing exports; and (8) creating employment opportunities for people who depend on agriculture for a livelihood (Najjingo-Kasujja
1990; Padde 1993; MOA 1984, 1994). 193
The MOA acknowledges that agricultural development in Uganda can hardly be achieved without addressing the specific needs of women farmers. The policy is to cater to farmers’ needs by providing adequate extension services to smallholder farmers in the rural areas, most of whom are women (MOA 1984). Unfortunately, specific women/training programs and projects imder the Ministry of Agriculture,
Animal Industry, and fisheries (MAAIF) fall directly under the Home Economics
Section of the Ministry.
The Home Economics program is implemented through women groups and mainly concentrates on nutrition, childcare, home management, and clothing. It therefore does not cater for technologies aimed at improving food production, except in the field of vegetable growing and food utilization (Mengo 1994:3).
Programs implemented through women’s groups focus mostly on issues traditionally considered feminine rather than address the technical needs of women farmers, particularly farmers who live and work in the remote areas of the country.
The evidence also shows “home economics projects” often translate into welfare programs and soon become extinct (Buvinic, 1986). Projects implemented in this way tend to bias extension services against women farmers (Buvinic 1986). Since home economics projects almost invariably concentrate on traditionally perceived domestic chores for homemakers (Tinker 1990; Moser 1993; Besteman 1995)—such projects often give the impression to field extension officers that women should be considered homemakers rather than farmers. Because extension perceives women as homemakers rather than real farmers, field extension officers tend to interact more with men farmers thm women farmers (see Table 6.24). 194
Extension interaction with farmers is often seen in terms of extension visits, attendance at extension-organized on-farm demonstrations, and adoption of new farm practices. To encourage extension interaction with women farmers, it is the policy of the Ministry of Agriculture to hire more women extension officers and to make sure that women and smallholder farmers participate actively in extension-organized projects. However, extension women-farmer interaction is severely constrained by the very policy that purports to promote a meaningful farmer-interaction. MOA policy in regard to extension-farmer interaction is to rely on women field extension officers as the conduit for instant communication with women farmers and transmission of agricultural information to farmers who need extension help the most But women field extension officers constitute only 12.8 percent of the nation’s 2108 field extension officers. Moreover, of the nation’s agricultural institutions, including Makerere
University, only Bukalasa Agricultural College offers training in home economics to prospective women field extension officers at the diploma level. But women form only a small percentage of the Bukalasa College student population (Mengo, 1994). In sum,
MOA policy mandates that women officers work with women, but women field extension officers don’t have transportation. Using bicycles to reach farmers in the rural areas is by no means safe. It is a risky enterprise. Given that transportation and safety issues are real problems for women field extension officers, it seems clear that women officers have even less chance than men of fulfilling MOA mandated obligations. 195
In Mukono District, the Monthly Training Sessions at the District Farm Institute
(DEI) at Ntaawo often discuss policies affecting farmers in general rather than initiating mechanisms that deal specifically policies targeting women farmers. Greater attention is devoted to agricultural extension training methods and techniques, irrespective of gender. Among the most popular topics for instruction are adoption of recommended practices, fertilization (mulch and manure), spacing, desuckering, pruning, insect control, food security (cleaning produce before selling), and innovations, among which is the introduction of income generating enterprises, such as mushroom growing.
Every month, at the Mukono District Farm Institute, field extension officers throughout the district attend training sessions organized by the Mukono District
Extension Office in Mukono City. New policy directives are explained and extension agents are urged to implement There is very little or no discussion on the merits and demerits of the policy in question and whether or not that policy is conducive to the needs of farmers, the ultimate beneficiaries of policy. Extension agents simply have to implement it under the supervision of the District Extension Coordinator (DEC).
The Monthly Training Sessions are designed to enhance the teaching and communication skills of field extension officers. The program also emphasizes extension officer qualifications, responsibilities, and “the-dos-and-donts” of extension agents. Mukono District field extension officers, comprising subject matter specialists
(SMS), county extension coordinators (CECs), and field extension officers (FEOs), are told what their specific duties are and what is expected of them in regard to implementing policies initiated at the national headquarters at Entebbe. 196
Asked whether they consider the Monthly Training Sessions useful to them in their work (Q142, Appendix A), 95 percent of the field extension officers in the study
(women and men field extension officers alike) said they find the training sessions extremely useful. However, interviews and conversations with the agents revealed that
83.5 percent are not satisfied with the way they receive policy directives. Field extension officers want to participate actively in policy formulation regarding extension-recommended information and new farming practices for farmers under their care. They would also like to see established specific measures that address the needs of women farmers since the Ministry of Agriculture aims at helping women to be more productive by actively engaging in extension activities. County extension coordinators (CECs) who supervise most field extension officers are of the opinion that
CECs and their subordinates (FEOs) should play a role in recommending innovative practices for farmers in the areas under their supervision.
Thus, it appears that Uganda’s public sector extension service, constrained by institutional and logistic factors, does not have established specific mechanisms that directly address women’s informational and technical needs as farmers. Theoretically, the Ministry targets women farmers, but translated into practice, the extension service depends, to a greater extent, on external agencies, such as non governmental organizations (NGOs), to cater to the real needs of women farmers in the rural areas.
Among such NGO projects are the Buwama Integrated Cooperative Development
Program (BICODEP). Sponsored by the World Vision of Uganda (1994), BICODEP aims at helping women to be financially independent through income generating enterprises such as fruit growing and poultry keeping; Agricultural Development 197
Project (ADP 1986), which aims at input distribution and dissemination of improved seeds to women farmers in the northern and eastern parts of Uganda; the South
Western Regional Agricultural Rehabilitation Program (1988) with a focus on research; emd the Agricultural Extension Program (AEP) which has been operating in seven districts since its implementation in 1991. The AEP, for example, has women and youths as the target audience.
Although sponsored by international agencies, most of these projects that target women are under the auspices of the MOA and operate through the home economics section of the Ministry whose directors and senior officers control all policy initiatives.
While the directors advise the permanent secretary on policy formulation and agricultural extension issues, senior agricultural officers report directly to assistant commissioners in the Ministry (see Figure 4). Senior agricultural officers in turn supervise the work of agricultural officials within the extension system in the 39 districts of the country. As Figure 4 shows, the most important agricultural officials operate from the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) headquarters at Entebbe (Najjingo-
Kasujja 1990; Padde 1993; MOA 1984, 1994).
Besides Entebbe, MOA has branches in each of the 39 districts of Uganda. In each district, the Department of Agriculture is headed by the district agricultural officer (DAO), also called the district extension coordinator (DEC). The DAO is vested with supervisory powers over all agricultural officials in the district -from the county extension coordinator (CEC) to subject matter specialists (SMS) to field extension officers (FEOs). The DAO is responsible for the overall implementation of 198 the policy objectives of the Ministry of Agriculture, particularly policies related to extension programs and projects (Padde 1993; MOA 1984, 1994).
Thus, field extension officers do not participate in policy formulation. Rather, policy is initiated at the Ministry of Agriculture headquarters in Entebbe and passed onto the DAOs in the districts who work with their subordinates to implement official decisions arrived at by trained professionals and technicians (national level bureaucrats). However, it is the field extension officers, often the least trained personnel in the administrative echelon of the extension system, who implement decisions, introduce technology and new farming methods to farmers and are charged with helping to improve the living standards of rural farmers (Najjingo-Kasujja 1990;
Padde 1993; MOA 1984, 1994). It is with this backdrop that extension policy recommendations for farmers are examined.
Policy Recommendations
Hypothesis 11. Men and women field extension officers will differ significantly in policy recommendations for smallholder farmers. "Policy recommendations" were operationalized as projects field extension officers (men and women) would like to see extension establish for smallholder farmers. To test this hypothesis, extension officers were asked to suggest (recommend) three projects they would like to see extension establish for smallholder farmers. Field extension officers recommended two main categories of projects: Training Projects and Income Generating Enterprises (Table
6 .21). 199
Table 6.21. Policy Recommendations by Gender
Training Income Chi-square DF p-value Projects Generating Value Enterprises
N % N%
Women Officers 3 14.3 18 85 .7
Men officers 11 3 4 .4 21 65.6 2.633 1 .105* *Not significant at p < .05.
The high p-value of the chi-square test of independence (Table 6.20) indicates that field extension officers of Mukono District do not differ significantly in policy recommendations for smallholder farmers. Men field extension officers are as likely as women field extension officers to recommend more income generating enterprises for smallholder farmers than extension training activities. Thus, in Mukono District, gender does not appear to make a difference in the type of projects extension officers recommend for smallholder farmers.
Training projects recommended by field extension officers include fodder preservation; cultural methods of farming, pests, and disease control; zero grazing; soil and water conservation techniques; family life and education; solar drying techniques for tomatoes; horticulture projects; clonal coffee production; maximum land utilization; pruning and desuckering bananas; improved seeds; animal traction projects; use of ox-ploughs; use of tractors; frequent on-farm extension demonstrations; rehabilitation of communal dips, and the use of modem farm tools. The income generating enterprises (IGEs) field extension officers recommended include poultry keeping; mushroom growing and processing; apiary, mixed farming; floriculture; 200 piggery; pineapple growing; sericulture (silk production); fish fanning; fruit and vegetable production; and smallholder farmers’ loan scheme.
When farmers were asked to list projects they would like to see extension establish for farmers in the rural areas (Chapter V: Table 5.42), 72.5 percent of the farmers surveyed selected income generating enterprises (IGEs), compared to 27.5 percent who were interested in extension training projects. Looking at the contents of
IGEs farmers selected, however, shows the overwhelming majority of farmers are interested in readily marketable income generating activities such as livestock, banana plantations, potato and vegetable farms, fruit and milk production. Farmer-selected training projects include pest control, teaching agriculture in elementary schools, and re-introduction of the tractor-for-hire service, which was first introduced in Uganda in
1963 under the Obote regime (Table 5.42). This suggests that extension officers’ reconunendations do not coincide with those of farmers.
Extension-Farnmer Interaction
A major component of extension work is interaction between extension and farmers. Extension-farmer interaction is supposed to be essential to helping rural farmers solve their problems. A meaningful extension-farmer interaction generates interest in extension work and establishes credibility in extension recommended practices (Adams 1992). Extension-farmer interaction can be measured by information on (a) extension visits, (b) contact with extension by way of on-farm demonstrations,
(c) sources through which farmers obtain agricultural information, (d) sources of 201 agricultural inputs used, and (e) agricultural inputs available to farmers in Mukono
District.
Mukono is among the districts where Held extension officers are most numerous and active—approximately one officer for every 1800 farm families. Mukono District has 162,000 farm families (DPI Monthly Sessions, 1994). As one of the 20 districts in the country with more than 50 field extension officers working with farmers (Chapter
HI: Table 3.3), one would assume that most farmers would get their supply of agricultural inputs—pesticides and improved seeds, for example—directly from the
Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) office in Mukono District or from field extension officers who visit farmers on their farms. However, that does not seem to be the case
(Table 6.22).
Table 6.22. Farmers’ Reports on Suppliers of Agricultural Inputs
Vlajor Supplier Men Women Total* N % N % N% Shops 79 85.9 75 76.5 154 81.1 N ei^bor 13 14.1 17 17.3 30 15.8 Extension 0 0 4 4.1 4 2.1 Cooperative Society 0 0 2 2 .0 2 1.1 Total 92 100 98 100 190 100 * Excludes farmers who did not answer the question.
Farmers were asked, "Who is the major supplier of agricultural inputs- improved seeds and pesticides—in your area?" The overwhelming majority, 76.5 percent of the women and 85.9 percent of the men, said they get inputs from a shop.
The rest, 23.5 percent of the women, and 14.1 percent of the men, buy agricultural inputs from either neighbors, the extension office, or the cooperative society. While the cooperative society is a government controlled institution, shops are private 202 merchandise stores authorized to sell agricultural inputs under the decentralization program initiated by the Ugandan government in 1993. Largely concentrated in trading centers, most shops are between 5 and 35 miles away from Mukono villages.
Most farmers wdk or use bicycle service (boda-boda) to purchase inputs. A few farmers go by public service vehicles, popularly known in Uganda as taxis. But these taxis provide irregular service and are not readily available in rural areas. When farmers were asked to indicate how they reach their major supplier of agricultural inputs, approximately 60 percent said they travel by bicycles (boda-boda). compared to
39 percent who use public service vehicles (taxis), and 0.5 percent who buy agricultural inputs through next-door neighbor. Farmers were asked to indicate sources of information on agriculture and new farming methods (Table 6.23). reformat
Table 6.23. Farmers Reports on Information Sources Source Percentlndicating Each Source* Men Women Radios 70.5 81.0 Shops 28.4 3.8 Neighbor, relative, friend, household member 27.4 29.5 Extension officers 263 10.5 Television and print media 12.6 2.9 ^Percentages do not add up to 100 because more than one answer was given. For most of these farmers, radios are the major sources of information on new methods of agriculture. About 75 percent of the farmers said they receive more information on new technology and methods of farming from the radio than from any other source. Approximately, 85 percent of the 200 farmers in the study had battery operated radios in their homes at the time of the study. Only 7 farmers had television sets in their homes. None of the homes had a telephone. If radio, not extension 203 officers, is a major source of agricultural information for farmers, what are the opinions of farmers regarding extension? To explore this question, farmers were asked to evaluate the importance of extension activity in cash and food crop production.
Sixty-one women farmers (58.1%) and 86 men farmers (91.5%) rated extension activity as potentially important in cash and food crop production.
Even though farmers generally consider extension activity could be important in both cash and food crop production, field extension practices are biased in several ways. This is indicated, in part, by the fact that women are less likely than men to believe extension could be useful or important. At the same time, farmers' reports show there is a gender bias in extension-farmer interaction relative to: (a) extension visits, (b) dissemination of new farming practices from extension (innovations), and (c) attendance at on-farm demonstrations. There also is bias against smallholder farmers as measured by the relationship between farm size and extension visits.
Hypothesis 12. Reid extension officers interact more with men farmers and larger landholders than women farmers and the smallest landholders (Table 6.24).
Table 6.24. Extension Activities by Sex of Farmer.
Women Men Chi-square DF p-value Farmers Farmers Value N % N % Extension visits Receive visits 14 1 3 3 29 3 1 .2 Don't receive visits 91 8 6 .7 64 68.8 9.242 1 .002*
Attend on-farm demonstrations Attend 8 7 .6 30 31 .9 Don't attend 97 9 2 .4 64 68.1 18.951 1 .000*
New farm practices from extension Learn from extension 14 1 3 3 36 37.9 Dont learn from extension 91 8 6 .7 59 62.1 16.047 1 .000* ^Significant at p < .05. 204
Extension interaction with farmers was operationalized in terms of extension visits, attendance at extension-organized on-farm demonstrations, and whether or not farmers learned new farm practices from extension—innovations. The results of the test
(Table 6.24) show differences between men and women farmers relative to extension visits, attendance at on-farm demonstrations, and learning new farm practices from extension, are statistically significant at p < =.05. The high chi-square values and low p-values show there is sufficient sample evidence to reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis. The results of the test indicate that (1) men farmers are more likely than women farmers to receive extension visits; (2) men farmers are more likely than women farmers to attend on-farm demonstrations organized by extension; and (3) men farmers are more likely than women farmers to learn new farm practices from extension (innovate). Thus, if farmers' reported experiences are accurate, there is a gender bias in extension activity. Field extension officers may favor men farmers in terms of on-farm demonstrations, innovations, and extension visits.
The second major source of bias is suspected for the relationship between extension practices and farm size: field extension officers would visit larger landholders more than smallholder farmers (farmers with up to five acres of cultivated land). The analyses show there are statistically significant differences in farm size relative to extension visits, attendance at on-farm demonstrations, and learning new practices from extension. The figures indicate that: (1) larger landholder farmers are more likely to receive extension visits than smaller landholder farmers; (2) larger landholder farmers are more likely to attend extension organized on-farm 205 demonstrations than smallholder farmers; and (3) smallholder farmers are less likely to learn new farm practices from extension (Table 6.25).
Table 6.25. The Association Between Farm Size, Extension Visits, and Attendance at Extension-Organized On-Farm Demonstrations
Small Farm Large Farm Chi-square DF fHvalue 1 -5 acres 6 acres + Value N % N % Extension visits Receive visits 20 16.0 20 37.0 Don’t receive visits 105 84.0 34 63.0 9.617 1 .002*
On-farm demonstrations Attend 21 16.8 17 31.5 Don’t attend 104 83.2 37 68.5 4.860 1 .027*
Learn new farm practices Learn 25 2 0 .0 24 4 4 .4 Don’t learn too 8 0 .0 30 55.6 11334 1 .001* ^Significant at p < .05.
Larger landholders also may be able to attend on-farm demonstrations probably because most (if not all) farm demonstrations are held on their farms or near the villages where they live (extension agents may prefer to work on those farms or find the landholders more receptive to demonstration projects). These same factors may impact learning of innovations and attendance at training sessions. Also explored was the association between extension visits and demographic variables such as ethnicit) , district of origin, age, education, household size, number of wives (for men), and number of children. No significant differences were found.
The literature review showed clearly that assumptions about gender roles and male authority often have a negative impact on extension practices with women (Table
6.26). This was examined in Mukono District. When extension visit to farmers is examined on the basis of gender and marital status, we find an additional source of bias 206 against women. Men farmers are more likely to receive extension visits than women farmers, although a minority of farmers have received visits. Married men farmers are two times more likely to receive extension visits than married women farmers. The fact that there are more single women than men may account for the larger—but still small—percentage of single women who received extension visits. Most single men farmers and single women farmers do not receive extension visits (Table 6.26).
Table 6.26. Extension Visits by Farmers' Sex and Marital Status
Receive D ont Chi-square DF p-value Visits Receive Value
N % N % Gender Women Farmers 14 32.6 91 58.0 Men Farmers 29 67.4 66 42 .0 8.735 1 .003*
Marital Status Married Farmers 41 9 5 3 137 8 7 3 Single Farmers 2 4 .7 20 12.7 2.255 1 .105
Married Farmers X Gender Women Farmers 12 29.3 77 56.2 Men Farmers 29 70.7 60 43.8 9.1.58 1 .002*
Single Farmers X Gender Women Farmers 2 100 14 70.0 Men Farmers 0 0 6 30.0 .825 1 .519 ^Significant at p < .05.
Diverse extension practices may covary; that is, bias in one area may be associated with bias in another. Therefore visits were compared to another measure of bias—attendance at on-farm demonstrations organized by extension (Table 6.27). 207
Table 6.27. Extension Visits X On-Farm Demonstrations Attended
Don't Receive Chi-square DF p-value Receive Visits Value Visits N % N % Attend on-rartn demonstrations 11 7.0 27 62.8
Don't attend 146 93.0 16 37.2 68.25 I .000* ^Significant at p < .05.
The analyses suggest that farmers who do not receive extension visits also do not attend extension-organized on-farm demonstrations. Since nearly 87 percent of women farmers do not receive extension visits, it follows that most women farmers do not attend on-farm demonstrations. Since women are critical to cash and food crop production in Mukono District, women farmers' disadvantage exacerbates the already very limited impact of extension visits and on-farm demonstrations in local production and well-being.
The relationship between extension-organized on-farm demonstrations and marital status also helps to assess potential bias (Table 6.28).
Table 6.28. Attendance at On-Farm Demonstrations X Sex and Marital Status
Extension Activity AttendanceatExtension Chi-square DF p-value On-Farm Demonstrations Value Attend Don’t Attend N%N % All Farmers X Marital Status Married Farmers 37 9 7 .4 141 87.0 Single Farmers 1 2 .6 21 13.0 3 .3 5 6 1 .067
Married Farmers X Sex Women 8 21.6 81 5 7.4 Men 29 7 8 .4 60 42.6 15.047 1 .000*
Single Farmers X Sex Women 0 0 16 76.2 Men 1 100 5 23.8 2 .7 9 4 1 .095 ^Significant at p < .05 2 0 8
Few farmers (married or single) attend extension organized activities such as on- farm demonstrations, extension meetings, and variety trials. Of those who attend, married men predominate. Thus, married men are more likely than married women to attend on-farm demonstrations organized by field extension officers, and married farmers are more likely to attend extension organized activities than single farmers.
A major policy objective of Mukono District extension is to help farmers improve living conditions through increased productivity for both cash and food crops.
To achieve this objective, a part of field extension officers' work is to advise and encourage farmers to adopt extension recommended practices such as new farming methods, popularly referred to as "innovations." Among extension recommended practices (innovations) are spacing, pruning, desuckering, controlling banana weevils, fertilization (mulch, manure), and cleaning produce before selling (Table 6.29).
Table 6.29. Learning New Farm Practices from Extension by Sex and Marital Status
Whether Fanners Learn New Chi-square DF p-value Farm Practices from Extension Value
Learn Don’t Leara N % N % All Farmers X Gender Women 14 1 3 3 91 8 6 .7 Men 36 37.9 59 62.1 16.047 1 .000*
All Farmers X Marital Status Married Farmers 48 27.0 130 7 3 .0 Single Farmers 2 9.1 20 9 0 .9 3.337 1 .068
Married Farmers X Gender Women 13 14.6 76 8 5 .4 Men 35 39.3 54 6 0 .7 13.806 1 .000*
Single Farmers Women 1 6.3 15 9 3 .8 Men I 16.7 5 83 .3 .573 1 .449 ^Significant at p < .05. 209
But not many farmers leara new farming practices from extension. The analyses in Table 6.29 suggest that, among those who do, women farmers are less likely than men farmers to leam new practices from extension, and married farmers are more likely than single farmers to do so. Given that objective analyses suggest extension officers' accounts of their work do not match farmer accounts' of their experiences with extension and alternative sources of information and inputs, farmers were asked to express opinions regarding the usefulness and potential of extension.
Farmers' Opinion on Extension
Farmers' opinion on extension was tested in three areas of extension work- potential usefulness of extension, extension as a factor in cash crop and food production, and the overall rating of Mukono District extension service. Farmers' opinions of the usefulness of extension to men and women farmers were elicited by questions from the instrument designed for the study. An assumption was made that men and women farmers would differ significantly in their opinion of the usefulness of extension. To test this assumption, the three response categories of five selected
Likert-Type opinion questions (Agree, Don't know. Disagree) were collapsed into two-
-Agree, Disagree—for a 2 x 2 chi-square analysis. The analyses in Table 6.30 show there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis of no difference in farmers' opinion of extension in four areas of extension work at p < .05. These areas include the usefulness of extension and participation of farmers in extension programs. Table 6.30 presents the results. 210
Table 6.30. Farmers’ Opinion on Extension by Sex
Disagree Agree Chi-square DF p-value N % N % Value Extension programs are useful to women farmers. Women say 4 4 .8 80 9 5 .2 Men say 0 0 91 100 4.435 1 .035*
Extension programs are useful to men farmers. Women 8 10.0 72 90 .0 Men 2 2 .2 90 97.8 4.786 1 .029*
Men farmers participate in extension training programs more than women farmers. Women 32 6 6 .7 16 3 3 .3 Men 21 3 4 .4 65 6 5 .6 11.177 1 .001*
Most women farmers would participate in extension training programs if women extension officers invite them. Women 31 3 8 3 50 6 1 .7 Men 17 21.3 63 78.8 5.573 1 .018*
More women farmers would participate in extension training programs if childcare facilities were available. Women 2 2 .2 87 9 7 .8 Men 7 8.1 79 91.9 3.113 1 .078 ^Significant at p <.05.
The analyses show (1) men farmers are more likely than women farmers to perceive the usefulness of extension programs to men and women farmers; (2) men farmers are more likely than women farmers to participate in extension training programs; (3) women farmers are less likely than men farmers to agree that women farmers would attend extension activities if women field extension officers invite them, and (4) though not statistically significant, both men and women farmers believe that more women farmers would participate in extension training programs if childcare facilities were available. 211
Extension as an important factor for increased production marks the second area in which farmers' opinion on extension work was tested. Farmers' opinion was tested on the question, "Do you consider extension an important factor for increased cash crop and food production?" Responses were analyzed by using (a) frequency tabulations and (b) 2 x 2 chi-square procedures. Tables 6.31 through 6.33 present the results.
Table 6.31. Do Farmers Consider Extension Important to Increased Agricultural Production?
Response Men Women Total Farmers Farmers (n=200) (n=95) (n=105) N ^ N ( N 9 YES Extension provides farmers with the knowledge and skill they need for increasedagricultural productivity 21 22.1 20 19.1 41 20.5
YES Extension serves as a consultative body that provides farmers with technical information and advice they need to solve some of their problems. 42 44.2 11 10.5 S3 26.5
YES Extension educates farmers on new methods of farming; extension helps and encourages farmers to improve agriculture through the adoption of innovations, 24 25.3 26 24.8 50 25.0
NO Extension is not active in this area; there are no extension officers in my area of work; extension officers do not come to the villages; we never receive extension help. 8 8.4 48 45.7 56 28.0
The figures show that Mukono District farmers generally answered in the negative, but women farmers are more likely than men to be more negative in their responses to whether or not farmers consider extension service important to increased 212 agricultural production. Nearly 46 percent of the women farmers who participated in the study said (1) extension is not active in their area of work; (2) extension officers don't come to the villages where they live and work; and (3) they (women farmers) do not receive extension help. Women's negative response to extension as an important factor in cash and food crop production may be a response to extension bias and may be one explanation of why simply incorporating Women extension officers into extension work would not be enough to encourage women farmers to participate in extension activities.
Farmers' opinions on the extension service in Mukono District was also tested using age and years of formal classroom education as the factors of interest (Table
6.32).
Table 6.32. Farmers' Opinion by Age, Gender, Years of Education
Not Important Chi-square DF p-value Important Value N % N % Age 50 years and above 11 5 0 .0 49 3 3 3 Under 50 years 11 50.0 98 66.7 2.321 1 .128
Gender W omen Farmers 19 8 6 .4 61 41.5 Men Fanners 3 13.6 86 58.5 15.452 1 .001*
Years of education 9 years and above 3 13.6 31 21.1 Under 9 years 19 8 6 .4 116 78.9 .661 1 .416 ^Significant at p < .05
Farmers were asked whether they consider extension activity important in cash and food crop production: "Do you consider extension activity an important factor for increased food and cash crop production?" Extension activity and recommended 213 practices include on-farm demonstrations, extension visits, attendance at extension organized programs, spraying, mulching and manure. The analyses show men and women farmers differ significantly in their opinion on extension activity. Men farmers are more likely than women farmers to perceive extension as critical to increased food and cash crop production. No significant differences were found using age and education as the factors of interest
Rnally, farmers' opinion on the extension service in Mukono District was tested on 13 selected opinion items on extension. The assumption was that farmers would differ significantly in their opinion on extension, given farmers' level of education, gender, age, and marital status. To test this assumption, a new variable "Attitude Type " was derived through the process of transformation, using the SPSS 6.1.1 statistical packet The mean attitudes scores of 13 selected attitudes (opinion) items from the
Questionnaire designed for the study (Appendix A) were calculated from the formula:
Let Average = Avg (XI, X2, X3...X13). Mean attitude scores > 2.0 were classified as
"positive," while mean attitude scores < 2 were labeled "negative." To establish the statistical significance of these differences (positive or negative attitudes) and the extent to which positive or negative attitudes are associated with gender, age, level of education, and marital status, statistical significance tests were conducted, using chi- square test of independence procedures. The high chi-square values and low p-values for gender and age show farmers differ significantly in their attitudes toward extension, using gender and age as the factors of interest (Table 6.33). 214
Table 6.33, Opinion Type by Sex, Age, Education, Marital Status
Negative Positive Chi-square DF p-value Attitudes Attitudes Value N% N % Gender Women farmers 71 67.6 34 3 2 .4 Men farmers 22 23.2 73 76.8 39.631 1 .000*
Age Under 50 years of age 68 51.5 64 4 8 .5 50 years and above 25 36.8 43 6 3 .2 3.925 1 .048*
Level o f Education Under 9 years of educatioi 74 45.4 89 54.6 9+ years of education 19 51.4 18 4 8 .6 0.430 1 .5 1 2
Marital Status Married 80 44.9 98 55.1 Single 13 59.1 9 4 0 .9 1.575 1 .209 ^Significant at p <.05.
The analysis indicates that women farmers are more likely than men farmers to express negative attitudes toward extension. Farmers 50 years of age and older are more likely to have positive attitudes toward extension than farmers 49 years of age and younger. However, marital status of farmers and level of education do not appear to make a difference in farmers' opinion on extension. That more women farmers than men express negative opinion on extension does not come as a surprise given women’s responses to the question on whether farmers consider extension activity as an important factor for increased cash and food crop production (Table 6.30).
Approximately 46 percent of the 105 women farmers in the study expressed negative ideas about extension because they neither receive extension visits nor get extension help when they need help the most. A look at the problems field extension officers encounter in their work may explain why extension activity does not reach most smallholder farmers, including women. 215
Problems Field Extension Officers Encounter in Their Work
It would not be fair to evaluate field extension officers without considering the factors that could negatively impact their ability to carry out policy mandates and meet their work objectives. There are several possible constraints; (I) logistical (lack of equipment, materials, transportation), (2) inflexibility of supervisors to resolve logistical problems or modify goals and performance standards, (3) training (too little, wrong kind). The latter includes whether or not extension officers actually see the policy mandates they are to follow or these are transmitted—accurately and fully or not—by others in training sessions.
To begin with, field extension officers were asked to list the most important problem they encounter in their work. Table 6.34 presents the responses which fall into two categories of logistical problems: poor service conditions and lack of equipment
Table 6.34. Problems Field Extension Officers Encounter in Their Work
Poor Working Lack of Total Conditions Equipment (n=53)
N % N % N %
Women extension officers 14 66.7 7 333 21 100
Men extension Officers 23 71.9 9 28.1 32 100
The majority of extension officers (69.8%) listed poor working conditions as the number problem—pay, benefits, incentives, logistical problems, and client problems.
The rest, (30.2%) listed the lack of equipment as the second most important problem.
Poor working conditions extension officers listed include the lack of transportation; inadequate fuel provision; poor housing; low salaries; delayed payment and or non 216 payment of salaries and allowances; lack of incentives; and inadequate promotion avenues. The lack of equipment and supplies includes on-farm demonstration materials; scientifîc journals; and lack of communication systems to enable contact between researchers, extension officers, and farmers.
These problems suggest that extension officers have little or no control over their problems. This is reinforced by the solutions field extension officers employ for the problems they encounter at work. This gives the impression of a sense of frustration, even outrage, which could be important to extension officers' attitudes toward farmers and toward their work in general. It certainly explains the high rates of turnover which typify the extension service system (Table 6.35).
Table 6.35. Extension Agent Solutions to Problems
Farmers Coping Mechanisms Better Incentives Total Employed by Officers N % N % N % Women 20 95.2 I 4.8 21 100 Men 28 87.5 4 12.5 32 100
Among the solutions to the problem of the lack of incentives are better pay and benefits such as housing, transportation, and health care. But whether increased pay and benefits are a viable option to solving extension officer turnover and frustration with logistical problems and difficulties with farmer-officer interaction is still unknown. Some field extension officers place the blame directly on contradictions between the government's policies and the resources allocated to implement those policies. Some officers pointed out that the government appears to spend less on agriculture than it does on the military. Extension work, for most field extension 217 officers, therefore, requires a high degree of commitment and sacrifice. It requires sacrifices in the sense that field extension officers must:
1. Travel to Makerere University in Kampala at their own expense in search of journals and materials for on-farm demonstrations;
2. Improvise by using locally available materials for demonstrations and experiments. But very often, it is difficult to define what locally available materials are and where to get them; sometimes they simply are not available.
3. Seek a second job or establish an income generating enterprise to supplement family income. This, of course, takes time and energy away from extension work and adds to the problem.
4. Some officers use bikes—their own, rentals, or those provided by the
Ministry of Agriculture-or hire drivers and boda-boda or walk to farms. Using bicycles on almost impassable roads to visit farmers is difficult and exhausting. And if a bike breaks down—no matter who owns it, the extension officers must foot the bill from their meager salaries. Field extension officers are entitled to travel allowances, but the consensus is that allowances, like salaries, are left unpaid for months and not commensurate with the time and risk involved in extension work in the rural areas.
While poor remuneration, scarcity of incentives, and insufficiency of government assistance all act to demoralize field extension officers, they stress transportation as the greatest problem limiting the area of effective extension operation. Field extension officers find it difficult, if not impossible, to visit the assigned farmers in a timely manner—or at all, in some cases. Field extension officers are aware that frequent extension-farmer interaction through extension visits, 218 meetings, and on-farm demonstrations are crucial to increased cash and food crop production. But extension operation is often limited to villages officers can conveniently reach by walking, using the bicycle, or hiring the services of a boda-boda operator. CHAPTER VII
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
The question of whether or not attitude bias on the part of extension officers
"makes the visible invisible" can be only partially answered by this dissertation for the case of Mukono District in Uganda. Findings from the study must be considered with great caution because of the myriad factors—methodological, logistical, and contextual
(especially economic and political)—that impacted the study itself and extension services in general. Nonetheless, some tentative conclusions can be drawn and some recommen dations made.
This chapter summarizes and discusses the major findings of the study, suggests alternative interpretations, explains shortcomings, and presents tentative recommenda tions for improving extension officers' ability to address the needs of women farmers and smallholders in general. The usefulness of and obstacles to using attitude research as a means for identifying potential problems for the implementation of extension poli cies will be considered. The chapter is organized into five sections; (1) a brief restate-
219 220 farming and characteristics of farmers in Mukono District; (3) a summary of the char acteristics and attitudes of extension officers; (4) an analysis of problems identified by the study for a more effective and gender-sensitive extension practice and recommen dations for improving the existing system; and (5) a comment on the limitations and advantages of the research methods used and reconunendations for future research.
The Research Problem and Objectives
The study began with the understanding that many factors can impact whether or not extension practices are biased against women farmers or other groups of farmers.
These factors include those internal to the extension system—including the content of policies, knowledge and biases of practitioners, organizational problems—as well as those external to the system such as economic, political, and geographic factors. This study focused on factors internal to the system, particularly at the micro-level: the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of extension officers. Building on attitude theory and research in industrialized countries and limited evidence from studies of gender and development issues, the study proposed that attitudinal bias could be an important factor behind extension practices that favored certain groups of farmers (especially men) over others (women). The study was carried out in a setting where extension policy specifically targeted rural farmers, men and women farmers alike. In this way, differences between policy mandates and actual practices could be explained at least in part by attitudinal bias. Therefore, the research design was constructed in a way that allowed an analysis of the extension system, a study of farmers and farming practices— including farmer experiences with extension, and a study of extension officers' char 221 acteristics, extension officer knowledge of farming, and officer attitudes and beliefs regarding farming and extension services.
The study was organized around the following general, guiding hypotheses:
1. Male extension officers are more likely to hold negative attitudes toward women farmers and are less likely to have accurate knowledge of and experience with women farmers than women extension officers.
2. Extension officers are most likely to hold positive attitudes toward and have ac curate knowledge of farming practices, the division of labor, and decision making for those farmers with whom they share characteristics—age, place of origin, ethnicity, for example.
3. Men farmers in general and women farmers who engage in cash production in particular are more likely than women farmers and men and women food producers to have benefited from extension services.
4. Farmers whose characteristics resemble those of extension officers are more likely to benefit from extension services than those who are unlike extension officers.
5. Extension officers with more experience in the region and/or who have received more training and policy education will have more positive attitudes toward women, smallholders, and food producers than those who have less experience and training.
Mukono District Farmers and Their Extension Experiences
To test the relationship between extension agents' attitudes toward farmers, ex tension practices, and knowledge of farmers’ reality, the study used observation. Rapid
Rural Appraisal techniques, and a survey of farmers to determine the characteristics of 222 farmers and the nature of farming in two counties in Mukono District The gender di vision of labor and of the potentially gendered nature of decision making were as sessed. After all, if there is a gender division of labor and gender differences in authority and decision making exist, then extension agents' attitudes and practices may be grounded in reality, rather than in bias.
The multi-method research approach shows that most farmers are married and are members of the Ganda ethnic group. Three fourths of them are Christian. Al though the majority of men farmers grew up in Mukono, only half the women did so.
Women farmers as a group are younger than men: three fourths of the women, but only half the men, farmers are under age 50. Women's educational levels tend to be lower than men's: 90 percent of the women but less than three fourths of the men have no middle school education. Incomes are very low and agriculture is the primary source of income for both men and women farmers. More wage opportunities are available for men than for women in Mukono.
Although women and men farmers stated there were no legal barriers to land ownership for women, in practice men own the land which women farmed. The farm ing system has been characterized as a "family farming system" and farmers share this notion. Although women and men tended to exercise control over what and how to farm on separate plots, they collaborate with each other, and it often was difficult for them to discuss a clear-cut division of labor or decision making. Both women and men tend to be primarily smallholders, however a greater proportion of men than women cultivated six or more acres. Women and men cultivate the same food and cash crops and approximately half produce for home consumption and the market. Women are 223 slightly more likely than men to produce for home consumption primarily, especially fruits, vegetables, maize, and livestock. Women's production is slightly more diversi fied than that of men.
Women and men identified nine major tasks for farming. In the case of single farmers, the primary source of labor was themselves and extended family members. In the case of married farmers, in approximately half the cases, the nine farming tasks in volved the collaborative labor of women and men although the relative importance of their labor varied on some tasks: women were somewhat more likely than men to weed their own plots alone or with children, women were highly unlikely to participate in transporting crops to market, men were somewhat more likely to use chemical pesti cides, women were more likely than men to transport crops from field to home, and women were slightly more likely to use fertilizers, especially organic fertilizers, and to store food crops at home. Most farmers cannot afford to hire labor for assistance, but men and married farmers are slightly more likely to use hired labor than women and single farmers. Farmers use relatively simple tools for farming.
In this family farming system, both women and men should have the experience and knowledge necessary to make farming decisions such as what and when to plant or harvest. In fact, both men and women are likely to report that decisions are made jointly, although men are more likely than women to emphasize joint decision making while women are more likely than men to emphasize their own decision making im portance. Men have had the advantage in decisions regarding expenditures, control of income, savings, loans, and investments. Women have the advantage only in deciding what the family will eat each day. The study found that women seemed to be equally 224 knowledgeable about sources of inputs and credit, but less likely to act on this knowl edge. Although the study did not explore in-depth the extent to which women farmers utilize their knowledge about sources and credit (it was not an objective), differences in knowledge between men and women farmers suggest a greater division of labor by gender on issues that involve money, contracts, and, or the ability to commit family re sources. Differences in knowledge about sources and credit may be related to the fact that men or men's families own and, or control use rights for the land that women farm. Similarly, the extent to which women utilize knowledge on sources of inputs and credit may be related to age differentials among men and women, since age can confer authority, as is the case in most traditional societies (Boserup 1970; Nalwanga-Sebina
& Natukunda 1988; Henderson 1995), or educational levels, which may influence in teraction with credit agencies. Women appear to be slightly less likely than men to in troduce innovations. It is still unknown whether the lack of innovativeness among women farmers is related to differences in knowledge or to personal preferences and conservatism.
Men and women assign different levels of priority to the problems they face as farmers. Women are more likely than men to mention pests, labor, and weather as problems; men prioritize capital and inputs. Few men farmers and almost no women farmers seek extension assistance for these problems. In fact, according to farmers, few have experiences with or knowledge of extension services and those who do are often discouraged by time constraints and difficulties in locating officers. Although most farmers are smallholders (they cultivate less than five acres of land), those with larger plots (five or more acres of land) under cultivation are more likely to have ex 225 periences with extension. Nonetheless, farmers express a generalized belief that exten sion "could be useful" and most would like to participate in income generating projects with extension assistance (75% of both women and men farmers would) or extension training (25% of both).
Characteristics and Attitudes of Extension Officers
The study was based on a series of theoretical assumptions regarding the forma tion of and change in attitudes and their relation with behavior. The assumptions as serted that attitudes 1) result from socialization and cumulative experiences that can be detected through demographic and socio-economic characteristics; 2) should be com pared with knowledge; and 3) may be conditioned by particular economic interests and privileges associated with class, ethnicity, gender and age.
Twenty-two percent of the extension agents in Mukono District are women and most of these are recent hires. Because all women agents were included in the study, women represent 40 percent of the extension officers sampled. (Note: Women's an swers are over-represented in the outcome of the study. This did not compromise the analysis of gender, age, or educational differences. However, to the extent that women's responses differ from those of men, it would impact general trends identified for the sample).
Like the farmers they are assigned to serve, most field extension officers in
Mukono District are members of the Ganda ethnic group, though fewer men than women are Gandan (68.7% of the men compared with 81% of the women). Since a majority of extension officers are men, the lower proportion who are Ganda may be a 226 source of bias. Ethnic bias was difficult to assess since, like most Ugandans, extension officers speak several languages and are likely to be familiar with the customs and farming practices of various ethnic groups, not just their own.
Almost all the extension officers are Christian, whereas approximately 25 per cent of the farmers are Muslim. Religious preference was not a factor in bias as meas ured by the survey. Furthermore, farmers report no differences between religious groups in rate of contact with extension services. Religious differences may, however, play some as yet unknown role in the lower participation rates for women farmers.
Extension officers are less likely than farmers to have grown up in Mukono
District. However, most officers come from nearby districts and, given their ethnic backgrounds, are likely to have had similar experiences with farming systems and practices. Importantly, women extension officers are concentrated in the youngest age groups while men are more evenly distributed-at least through age 40. In general, ex tension officers, especially women, are younger than the farmers they serve. No exten sion officers are over age 50, though half the men farmers and one fourth of the women farmers are over age 50. Although there was no statistically significant rela tionship between age and bias as measured by the study, age differences may, in fact, represent a barrier to effective communication and interaction with farmers.
There are very large educational differences between extension officers and farmers. All extension officers have completed middle school and have at least some secondary education-and over one fourth have post-secondary education. In contrast, most farmers have less than a middle school education. There are significant gender differences, too. Women extension officers are more likely than men officers to have 227 post-secondary education (almost half the women but only one fifth of the men). This may be due to age differences, to these women's conscious commitment to a career, or to differences in standards for hiring—variables outside the scope of the study. The educational differences between extension officers and farmers may represent a barrier in their interaction. In fact, although difference by age were not statistically significant, other evidence suggests possible bias. For instance, extension officers tend to say that farmers "don't understand the benefits of recommended practices" and that they "are conservative and resistant to innovation." On the other hand, extension officers, whose program recommendations differed from those of farmers, also may tend to pay little attention to farmers' opinions because of a belief in their own superior knowledge.
A possible barrier between women extension officers and women farmers is the fact that over one third of the women officers are single, but less than one fifth of the women farmers are. However, all women extension officers live in extended family households where they name a man as head of household (father, brother, uncle, or other). Therefore, marital status may not be a barrier from the vantage point of exten sion officers' ability to understand women's family roles and social constraints, though single status may diminish extension officers in the eyes of married farmers. Surpris ingly, farmers are more likely than extension officers to name a woman or a couple as head of household—which may or may not indicate more rigid gender norms held by extension officers than by farmers.
In summary, there are differences between farmers and extension officers that would suggest the existence of discrimination or bias on the basis of ethnicity, religion, or other factors; however, the differences were not statistically significant when com 2 2 8 pared to knowledge and attitudes. The strongest potential for bias comes from educa tional differences and age differences, also not generally significant when compared to knowledge and attitudes.
Mukono District Extension Offfîcers’ Knowledge of Farmers and Farming
Extension officers' knowledge of farmers and farming was tested primarily by comparing their answers to questions on farming practices, division of labor by gen der, and decision making. Both women and men extension officers' answers on farm ing tasks and division of labor matched those of farmers. Extension officers' diverged from those of farmers on the tasks of spraying, fertilizing, and transporting crops to market with, a margin of error between 15-25%. Women extension officers were more likely than men to give answers that diverged from those of farmers. Women officers are less knowledgeable than men regarding who does the spraying and who transports crops to market, but both genders erred in similar proportions on fertiliz ing. Interestingly, officers with higher educational levels were more likely to err in their answers regarding these three tasks than those with lower educational levels. The lack of positive relationship between higher education and knowledge of farming task may, however, be associated with the fact that extension officers with higher educa tional levels tend to be younger and are more likely to have less experience in the field than their older counterparts.
Extension officers' answers to questions on decision making also were very similar to those given by farmers on all items except on when to plant crops, trying in novations, and when to harvest. Ironically, women extension officers are more likely than men to match farmers' reports on all items with one exception—both men and 229 women extension officers are almost equally likely to err on who decides whether or not to try innovations (approximately 13% err). Similarly, officers with higher educa tional levels (which favors women) are more likely to match farmers' reports on all items. In general, the margin of error is greatest for when to plant, whether to try in novations, and when to harvest for all educational levels, especially the lowest. Finally, the youngest (and potentially least experienced) of the extension officers sampled
(primarily women) are more likely to match farmers' answers on all items except when to harvest and least likely to match on when to try innovations. Older officers are more likely to err on who decides when to plant.
Therefore, the tests of knowledge show that extension officers show generally high levels of knowledge of actual farming practices, the division of labor, and deci sion making. The items on which the greatest margin of error was detected were "who decides whether or not to introduce innovations" (decision making) and "who uses pes ticides and fertilizer" (practice). Error on these items signal a potentially significant problem among extension officers since they are precisely the items most strongly as sociated with extension training and services. If farmers and extension officers are in teracting and communicating, extension officers' answers should match those of farm ers. Nonetheless, the margin of error is relatively small and, without additional evi dence, attributing the errors to attitudes would be difficult.
Attitudes, Beliefs, and Practices
The study assumed that knowledge of Mukono District women farmers’ and smallholders' roles in agricultural production is likely to be subordinated by attitudes toward the appropriateness of such roles. That is, even when national policy mandates 230 encourage the inclusion of women farmers and smallholders in extension programs, extension officers' positive attitudes toward men farmers and cash cropping would take precedence. Since Mukono District extension officers show a high degree of knowledge regarding farming and farmers, differences between what they know and what they say
"should happen" or what they value should provide evidence of attitudinal bias and its potential impact on extension practices. The critical question here is whether or not
Mukono District extension officers are committed to male dominance even though the officers have shown that they know male-female relations in farming are complemen tary and cooperative.
Hypotheses tests were conducted on extension knowledge of nine decision making areas in farm households, using gender, age, and education as the variables of interest.
Among the decision making areas are what to plant on the farm, when to plant crops on the farm, trying innovations, when to harvest crops, when to sell crops from the farm, whether to go for a loan, what family members will eat at home, whether to buy farm inputs, and what to do with farm income. No statistically significant differences were found between gender, age, education, and knowledge of decision making on se lected tasks in Mukono District farm households. The evidence suggests that field ex tension officers’ knowledge of the nine selected decision making areas in farm house holds is independent of gender, age, and education. Men field extension officers are as likely as women field extension officers to possess accurate knowledge of who makes decision on selected tasks in farm household. (Tables 6.13 - 6.15).
The attitudes of field extension officers toward farmers were tested on 20 se lected Likert-type scale items, using gender, age, and education as the variables of in- 231 terest. Contrary to the findings of traditional attitudinal research that associates age, education, gender, income, and marital status with positive or negative attitudes toward the attitude object (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981; Monterro, 1985; Fendru, 1995), the findings of this study (Hypotheses 7,8,9, and 10) show no association between selected demographic variables and attitudes toward the attitude objects, in this case, farmers.
Men field extension officers are as likely as women field extension officers to possess positive or negative attitudes toward farmers of Mukono District, irrespective of gen der, age, education, or marital status (Table 6.19).
Policy recommendations were operationalized as projects field extension officers would recommend for farmers in the rural areas of Mukono District. No statistically significant differences were found in policy recommendations. Thus, the findings of the study show extension agent attitudes toward farmers are not necessarily male domi nance, although bias in favor of men farmers and large landholders, most of whom are men, is apparent in farmers’ account of extension work in Mukono District and exten sion officers’ accounts of extension interaction with Mukono District farmers .
Farmers' and Extension Officers' Accounts
Limited evidence of bias appears in extension officers' expressed attitudes to ward farmers as measured by survey items. Somewhat more bias was exhibited in the content of policy reconunendations made by extension officers and during more in formal discussions of the problems that extension officers face in their work. In gen eral, extension officers complain that farmers are overly conservative and they blame farmers for the low rates of adoption of extension recommended practices. At the same time, notions of a gender division of labor—not clear cut in extension officers' reports 232 of fanning tasks and labor—were evident in policy and program recommendations.
When extension officers suggest training or income generating projects for women and men farmers, they introduced subtle differences into the details of those projects. For instance, one recommendation of an income generating project based on fruit produc tion was that women increase their efforts in the production of fruit for the market, but that men increase their efforts in the processing and selling.
There are some differences between women and men extension officers in their recommendations. Women extension officers are more likely than men to prioritize in come generating projects over training projects for farmers (and 75% of the farmers prefer income generating projects over training projects). This difference may be at tributable to educational differences since women, younger and better educated, may have received greater pre-extension hiring exposure to neo-liberal policies that empha size micro-enterprise development and grassroots initiatives to cope with inflation and the economic crisis. However, the types of projects that extension officers suggest do not match those of farmers. Farmers prefer familiar income projects such as livestock production, while extension officers suggest a broad range of potential projects, many unfamiliar and potentially risky to Mukono farmers, including sericulture and flori culture. Furthermore, farmers rate highly a project idea for extension-provided tractor services, but no extension officers mentioned this idea.
The Effectiveness of Extension Services
The study was based on the premise that extension officer attitudes that are not consistent with policy changes will have a negative impact on extension practices. Ex tension officers are in a position to implement non mandated—including discrimina- 233 tory—practices if they do not have incentives or reasons for changing their own atti tudes or practices and adopting the policies developed at the national level. Although a reasonable assumption, in very poor countries extension officers' attitudes may be moot given the logistical and financial constraints on project implementation. Attrib uting a cause to discriminatory practices detected may be impossible.
With 75 men and 21 women field extension officers working in the district,
Mukono District is among the districts with the highest concentration of extension of ficers. The district also ranks fifth in the number of women field extension officers in the country. Furthermore, under the guidance of Minister Victoria Sekitoleko, Mukono
District extension service has employed increasing numbers of women as extension of ficers in the expectation that women officers will contribute to higher rates of partici pation of women farmers in extension activities.
However, observation and interviews revealed serious problems in the imple mentation of policies. Most of these problems are logistical and financial. While many of the problems originate in the Ministry—lack of equipment, lack of transportation, and inadequate conununication systems, for example, others are caused by deficient physical and social infrastructure in rural areas, particularly transportation. Whether these problems originate in the Ministry or in infrastructure deficits, most are out comes of the economic and political conditions in Uganda—both contemporary and historical. Budget constraints and priorities imposed by neo-liberal structural adjust ment policies make providing adequate support in transportation and equipment diffi cult for the Ministry, and keep salaries low. Budget constraints and the lack of equip ment contribute to high rates of turnover and loss of skilled and experienced personnel. 234
At the same time, communication problems are only partly attributable to funding problems. Rather, the problems the Ministry of Agriculture encounter have to do with the transmission of policy mandates from the top down with no adequate mechanism for feedback from the bottom up. Therefore, policies may not reflect the priorities of farmers nor are they constructed with an understanding of the constraints faced by farmers and extension officers at the local level. Additionally, extension officers in
Mukono District leam about policy mandates second hand—from their superiors; meanings can be transformed with each subsequent transmission. As seen in Mukono
District, the resources needed to implement policies may not be available, regardless of extension officers' understanding and agreement with policies.
Despite these problems, when the Ministry evaluates its extension program, it fo cuses on extension officers and tends to divorce their performance from the broader context that impacts their work. Furthermore, officers' performance is evaluated not by examining their knowledge, efforts, skills, activities, or problems, but by docu menting whether or not farmers adopt recommended practices. In fact, extension offi cers are only one source of information used by farmers and they are only one of sev eral factors that go into farmer decision making on whether or not to adopt a particu lar practice. Other factors—cost, values, preferences—may be equally or more impor tant than extension officer performance. Finally, little or no attention is given to whether or not the policies and practices officers are to implement are, in fact, sound and relevant to farmers, nor is consideration given to flows of communication and whether or not extension officers know about or understand policy mandates. 235
Many Mukono District extension officers-faced with major logistical dilemmas-
-go to great lengths to perform their jobs. In spite of low income levels, lack of mate rials and equipment, and persistent payroll delays, extension officers in Mukono Dis trict often supply materials and make transportation arrangements that should be the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) at the District level, that is Muk ono District Extension Office in Mukono City. These expressions of initiative and mo tivation of many Mukono District field extension officers are, in fact, a critical re source for the Ministry—not always acknowledged by those at the highest level.
Mukono District extension officers seem to perform their duties under condi tions that are demoralizing. In addition, low pay and payroll delays oblige some field extension officers in the district to engage in other economic pursuits to support them selves and their families. Despite relatively high educational levels and their salaried employment, Mukono District extension officers' incomes are very low. In fact, over half the men and two thirds of the women of the district’s field extension officers earn salaries that are lower than those of 10 percent of the farmers. And, in spite of their higher average educational level, Mukono District women extension officers concen trate at the lowest income levels, though their average income is almost that of men.
Even when discriminatory practices are detected—as in the case of bias in favor of larger landholders for extension visits and demonstration projects—attitudinal bias is only one of several possible explanations for this practice. Examining alternative ex planations was beyond the scope of the study, but several possibilities emerged. These
First, larger landholders in Mukono District may be closer to main transportation sys tems or may offer transportation to extension officers; second, larger landholders in 236 the district may be more likely than smallholders to seek out extension assistance; or third, larger landholders may be long-term clients of Mukono District extension and have developed strong ties with field extension officers and their supervisors. In Muk ono District, largeholders may have become large farmers in part because of growth in production and income as a result of past and continuous interaction with extension.
Recommendations
The study was intended to provide information on attitudes of Mukono District field extension officers (beliefs, norms, and prejudice) and their socio-economic or demographic "causes" and the extent to which attitudes impact extension interaction with farmers. A basic assumption was that policymakers would benefit from informa tion on the way in which attitudes, dissemination of information on women farmers, and face-to-face interaction with farmers impact the work behavior of extension offi cials and field extension officers. In particular, the study expected to provide informa tion on the characteristics of extension officers associated with bias against women, ethnic groups, age groups, smallholders, and other groups. With this information the
Ministry could target training and sensitization sessions on officers whose characteris tics suggested they were at risk of bias. Information from the study could also be a critical component in developing more effective policies, better means for informing field extension officers about women farmers' tasks and needs, and mechanisms to en sure policy implementation at the local level.
The fact that the study, as structured, did not detect significant or widespread bias should not be interpreted either as a) a failure of the study or b) an absence of 237 bias. Mukono District extension officers have been sensitized by public debates on women's rights and roles and through participation in Ministry training sessions. At the time of the study, extension officers were under a great deal of criticism because of a
Ministry evaluation that blamed field extension officers for farmers' failure to adopt reconunended practices. As a result, their survey responses may have been more posi tive-reflecting Ministry norms and the public debate-and cautious than they would have been under other circumstances or in other districts of Uganda.
During the field work, attitudes were clearly only one potential source of prob lems for the implementation of policies, and demographic and socio-economic charac teristics were only two of many potential sources of attitudes. When the analysis of knowledge and attitudes was completed, it was found that more important factors are associated with extension practices and the behavior (and even some attitudes) of exten sion officers, including logistical problems, low level of rewards for their work, and possible farmer resistance to Ministry mandated projects. Therefore, recommendations of this study focus on both methodological and conceptual issues and on extension pol icy and practice issues.
Empirical Knowledge and Theory
The study was designed to contribute to sociologists' understanding of the cul tural specificity of existing theories and methods in attitude and bias research as well as to test theories of the relationship among attitudes, knowledge, and the characteristics of those studied. 238
One important finding of the background research conducted for the attitudinal study is that culturally and historicaliy-specific factors, including macroeconomics and political conditions, may have an important impact on attitude formation and on the links—or lack of—between attitudes and behavior. Certainly, these factors intervene in the relationship between attitudes and behavior as evidence by the difficult conditions under which Mukono District extension officers must work. These conditions interfere in their ability to act on their knowledge of policies and farmers and, potentially, on their own attitudes and beliefs. Furthermore, pressures brought to bear on their per formance lead Mukono District field extension officers to struggle to conform to ex pectations, even when conforming means subsidizing extension work with personal funds. Such behavior can, in turn, lead extension officers to shift their attitudes more favorably toward their work, the policies they implement, and the farmers they serve.
Therefore, future studies of attitudes will need to include a consideration of the impact of contextual factors.
Though not anticipated prior to field work, during the year of research it be came increasingly likely that the findings of the study would not replicate some of the better known conclusions regarding women and farming in Africa. On the one hand, as discussed above, extension agents did not reveal the kind of bias found in other studies.
The field extension officers reported high levels of agreement with women's participa tion in extension, though women's participation was low. The high level of agreement on women’s participation in extension activities led to the question of whether some thing is unique about the sample population or it is the research setting that differenti ates the study from the settings of other studies. 239
On the other hand, the family fanning system in the region studied (the most common farming system in Africa) intersects with the division of labor and local cul ture in ways that do not replicate—at least in farmers' and extension officers' reports— the subordination of women to male authority documented in other studies. In Mukono
District, differences in farming by women and farming by men are very subtle and the division of labor is flexible. That is, people did not report practices in a way that cor responded to a "rigid gender division of labor" in farming. Women and men report high levels of collaboration, though men seemed to report more collaboration by women than women did by men. Collaboration among men and women farmers in
Mukono District suggests women's labor burden may be greater and men may have greater rights to women's labor than women do to men's. Gendered rights to labor needs further study. And, with the exception of decision making that involves money, women and men collaborated in decision making or made decisions on their own as in dividuals for their individual tasks and responsibilities. Again, the question arises as to whether something is unique about the population studied or the setting or whether the study failed to detect gender discrimination because it was subtle or was not easily measured by the questions asked.
Methodological Issues
One issue of importance to the study was whether or not the concepts, scales, and methods developed for investigating attitudes and gender bias in Western, industrial ized settings were readily adaptable and useful to such research in rural Africa. This study reveals that more than flexibility and adaptation of gender attitude scales may be 240 necessary to assess attitudes. The study also reveals that the socioeconomic and demo graphic factors associated with negative or positive attitudes in industrialized countries may not be relevant to studies of attitudes under certain cultural and occupational con ditions. In fact, factors such as work ethic, conunitment to shared goals, experience with or sympathy for attitude objects may be more important predictors of attitudes and behaviors than ethnicity, sex, age, education and other widely-accepted variables.
Regrettably, these factors emerged late in field work and were not systematically as sessed.
Furthermore, in a multi-ethnic, agrarian society, such as Mukono District, where privilege has little meaning because of colonialism, dictatorships, civil war, and hard ship and where the inputs of all family members are important to survival, the vari ables associated with attitudes in wealthier, more industrialized societies were not good measures of attitudinal bias. Many items were dropped from the study and others adapted to the local context Nonetheless, the instruments failed to detect significant bias even though less systematic research, casual conversation, and open-ended ques tions did detect at least subtle bias against smallholders, most of whom are women.
Further testing is needed to determine whether or not Lickert scales and other stan dardized measures are appropriate for diverse contexts.
The study was designed to contribute to the fields of "program evaluation" and
"impact assessment" by considering the possible need to include attitudes in such stud ies. However, the study's contribution to these fields comes from its finding that ex ogenous factors, such as economic crisis and logistical problems in poor countries, must be considered in assessing the outcome of policies and programs. Additionally, 241 program evaluations should evaluate not only outcomes, but the theory behind the poli cies as well. If policies are erroneous, implementation will fail. And implementation cannot be an appropriate indicator of the success of policies and educational programs without considering external factors that impact implementation.
Recommendations For Future Research
Contextual Variables
This study acknowledges the need for and recommends examining factors other than attitudes in policy implementation-especially organizational and logistical vari ables (communication flows, funding and support mechanisms, training) and the degree of match between policies and the needs of target populations. Also recommended is the consideration of attitudes, policy formulation, and implementation within the broader context—including variables that assess issues of nationalism, level of living and social indicators of well-being or poverty that potentially impact implementation.
Also recommended is a replication of an improved version of this study in other districts. Mukono District, with 96 field extension officers, is among the districts with a higher concentration of extension officers. The Mukono District Farm Institute (DPI) at Ntaawo is also among the 16 most active farm institutes in the country. Using the
District Farm Institute (DFI) as a conduit for contacting farmers, Mukono District field extension officers appear to be much more knowledgeable about the farming cli entele—men and women clients alike—than would normally be expected. But how does
Mukono District compare with other districts of Uganda? The study should be repli cated in less advantaged regions and in places that are more ethnically diverse to de- 242 termine whether or not there is something unique about Mukono's farmers and exten sion officers.
Developing new measures and indicators to detect bias is needed. The type of scales and measures used for attitudinal studies in industrialized countries were inade quate to detect attitudinal bias. The absence of statistical significance in this study could mean an absence of bias or that the measures used were unable to detect existing bias.
Since the extension ofHcers studied were already sensitized by public debates on women's roles and rights and by MOA workshops, they may have been likely to give normative responses to attitude items on the questionnaire. If asking for policy and project recommendations elicited more gender bias—albeit subtle—than other, more systematic measures, perhaps open-ended questions and less structured interviews are more appropriate measures of possible bias under certain conditions.
The fact that both farmers and extension officers provided information on prac tices that contradicted legal opportunities and normative limitations indicates the need for studies that can examine the gap between norms and practices and that can recom mend strategies for making norms and laws beneficial to women a reality for women.
For instance, although farmers reported no legal obstacles to women owning land, why don't women own land? Such studies also should explore the implications for extension services of women's dependence on men for access to land and of men's greater authority over decisions involving money. Men’s access to land and greater authority over decisions involving money may play some unknown role in women's lower levels of extension experience and more negative attitudes toward extension. 243
The study found significant differences in farmers' and extension officers' ac count of extension practices. Further study is needed to determine if differences are attributable to extension officers' exaggerating their work, faulty recall on the part of farmers, or even farmer biases, among other possibilities.
Logistical Problems: Extension Policy and Practice
Though they are committed to their work and show considerable motivation and initiative in attempts to do their work, extension officers' low pay and rewards and the frequent delays in payment need to be corrected. Extension officers should receive re muneration commensurate with their education and experience as an incentive for high performance and to remove the need to divert their energies into alternative income generating activities. Acting on this recommendation may or may not be possible for the Ministry: budget priorities may target other items and the Ministry's budget de pends on decisions made by the Permanent Secretary and technocrats. However, the
Ministry should acknowledge the obstacles presented by inadequate pay and rewards.
The Ministry should provide the necessary transportation, equipment, and materials for extension officers to do their work. Providing technical support for field extension of ficers is a serious logistical problem also related to budgetary constraints. Nonetheless, in evaluating extension performance, the Ministry should acknowledge the obstacles presented by logistical problems. 244
Conununication Flows and Training
The Ministry should introduce communication flows in both directions—from top down and from bottom up. Policy makers have produced gender sensitive policies and policies that encourage greater attention to smallholders. However, specific pro grammatic and training recommendations developed at the top do not always match the needs of farmers. Policy makers could benefit from feedback provided by the exten sion officers who work with farmers. Furthermore, farmers and extension officers should participate in decision making at all levels of development of policy and pro grams.
Top down communication also needs to be improved. Extension officers have benefited from training on gender and smallholder issues. However, their knowledge and understanding of policies is contingent on the communication skills of their super visors. Officers usually do not review policy mandates. Rather, they hear about the mandates from secondary sources. Not only do secondary sources of information in crease the margin of error, they also decrease the likelihood of appropriate feedback from officers who may hesitate given their second-hand knowledge of policies.
Communication should also be improved at the level of extension work with farmers. The extent to which women farmers are targeted for training and demonstra tion is still unclear. Few women farmers actually participate in extension training pro grams and because farmers' comments did not match those of extension officers. In some cases, as indicated by the subtle gender biases that emerged in more informal dis cussions and in-depth interviews, extension officers may rely on men farmers to transmit ideas to women farmers. 245
Evaluation of Extension
As stated above, the Ministry needs to evaluate how realistic or appropriate poli cies and projects are and shift attention away from the assumption that problems lie with extension officers' performance or, as suggested by officers, with farmers' short comings. Developing a system of on going evaluations conducted by extension officers of their activities and policies in order to improve their feedback to policy makers would be useful for the Ministry.
In many settings, development practitioners and policy makers hesitate to disrupt patterns of interaction and structures of gendered privilege that are highly valued by the culture in which they work. In the case of Mukono, two issues are whether or not extension services can or should attempt to diminish women's dependence on men for land and whether or not to intervene in men's greater control over money and deci sions involving money. In both cases, the potential is high for improving women's par ticipation in extension and adoption of appropriate recommended practices. Officials at the Ministry and the extension network will need to discuss these issues and make deci sions. These decisions then should be incorporated into evaluations of extension suc cess.
Extension Strategies at the Local Level
To overcome negative opinions and experiences of farmers and to increase the likelihood that extension services will be relevant and, therefore, adopted, farmers— women and men farmers alike—must be involved in decision making. However, farm ers' understanding and perceived relevance of extension services will increase. Com 346 promises could be used as well. If farmers request certain services that extension offi cers consider inefficient, perhaps a project recommended by farmers could be imple mented and, during implementation, project effectiveness can be discussed and alterna tives also be introduced for discussion.
The Ministry targets women, but the extent to which its project recommenda tions are gender biased or to what extent extension officers and farmers resist recom mendations because they conflict with deeply held values and traditions are unclear.
However, the best ways to be sensitive to cultural factors and strive to eliminate gender bias are to let women and men choose what they want to do, to work on assuring the potential usefulness of projects to women (adapted to their constraints as wives and mothers and their expressed needs), implementing controls and incentives to keep in come projects from shifting toward social welfare projects (child care and cooking, for example), and providing consciousness raising training to extension officers—especially women—so they can use these in discussions with women farmers. Given the wide spread poverty and changing market conditions in Uganda, the Ministry would do well to conduct feasibility studies to reduce risks for farmers of new, untested projects.
Given the fact that farmers get inputs and information from sources external to the extension service—private shops and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), for example—the extension service should work with and study those sources to guarantee that external sources do not contradict extension recommendations, policies, and proj ects. Also, extension should incorporate knowledge of farmers' reality from external sources into policy initiatives and extension-recommended projects. 247
Above all, the Ministry should encourage local extension services to collaborate more with non governmental organizations (NGOs) and with other Ministries with op erations in the local area. Such collaboration could help to develop a division of labor among organizations and agencies and, hence, enable the Ministry of Agriculture to use resources in a more focused and efficient manner because it will know which other or ganizations are addressing certain needs of farmers. Working in concert with private shops and NGOs requires greater flexibility in the potential implementation of policies designed at the national level because of local conditions and the particular mix of local agencies, organizations, and support services. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, M. E. (1990). Agricultural Extension in Developing Countries. London, UK: Longman.
Adekanye, T. O. (1985). Innovation and Rural Women in Nigeria: Cassava Processing and Food Production. In I. Ahmed (Ed.), Technology and Rural Women: Conceptual and Empirical bsues (pp. 252-283). London, UK: George Allen & Unwin.
Afonja, S. (1981). Changing Modes of Production and the Sexual Division of Labor Among the Yoruba. Signs, 7(2):299-313.
Afonja, S. (1990). Changing Patterns of Gender Stratification in West Africa. In I. Tinker (Ed.), Persistent Inequalities: Women and World Development (pp. 198- 209). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Afshar, H. (1985). Women, Work, and Ideology in the Third World: Introduction. In H. Afshar (Ed.), Women. Work, and Ideology in the Third World (pp. ix- xvii). New York, NY: Tavistock.
Afshar, H. (1991). Women and Development: Myths and Realities—Some Introductory Notes. In H. Afshar (Ed.), Women. Development, and Survival in the Third World (pp. 1-10). New York, NY:Longman.
Agarwal, B. (1985). Women and Technological Change in Agriculture: The Asian and African Experience. In I. Ahmed (Ed.), Technology and Rural Women: Conceptual and Empirical Issues (pp. 67-114). London, UK: George Allen & Unwin. Agarwcd, B. (1991). Agricultural Mechanization and Labor Use: A Disaggregated Approach. In H. Afshar (Ed.), Women. Development, and Survival in the Third World (pp. 174-187). New York, NY: Longman.
Agresti, A. & Finlay, B. (1986). Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences. San Francisco, CA:Dellen Publishing Company.
Ahmed, I. (1985). Technology and Rural Women: Conceptual and Empirical Issues. London, UK: George Allen & Unwin. 248 249
Ajzen, I. (1982). On Behaving in Accordance with one's Attitudes. In M. P. Zanna, E. T. Higgins, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Consistency in Social Behavior, 2, 3-15. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ajzen, M. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding and Predicting Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Akeroyd, A. V. (1991). Gender, Food Production, and Property Rights: Constraints on Women Farmers in Southern Africa. In H. Afshar (Ed.), Women. Development, and Survival in the Third World (pp. 139-171). New York, NY: Longman.
Almanac. (1993). The CIA World Factbook. Washington, DC:Almanac.
Amadiume, I. (1988). Male Daughters. Female Husbands: Gender and Sex in an African Society. London, UK: Zed Books.
Anderson, M. B. (1982a). Kenya: Kitui District Arid and Semi-Arid Lands Project. In C. Overholt, M. B. Anderson, K. Cloud, & J. E. Austin (Eds.), Gender Roles in Development Projects: A Case Book (pp. 309-326). West Hartford, CN: Kumarian Press.
Anderson, M. B. (1982b). Technology Transfer: Implications for Women. In C. Overholt, M. B. Anderson, K. Cloud, & J. E. Austin (Eds.), Gender Roles in Development Projects: A CaseBocdc (pp. 57-78). West Hartford, CN: Kumarian Press.
Anker, R. (1994). Measuring Women’s Participation in the African Labor Force. In A. Adepoju & C. Oppong (Eds.), Gender. Work, and Population in Sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 64-75). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemaim.
Ashby, J. A. (1981). New Modes for Agricultural Research and Extension: The Need to Integrate Women. Invisible Farmers: Women and the Crisis in Agriculture (pp. 145-195). Washington, DC:US Agency for International Development
Bagchi, D. (1987). Rural Energy and the Role of Women. In J. H. Momsen & J. Townsend (Eds.), Geographv of Gender: The Third World (pp. 327-333). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Beere, C. A. (1990). Gender Roles: A Handbook of Text and Measures. New York, NY:Greenwood Press.
Beneria, L. (1979). Reproduction, Production, and the Sexual Division of Labor. Cambridge Journal of Economics. 3(3):203-225. 250
Beneria, L. & Sen, G. (1981). Accumulation, Reproduction, and Women's role in Economic Development: Boserup Revisited. Signs. 7(2):279-298.
Beneria, L. & Sen, G. (1982). Class and Gender Inequalities and Women's Role in Economic Development: Theoretical and Practical Implications. Feminist Studies, 8(1): 156-176.
Beneria, L. (1982a). Accounting for Women's Work. In L. Beneria (Ed.), Women and Development: The Sexual Division of Labor in Rural Societies (pp. 119- 147). New York, NY: Praeger.
Beneria, L. (1982b). Introduction, In L. Beneria (Ed.), Women and Development: The Sexual Division of Labor in Rural Societies (pp. Xi-xxiii). New York, NY: Praeger.
Berkowitz, L. (1980). A Survev of Social Psvchologv. San Francisco, CA:Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Berry, M. A. (1982). A Studv of Attitudes Toward Technology Dissertation. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
Besteman, C. (1995a). Access to Land. In H. K. Henderson & E. Hansen (Eds.), Gender and Agricultural Development: Surveying the Held (pp. 17-25). Tucson, AR: The University of Arizona Press.
Besteman, C. (1995b). Credit. In H. K. Henderson & E. Hansen (Eds.), Gender and Agricultural Development: Surveying the Field (pp. 41-47). Tucson, AR: The University of Arizona Press.
Besteman, C. (1995c). Agricultural Extension. In H. K. Henderson & E. Hansen (Eds.), Gender and Agricultural Development: Surveying the Field (pp. 58-65). Tucson, AR: The University of Arizona Press.
Besteman, C. (1995d). Out-Migration. In H. K. Henderson & E. Hansen (Eds.), Gender and Agricultural Development: Surveying the Held (pp. 66-73). Tucson, AR: The University of Arizona Press.
Besteman, C., Warner, J., & Howard-Powell, E. (1995). Income Generating: Cash Cropping, Marketing, & Agricultural Wage Labor. In H. K. Henderson & E. Hansen (Eds.), Gender and Agricultural Development: Surveying the Field (pp. 26-40). Tucson, AR: The University of Arizona Press.
Bhaduri, A. (1985). Technological Change and Rural Women: A Conceptual Analysis. In I. Ahmed (Ed.), Technology and Rural Women: Conceptual and Empirical Issues (pp. 15-26). London, UK: George Allen & Unwin. 251
Biraimah, K. C. (1982). The Impact of Western Schools on Girls' Expectations: A Togolese Case. In G. P. Kelly & C. M. Elliott (Eds.), Women's Education in the Third World: Comparative Perspectives (pp. 188-200). Albany, NY:State University Press of New York.
Birdsall, N. & McGreevey, W. P. (1983). Women, Poverty, and Development. In Buvinic, M., Lycette, M. & McGreevey, W. (Eds.), Women and Poverty in the Third World (pp. 3-13). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bisilliat, J. & Reloux, M. (1987). Agricultural Labor: The Business of Women. In J. Bisilliat & M. Reloux (Eds.), Women of the Third World: Work and Daily Life (pp. 21-29). Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
Blanc, A. K. & Lloyd, C. B. (1994). Women’s Work, Child-Bearing and Child- Rearing over the Life Cycle in Ghana. In A. Adepoju & C. Oppong, (Eds.), Gender. Work, and Population in Sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 112-131). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Blumberg, R. L. (1978). Stratification: Socioeconomic, and Sexual Inequality'. Dubuque, IO:Brown.
Blumberg, R. L. (1989). Making Sense of the Gender Variable: Women and the Wealth and Well-Being of Nations. New York, NY:US Agency for International Development, Office of Women in Development
Blumberg, R. L. (1991). Gender. Family And Economy: The Triple Overlap. Newbury Park, NY: Sage Publications.
Blumberg, R. L. (1995). Introduction: Engendering Wealth and Well-Being in an Era of Economic Transformation.. In R. L. Blumberg, C. A. Rakowski, I. Tinker, & M. Monteon (Eds.), Engendering Wealth & Well-Being:Emix>werment for Global Change (pp. 1-14). Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
Blumberg, R. L.; Rakowski, A.; & Monteon, M. (Eds.). (1995). Engendering Wealth & Well-Being: Emtx)werment for Global (Zhange. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
Boserup, E. (1970). Woman's Role in Economic Development. London, UK: George Allen & Unwin.
Boulding, E. (1983). Measures of Women's Work in the Third World: Problems and Suggestions. In Buvinic, M., Lycette, M. & McGreevey, W. (Eds.), Women and Poverty in the Third World (pp. 286-299). Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins University Press. 252
Bourque, S. & Carrillo, R. (1990). Access is not Enough: Gender Perspectives of Technology and Vacation. In I. Tinker (Ed.), Persistent Inequalities: Women and World Development (pp. 83-100). New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
Bradshaw, Y. W. (1985, April). Dependent Development in Black Africa: A Cross- National Study. American Sociological Review. 50. 195-207.
Bredder, S. J. (1984). Empirical Validation of Affect, Behavior, and Cognition as Distinct Components of Attitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1191-1205.
Brehm, S. S. (1988). Seeing Female: Social Roles and Personal Lives. New York, NY: Greenwood.
Brehm, S. S. & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control. New York, NY : Academic Press.
Bruce, J. W. (1986). Land Tenure Issues in Project Design and Strategies for Agricultural Development in Sub-Saharan Africa. Madison, WI:Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin.
Bryceson, D. F. (1985). Women's Proletarianization and the Family Wage in Tanzania. In H. Afshar (Ed.), Women. Work, and Ideology in the Third World (pp. 128-152). New York, NY:Tayistock.
Brydon, L. (1985). The Dimensions of Subordination: A Case Study from Avatime, Ghana. In H. Afshar (Ed.), Women. Work, and Ideology in the Third World (pp. 109-127). London, UK:Tavistock.
Brydon, L. and Chant, S. (1989). Women In the Third World. New Jersey: Rutgers Uniyersity Press.
Buchanan, K. (1980). Delineation of the Third World. In Vogeler, I. & deSonza (Eds.), Dialectics of Third World Deyelopment Education. New York, NY: Rowman & Allanheld.
Buchanan, W. I. , Errington, A. J. , & Giles, A. K. (1982). The Farmer's Wife: Her Role in the Management of the Business. Reading, UK: University of Reading.
Bukh, J. (1980). Women in Subsistence Production in Ghana. In D. Ghai, & Z. Ahmad (Eds.), Women in Rural Development: Critical Issues (pp. 18-20). Geneva, Switzerland: International Labor Office. 253
Buvinic, M. (1983). Women's Issues in Third World Poverty: A Policy Analysis. In Buvinic, M., Lycette, M. & McGreevey, W. (Eds.), Women and Poverty in the Third World (pp. 14-31). Baltimore, MDrJohns Hopkins University Press.
Buvinic, M. (1986). Projects for Women in the Third World: Explaining Their Misbehavior. World Development, 14(5):653-665.
Carloni, A. (1990). Women in FAO Projects: Cases from Asia, the Near East, and Africa. In K. Staudt (Ed.), Women. International Development and Politics: A Bureaucratic Mire (pp. 227-246). Philadelphia, PA:Temple University Press.
Carlsmith, J. M.; Collins, B. E.; & Helmreich, R. L. (1966). Studies in Forced Compliance: The Effect of Pressure for Compliance on Attitude Change Produced by Face-to-Face Role Playing and Anonymous Essay Writing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 4 , 1-13.
Carr, M. (1981). Technologies Appropriate for Women: Theory, Practice, and Policy. In R. Dauber & M. Cain (Ms.), Women and Teclmological Change in Developing Countries (pp. 193-203). Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
Carr, S. (1982). The Impact of Government Intervention on Smallholder Development in North and East Uganda. ADU Occasional Paper No. 5. Wye, London: University of London.
Carr, M. (1984). Blacksmith. Baker. Roofing-Sheet Maker: Employment for Rural Women in Developing Countries. London, UK:Intermediate Technology Publications.
Carr, M. (1985). Technologies for Rural Women: Impact and Dissemination. In I. Ahmed (Ed.), Technology and Rural Women: Conceptual and Empirical Issues. London, UK: George Allen & Unwin.
Carr, M. (1989). The Barefoot Book: Economically Appropriate Services for the Rural Poor. London:Intermediate Technology Publications.
Ceesay-Marenah, C. (1982). Women's Cooperative Thrift and Credit Societies: An Element of Women's Programs in the Gambia. In E. G. Bay (Ed.), Women and Work in Africa (pp. 298-295). Boulder, CO:West view Press.
Chaiken, S. & Stangor, C. (1987). Attitudes and Attitude Change. Annual Review of Psvchologv. 38. 575-630.
Chambers, R. (1983). Rural Development: Putting the Last First. New York, NY :Longman. 254
Chambers, R. & Ghildyal, B. P. (1985). Agricultural Research for Resourc-Poor Farmers: The Farmer-Pirst-and-Last Model. Agricultural Administration and Extension, 20. 1-30.
Chambers, R.; Pacey, A.; & Thrupp, L. A. (1989). Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. New York, NY:The Bootstrap Press.
Chaney, E. & Schmink, M. (1980). Women and Modernization: Access to Tools. In J. Nash & H. Safa QEds.), Sex and Class in Latin America. New York, NY:Bergin Publishers.
Charleton, S. E. M. (1984). Women in Third World Development. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
Chazan, N. (1989). Gender Perspectives on African States. In J. L. Parpart, & K. Staudt (Eds.), Women and the State in Africa (pp. 185-201). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Cheater, A. (1981). Women and their Participation in Commercial Agricultural Production: The Case of Medium-Scale Freehold in Zimbabwe. Development and Change. 12(3):349-377.
Clark, G. & Manuh, T. (1991). Women Traders in Ghana and the Structural Adjustment Program. In C. H. Gladwin (Ed.), Structural Adjustment and African Women Farmers (pp. 217-236). Gainesville, FL:University of Florida Press.
Clark, M. H. (1984). Women-Headed Households and Poverty: Insights from Kenya. Signs. 10(2):338-354.
Cleaves, P. (1980). Implementation Amidst Scarcity and Apathy: Political Power and Policy Design. In Grindle, M. S. (Ed.), Politics and Policy Implementation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University ft-ess.
Cloud, K. (1985). Women's Productivity in Agricultural Systems: Considerations for Project Design. In C. Overholt, M. Anderson, K. (Cloud, & J. Austin (Eds.), Gender Roles in Development Projects: A Case Book (pp. 17-56). West Hartford, CN: Kumarian Press.
Cloud, K. (1986). Sex Roles in Food Production and Distribution Systems in the Sahel. In L. E. Creevey (Ed.), Women Farmers in Africa: Rural Development in Mali and the Sahel (pp. 19-49). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. 255
Cloud, K. & Knowles, J. (1988). Where Do We Go From Here: Recommendations For Action. In J. Davidson (Ed.), Agriculture. Women, and Land: the African Experience (pp. 250-264). Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. (1996). Uganda History. America Online, May 12, 1996.
Converse, P. E. (1970). Attitudes and Non-attitudes: Continuation of a Dialogue. In E. R. Tufte (Ed.), The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems (pp. 168-189). Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.
Cooksey, B. (1982). Education and Sexual Inequality in Cameroon. Journal of Modem African Studies. 20(1):167-177.
Corbett, J. (1985). Mexico: The Policy Context of Social Impact Analysis. In W. Derman & S. Whiteford (Eds.), Social Impact Analysis and Development Planning in the Third World (pp. 50-66). Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
Coverman, S. (1983). Gender, Domestic Labor Time, and Wage Inequality. American Sociological Review. 48(5):623-637.
Creevey, L. E. (1986). The Role of Women in Malian Agriculture. In L. E. Creevey (Ed.), Women Farmers in Africa: Rural Development in Mali and the Sahel, (pp. 51-^). Syracuse, NY:Syracuse University Press.
Creevey, L. E. (1986). Women Farmers in Mali and the Sahel: Introduction. In L. E. Creevey (Ed.), Women Farmers in Africa: Rural Development in Mali and the Sahel, (pp. 1-13). Syracuse, NY:Syracuse University Press.
Curtis, R. F. (1986). Household and Family in Theory on Inequality. American Sociological Review. 51(2): 168-183
Cushman, D. P. & McPhee, R. D. (1980). Message-Attitude-Behavior Relationship. New York, NY: Academic Press.
D'Onofrio-Flores, P. M. (1982). Technology, Economic Development, and the Division of Labor by Sex. In P. M. D'Onofrio-Flores & S. M. Pfafflin (Eds.), Scientific -Technological Change and the Role of Women in Development (pp. 13-28). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Daddieh, C. K. (1989). Production and Reproduction: Women And Agricultural Resurgence In Sub-Saharan Africa. In Parpart, J. (Ed.), Women And Development In Africa. New York, NY: University Press of America. 256
Date-Bah, E. (1985). Technologies for Rural Women of Ghana: Role of Socio- Cuiturai Factors. In I. Ahmed (Ed.), Technology and Rural Women: Conceptual and Empirical Issues (pp. 211-251). London, UK: George Allen & Unwin.
Dauber, R. (1981). Applying Policy Analysis to Women and Technology. In R. Dauber & M. Cain (Eds.), Women and Technological Change in Developing Countries (pp. 237-251). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Davidson, A. R. & Jaccard, J. (1979). Variables that Moderate the Attitude-Behavior Relation: Results of Longitudinal Survey. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37. 1364-1376.
Davidson, J. (1988). Land and Women's Agricultural Production: The Context In J. Davidson (Ed.), Agriculture. Women, and Land: the African Experience (pp. 1- 32). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Davidson, J. (1988). Agriculture. Women, and Land: the African Experience. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Dawes, R. M. & Smith, T. L. (1985). Attitude and Opinion Measurement. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (3rd ed.), 1_, 509- 566. New York, NY: Random House.
De Groot, J. (1991). Conceptions and Misconceptions: The Historical and Cultural Context of Discussion on Women and Development. In H. Afshar (Ed.), Women. Development, and Survival in the Third World (pp. 107-135). New York, NY:Longman.
Deble, I. (1988). Reflections on Methodology for Integrating Women's Concerns into Development Activities. In K. Young (Ed.), Women and Economic Development: Local. Regional, and National Planning Strategies (pp. 209-224). Oxford:UNESCO.
Deere, C. (1982). The Division of Labor by Sex in Agriculture: A Peruvian Case Study. Economic Development and Cultural Change. 30(4):795-811.
Dejene, A. (1980). Non-Formal Education as a Strategy in Development: Comparative Analysis of Rural Development Projects. Washington, DC: University Press of America.
Dennis, C. (1991). Constructing a Career under Conditions of Economic Crisis and Structural Adjustment: The Survival Strategies of Nigerigm Women. In H. Afshar (Ed.), Women. Development, and Survival in the Third World (pp. 88- 106). New York, NY:Longman. 257
Derman, W. & Whiteford, S. (1985). Introduction: Issues in Social Impact Analysis and Development In W. Derman & S. Whiteford (Eds.), Social Impact Analysis and Development Planning in the Third World (pp. 1-17). Boulder, CO: Westview Press,
Diallo, S. C. (1986). Improving Women's Rural Production Through the Organization of Cooperatives. In L. E. Creevey (Ed.), Women Farmers in Africa: Rural Development in Mali and the Sahel (pp. 159-166). Syracuse, NY-.Syracuse University Press. District Farm Institute (Mukono DPI), (1994). Agricultural Extension Training Methods and Techniques. Mukono, Uganda: Mukono District Farm Institute. Dixon, J. M.; Hall, M; Hardaker, J. B.; & Vyas, V. S. (1994). Farm and Community Information Use for Agricultural Programs and Policies. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations.
Dixon R. (1982). Mobilizing Women for Rural Employment in South Asia: Issues of Class, Caste, and Patronage. Economic Development and Cultural Change. ^(2):373-390.
Dixon, R. (1981). Jobs for Women in Rural Industry and Services. In Invisible Farmers: Women and the Crisis in Agriculture (pp. 272-328). Washington, DC: Agency for International Development, Office of Women in Development
Dixon, R. (1983). Land, Labor, and the Sex Composition of the Agricultural Labor Force: An International Comparison. Development and Change. 14(3):347-372.
Dixon-Mueller, R. (1985). Women's Work in Third World Agriculture: Concepts and Indicators. Geneva, Switzerland:Intemational Labor Office.
Donahue, J. M. (1985). Policy and Praxis: Planning for Health Care in Nicaragua. In W. Derman & S. Whiteford (Eds.), Social Impact Analysis and Development Planning in the Third World (pp. 240-261). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Due, J. M. (1991). Policies to Overcome the Negative Effects of Structural Adjustment Programs on African Female-Headed Households. In C. H. Gladwin (Ed.), Structural Adiustment and African Women Farmers (pp. 103-127). Gainesville, FL:University of Florida Press.
Due, J. M. (1988). Intra-Household Gender Issues in Farming Systems in Tanzania, Zambia, and Malawi. In S. Poats, M. Schmink, & A. Spring (Eds.), Gender Issues in Farming Systems Research and Bitension (pp. 331-334 Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 258
Dulansey, M. & Austin, J. (1982). Small-Scale Enterprise and Women. In C. Overholt, M. B. Anderson, K. Cloud, & J. E. Austin (Eds.), Gender Roles in Development Projects: A Case Bode (pp. 79-131). West Hartford, CN: Kumarian Press.
Dwiser, D. & Bruce, J. (1988). A Home Divided: Women and Income in the Third World. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Dyson-Hudson, Rada, Neville. (1970). The Food Production System of a Semi- Nomadic Society; The Karimojon of Uganda. In McLoughlin, P. M. (Ed.), Women in Tropical Africa. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Ebbesen, E. B. (1981). Cognitive Processes in Inferences about a Person's Personality. In E. Higgins, C. Herman, & M. Zanna (Eds.), Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium, 1, 247-276. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eiser, J. R. & Pligt, van der. (1988). Attitudes and Decisions. New York, NY: Routledge.
Eiser, J. R. (1986). Social Psychology: Attitudes. Cognition, and Social Behavior. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Eiser, J. R. (1987). The Expression of Attitude. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Elliott, C. M. (1977). Theories of Development: An Assessment. Signs. 3(1): 1-8.
Elson, D. (1991). Male Bias in the Development Process. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Erbaugh, J. M. (1995). Determinants of Agricultural Production in Uganda: A Socio- Ecological Approach. Ph.D. Dissertation. The Ohio State University. (Unpublished).
Eremu, J. (1994, February 13). Men Ride on the Back of Women, The Sunday Vision. 2(6 ): 11.
Evans, A. (1988). Gender Relations and Technological Change: The Need for an Integrative Framework for Analysis. In S. Poats, M. Schmink, & A. Spring (Eds.), Gender Issues in Fanning Systems Research and Extension (pp. 37-48). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Everett, J. & Savara, M. (1984). Bank Loans to the Poor in Bombay: Do Women Benefit? Signs. 10(2):272-290. 259
Everett, J. & Savara, M. (1991). Institutional Credit as a Strategy Towards Self- Reliance for Petty Commodity Producers in India: A Critical Evaluation. In H. Afshar (Ed.), Women. Development, and Survival in the Third World (pp. 239- 259). New York, NY: Longman.
Ewell, P. (1990). Links Between On-Farm Research and Extension in Nine Countries. In D. Kaimowitz (Ed.), Making the Link: Agricultiu-al Research and Technology Transfer in Developing Countries (pp. 151-196). Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
Fapohunda, E. R. (1987). The Nuclear Household Model in Nigerian Public and Private Sector Policy: Colonial Legacy and Socio-Political Implications. Development and Change. 18(2):281-294).
Fatton, R. (1989). Gender, Class, and State in Africa. In J. L. Parpart, & K. Staudt (Eds.), Women and the Slate in Africa (pp. 47-66). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Fazio, R. H. Zaima, M. P. (1981). Direct Experience and Attitude-Behavior Consistency. In I. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental and Social Psychology, 14. 161-202.
Fazio, R. H., Powell, M. C., & Herr, P. M. (1983). Toward a Process Model of the Attitude-Behayior Relation: Accessing one's Attitude upon mere Obseryation of the Attitude Object. Journal of Personality and Social feychology. 44. 723-735.
Fazio, R. H. (1986). How Do Attitudes Guide Behayior? In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Motiyation and Cognition (pp. 204-243). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Feagin, J. R. & Eckberg, D. L. (1980). Discrimination:Motiyation, Action, Effects, and Context Annual Reyiew of Sociology. 6, 1-20.
Fendru, I. (1995). A Socio-Economic Study of Access to Rural Rnance in Uganda. Ph.D. Dissertation. The Ohio State Uniyersity. (Unpublished).
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of Cognitiye Disscaiance. Stanford, CA: Stanford Uniyersity Press.
Relding, N. G. & Lee, R. M. (1991). Using Computers in Oualitatiye Research. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1974). Attitudes Toward Objects as Predictors of Single and Multiple Behayioral Criteria. Psychological Reyiew, 81, 59-74. 260
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief. Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesiey.
Fliegel, F. (1993). Diffusion Research in Rural Sociology: The Record and Prospects for the Future. Westport, CN: Greeenwood Press.
Flora, C. B. (November, 1981). Farm Women, Farming Systems, and Agricultural Structure: Suggestions for Scholarship. The Rural Sociologist i(6):383-386.
Flora, C. B. (1983). Incorporating Women into International Development Programs: The Political Phenomenology of a Private Foundation. In K. A. Staudt & J. S. Jaquette, (Eds.), Women in Developing Countries: A Policy Focus (pp. 89-106). New York, The Haworth Press.
Flora, C. B. (1985). Women and Agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values. Winter:5-12.
Folbre, N. (1988). Patriarchal Social Formations in Zimbabwe. In S. B. Stitcher & L. Parpart (Eds.), Patriarchy and Class: African Women in the Home and the Workforce (pp. 61-80). Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
Forward Looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women to the Year 2000. (1986). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Friedmaim, J. (1992). Empowerment: Politics of Alternative Development New York: Blackwell.
Fruzetti, L. (1985). Farm and Hearth: Rural Women in a Farming Community. In H. Afshar (Ed.), Women. Work, and Ideology in the Third World (pp. 37-65). London, UK:Tavistock.
Gittinger, J. P. (1990). Household Food Security and the Role of Women. World Bank Discussion Papers. No. 96. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Gladwin, C. & McMillan, D. (1989). Is a Turnaround in Africa Possible Without Helping African Women to Farm? Economic Development and Cultural Change. ^(2):345-369.
Gladwin, C. H. (1991). Fertilizer Subsidy Removal Programs and Their Potential Impacts on Women in Malawi and Cameroon. In C. H. Gladwin (Ed.), Structural Adiustment and African Women Farmers, (pp. 191-216). Gainesville, FL:University of Florida Press. 261
Goldschmidt-Clermont, L. (1995). Assessing Women’s Economic Contributions in Domestic and Related Activities. In A. Adepoju & C. Oppong (Eds.), Gender. Work, and Population in Sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 76-87). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gordon, B. & Stewart, R. (1990). Impact of National Economic Reforms upon Urban Households in an African Society. In Environmental Impact Assessment Review :209-218.
Grady, K. L. (March 1982). An Analysis of Fulltime and Parttime Farmers: Differences in Agricultural Land Use. Saskatchewan, Canada: University of Saskatchewan.
Grolier Encyclopedia. (1995). Attitudes. E World, March 15, 1995.
Grolier Encyclopedia. (1996). Uganda History. America Online, May 12, 1996.
Guyer, J. I. (1984). Women in the Rural Economy: Contemporary Variations. In M. J. Hay & S. Stitcher (Eds.), African Women South of the Sahara. New York: Longman.
Hansen, H. B. & M. Twaddle (Eds.). (1988). Uganda Now: Between Decay and Development. Athens, Ohio: OWo University Press.
Hansen, H. B. & M. Twaddle (Eds.). (1991). Changing Uganda: The Dilemmas of Structural Adiustment and Revolutionary Change. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press.
Hansen, K. T. (1989). The Black Market and Women Traders in Lusaka, Zambia. In J. L. Parpart, & K. Staudt (Eds.), Women and the State in Africa (pp. 143-160). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Harrington, J. A. (1983). Nutritional Stress and Economic Responsibility: A Study of Nigerian Women. In Buvinic, M., Lycette, M. & McGreevey, W. (Eds.), Women and Poverty in the Third World (pp. 130-156). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hemmings-Gapihan, G. (1982). International Development and the Evolution of Women's Economic Roles: A Case Study from Northern Gulma, Upper Volta. In E. G. Bay (Ed.), Women and Work in Africa (pp. 171-189). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 262
Henderson, H. (1986). The Grassroots Women's Committee as a Development Strategy in an Upper Volta Village. In L. E. Creevey (Ed.), Women Farmers in Africa: Rural Development in Mali and the Sahel, (pp. 133-152). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Henderson, H. (1994). Beyond GNP. In W. Harcourt (Ed.), Feminist Perspectives on Sustainable Development (pp. 75-86). Atlantic Highlands, NJ:Zed Books.
Henderson, H. K. (1995). The Gender Division of Labor. In H. K. Henderson & E. Hansen (Eds.), Gender and Agricultural Development: Surveying the Reid (pp. 3-12). Tucson, AR: The University of Arizona Press.
Henn, J. K. (1988). Intra-Household Dynamics and State Policies as Constrains on Food Production: Results from a 1985 Agronomic Survey in Cameroon. In S. Poats, M. Schmink, & A. Spring (Eds.), Gender Issues in Farming Systems Research and Extension (pp. 315-330). Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
Henn, J. K. 1984. Women in The Rural Economy: Past, Present, and Future. In M. J. Hay & S. Stitcher (Eds.), African Women South of The Sahara. New York: Longman.
Heyzer, N. (1986). Working Women In South-East Asia: Development, Subordination. And Emancipation. Milton, Keynes, PH: Open University Press.
Heyzer, N. (1988). From Rural Subsistence to Industrial Peripheral Work Force: An Examination of Female Malaysian Migrants and Capital Accumulation in Singapore. In L. Beneria (Ed.), Women and Development: The Sexual Division of Labor in Rural Societies. New York, NY: Praeger.
Hildebrand, P. (1986). Perspectives on Farming Systems Research and Extension. Boulder, C!0: Reinner.
Hill, F. (1981). Farm Women: Challenge to Scholarship. The Rural Sociologist. 1(6): 370-382.
Hillgard, E. R. (1980). The Trilogy of Mind: Cognition, Affection, and Conation. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences. 16. 107-117.
Houts, S. (1986, March). American Feminists as Women in Development. The Rural Sociologist. ^2): 124-128.
Hudgens, R. E. (1988). A Diagnostic Survey of Female-Headed Households in the Central Province of Zambia. In S. Poats, M. Schmink, & A. Spring (Eds.), Gender Issues in Farming Systems Research and Extension (pp. 373-406). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 263
Huffman, W. E. & Lange, M. D. (1983, April). Off-Farm and Farm Work Decisions of Married Farm Males and Females.
Humphrey, J. (1985). Gender, Pay, and Skill: Manual Workers in Brazilian Industry. In H. Afshar (Ed.), Women. Work, and Ideology in the Third World (pp. 214- 231). New York, NY: Tavistock.
Ibrahim, B. (1989). Policies Affecting Women's Employment in the Formal Sector: Strategies for Change. World Development. 17(7): 1097-1107.
ILO-Intemational Labor Office. (1984). Rural Development and Women in Africa. Geneva: International Labor Office.
Insko, C. A. (1981). Balance Theory and Phenomenology. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive Responses in Persuasion (pp. 309- 338). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Isaac, S. & Michael W. B. (1981). Handbook in Research and Evaluation. (2Nd ed.).San Diego, CA: Edits Publishers.
Jacobs, S. (1989). Zimbabwe: State, Class, and Gendered Models of Land Resettlement In J. L. Parpart, & K. Staudt (Eds.), Women and the State in Africa (pp. 161-184). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Jacobs, S. M. & Howard, T. (1987). Women in Zimbabwe: Stated Policy and State Action. In H. Afshar (Ed.), Women. State, and Ideology (pp. 28-47). London, UK: The Macmillan Press.
Jacquette, J. (1990). Gender and Justice in Economic Development. In I. Tinker (Ed.), Persistence Inequalities: Women and World Development (pp. 54-69). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Jameson, J. D. (1970). Agriculture in Uganda. London, UK: Oxford University Press.
Jensen, K. (1990). Getting to Third World: Agencies as Gatekeepers. In K. Staudt (Ed.), Women. International Development, and Politics: A Bureaucratic Mire (247-264). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Jiggins, J. (1986). Gender-Related Impacts and the Work of the International Agricultural Research Centers. Washington, DC:The World Bank.
Jiggins, J. (1989). How Poor Women Earn Income in Sub-Saharan Africa and what works against Them. World Development. 17(7):953-963. 264
Jiggins, J., Maimbo, P., and Masona, M. (1995.) Breaking New Ground: Reaching Out to Women Farmers in Western Zambia. In A. Leonard (Ed.), Seeds 2: Supporting Women's Work Around the World (pp. 17-40). New York, NYrThe Feminist Press.
Joekes, Susan. 1987. Women in the World Economy: An INSTRAW Study. New York: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, A. G. (1986). Human Arrangements: An Introduction to Sociology. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Johnston, B. F. (1991). Getting Priorities Right: Structural Transformation and Strategic Notions. In C. H. Gladwin, (Ed.), Structural Adiustment and African Women Farmers (pp. 81-99). Gainesville, IT^:University of Florida Press.
Jules-Rosette, B. (1988). Women's Work in the Informal Sector: A Zambian Case Study. In M. F. Abraham & P. S. Abraham (Eds.), Women, Development, and Change: The Third World Experience (pp. 75-108). Bristol, IN: Wyndham IMl Press. Kaahwa, J. 1994). Women and Gender Issues Notes. Kampala, Uganda: Women’s Studies, Makerere University. Kammen, Daniel M. (1992, May/June), Participatory Rural Appraisal: Environmental Resource Accounting and Management, African Technology Forum 5(2):22-24.
Kandiyoti, D. (1990). Women and Rural Development Policies: The Changing Agenda. Development and Change. 21(l):5-22.
Kardam, N. (1990). The Adaptability of International Development Agencies: The Response of the World Bank to Women in Development. In K. Staudt (Ed.), Women. International Development, and Politics: A Bureaucratic Mire (114- 128). Philadelphia, PA:Temple University Press.
Kasfir, N. (1988). Land and Peasants in Western Uganda: Bushenyi and Mbarara Districts. In H. B. Hansen & M. Twaddle (Eds.), Uganda Now: Between Decay and Development (pp. 158-174). Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press.
Kasfir, N. (1991). The Ugandan Elections of 1989: Power, Population, and Democratization. In H. B. Hansen & M. Twaddle (Eds.), Changing Uganda: The Dilemmas of Structural Adiustment and Revolutionary Change (pp. 247-278). Kampala, Uganda: Fountain Press.
Keller, G., Warrack, B., & Bartel, H. (1993). Statistics for Management and Economics: A Systematic Approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company 265
Kelly, G. P. & Elliott, C. M. (1982). Women's Education in the Third World: Comparative Perspectives. Albany, NY:State University Press of New York.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1984). Liberalism and Conservatism: The Nature and Structure of Social Attitudes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Khaminwa, M. (1992, May/June), Exploring the Roots of Sexual Bias in Africa, African Technology Forum 5(2): 11-13; 39.
Ki-Zerbo, J. (1986). Appropriate Technologies for Women of the Sahel. In L. E. Creevey (Ed.), Women Farmers in Africa: Rural Development in Mali and the Sahel (pp. 167-177). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Kiecolt, K. J. (1988). Recent Development in Attitudes and Social Structure. Annual Review of Sociology, 14. 381-403. Kirmani, Muhina Hassanali (1992, May/June), Getting Girls into the Classroom: Four Strategies Using Technology, African Technology Forum ^2):20-21.
Kisamba-Mugerwa, W. (1991). Problems of Landholding. In H. B. Hansen & M. Twaddle (Eds.), Changing Uganda: The Dilemmas of Structural Adiustment and Revolutionary (Change (pp. 311-321). Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.
Kottel, B. (1995). Gender and Environments: Lessons from WED NET. In R. L. Blumberg, C. A. Rakowski, I. Tinker, & M. Monteon (Eds.), Engendering Wealth & Well-Being: Empowerment for Global Change (pp. 239-260). Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
Kizito, E. (1995a). Uganda. Reuter News Agency. E-World, August 6, 1995.
Kizito, E. (1995b). Uganda Leader Cautions Monarchs on Politics. E World, August 19, 1995.
Kynch, J. (1987). Some State Responses to Male and Female Need in British India. In H. Afshar (Ed.), Women. State, and Ideology (pp. 130-151). London, UK: The Macmillan Press.
Lateef, K. S. (1991). Structural Adjustment on Trial. In Hansen, Bemt, and Twaddle (Eds.), Changing Uganda: The Dilemmas of Structural Adiustment and Revolutionary Change (pp. 20-42). Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.
Lawson, E. D. (1989). Sex-Related Values and Attitudes of College Students: A Sexism Scale VS The Semantic Differential. Psychological Reports. 64. 463- 476. 266
Lele, U. (1989). Managing Agricultural Development in Africa: Three Articles on Lessons from Experience. Washington, DCzThe World Bank.
Lemarchand, R. (1986). The Political Economy of Food Issues. In Hansen, D. and McMillan, D., Food in sub-Saharan Africa. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Leonard, A. (Ed.). (1995). Seeds 2: Supporting Women's Work Around the World. New York: The Feminist Press.
Lewis, B. (1984). The Impact of Development Policies on Women. In M. J. Hay & S. Stitcher (Eds.), African Women South of the Sahara. New York: Longman.
Lewis, B. (1990). Farming Women, Public Policy, and the Women's Ministry: A Case Study from Cameroon. In K Staudt, (Ed.), Women. International Development and Politics: A Bureaucratic Mire (pp. 180-200). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Lim, L. Y. (1990). Women's Work in Export Factories: The Politics of a Cause. In I. Tinker (Ed.), Persistent Inequalities: Women and World Development (pp. 101- 119). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Longhurst, R. (1982). Resource Allocation and the Sexual Division of Labor A Case Study of a Moslem Hausa Village in Northern Nigeria. In L. Beneria (Ed.), Women and Development: The Sexual Division of Labor in Rural Societies (pp. 95-117). New York, NY: Praeger.
Lord, C. G., Lepper, M. R., & Mackie, D. (1984). Attitude Prototypes as Determinants of Attitude-Behavior Consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 46. 1254-1266.
Lovett, M. (1989). Gender Relations, Class Formation, and the Colonial State in Africa. In J. L. Parpart, & K. Staudt (Eds.), Women and the State in Africa (pp. 23-46). Boulder, CO: L\mie Rienner.
Lycette, M. A. (1984). Improving Women's Access to Credit in the Third World: Policy and Project Recommendations. Occasional Paper No. 1. Washington. DC: US Agency for International Development
MacCormack, C. P. (1982). Control of Land, Labor, and (Capital in Rural Southern Sierra Leone. In E. G. Bay (Ed.), Women and Work in Africa (pp. 35-53). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Marlett, M. (1988). The Women's Program of the (Jambian Mixed Farming Project. In S. Poats, M. Schmink, & A. Spring (Eds.), Gender Issues in Farming Systems Research and Extension (pp. 303-313). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 267
Mason, R., Boersma, L., & Faulkenberry, D. (1988). The Use of Open and Closed Questions to Identify Holders of Crystallized Attitudes; The Case of Adoption of Erosion Control Practices Among Farmers. Rural Sociology, 53(1):96-109.
Mbilinyi, M. (1988). Agribusiness and Women Peasants in Tanzania. Development and Change. 19(4):549-583.
Mbilinyi, M. (1989). This is an Unforgettable Business: Colonial State Intervention in Urban Tanzania. In J. L. Parpart, & K. Staudt (Eds.), Women and the State in Africa (pp. 111-129). Boulder, CO: Lyime Rienner.
McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and Attitude Change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Hamdbook of Social Psvchologv. 3, 233-346. New York, NY: Random House.
McNamara, R. S. (1985). The Challenges for Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC: Sir John Crawford Memorial Lecture.
McSweeney, B. G. & Freedman, M. (1982). Lack of Time as an Obstacle to Women's Education: The Case of Upper Volta. In G. P. Kelly & C. M. Elliott, (Eds.), Women's Education in the Third World: Comparative Perspectives (pp. 88-103). Albany, NY: State University Press of New York.
Meena, R. (1991). The Impact of Structural Adjustment Programs on Rural Women in Tanzania. In C. H. Gladwin (Ed.), Structural Adiustment and African Women Farmers (pp. 169-190). Gainesville, FL:University of Florida Press.
Mehendale, L. (1991). The Integrated Rural Development Program for Women in Developing Countries: What More Can Be Done? A Case Study from India. In H. Afshar (Ed.), Women. Development, and Survival in the Third World (pp. 223-238). New York, NY:Longman. Mengo, A. K. (1994, December). Agricultural Extension Training for Women in Uganda. Entebbe, Uganda: Ministry of Agriculture Headquarters (Unpublished).
Michell, J. (1986). Measurement Scales and Statistics: A Clash of Paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 398-407.
Mies, M. (1982). The Dynamics of the Sexual Division of Labor and Integration of Rural Women into the World Market. In L. Beneria (Ed.), Women and Development: The Sexual Division of Labor in Rural Societies (pp. 1-28). New York, NY:Praeger.
Miller, J. & Garrison, H. H. (1982). Sex Roles: The Division of Labor at Home and in the Workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 237-262. 268
Ministry of Agriculture (MOA). (1984). Policies and Strategies for Agricultural Development. Entebbe, Uganda:Ministry of Agriculture Headquarters. Ministry of Agriculture (MOA). (1994, January). AEP News, i, 1-10. MISR/LTC. (1989). Land Tenure and Agricultural Development in Uganda. Kampala, Uganda: Makerere Institute of Social Research and Land Tenure Center, Madison, WI, USA.
Moghadam, V. M. (1995). Gender Dynamics of Restructuring in the Semi-peripheiy . . In R. L. Blumberg, C. A. Rakowski, I. Tinker, & M. Monteon (Eds.), Engendering Wealth & Well-Being: Empowerment for Global Change (pp. 17- 38). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Mones, B. & grant, L. (1987). Agricultural Development, the Economic Crisis, and Rural Women in the Dominican Republic. In C. Diana & M. Leon (Eds.), Rural Women and State Policy: Feminist Perspectives on Latin American Agricultural Development (pp. 212-238). Boulder, CO: Westview Press
Monson, J. & Kalb, M. (Eds.). (1985). Women As Food Producers In Developing Countries. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA African Studies Center.
Montero, M (1990). Ideology and Psychosocial Research in Third World Contexts. Journal of Social Issues. 46(3):43-55.
Moose, D. (1994). Authority, Gender, and Knowledge: Theoretical Reflections on the Practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal. Development and Change. 25, 498- 526.
Morgan, P. E. (1985). Social Analysis and the Dynamics of Advocacy in Development Assistance. In W. Derman & S. Whiteford (Eds.), Social Impact Analysis and Development Planning in the Third World (pp. 21-31). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Moma, C., Ephson, B., Kawule, G., Ouattara, S. and Horst, S. (1990). Credit: A Key Agricultural Input. African Farmer. 3, 29-33. Morris, G. A., Lobao, L. M., Wavamunno, C. (1994). Semi-Formal Rnance in Uganda: The Use of Non-Bank Financial Institutions. Kampala, Uganda: Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda (unpublished).
Morvaridi, B. (1995). Macroeconomic Policies and Gender Relations: The Study of Farming Households in Two Turkish Villages. In R. L. Blumberg, C. A. Rakowski, I. Tinker, & M. Monteon (Eds.), Engendering Wealth & Well-Being: Empowerment for Global Change (pp. 135-152). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 269
Moser, C. (1989). Gender Planning in the Third World: Meeting Practical and Strategic Needs. World Development. 17(11): 1799-1825.
Moser, C. (1993). Gender, Planning, and Development. New York, NY: Routledge.
Mtoi, M. T. (1988). Institutional and Policy Parameters Affecting Gender Issues in Farming Systems Research in Tanzania. In S. Poats, M. Schmink, & A. Spring (Eds.), (render Issues in Farming Systems Research and Extension (pp. 345- 369). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Mueller, D. J. (1986). Measuring Social Attitudes: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners. New Y ork, NY : Teacher’s College Press.
Mueller, E. (1983). Measuring Women's Poverty in Developing Countries. In Buvinic, M., Lycette, M. & McGreevey, W. (Eds.), Women and Poverty in the Third World (pp. 272-285). Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins University Press.
Mueller, A. (1987). Peasants and Professionals: The Production of Knowledge About Women in the Third World. Unpublished paper.
Mukono. (1994, May). The Buikwe Health Status: Baseline Survey Report. Kampala, Uganda: Makerere University Faculty of Medicine.
Mukono District. (1994, October). The 1994/95 District Development Plan. Kampala, Uganda: The Republic of Uganda.
Munachonga, M. L. (1989). Women and the State: Zambia's Development Policies and Their Impact on Women. In J. L. Parpart, & K. Staudt (Eds.), Women and the State in Africa (pp. 130-142). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Muntemba, M. (1982). Women and Agricultural Change in the Railway Region of Zambia: Dispossession and Counter Strategies, 1930-1970. In E. Bay (Ed.), Women and Work in Africa (pp. 83-103). Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
Murray, M. E. (1981). Factors Guiding Research on Farm Women. The Rural Sociologist, i(6):391-393. Musoke, M. G. N. (1991, November). Research on Women in Uganda with Particular Reference to Women’s Economic Activities and/or Employment. Kampala, Uganda: Women Studies Department, Makerere University. Mwaka, V. M., Kasente, D. (1991, November). The Status of Women’s Studies in Uganda. Kampala, Uganda: Women’s Studies Department, Makerere University. 270
Najjingo-Kasujja, M. (1990). An Assessment of the Technical and Professional Competencies N ^ e d bv Extension Personnel in the Central Region of Uganda. MSc. Thesis. The Ohio State University. (Unpublished).
Nelson, B. J. (1984). Women's Poverty and Women's Citizenship: Some Political (Consequences of Economic Marginality. Signs. 10(2):209-231.
Newbury, C. & Schoepf, B. G. (1989). State, Peasantry, and Agrarian Crisis in Zaire: Does Gender Make a Difference? In J. L. Parpart, & K. Staudt (Eds.), Women and the State in Africa (pp. 91-110). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Norem, M., Russon, S., Sambou, M. & Marlett, M. (1988). The Woman's Program of the Gambian Mixed Fanning Project. In S. Poats, M. Schmink, & A. Spring (Eds.), Gender Issues in Farming Systems Research and Extension (pp. 303- 313). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Norusis, M. J. (1988). The SPSS Guide to Data Analysis for SPSS. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.
Norusis, M. J. (1994a). SPSS 6.1 Base System User’s Guide. Part 1 Macintosh Version. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.
Norusis, M. J. (1994b). SPSS 6.1 Base System User's Guide: Part 2. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.
Nsibambi, A. (1988). Solving Uganda’s Food Problem. In Hansen, Bemt, & Twaddle (Eds.), Uganda Now: Between Decay and Development (pp. 135-157). Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.
O'Brien, S. (1991). Structural Adjustment and Structural Transformation in sub- Saharan Africa. In C. H. Gladwin (Ed.), Structural Adiustment and African Women Farmers, (pp. 25-45). Gainesville, FL:University of Florida Press.
O’Brien. (1983). The Politics of Reproduction. Boston, MA: Routlege & Kegan Paul.
Obbo, C. (1980). African Women: Their Struggle for Economic Independence. London, UK: Zed Press.
Obbo, C. (1985). Development and Women: Critical Issues. In W. Derman & S. Whiteford (Ed.), Social Impact Analysis and Development Planning in the Third World (pp. 199-216). Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
Obbo, C. (1991). Women, Children, and a Living Wage. In H. B. Hansen & M. Twaddle (Eds.), Changing Uganda: The Dilemmas of Structural Adiustment and Revolutionary Change (pp. 98-112). Kampala, Uganda: Fountain Press. 271
Okeyo, A. P. (1981). Daughters of the Lakes and Rivers: Colonization and the Land Rights of Luo women. In M. Etienne & E. Leacock (Eds.), Women and Colonization: Anthropological Perspectives (pp. 186-213). New York, NY: Bergin Publishers. Okoke, E. A. C. (1992, May/June), Technology for African Women: An Expanded Approach, African Technology Forum. ^2): 14-16. Oppio-Odongo, J. (1988). Social Structure and Agricultural Research Policy. Kampala, Uganda. (Unpublished).
Oppong, C. (1994). Introduction: Gender, Work, and Population in Sub-Saharan Africa. In A. Adepoju & C. Oppong (Eds.), Gender. Work, and Population in Sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 1-16).Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Oskamp, S. (1977). Attitudes and Opinions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ostrom, T. M. (1987). Bipolar Survey Items: An Information Processing Perspective. In H. Hippier, N. Scharwz, & S. Sudman (Eds.), Social Information Processing and Survey Methodology (pp. 71-88). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Oti-Boateng, E. (1994). Gender-Sensitive Statistics and the Plaiming Process. In A. Adepoju & C. C^pong (Eds.), Gender. Work, and Population in Sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 88-111). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Overholt, C., Anderson, M., Cloud, K., & Austin, J. (1985). Women in Development: A Framework for Project Analysis. In C. Overholt, M. B. Anderson, K. Cloud, & J. E. Austin (Eds.), Gender Roles in Development Projects: A Case Book (pp. 3-15). West Hartford, CN: Kumarian Press.
Owoh, K. (1995). Gender and Health in Nigerian Structural Adjustment: Locating Room to Maneuver. . In R. L. Blumberg, C. A. Rakowski, 1. Tinker, & M. Monteon (Eds.), Engendering Wealth & Well-Being: Empowerment for Global Change (pp. 181-194). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Owusu-Bempah, K. (1988). The Role of Women Farmers in Choosing Species for Agroforestry Farming Systems in Rural Areas of Ghana. In S. Poats, M. Schmink, & A. Spring (Eds.), Gender Issues in Farming Systems Research and Extension (pp. 427-443). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Padde, P. (1993). An Evaluation of the Relationship Between Supervisory Techniques and Organizational Outcomes Among the Supervisors in the Agricultural extension Service in the Eastern Region Districts of Uganda. Ph.D. Dissertation. The Ohio State University. (Unpublished.) Ill
Pala, A. 0. (1977). Definitions of Women and Development: An African Perspective. Signs. 3(1):9-13.
Palmer, I. (1985). The Impact of Agrarian Reform on Women. West Hartford, CN: Kumarian Press.
Papanek, H. (1981). The Differential Impact of Programs and Policies on Women in Development. In L. Dauber & M. Cairy (Eds.), Women and Technology Change in Developing Countries. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Papanek, H. (1990). To Each Less than She Needs, From Each More than She can Do: Allocations, Entitlements, and Value. In I. Tinker (Ed.), Persistent Inequalities: Women and World Development (pp. 162-181). New York NY: Oxford University Press.
Paris, T. R. (1988). Women in a Crop-Livestock Farming System Project in Santa Barbara, Pangasinan, Philippines. In S. Poats, M. Schmink, & A. Spring (Eds.), Gender Issues in Farming Systems Research and Extension (pp. 269-286). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Parpart, J. L. & Staudt, K. (1989). Women and the State in Africa. In J. L. Parpart, & K. Staudt (Eds.), Women and the State in Africa (pp. 1-19). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Paul, S. & Subramanian, A. (1983). Development Programs for the Poor: Do Strategies make a Difference? Economic and Political Weekly. 18(10):349-358.
Peacock, F. (July 1981). Rural Poverty and Development in West Malaysia (1957-70). The Journal of Developing Areas, 15:639-654.
Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Dubuque, IO:Brown.
Petty, R. E. and J. T. Cacioppo. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model Of Persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psvchologv. 19:123-205. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Pilgram, G. F. (1987). Research-Extension Specialist Team (Rest) Concept. Kampala, Uganda: Makerere University.
Poats, S.; Schmink, M.; & Spring, A. (1988). Gender Issues in Farming Systems Research and Extension. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Popenoe, D. (1986). (6th ed.). Sociology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall. 273
Potush, B. (1985, August). Female. Farmers. Mothers-in-law, and Extension Agents: Development Planning and a Rural Luo Community. Working Paper No. 90. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Raden, D. (1985). Strength-Related Attitude Dimensions. Social Psychology Quarterly. 48:312-330.
Ragin, C. (1981). Structural Blockage: A Cross National Study of Economic Dependency, State Efficacy, and Underdevelopment. American Journal of Sociology. 86(6): 1311-1343.
Rakowski, C. (1987, Spring). Women In Steel: The Case of Ciudad Guayana, Venezuela. Qualitative Sociology. 10(l):3-27.
Rakowski, C.A. (1995). Conclusion: Engendering Wealth and Well-Being - Lessons Learned. In R. L. Blumberg, C. A. Rakowski, I. Tinker, & M. Monteon (Eds.), Engendering Wealth & Well-Being: Empowerment for Global Change (pp. 285- 294). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Reily, C. (1985). Who Learns What, When, How? Development Agencies and Project Monitoring. In W. Derman & S. Whiteford (Eds.), Social Impact Analysis and Development Planning in the Third World (pp. 32-49). Boulder, CQ: Westview Press.
Rihani, M. (1978). Development As If Women Mattered: An Annotated Bibliography with a Third World Focus. Washington, DC : Overseas Development Council.
Roberts, P. A. (1988). Rural Women's Access to Labor in West Africa. In S. Stitcher & J. Parpart (Eds.), Patriarchy and Class: African Women in the Home and the Workforce, (pp. 97-114). Boulder, CQ: Westview Press.
Robertson, C. (1995). Trade, Gender, and Poverty in the Nairobi Area: Women’s Strategies for Survival and Independence in the 1980s. . In R. L. Blumberg, C. A. Rakowski, I. Tinker, & M. Monteon (Eds.), Engendering Wealth & Well- Being: Empowerment for Global Change (pp. 65-88). Boulder, CQ:Westview Press.
Rogers, B. (1980). Women's Work: Its Economic Importance. In B. Rogers (Ed.), The Domestication of Women: Discrimination in Developing Societies (pp. 152- 180). New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.
Rogers, S. G. (1983). Efforts Toward Women's Development in Tanzania: Gender Rhetoric Vs. Gender Realities. In K. A. Staudt & J. S. Jaquette (Eds.), Women in Developing Countries: A Policy Focus (pp. 23-41). New York, NY:The Haworth Press. 274
Rolîng, N. (1990). The Agricultural Research-Technology Transfer Interface: A Knowledge Systems Perspective. In D. Kaimowitz (Ed.), Making the Link: Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer in Developing Countries (pp. 1- 42). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of Categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rosenzweig, M. R. (Feb. 1980). Neoclassical Theory and the Optimizing Peasant: An Econometric Analysis of Market Family Labor Supply in a Developing Country. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 94, 30-55.
Russo, S., Bremer-Fox, S., Poats, S., Graig, L. (1989). Gender Issues in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management. Washington, DC: US Agency for International Development, Office of Women in Development
Rwabwogo, M. O. (1994). Uganda Districts Information Handbook. Kampala, Uganda: Fountain Publishers.
Sacks, K. (1982). An Overview of Women Power in Africa. In J. F. O'Barr (Ed.), Perspectives on Power: Women in Africa, Asia, and Latin America (pp. 1-10). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Safa, H. (1981). Runaway Shops and Female Employment: The Search for Cheap Labor. Signs. 7(2):418-433.
Safalios-Rothschild, C. (1981). Access of Rural Girls to Primary Education in the Third World: State of the Art, Obstacles, and Policy Recommendations. Invisible Farmers: Women and the Crisis in Agriculture. Washington, DC:US Agency for International Development, Office of Women in Development
Safalios-Rothschild, C. (1984). The Persistence of Women's Invisibility in Agriculture: Theoretical and Policy Lessons from Lesotho and Sierra Leone. Economic Development and Cultural Change. 33( 1 ):299-317.
Safilios-Rothschild. C. (1994). Agricultural Policies and Women Producers. In A. Adepoju & C. Oppong (Eds.), Gender. Work, and Population in Sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 54-63). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemaim.
Samuelson, R. J. (1990, July 23). End of the Third World. Newsweek: 45
Sarr. D. V. (1985). Social Impact Assessment and Agricultural Projects: A Case Study in Ndiemane, Senegal. In W. Derman & S. Whiteford (Eds.), Social Impact Analysis and Development Planning in the Third World (pp. 67-74). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 275
Sassen-Koob, S. (1984). Notes on the Incorporation of Third World Women into Wage Labor Through Immigration and Off-Shore Production. International Migration Review. 18(4): 1144-1167.
Savane, M (1980). Women and Rural Development in Africa. In D. Ghai, & Z Ahmad (Eds.), Women in Rural Development: Critical Issues (pp. 26-32). Geneva, Switzerland:Intemational Labor Office.
Schildkrout, E. (1982). Dependence and Autonomy: The Economic Activities of Secluded Hausa Women in Kano, Nigeria. In E. Bay (Ed.), Women and Work in Africa. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Schwartz, N. B. & Eckhardt, K. W. (1985). International Development Projects, Communities, and Social Impact: Some Critical Notes. In W. Derman & S. Whiteford (Eds.), Social Impact Analysis and Development Planning in the Third World (pp. 77-96). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Seideman, A. (1981). Women and the Development of Underdevelopment: The African Experience. In R. Dauber & M. Cain (Eds.), Women and Technologiôd Change in Developing Countries, (pp. 109-126). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Semana, A. R., Opio-Odongo, J. M. A., and Zziwa, S. (Eds.). (1988, September). Improving the Effectiveness of Extension Services in Uganda: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Mukono District Farm Institute, September 5-8, 1988. Entebbe, Uganda: Ministry of Agriculture. Sen, A. (1990). Gender and Cooperative Conflicts. In I. Tinker (Ed.), Persistent Inequalities. New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
Sen, G. (1980). Rural Women and the Social Organization of Production: Some Conceptual Issues. In D. Ghai and Z. Ahmad (Eds.), Women in Rural Development: Critical Issues (pp. 40-42). Geneva, Switzerland:Intemational Labor Office.
Sen, G. (1982). Women Workers and the Green Revolution. In L. Beneria, (Ed.), Women and Development: The Sexual Division of Labor in Rural Societies (pp. 29-64). New York, NY: Praeger.
Sen, G. (1990). Gender and Cooperative Conflicts. In I. Tinker, (Ed.), Persistent Inequalities. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shiva, V. (1988). Staving Alive: Women. Ecology, and Development. London, UK: Zed Books. 276
Skjonsberg, E. (1989). Change in an African Village: Kefa Speaks. West Hartford: Kumarian Press.
Small, C. (1990). Planning Social Change: A Misdirected Vision. In K. Staudt (Ed.), Women. Éitemational Development, and Politics: A Bureaucratic Mire (pp. 265- 288). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Smock, A. C. (1981). Women's Education in Developing Countries: Opportunities and Outcomes. New York, NY: Praeger.
Snyder, M. & Kendzierski, D. (1982). Acting on one's Attitudes:Procedures for Linking Attitude and Behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psvchologv. 18, 165-183.
Sprague, J. (1988). The Other side of the Banner: Toward a Feminization of Politics. In Brehm, S. S. (Ed.), Seeing Female: Social Roles and Personal Lives (pp. 159 - 171). New York, NY:Greenwood.
Spring A. & Hansen, A. (1985). The Underside of Development: Agricultural Development and women in Zambia. Agriculture and Human Values, 2(1):60- 67.
Spring, A. (1985). The Women in Agricultural Development in Malawi: Making Gender Free Development Work. In R. Gallin & A. Spring (Eds.), Women Creating Wealth: Transforming Economic Development. Washington, DC: Association for Women and Development
Spring, A. (1987). Women Farmers and Food Issues in Africa: Some Considerations and Suggested Solutions. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Spring, A. (1988). Using Male Research and Extension Personnel to Target Women Farmers. In S. Poats, M. Schmink, & A. Spring (Eds.), Gender Issues in Farming Systems Research and Extension (pp. 407-426). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Spring, A. & Wilde, V. (1991). Women Farmers, Structural Adjustment and FAQ's Plan of Action for Integration of Women in Development. In C. H. Gladwin (Ed.), Structural Adiustment and African Women Farmers (pp. 387-408). Gainesville, FL:University of Florida Press.
Spring, A. (1995). Agricultural Development and Gender Issues in Malawi. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc. Ill
Standing, H. (1985). Resources, Wages, and Power: The Impact of Women's Employment on the Urban Bengali Household. In H. Afshar (Ed.), Women. Work, and Ideology in the Third World (pp. 232-257). New York, NY: Tavistock.
Staudt, K. (1981). Women's Organizations in Rural Development. Invisible Farmers: Women and the Crisis in Agriculture (pp. 330-400). Washington, DC:US. Agency for International Development
Staudt, K. (1982). Women Farmers and Inequalities in Agricultural Services. In E. G. Bay, (Ed.), Women and Work in Africa, (pp. 203-224). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Staudt, K. (1982). Sex, Ethnic, and Class Consciousness in Western Kenya. Comparative Politics, 14(2): 149-167.
Staudt, K. A. & Jaquette, J. S. (1983). Introduction: Women and Development. In K. A. Staudt & J. S. Jaquette, (Eds.), Women in Developing Countries: A Policv Focus, (pp. 1-6). New York, NY: The Haworth Press.
Staudt, K. (1985). Agricultural Policv Implementation: A Case Studv from Western Kenya. West Hartford, CN: Kumarian Press.
Staudt, K. (Ed.). (1990). Women and the State in Africa Boulder, CO:Lynne Rienner.
Staudt, K. (I99I). Managing Development: State. Society, and International Contexts. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Steel, C. M. & Liu, T. J. (1981). Making the Dissonance Act Unreflective of Self: Dissonance Avoidance and the Expectancy of a Value-Affirming Response. Personality and Social Psvchologv Bulletin. 7, 393-397.
Stevens, M. (1985). The Fate of Women's Land Rights: Gender, Matriliny, and Capitalism in Rembau, Niger! Sembilan, Malaysia. In H. Afshar (Ed.), Women. Work, and Ideology in the Third World (pp. 3-36). London, UK: Tavistock.
Stevens, Y. (1985). Improved Technologies for Rural Women: Problems and Prospects in Sierra Leone. In I. Ahmed (Ed.), Technology and Rural Women: Conceptual and Empirical Issues (pp. 284-326). London, UK: George Allen & Unwin.
Stock, R. (1985). The Social Impacts of Differential Access to New Health Programs in Northern Nigeria. In W. Derman & S. Whiteford (Eds.), Social Impact Analysis and Development Planning in the Third World (pp. 216-239). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 278
Stoneall, L, (1983). Bringing Women into Community Studies: A Rural Nfidwestem Case Study, Journal of the Conununitv Development Society. 14(1): 17-29.
Swantz, M. L. (1994). Woman, Body, Knowledge: From Production to Regeneration. In W. Harcourt (Ed.), Feminist Perspectives on Sustainable Development (pp. 98-127). Atlantic HigMands, NJ: Zed Books.
Snyder, M. & Engel, P. (1990). A Conceptual Framework for Studying the Links Between Agricultural Research and Technology. In D. Kaimowitz (Ed.), Making the Link: Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer in Developing Countries (pp. 227-270). Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
Tadesse, Z. (1982a). The Impact of Land Reform on Women: The Case of Ethiopia. In L. Beneria (Ed.), Women and Development: The Sexual Division of Labor in Rural Societies (pp. 203-222). New York, NY: Praeger.
Tadesse, Z. (1982b). Women and Technology in Peripheral Countries: An Overview. In P. M. D'Onofrio-Flores & S. M. Pfafflin (Eds.), Scientific -Technological Change and the Role of Women in Development (pp. 77-111). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Tadria, H. M. K. (1987). Changes and Continuities in the Position of Women in Uganda. In Wiebe, P. D. & Dodge, C. P. (Eds.), Bevond Crisis: Development Issues in Uganda. Kampala, Uganda: Makerere University,
Tembo, M. N. & Phiri, E. C. (1988). The Impact of Modem Changes in the Chitemene Farming System in the Northern Province of Zambia. In S. Poats, M. Schmink, & A. Spring (Eds.), Gender Issues in Farming Systems Research and Extension (pp. 361-372). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. The Government of Uganda (1988, August). Republic of Uganda: Establishment of a National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO). Kampala, Uganda: International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) and United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The Government of Uganda (1990, December). Action Plan for Agricultural Policv Agenda: Report of Working Group 9B Agricultural Extension Planning- Summary. Entebbe, Uganda: Ministry of Agriculture Headquarters. The Government of Uganda (1992 September, ). Civil Service Reform Program: Restructuring Report, Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry, and Rsheries. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Public Service. 279
The Republic of Uganda. (1992, December). Report on Uganda National Census of Agriculture and Livestock (1990/1991),Volume n. Holding Characteristics. Kampala, UgandaiMinistry of Agriculture. The Republic of Uganda. (1992, December). Report on Uganda National Census of Agriculture and Livestock (1990/1991).Volume HI, Crop Areas. Yields, and Production. Kampala, Uganda:Ministry of Agriculture. The Republic of Uganda. (1994, October). Mukono District Council: 1994/95 District Development Plan. Mukono, Uganda: Mukono Extension Office.
The Rockefeller Foundation and International Service for National Agricultural Research. (1985a). Women and Agricultural Technology: Relevance for Research. Volume I, Analyses and Conclusions. The Hague: Netherlands.
The Rockefeller Foundation and International Service for National Agricultural Research. (1985b). Women and Agricultural Technology: Relevance for Research. Volume H, Analyses and Conclusions. The Hague: Nethedands.
Thiam, M. (1986). The Role of Women in Rural Development in the Segou Region of Mali. In L. E. Creevey (Ed.), Women Farmers in Africa: Rural Development in Mali and the Sahel (pp. 67-79). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Thomas, B. (June, 1988). Household Strategies for Adaptation and Change: Participation in Kenyan Rural Women's Association. Working Paper No. 165. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Tiano, S. (1988). Women's Work in the Public and Private Spheres: A Critique and Reformation. In M. F. Abraham & P. S. Abraham (Eds.), Women, Development, and Change: the Third World Experience (pp. 18-49). Bristol, IN: Wyndham Hall Press.
Time, Inc. (1993). Uganda History. America-Online. New York, NY:Time Inc. Magazine Company and Compact Publishing, Inc., USA.
Tinker, I. (1976). The Adverse Impact of Development on Women. In I. Tinker & M. B. Bramsen (Eds.), Women and World Development (pp. 22-34). New York, NY:Praeger.
Tinker, I. (1981). New Technologies for Food-Related Activities: An Equity Strategy. In R. Dauber & M. Cain (Eds.), Women and Technological Change in Developing Countries (pp. 51-58). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Tinker, I. & Jacquette, J. (1987). UN Decade for Women: Its Impact and Legacy. World Development, 15(3):419-427. 280
Tinker, I, (Ed.). (1990). Persistent Inequalities: Women and World Development New York, NYrOjrford University Press.
Tinker, I. (1995). Beyond Economics: Sheltering the Whole Woman. In R. L. Blumberg, C. A. Rakowski, I. Tinker, & M. Monteon (Eds.), Engendering Wealth & Well-Being: Empowerment for Global Change (pp. 261-284). Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
Townshend, J. T. & Ashby, F. G. (1984). Measurement Scales and Statistics: The Misconception Misconceived. Psvchological Bulletin. 96, 394-401.
Trager, L. & Osinulu, C. (1991). New Women's Organizations in Nigeria: One Response to Structural Adjustment. In C. H. Gladwin (Ed.), Structural Adiustment and African Women Farmers, (pp. 339-358). Gainesville, FL:University of Florida Press.
Trenchard, E. (1987). Rural Women's Work in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Implications for Nutrition. In J. H. Momsen & J. Townsend (Eds.), Geographv of Gender: The Third World (pp. 153-172). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Troutt, E. S. (1994). Rural African Land and Access to Agricultural Land: The central Region of Uganda. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Wisconsin, Madison. (Unpublished).
Tumushabe, E. (1994, February). A Studv to Determine the Impact of Drought on Food Supply and Health of Under-Five in the Sub-Counties of Baale. Galirava. and Seeta-Namuganga: Mukono District. Mukono, Uganda:District Medical Office, Mukono.
Uganda Government (1991, June). Uganda Five-Year Education Sector Investment Programme 199^/93-1996-^. %, 1-6. Kampala, Uganda: Ministry of Education, Education Policy and Development Office.
UCDA. (1995). Uganda Exports Unaffected by Coffee Price Fall. Reuter-EWorld, August 19, 1995.
Uganda Ministry of Agriculture. (1984). Policies and Strategies for Agricultural Development. Entebbe, Uganda:Ministry of Agriculture.
Varma, R. N. (1980). The Sociologv Politics of Development: A Theoretical Studv. Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 281
Venema,B. (1986). The Changing Role of Women in Sahelian Agriculture, In L. E. Creevey (Ed.), Women Farmers in Africa: Rural Development in Mali and the Sahel (pp. 81-94). Syracuse, NY:Syracuse University Press,
Veitch, R. & Gfiffit, W. (1976). Good News, Bad New: Affective and Interpersonal Effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 6, 69-75.
Ventura-Dias, V. (1985). Modernization, Production Organization, and Rural Women in Kenya. In I. Ahmed (Ed.), Technology and Rural Women: Conceptual and Empirical Issues (pp. 252-283). London, UK: George Allen & Unwin.
Verhelst, T. G. (1990). No Life Without Roots: Culture and Development. London, UK: Zed Books.
Von Braun, J. & Webb, P. (1989). The Impact New Crop Technology on the Agricultural Division of Labor in a West African Setting. Economic Development and Cultural Change. 37(3):513-534.
Wacker, C. (1994). Sustainable Development Through Women’s Groups: A Cultural Approach to Sustainable Development. In W. Harcourt (Ed.), Feminist Perspectives on Sustainable Development (pp. 128-142). Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Zed Books Ltd.
Wagner, D. G., Ford, R. S., & Ford, T. W. (1986). Can Gender Inequalities be Reduced? American Sociological Review. 51(1):47-61.
Walker, H. A. & Fennell, M. L. (1986). Gender Differences in Role Differentiation and Organizational Task Performance. Annual Review of Sociologv. 12. 255- 275. Walker, S. T. ( June 1990). Innovative Agricultural Extension for Women: A Case Studv in Cameroon. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Ware, R. & Cooper-Studebaker. J. J. (1989). Attitudes Toward Women as Managers with Regard to Sex, Education, Work, and Marital Status. Psvchological Reports. fô, 347-350.
Warner, J. (1995). Time Allocation. In H. K. Henderson & E. Hansen (Eds.), Gender and Agricultural Development: Surveying the Field (pp. 12-17). Tucson, AR: The University of Arizona Press.
Warner, J. & Henderson, H. K. (1995). Appropriate Technology. In H. K. Henderson & E. Hansen (Eds.), Gender and Agricultural Development: Surveying the Field (pp. 48-57). Tucson, AR:The University of Arizona Press. 282
Wasiyo, Khaitsa (1992, May/June), Ugandan Women in Agricultural Development, African Technology Forum, ^2):25-27
Weidemann, C. J. (1985). Extension Systems and Modem Farmers in Developing Countries. Agriculture and Human Values. 2(l):56-59.
White, C. P. (1987). State, Culture, and Gender: Community and Change in Women's Position in Rural Vietnam. In H. Afshar (Ed.), Women. State, and Ideology (pp. 226-234). London, UKiThe Macmillan Press.
White, E. F. (1982). Women, Work, and Ethnicity: The Sierra Leone Case. In E. G. Bay (Ed.), Women and Work in Africa (pp. 19-33). Boulder, CO:Westvievv Press.
Whitehead, A. (1994). Wives and Mothers: Female Farmers in Africa. In A. Adepoju & C. Oppong (Eds.), Gender. Work, and Population in Sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 35-53). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Wipper, A. (1982). Riot and Rebellion Among African Women: Three Examples of Women's Political Clout. In J. F. O'Barr (Ed.), Perspectives on Power: Women in Africa, Asia, and Latin America (pp. ^-72). Durham, NC:Duke University Press.
Wolkowitz, C. (1987). Controlling Women's Access to Political Power: A Case Study in Andhra Pradesh, India. In H. Afshar (Ed.), Women. State, and Ideology (pp. 205-225). London, UK: The Macmillan Press.
World Bank. (1988). Uganda: Towards Stabilization and Economic Recovery. Washington, DC:The World Bank.
World Bank (1993a). Uganda: Social Sectors: A World Bank Country Study. Washington, DC:The World Bank.
World Bank. (1993b). Uganda Agriculture. Washington, DC:The World Bank.
World Bank (1994a). World Development Report 1994: Infrastructure for Development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
World Bank. (1994b). Enhancing Women's Participation in Economic Development. Washington, DC:The World Bank.
Yates, B. A. (1982). Colonialism, Education, and Work: Sex Differentiation in Colonial Zaire. In E. G. Bay (Ed.), Women and Work in Africa (pp. 127-152). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 283
Young, G.; Samarasinghe, V.; & Kusterer, K. (Eds.). (1993). Women at the Center. Gender Issues for the 1990s. West Hartford: Kumarian Press.
Young, K. (1980). A Methodological Approach to Analyzing the Effects of Capitalist Agriculture on Women's Roles and Their Position Within the Community. In D. Ghai, & Z. Ahmad (Eds.), Women in Rural Development: Critical Issues (pp. 4- 10). Geneva, Switzerland:Intemational Labor Office.
Young, K. (1982). The Creation of a Relative Surplus Population: A Case Study from Mexico. In L. Beneria, (Ed.), Women and Development: The Sexual Division of Labor in Rural Societies (pp. 149-177. New York, NY: Praeger.
Young, K. (1988). Introduction: Reflection on Meeting Women's Needs. In K. Young (Ed.), Women and Economic Development: Local. Regional, and National Planning Strategies (pp. 1-30). Oxford:UNESCO.
Young, K. (1988). Women And Economic Development: Local, Regional. And National Planning Strategies. Berg, France: UNESCO.
Youssef, N. & Hetler, C. (1983). Establishing the Economic Condition of Women- Headed Households in the Third World: A New Approach. In M. Buvinic, M. Lycette, & W. McGreevey (Eds.), Women and Poverty in the Third World (pp. 216-243). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Yuval-Davis, N. (1987). Front and Rear: The Sexual Division of Labor in the Israeli Army. In H. Afshar (Ed.), Women, State, and Ideologv (pp. 186-204). London, UK: The Macmillan Ftess.
Zajonc, R. B. & Markus, H. (1984). Affect and Cognition: The Hard Interface. In C. E. Izard, J. Kagan, & R. B. Zajonc (Eds.), Emotions, Cognition, and Behavior (pp. 73-102). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. APPENDIX A
The Questionnaires
2 8 + 285
FARMER QUESTIONNAIRE DATE OF INTERVIEW
Respondent Name_ Respondent ID C o untv County$ (Subcounty)_
Parish______ParishS (Village)^ Designtn 01 ( ) Farmer 02 ( ) Extension
Household Code______Intervieweras Name DUtrict Code: MUKDIST
Please respond to the questions below. Your responses will be kept confidential. Codes on extreme right o f each page are for purposes o f analysis only. Please ignore.
CODE
Q I. Which of the following items do yon produce? (Pletue tick only one.) (XASSIFY 01 ( ) Food crops 0S() Food and livestock 02 ( ) Cash crops 06() Cash crop and livestock 03 ( ) Livestock 07 ( ) Food crops, cash crops, and livestock 04 ( ) Food and cash crops 08 {) Other (Please specify)
Q2. For what reasons do you produce the following crops and livestock? (Pletue circle only one reason for each production)
Home Home Consum. Consumption Marketing & Marketing Other (Please specify)
Vegetables—greens, tomatoes, beans 2 3 4 ______VBŒS
Com/M aize 2 3 4 ______MAIZE
Flowers 2 3 4 FLOWERS
Tuber crops-cassava. yams, cocoyams 2 3 4 TUBER
Matooke. amenvu. bogoya. ndiizi 2 3 4 MATOOKE
Fruits-oranges. etc. 2 3 4 FRUIT
Export crops-sugar. coffee, cocoa, etc. 2 3 4 EXPCRCf
Livestock-cbicken. pigs, goats, cattle, sheep, etc UVSTOCK 286
Q3. Listed below aie specific agricultural productioo tasks you probably perform at borne and on the farm. Please indicate the labor sources available to you in performing each task. (Please circle only oae number for each actiPity)
Wife Husb W ife * Wife Wife, husb Kids Work Hired Other Only Only Husb SQB& & lrids & kids Only Group Labor (Please specify) Land Preparation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 P lanting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PLANT W eeding/Thinning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ViEED Spraying 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 sprav Fertilization tmSch) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 pert Harvesting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 HAKVST Storage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 HNtrsNSPT Transporting crops 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to home 8 9
Transporting crops 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 for marketing 9 SrOBA.®
M arketing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 mask ®'
Q4 In your housetold, who makes decisions about the following activities? {Please circle jor eactt activity,) only oae number
Wife Husb W ife& Wife and Wife. Husb Wife Q îèer Only O nly Husb Children ^Children Husb &Rel What to plant Please tpecify) on the farm 2 4 5 6 WHAT When to plant 2 4 5 6 WHEN Trying innovations 2 3 4 5 6 INNOVATE W hen to harvest 2 3 4 S 6 TOHAVEST When to sell 2 3 4 5 6 SELL What family members will eat 2 EAT W hether to get a loan 2 3 6 CETLQAN W hether to buy farm inputs 3 6 BUYINPTS Whether to buy household goods 3 HHGOODS Whether to get off-farm jobs 5 I OFAMIOBS What to do with farm income 2 5 FINCOME What proportion of income to save 2 3 5 6 SAVE What to do with o^-farm income 2 3 5 6 I OFINODME 287
Q5. W hat type o f livestock do yon have on your fann? (■/*/ea*e lick all ihal apply.) 01 ( ) None SONES 02 ( ) Cattle CATTLE 03 ( ) Goats G(3ATS 04 ( ) Sheep SHES» 05 ( ) Pigs PIGS 06 ( ) Apiaiy APIARY 07 ( ) Poultty (chicken, fowls, turkey, etc.) POULTRY 08 ( ) Other (Please specify) ______OTHERS
Q6. What other economic activities do you engage in besides fanning and livestock? (Please lick all Ihal apply.) 01 ( ) None NONES 02 ( ) Paid employment outside the household PAIIÆMP 03 ( ) Handicraft (Pottery, weaving, etc.) CRAFT 04 ( ) Brewing/Distilling BREW 05 ( ) Other (Please specify) ______CTTHER6
Q7. On average, how many hours do you spend each day on farmwork? fPlease lick oae.) FARMERS 01 ( ) None 02( ) 1 - 5 hours Q3( ) 6- 10hours 04( )11 - 15hours 05 ( )16 hours and above.
(28. On average, how many hours does your wife spend each day on farm work? (Please Uck only oae.) WIFEHRS 01 ( ) None 02( ) 1 - 5 hours 03( ) 6- 10hours 04( )11 - 15hours 05 ( ) 16 hours and above.
(29. On average, how many hours do you spend each day taking care of children-bathing, feeding, rocking child to sleep? (Please lick oae.) CHILDHRS 01 ( ) None 0 2 ( ) 1 - 5 hours Q3( ) 6- 10horns 04( )11 - 15hours 05 ( )16 hours and above.
QIO. On average, how many hours does your wife spend each day taking care of children-bathing. feeding, rocking child to sleep? (Please lick oae.) wnamx) O K ) None 0 2 ( ) 1 - 5 hours 0 3 ( ) 6 - 1 0 hours 04( )11 - 15bouts 05 ( ) 16 hours and above.
Q ll. How big is the piece of plot you cultivate at present? (Please lick oae.) PLOrsiZE OK ) 0 - 4 acres 02 ( ) 5 - 9 acres 03 ( ) 10 - 14 acres 0 4 ( ) 15 - 19 acres 05 ( ) 20 acres o r more
Q12. How big is the land you allocate to cash crop production? (Please Uck oae.) (ASHLAND 01 ( ) 0- 4 acres 02 ( ) 5 - 9 acres 03 ( ) 1 0 - 1 4 acres 0 4 ( ) 1 5 - 1 9 acres 0 5 ( ) 20 acres o r more
Q13. How big is the land you allocate to food crop production? (Please Uck oae.) KXXXAND OK ) 0 - 4 acres 02 ( ) 5 - 9 acres 03 ( ) 10 - 14 acres 0 4 ( ) 15 - 19 acres 0 5 ( ) 20 acres o r more
Q14. How do most male farmers in your area usually acquire land for agricultural purposes?
Q15. How do female farmers in your area usually acquire land for agricultural purposes? 288
Q16. What type of land do women have easy access to? (Please tick only one.) HJ'iEm'FE 01 ( ) None 02 ( ) M ailo land 03 ( ) Kibanja 04 ( ) Public land 0 5 ( ) Other 0 6 ( ) Don’t Know
QI7. What type ofland do men have easy access to? fWeoxe tick only one.) 01 ( ) None MLNDTYre 0 2 ( ) M ailo land 03 ( ) K ibanja 0 4 ( ) Public land 0 5 ( ) Other 0 6 ( ) D on't Know
Q18. In Mukono District, can a woman own land or kibanja in her own right? (Please tick one.) FLANDRTE 01 ( ) NO W hy not? 0 2 ( ) YES How? 03 ( ) Don’t Know
Q19. In Mukono District, can a man own land or kibanja in his own right? (Please tick one.) MLANDKTE 01 ( ) NO W hy not? 0 2 ( ) YES How? 03 ( ) Don’t Know
Q20. In Mukono District, do fanneis rent land from other people for farming? (Please tick one.) RENT 01 ( ) NO Why not? 02 ( ) YES Why? 03 ( ) Don’t Know
Q21. Appfoximately, how many acres of land do farmers usually rent from other people for farming? (Please tick only one.) RENTSEE 01 ( ) 0 - 4 acres 02 ( ) 5 - 9 acres 03 ( ) 10 - 14 acres 0 4 { ) 15 - 19 acres 0 5 ( ) 20 acres o r more 0 6 ( ) Farmers don’t tent land from anybody for farming
Q22. Have any members o f your household bought any land or kibanja in the last two years? (Please tick one.) BCTLAND 01 ( ) ND 0 2 ( ) YES 03 ( ) Don’t K i» w
Q23. Which household membeis bought land? (Please tick one.) 01 { ) Male 02 ( ) Female 03 ( ) Male and Female 04 ( ) None 05 ( ) Don’t Know Q23SEX How did they get money to buy the land?
Q24. Who owns the family land in your household? (Please tick only one.) L.NDOWNER 01 ( ) Wife 02 ( ) Husband 03 ( ) Male head 0 4 ( ) Female head 0 5 ( ) Jointly by husband and wife 0 6 ( ) Adult brother or sister 07 ( ) Other (Please specify
Q25. Are there any landless people in your household? fP/eare tick one.) LANDLESS 01 ( ) NO 0 2 ( ) YES
Q26 Which household members are usually landless? (Please tick one.) 01 { ) Male 02 ( ) Female 03 ( ) Male and Female 04 ( ) None 05 ( ) Don’t Know Q26SEX What are the reasons some might be landless? What do landless people do to support themselves? Q 2 7 . Which of the following agricultural inputs for crop production arc readily available to farmers in your area? (Pletue Uck all that apply) 01 ( ) None NOME27 02 ( ) Improved seeds IMPSEEDS 03 ( ) Pesticides—Fungicides, Insecticides PSTS 04 ( ) Fertilizers FERTIL 05 ( ) Other (Please specify) ------CrrHHR27 289
Q28. At what piice ate these inputs usually sold in your area? 01 ( ) Improved seeds_ per kilogram/liter SEEDOGSr 02 ( )Pesticides— Fungicides. Insecticides. per kilogram/iiter PESTCOST 03 ( ) Fertilizers______per kilogram/liter FERTCOST 04 ( ) D on't know DONTKNOW
Q29 Who is the major supply of agricultural inputs in your area? f/’(ease tick only one.) MAISUPLY 01 ( ) Cooperative Society 02 ( )Shop 03 ( IDAO’sOflice 04 ( )From Extension Office/extension worker 05 ( )Neighbor 06 ( ) Other (Please specify ______
Q30. How far is it from your farm to where you buy agricultural inputs?. .m iles HOWFAR
Q31. By what means do you usually reach your major supply of agricultural inputs? (Please tick only one.) MEANS 01 ( ) By walking 02 ( ) By taxi/bus/public transport 03 ( ) Inputs are available in my village. 04 ( ) Extension Oflice/extension worker brings them to me on the farm. 05 ( ) Neighbor buys them for me. What means does neighbor use? 06 ( ) Other (Please specify) ______
Q32. What are your major sources of information on new farming methods? (Please lick all that apply.) 01 ( ) Cooperative Society COOPSOC 02 ( )Shop SHOP 03 ( ) DAO's Office in Mukono Town DAO 04 ( )Extension Office/extension worker, county, subcounty, parish EJCTWKER 05 ( ) Neighbor NHGBR 06 ( )Radio RADIO 07 ( ) Television TV 08 ( )Newspapers NEWSPAP 09 ( )Agricultural publications (periodicals, magazines, newsletters, etc.) MAœ 10 ( > Other (Please specify) OTHER32
Q33. Do you use hired labor? (Please tick one.) HIREDL.AB 01 ( ) NO W hy not? 02 ( ) YES Why?
Q34. On average, how maty hired laborers did you employ in crop production last year—1993?. .hired laborers. HOWMANY
Q3S. What type of laborers do you employ? (Please tick all that apply.) 01 ( ) Fulltime FULLTIME 02 ( ) Partlime PARTIME 03 ( ) Contract CONTRACT 04 ( ) O ther (Please specify) ______OTHER35
Q36. Do you experience labor shortage on your farm for agricultural production? fPf ease tick one.) LABSHORT 01 ( )NO Why not? 02 ( ) YES Why?
Q37. When you experience labor shortage for production, how do you solve the problem?
()38. At what stage of crop production is labor shortage most pronounced?
Q39. Is hired labor easily available to you in your area? (Please tick one.) EASYLAB 01 ( ) NO Why not? 02 ( ) YES Why? 03 ( ) D on't know
Q40. Have you ever received a loan from a bank? f/’ferue tick one.) RCVDUDAN 01 ( ) NO Why not?
02 ( ) YES How did you get the loan?
Q41. How far is it from your farm to the nearest bank? .m iles NEAREST 290
Q42. Which of the following financial institutions are you aware of in your district? (Please tick all that apply.) 01 ( ) N one NONE42 02 ( ) Uganda Commercial Bank UŒANK 03 ( ) Standard Bank STDBANK 04 ( ) Sembnle Investment Bank SEMBANK 0 5 ( ) Rosea (Esusu) ESUSU 06 ( ) Credit Um'ons-Saviogs and Credit Group CRDUNION 07 ( ) Traditional money lenders. Merchants TRADML 08 ( ) O ther (Please snecifvl OrHER42
Q43. How common is it for you to borrow money from the bank? (Please tick one.) BCKROW 01 ( ) Never. Why?
0 2 ( ) Seldom. Why?
03 ( ) Often. Why?
Q44. How big is the loan you usually receive from the bank? • Shillings. AMTLOAN
Q4S. What do you use as coUalteral for bank loans?_
Q46. For what do you use the money you borrow from the bank?
Q47. On average, what is the duration of the loan you obtain from the bank-number of years for repayment? DURATICW
Q48. Do you generally pay back loans on time? (Please tick one.) PAYLOAN 01 ( ) NO Why Not? How much extra time do you need?
02 < ) YES W hy?
03 ( ) N ever Borrow
Q49. Which group of farmers usually pay back loans on time ? (Please tick one.) 01 ( ) Male 02 ( ) Female 03 ( ) Male and Female 04 ( ) None OS ( ) Don't Know Q19SEX
Q50. What penalties (if any) do you incur for late loan payment?
QSl. Under what circumstances do banks reject farmers'applications for loans?
Q52. Do you belong to the same firtanciai institmions with your husband? (Please tick one.) FlNSnTE 01 ( ) NO W hy Not? 02 ( ) YES Why? Which institutions? 03 ( ) D o n 't Know
QS3. Do you share savings accounts with your husband? (Please tick one.) SHARE 01 ( ) NO Why Not? 02 ( ) YES W hy? 03 ( ) D o n 't Know
Q54. Do you have a savings account? (Please lick one.) YOUSAVE 01 ( ) NO Why Not? 02 ( ) YES Why? 03 ( ) Don't Know
Q54b. Does your httsband have a savings account? (Please tick one.) HUSBSAVE 01 ( ) NO Wlqr Not? 0 2 ( ) YES Why? 03 ( ) D o n 't Know
Q5S. Why do you save money? 291
Q56. What is your biggest source of cash income? fPfeore Uek only one.) SOURCE 01 () No cash income 02 () Sale of coffee 03 {) Sale o f other crops 04 () Husking coffee 05 ( ) Grinding maize 06 ( ) Livestock products 07 () Labor on other farms 08 () Fetching water 09 () Brick making 10 () Beer brewing/distilling 11 () Artisanship/crafts 12 () Drama performances 13 ( ) Providing transport 14 () Shopkeeping/trading 15 ( ) Military/police service 16 () Teaching school children 17 () Cash sent from relatives working in town or city 18 ( ) Other fPlease specifv.)
QSl. Do you consider a bank loan important to you as a Tanner? fPfeare tick one.) CONSIDER 01 ( ) NO Why Not? 02 ( ) YES Why? 03 ( ) Don’t Know
QS8. Do you consider fertilizem. pesticides, fungicides, etc.. as an important factor for FERTILZR increased agricultural production? (Please tick one.) 01 ( ) NO Why Not? 02 ( ) YES Why? 03 ( ) Don’t Know
QS9. Do you consider extension activity as an important factor for increased agricultural production? EJCFENSM (Please Uck one.) 01 ( ) NO Why Not? 02 ( ) YES Why? 03 ( ) Don’t Know
Q60. Do you consider radio programs on agriculture as an important factor for increased agricultural production? RADPRGM (Please Uek one.) 01 ( ) NO Why Not? 02 ( ) YES Why? 03 ( ) Don’t Know
Q61. Do you consider television programs on agriculture as an important factor for increased agricultural production? TVPROri (Please Uck one.) 01 ( ) NO W lç Not? 02 ( ) YES Why? 03 ( ) Don’t Know
Q62. Do you consider print media (newspapers, newsletters, agricultural publications, magazines, etc.) PRNTPRGM an important factor for increased agricultural production in your area? (Please Uck one.) 01 ( ) NO Why Not? 02 ( ) YES Why? 03 ( ) Don’t Know
Q63. Which of the following means of communication do you have in your household? (Please Uck all Ihal apply.) 01 ( ) Radio RAD1063 02 ( ) Television TELEV 03 ( ) Telephone PHONE 04 ( ) Print media (newspapers, newsletters, agricultural publications, magazines, etc.) MAGS63 05 ( ) Other (Please specify) ______CrrHER63
()64. Who owns the means of communication you have in your household? (Please Uck only oae.) OWNCOM 01 ( ) Wife 02 ( ) Husband 03 ( ) Son 04 ( ) Daughter 05 ( ) Other (Please specify) 292
Which of the following farm tools do 01 ( ) None UNONE65 0 2 ( ) Hoe mCE 03 ( ) Axe UAXE 04 ( ) Slasher USLASHER 05 ( ) Panga UPANGA 06 ( ) Tractor UTRACTOR 0 7 ( ) Sprayers USPRAYER 0 8 ( ) Digger/Spade USPADE 09 ( ) Truck UTRUCK 10 ( ) Ox. cart, plough UOX UBARROW 11 ( ) Wheelbarrow 12 ( ) Bicycle UBIKE 13 ( ) Other (Please specify) UOTHER65
Which of the following farm tools do 01 ( ) None NONE66 02 ( ) Hoe HCE 03 ( ) Axe AXE 0 4 ( ) Slasher SLASHER 0 5 ( ) Panga PANGA 0 6 ( ) Tractor TRACTOR 07 ( ) Sprayers SPRAYER 08 ( ) Digger/Spade ■ SPADE 09 ( ) Truck TRUCK 10 ( ) Ox. cart, plough CK BARROW 11 ( ) Wheelbarrow 12 ( ) Bicycle BIKE 13 ( ) Other (Please specify) OTHER66
Who owns the farm tools you use on y
Q68. How many times did you attend on-field demonstrations, agricultural meetings, ATTEND or variety trials organized by extension last year—1993? (Please tick only one.) 01 ( ) None 02 ( ) I to 2 times 03 ( ) 3 to 4 times 04 ( ) S to 6 times 05 ( ) 7 to 8 times 06 ( ) 9 to 10 times 07 ( ) More than 10
Q69. How often do extension agents visit you on your farm? fPf«ue lick only one.) EXTVISrr 01 ( ) None 02 ( ) 1 to 2 times a year 03 ( ) 3 to 4 times a year 04 ( ) 5 to 6 times a year 05 ( ) 7 to 8 times a year 06 ( ) 9 to 10 times a year 07 ( ) More than 10 times a year
Q70. How far away does the extension agent live from your farm?_ miles. AGENTUV
Q71. Does extension organize on-farm demonstrations in your area? f/’/ense tick one) 01 ( ) NO. Why Not?
02 ( ) YES How often?. .times a year. ONFARM
Q72. Which of the following farm practices did you learn from extension? (Please tick all that apply.) 01 ( ) None NONE72 02 ( ) Spacing crops SPACING 03 ( ) Pruning coffee PRUNE 0 4 ( ) Desuclcering bananas DESUCKER 05 ( ) Controlling banana weevils CONTROL 06 ( ) Using chemicals to store harvest CHEMICAL 07 ( ) Cleaning produce before selling CLEAN 08 ( ) Other (Please specify.) ______CTHER72 293
:O D E Q73. What is your place of origin? (Place of Birth) DISTRICTS D istrict______County __ OTUNTY73S Ethnic Group ______R eligion. ETHNK3 City/Town/Vi!Iage_ REUGICK4S
Q74. How often do you visit your place of origin? (Please Uck one.) ORION 01 ( ) None 02 ( ) 1 to 2 times a year 03 ( ) 3 to 4 times a year 04 ( ) S to 6 times a year 05 ( ) 7 to 8 times a year 06 ( ) 9 to 10 tim es a year 07 ( ) More than 10 times a year 08 ( ) I live at my place of origin
Q75. How many years of formal, classroom education have you had?, YRSEDU
Q76. What is the highest level of education you have completed?. LEVELS
(377. CXheri3egrees/Diplomas /Certificates obtained OTHERDBGS
<378. What is vour monthlv gross income?Pfease wrUe down exact income .Tick precoded category. MIN(X)ME 01 ( ) Less than 5.000 Uganda Shillings. 02 ( ) 5.000 - 9.999 ShiUings 03 ( ) 10.000 - 14.999 Shillings 04 ( ) 15.000 - 19.999 Shillings 05 ( ) 20.000 - 24.999 ShUlings 06 ( ) 25.000 - 29.999 Shillings 07 ( ) 30.000 - 34.999 Shillings 08 ( ) 35.000 - 39.999 Shillings 09 ( ) 40.000 - 44.999 Shillings 10 ( ) 45.000 - 49.999 Shillings 11 0 50.000 - 54.999 Shillings 12 ( ) 55.000 - 59.999 Shillings 13 ( ) 60.000 - 64.999 Shillings 14 ( ) 65.000 - 69.000 Shillings 15 ( ) 10,000 o r more a month
Q79. What is your age? P/eore write down exact age. Tick precoded category. AΠ01 ( ) 18 and below 07 ( ) 45-49 02 ( ) 19-24 08 ( ) 50-54 03 ( ) 25-29 09 ( ) 55-59 04 ( ) 30-34 10 ( ) 60-64 05 ( ) 35-39 11 ( ) 65+ 06 ( ) 40-44
Q80. Gender (Please tick one.) SEX 01 ( ) Male 02 ( ) Female
Q81. Marital status: (Please tick only one.) MARITAL 01 ( ) Married 04 ( ) Widowed 02 ( ) Single 05 ( ) Separated 03 ( ) Divorced 06 ( ) Other (Please specify)
Q82Size of family: No. of wives. WIVES No. of Children (own kids) __ HDS Total No. of Household M embers. HMEMBERS Q83. Who is the head of your household? (Please tick only one.) HHEAD 01 ( ) Wife 04 ( ) Female Head 02 ( ) Husband 05 ( ) Male Head 03 ( ) Both Husband and wife 06 ( ) Other (Please specify
Q84. Why is the selected person head of the household?
Q85. Current occupation of parents — (Father's Occupation) POCUPATES
Q86. Current occupation of parents — (Mother's Occupation) MOCUPATES 294
Please give your opinion (Level o f Agreement) about each of the following statements. Your opinions will be kept confidential. There are no wrong answers. If you agree, circle A. If you don't know or are undecided, circle U. If you disagree, circle D.
L e v e l of A g re e m e n t CODE
3 2 1 Q87. Agriculture in Uganda should aim at producing cash crops for export. A U D OBjcnv
Q88. Only men farmers should grow cash crops in Uganda. AU D MALBCASH
Q89. Women farmers should produce only food for family consumption. A u DFAMFOOD
Q90. Men farmers should make the decisions on bow land is used. A u D DEaSlOM
Q9I. Inarkquate access to land should not affect women farmers' ability to increase food production. A u D INADBQT
Q 9 i Women can always get additional household labor to increase crop production. A u D HHLABOR
Q93. Men farmers should provide all the labor input on the family farm. A u D PROVIDE
Q94. Women farmers have adequate farm tools for food production. A u D FARMTOOL
Q95. Women farmers have the money to buy improved farm tools for crop production. A u D MOMEV
Q96. Women farmers should not use inputs such as fertilizers to increase food production. A u DFEFARMER
Q97. Fertilizers should be used only for the production of cash crops such as coffee and sugarcane A u DCASHCROT
Q98. Most farmers always have the money to buy fertilizers. A u D MOST
Q99. Domestic work makes it difficult for women farmers to participate actively in extension programs. A u D FDOMESnC
QIOO. Domestic work makes it difficult for men farmers to participate actively in extension programs. A u D MDOMESnC
QlOl. Extension programs are useful to women farmers. A u D FUSEFUL
Q102. Extension programs are useful to men farmers. A u D MUSEFUL
Q103. Extension regularly organizes training programs for farmers. A u DTRAIN
Q104. Extension training programs should involve as many women farmers as men farmers. A u D INVtXVE
Q105. Men farmers should participate in extension training programs more than women farmers. A u D P.ARTOPT
Q106. Extension training sites are close to where most farmers live. A u D SITES
Q107. Most women farmers would participate in extension training programs if women extension agents invite them. A u D INVTTE
Q108. More women farmers would participate in extension training programs if childcare facilities were available. A u D DAYCARE
Q109. Women farmers' inability to imderstand English makes it difficult for them to participate actively in extension training programs. A u DFENGUSH
QUO. Men farmers' inability to understand English makes it difficult for them to participate actively in extension training programs. A u DMENOJSH
QUI. At the present, extension agents lack transportation. A u D LACK
Q U 2 . Extension can serve farmers best if extension agents have read) access to transportation. A u D ACCESS
Q113. Extension can serve farmers best if extension agents are adequately trained. A u D SERVE
Q U 4 . At the present, extension agents are well trained. A u D WELTRND 295
Please give your opinion (Level o f Agreement) about each o f the following statements. Your opinions will be kept confidential. There are no wrong answers. If you agree, circle A. If you don't know or are undecided, circle U. If you disagree, circle D.
Level of Agreement CODE
3 2 1
Q l 15. Extension will benefit fanneis the most if extension agents organize field days and on-faim demonstrations regularly. A U D ORGANIZE
Q l 16. Men and women farmers should have equal access to markets outside the village. AU D EQUAL
Q117. Women fanners should have direct access to loans/credit. AU D FDIRBCr
Q118. Men farmers should have direct access to loans/credit. A u D •MESRECr
Q l 19. Men farmers find it easier than femen farmers to get credit from the bank. A u D CREDIT
Q120. Borrowing money for food production is not a wise decision. A u DUNWISE
Q121. Borrowing money for cash crop (coffee, tea. cocoa, etc.) production is a wise decision. A u D WISE
Q122. Women farmers should not borrow from the bank because they fear they may be unable to repay iL A u D WFEAR
Q123. Men farmers should not borrow from the bank because they fear they may be unable to repay iL A u D MFEAR
Q124. Most farmers go to credit unions, merchants, or moneylendeis when they need loans. A u D UNIONS
Q125. Women farmers should not borrow from the bank because they may not be able to repay the laon A u DBNKDENYF
Q126. Men farmers should not borrow from the bank becasue they may not be able to repay the loan A u DBNKDENYM
Q127. Women farmers carmot have credit without support (permission) from their husbands. A u D MSUPORT
Q128. Men farmers cannot have credit without support (permission) from their wives. A u DFSUPORT
Q129. Extension officers and farmers should play an important role in the agricultural and economic development of Uganda. A u DECWOMIC
QI30. Please suggest three projects you would like to see extension carry out for farmers in your area.
Q13I.Why do you choose these projects?
Q132.Please detail in your own words the most important tasks you peiform in relation to food prodction
Q l 3 3.Vf hat problems do you come across in your work as a farmer?
Q134. How do you solve those problems? Do you seek help from extension? Why? Why not?
WieiBAlLlS SfSfiriD 296 EXTENSION QUESTIONNAIRE PLACE OP WORK
Respondent Name^ Respondent ID County ______CountyS (Subeounty)^ DATE: Parish______PariskS (Suboarish) Designtn 01 ( ) Fanner 02 ( ) Extension Household Code______Interrieweris Same_ District Code: MUKDIST ID»
Please respond to the questions below. Your responses will be kept confidentiaL Codes on extreme right o f each page are for purposes o f analysis only. Please ignore.
CODE
Q L rtirl nn jrniir nrtirrirnrr i in nrrmTinn iirm hnr wouldyoa classify fm nos in your district? (PUet* Uek oelj out.) CLASSIFY
01 ( ) Food crops 05 ( ) Food and livestock 0 2 ( ) Cash crops 06 ( ) Cash crop and livestock 03 ( ) Livestock 07 ( ) Food crops, cash crops, and livestock 04 ( ) Food and cash crops 08 0 Other fPlease soecifvl
Q2. For what reasons do fanners produce the following crops and livestock? {PUmte drele «afy oae ransom for taek frodmeOoa)
Home Home Consum. ÇfniCTmptinn Marketing & Marketing Other (Please specify)
VegetaUes-greens, tomatoes, beans VBGES
Com/M aize MAIZE
F low es H-OWERS
Tuber crops-cassava, yams, cocoyams TUBER
Msnock, amenvu, bogpya, ndiizi MATOOKE
Friuis—osanges, etc. FRUIT
Expon crops-sugar, coffee, cocoa, etc. EXPCRCM»
Livestock-chicken, pigs, goats, castle, sheep, etc. UVSTOCK 297
Q3. Listed below are specific agricuituiaj productioo tasks ranneis pcifoim at borne and on the farm. Please indicate the labor available to them in performing each task. (Please circle only one aum ier fo r each acUvUy)
Wife Husb Wife& Wife Wife, husb Kids Work Hired Other CODE Only Only Husb &kids &bds Only Group Labor (Please specify)
Land Preparation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LAND
Planting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 H-ANT
Weeding/Thinning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 WEED
Spraying 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SPRAY
Fertilization (mutch) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lERT
Harvesting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 HARVSr
Storage 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 HMTRNSPT
Transporting crops 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 MKTRNSPT to home
Transporting crops 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 STC»AŒ for marketing
M arketing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 MARKET
Q4. In Mukono District households, who makes decisions about the following activities? {Please circle only one number for each activity.)
Wife Husb W if e * Wife and Wife, Husb Wife Other Only Only Husb Children & Children Husb &Rel Please specify) What to plant on the farm 2 WHAT
When to plant 2 WHEN
Trying innovations 2 INNOVATE
When to harvest 2 TOHAVEST
When to sell 2 SRI
What family members will eat EAT
Whether to get a loan ŒTLQAN
Whether to buy farm inputs BUYINPTS
W hether to buy household goods HHGOODS
W hether to get off-farm jobs OFAMIOBS
What to do with farm income FINCOME
What proportion of income to save SAVE
What to do with off-farm income OFINOCME 298
Q5. Wfea type of livesuxk docs tbe fanner yoa vint moa often have on hâ/herfanD?fPlMt« Uek mU OM tf p h .) 01 ( ) None NONES 02 ( ) cattle CATILE 03 ( ) Goats GOATS 04 ( ) Sheep SHB3* 05 ( ) P i|s MGS 0 6 ( ) Apiaiy APIARY 07 ( ) P oukv (chicken, fowls, tnfcey. etc.) POUJTRY 08 ( ) Other (Please specify) ______O Ü B ÎS
()6. What other economic activities do (armeis e n p p in besides fanning and Kvesioek? fPfena# ttek mU Xhaf nppfy ) 01 ( ) None NONES 02 ( ) Paid emphymeot onlside the household PAIKMP 03 ( ) Handicrafl (Polteiy. weaving, etc.) CRAFT 04 ( ) Brewing/Distilling BREW 05 ( ) Other (Please meeifvt OTIERS
Q7. On avenge, how many boon do women farmeis spend each day on fannwoffc7fPfewe ttek erne.) FARMHRS 01( ) None 02( } 1 - 5 horns 03( ) 6 - 10 boms 04( ) ll - 15 horns Q5( )16 boms and above.
Q8. On avenge, how many horns do men fanneis spend each day on faimwoifc? (Plemte Uek emly eut.) HUSHRS 01( ) None 02( ) 1 - 5 boms Q3( ) 6 - 10 boms 04( )ll - 15 boms 05( )16 horns and above.
Q9. On avenge, how many boms do women spend each day taking care o f children-balliing. feeding. recking child to sleep? (PUate tick out.) CHILDHRS 01 ( ) None 02( ) I - S boms 03( ) 6 - 10 boms 04( )11 - 15 horns QS( )16 horns and above.
QIO. On avenge, how many hours do men spend each day taking care of children-bathing. feeding. recking child to sleep? fPfeoie Uek out.) HUSCHILD OK ) None ------" 02( ) 1 - 5 hours Q3( ) 6 - 10 hours 04( )I1 - 15 hours 05( )16 hours and above.
Ql 1. How big is the piece of plot Mukono farmers cultivate at present? fP fease Uek out.) PtjnrsJTF. 01 ( ) 0 - 4 acres 02 ( ) 5 - 9 acres 03 ( ) 1 0 -1 4 acres 04 ( ) 1 5 -1 9 acres 05 ( ) 20 acres or more
Q12. How hig is the land Mukono farmen allocate to cash crop production? (Pltute Uek out.) CASHLAND 01 ( ) 0 - 4 acres 02 ( ) 5 9 acres 03 ( ) 1 0 - 1 4 acres 0 4 ( ) 1 5 -1 9 acres 05 ( ) 20 acres or more
Q13. How big is the land Mukono farmers allocate to food crop production? (Pleatt Uek one.) KXXILAND 01 ( ) 0- 4acres 02 ( ) 5 9 acres 03 ( ) 1 0 -1 4 acres 04 ( ) 1 5 -1 9 acres 05 ( ) 20 acres or more
Q14. How do men farmers in yom area usually acquire land for agricultural purposes?
QIS. How do women farmers in yom area usually acquiie land for agricultural purposes? 299
Q1& Wta«9 pe of land do wonen have eaqr access to? (PUmMt Uek amlj mmt.) flNDTYre 01 ( ) None 02 ( ) Mailo land 03 ( ) Kibanja 04 ( ) Public land 05 ( ) Other 06 ( ) Don’t Know
Q17. Wbattyfe of land do men have easy acte» to? (PUmMt Uek only tme.) 01 ( ) None MLNDTkTE 02 ( ) Mailo land 03 ( ) Kibanja 04 ( ) Public land 05 ( ) Other 06 ( ) Don’t Know
Q18. In Mukono District, can a woman own laud or kibanja in her own tight? (Phare Uek tme.) RANDKTE 01 ( ) NO W hy not? 0 2 ( I YES How? 0 3 ( ) Don’t Know
Q19. In Mukono District, can a man own land or kibaiga in his own fifht? (Pleore Uek one.) MLANDRTE 01 ( ) NO W hy not? 0 2 ( ) YES How? 03 ( ) Don’t Know
Q20. In Mnkono District do faimeis rent land from other people for farming? (Plcore Uek tme.) RENT 01 ( ) NO W hy not? 02 ( ) YES Why? 03 ( ) Don’t Know
Q21. Approximately, how marry acres of land do farmers usually rent from other people for farming? (PUatt Uek only one.) RENTSEE 01 ( ) 0- 4acres 02 ( ) 5- 9 acres 03 ( ) 10 • 14 acres 0 4 ( ) 1 5 -1 9 acres . 05 ( ) 20 acres or more 06 ( ) Farmers don’t rent land from anybody for fantting
Q22. Have arty members of your household bought any land or kibanja in the last two years? fffenre Uek one.) BOTLAND 01 ( ) ND 02 ( ) YES 03 ( ) Don’t Know
Q23. Which household members bought land? fPfenre Uek erne.) 01 ( ) Male 02 ( ) Female 03 ( ) Male arrd Female 04 ( ) None 05 ( ) Don’t Know Q23SEX How did t h ^ get mortcy to biry the land?
Q24. Who owns the family land in your household? (P h ase Uek only one.) LNDOWNER 01 ( ) Wife 02 ( ) Husband 03 ( ) Male head 0 4 ( ) Female head 05 ( ) Jointly by husband and wife 06 ( ) Adult brother or sister 07 ( ) Other fPlease specify
Q25. Arc there any landless people in your household? (Pfeose Uek one.) LANDLESS 01 ( ) ND 02 ( ) YES
Q26 Which household members are usually landless? (P h ase Uek one.) 01 ( ) Male 02 ( ) Female 03 ( ) Male and Female 04 ( ) None OS ( ) Don’t Know Q26SEX What are the reasons some might be luxOess? What do lenrtifM people do to support themselves?
Q27. Which of the following agricultural inputs for crop production are readily available to farmers in your area? (Pletue Uek all that apply) 01 ( ) None NONE27 02 ( ) Improved seeds IMPSEEDS 03 ( ) Pesticides—Fungicides. Insecticides PSTS 04 ( ) Fertilizers FERTIL 05 ( ) Other (Please specify) ------OTHER27 300
Q 2 8 . At what price do fanneis usually buy these iuputs ? 01 ( ) Improved seeds per kilogram/liter SEEDCOST 02 ( ) Pesticides— Fungicides. Insecticides. per kilogram/liter PESTCOST 03 ( )Fettilizeis______per kflogram/liter FERTCOST 0 4 ( ) D o n 't know DONTKNOW
Q29 Who is the major supply of agricultural inputs to fanneis in your area? fPleose Uek only one.) MAISUPLY 01 ( ) Cooperative Society 0 2 ( )S hop 03 ( ) DA O 's Omce 04 ( )From Btteusiou Office/extension worker 0 5 ( ) N eighbor 06 ( )Other (Please specify ______
Q30. How far is it from the nearest farm you visit to where farmeis buy agricultural inputs?. .m iles HOWFAR
Q31. By what means do fanneis usually reach their major supply of agricultural inputs? fPfeose Uck only one.) .MEANS 01 ( ) By walking 02 ( ) By taxi/bus/public transport 03 ( ) Inputs are available in my village. 04 ( ) Extension Office/extension worker brings them to me on the farm. 05 ( ) Neighbor buys them forme. What means does neighbor use? 06 ( ) Other (Please snecifv)
Q32. What are the major sources of infonnation on new farming methods for farmers in your area? (Please Uck all that apply. 01 ( ) Cooperative Society COOPSOC 02 ( )S hop SHOP 03 ( ) DAO's Office in Mukono Town DAO 04 ( )Extension Office/extension worker, county, subcounty, parish EXrWKER 05 ( )Neighbor NEIŒR 06 ( ) Radio RADIO 07 ( ) Television TV 08 ( ) Newspapers NEWSPAP 09 ( ) Agricultural publications (periodicals, magazines, newsletters, etc.) MAGS 10 ( ) Other (Please specify) OTHER32
Q33. Do fanneis use hired labor? (Pletue Uck one.) HKEDLAB 01 ( ) NO Why not?
02 ( ) YES Why?
Q34. On average, how many hired laborers did farmers employ in crop production last year—1993?, .hired laborers. HOWMANY
Q35. What type of laborers do farmeis employ? (Pletue Uck a ll Utal apply.) 01 ( ) Fulltime FULLTIME 02 ( ) Parttime PARTIME 03 ( ) Contract CONTRACT 04 ( ) Other (Please specify) ______OTHER35
Q36. Do farmers experience labor shortage on their farms for agricultural production? (Pletue Uck one.) LABSHORT 01 ( )N O Why not?
02 ( ) YES Why?
Q37. When fanners experience labor shortage for production, how do they solve the problem?
Q38. At what stage of crop production is labor shortage most pronounced in your area?
Q39. Is hired labor easily available to farmers in your area? (Pletue Uck one.) EASYLAB 01 ( ) NO Why not? 0 2 ( ) YES Why? 03 ( ) Don't know
()40. Have you ever received a loan from a bank? (Please Uck one.) RCVDUDAN 01 ( ) NO Why not?
02 ( ) YES How did you get the loan?
(241. How far is it from your station to the nearest bank? .m iles NEAREST 301
Q42. Which of the following financial institutions ate fanneis awaie of in your district? (PUate tick all that apply.) 01 ( ) None NCWE42 02 ( ) Uganda Commercial Bank UŒANK 03 ( ) Standard Bank STDBANK 04 ( ) Sembnle Investment Bank SEMBANK 05 ( ) Rosea (Esusu) ESUSU 06 C ) Credit Unions-Savings and Credit Group CRDUNION 07 ( ) Traditional money lenders. Merchants TRADML 08 ( ) O ther (Please snecifvl OTHER42
()43. How common is it for farmers to borrow money from the bank? (Pleate tick one.) BORROW 01 ( ) Never. W hy?
02 ( ) Seldom. W hy?
03 ( ) Often. Why?
Q44. How big is the loan farmers usually receive from the bank? .Shillings. AMTLOAN
Q45. What do farmers use as collateral for bank loans?.
Q46. For what do farmers use the money they borrow from tlie bank?
()47. On average, what is the duration of the loan farmers obtain from the bank-numbcr of years for rep^rment? DURATKXM
(248. Do farmers generally pay back loans on time? (Pleate Uek one.) PAYLOAN 01 ( ) NO Why Not? How much extra time do they need?
02 ( ) YES Why?
03 ( ) Farmers never borrow
(249. Which group of farmers usually p ^ back loans on time ? (^9S E X 01 ( ) hble 02 ( ) Female 03 ( ) Male and Female 04 ( ) None 05 ( ) Don't Know
QSO. What penalties (if any) do farmers incur for late loan payment?
QS1. Under what circumstances do banks reject farmers’ applications for loans?
Q52. Do wives belong to the same financial institutions with their husbands? (Pleate Uek one.) FINSTTTE 01 ( ) NO Why Not? 02 ( ) YES Why? Which institutions? 03 ( ) D on't Know
Q53. Do wives share savings accounts with their husbands? (Pleate Uek one.) SHARE 01 ( ) NO Why Not? 02 ( ) YES Why? 03 ( ) D on't Know
Q54. Do husbands have savings accounts? (Pleate Uck one.) HUSBSAVE 01 ( ) NO Why Not? 02 ( ) "YES Why? 03 ( ) D on't Know
Do wives have savings accounts? (Pleate Uck one.) WIFESAVE 01 ( ) NO Why Not? 02 ( ) YES Why? 03 ( ) D on't Know
Q55. Why do farmers save money? 302
Q56. What is the biggest source of cash income for fanneis in your area? (Please Uek only one.) SOURCE 01 () No cash income 02 () Sale o f coffee 03 () Sale o f other crops 04 () Husking coffee OS () Grinding maize 06 () Livestock products 07 () Labor on other farms 08 () Fetching water 09 () Brick making 10 () Beer brewing/distilling 11 () Artisanship/crafts 12 () Drama performances 13 () Providing transport 14 () Shopkeeping/trading 15 ( ) Military/police service 16 () Teaching school children 17 () Cash sent from relatives working in town or city 18 () Other rpiease specifv.l
Q57. Do you consider a bank loan important as a factor for increased agricultural production? (Please tick one.} CXDNSIDER 01 ( ) NO Why Not? 02 ( ) YES Why? 03 ( ) Don’t Know
Q58. Do you consider fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, etc., as an important factor for FERTILZR increased agricultural production? (Please tick one.} 01 ( ) NO Why Not? 02 ( ) YES Why? 03 ( ) Don’t Know
Q59. Do you consider extension activity as an important factor for increased agricultural production? EXTENSN (Please Uck one.} 01 ( ) NO Why Not? 02 ( ) YES Why? 03 ( ) Don’t Know
Q60. Do you consider radio programs on agriculture as an important factor for increased agricultiual production? RADPRGM (Please Uck one.} 01 ( ) NO Why Not? 02 ( ) YES Why? 03 ( ) Don’t Know
Q61. Do you consider television programs on agriculture as an important factor for increased agricultural production? TVPRGM (Please Uck one.} 01 ( ) NO Why Not? 02 ( ) YES Wig? 03 ( ) Don’t Know
Q62. Do you consider print media (newspapers, newsletters, agricultural publications, magazines, etc.) PRNTPRGM an important factor for increased agricultural production in Mukono District? (Please Uck one.} 01 ( ) NO Why Not? 02 ( ) YES Why? 03 ( ) Don’t Know
Q63. Which of the following means of communication do you have in your household? (Please Uck all that apply.) 01 ( ) Radio RADI063 02 ( ) Television TELEV 03 ( ) Telephone FHONE 04 ( ) Print media (newspapers, newsletters, agricultural publications, magazines, etc.) MAGS63 05 ( ) Other (Please specify) ______OTHER63
Q64. Who owns the means of communication you have in your household? (Please Uck only one.} OWNCOM 01 ( ) Wife 02 ( ) Husband 03 ( ) Son 04 ( ) D aughter 05 ( ) Other (Please specify) ______303
CODE
Q6S. Which of the following fam tools does the farmer you visit most often use on his/her farm? (Please tick all that apply.) 01 None UNONE6S 02 Hoe LHCE 03 Axe UAXE 0 4 Slasher USLASHER 05 Panga UPANGA 06 Tractor UTRACTOR 0 7 Sprayers USPRAYER OS Digger/Spade USPADE 09 Truck UTRUCK 10 Ox. cart, plough UOX 11 Wheelbarrow UBARROW 12 Bicycle UBIKE 13 Other (Please specify) UOTHER65
Q66. Which of the following farm tools are available to farmeis in their households? (Please tick all that apply.) 01 None NONE66 02 Hoe HOE 03 Axe AXE 0 4 Slasher SLASHER 05 Panga PANGA 06 Tractor TRACTOR 07 Sprayers SPRAYER OS Digger/Spade SPADE 09 Truck TRUCK 10 Ox. cart, plough CK 11 Wheelbarrow BARROW 12 Bicycle BIKE 13 Other (Please specify) ______CTHER66
Q67. Who owns the farm tools farmers use on their farms?
Q68. How many times did farmers in your area attend on-field demonstrations, agricultural meetings, ATTEND or variety trials organized by extension last year—1993? (Please Uek only oae.) 01 ( ) None 02 ( ) 1 to 2 times 03 ( ) 3 to 4 times 04 ( ) 5 to 6 times 05 ( ) 7 to 8 times 06 ( ) 9 to 10 times 07 ( ) More than 10
Q69. How often do you—as an extension agent-visit farmers on their farms? (Please Uek oaly oae.) EXrviSTT 01n r i ( \) NoneMnnr 02 ( ) 1 to 2 times a year 03 ( ) 3 to 4 times a year 04 ( ) 5 to 6 times a year 0 5 ( ) 7 to 8 times a year 06 ( ) 9 to 10 times a year 07 ( ) More than 10 times a year
Q70. How far away do you live from the nearest farm you visit?_ _m iles. AŒNTUV
Q71. Do you organize on-farm demonstrations for farmers in your area? (Pferue Uek oae) 01 ( ) NO. Why Not? 02 ( ) YES How often? times a year. ONFARM
Q72. Which of the following farm practices did farmers learn from extension? (Please Uek all that apply.) 01 ( ) None NONE72 02 ( ) Spacing crops SPACING 03 ( ) Pruning coffee PRUNE 04 ( ) Desuckering bananas DESUCKER 05 ( ) Controlling banana weevils CONTROL 06 ( ) Using chemicals to store harvest CHEMICALS 07 ( ) CHeaning produce before selling OJEAN 08 ( ) Other (Please specify.) OTHER72 304
Q73. What is your place of origin? (Place of Birth) DISTRICTS
D istrict______County_ CODNTY73S
Ethnic Group. R eligion. ETHNICS
City(Town/Vi!lage_ REUGIONS
Q74. How often do you visit your place of origin? fP/eoae Uek one.) ORICHN 01 ( ) None 02 ( ) 1 to 2 times a year 03 ( ) 3 to 4 times a year 0 4 C ) S to 6 times a year 0 5 ( ) 7 to 8 times a year 0 6 ( ) 9 to 10 times a year 0 7 ( ) More than 10 times a year 0 8 ( ) I live at my place of origin
Q75. How many years of formal, classroom education have you had?. YRSEDU
Q76. What is the highest level of education you have completed?. LEVELS
Q77. Other Degrees/Diplomas/Certificates obtained OTHERDBGS
Q78. What is your monthly gross income?. sh illin g s MINCXIME
Q79. What is your age? years AGE
Q80. Gender (Please Uck one.) SEX 01 ( ) Male 02 ( ) Female
Q81. Marital status; (Please Uek only one.) MARITAL 01 ) Married 02 ( ) Single 03 ( ) Divorced 0 4 ( ) Widowed 05 ( ) Separated 0 6 ( ) Other (Please specify).
Q82 Size of family: No. of Wives. WIVES
No. of Children (own Kids) __ KIDS
Total No. of Household Members. HMEMBERS
Q83. Who is the head of your household? (Please Uek only one.) HHEAD 01 ( ) Wife 04 ( ) Female Head 0 2 ( ) Husband OS ( ) Male Head 03 ( ) Both Husband and wife 06 ( ) Other (Please specify
Q84. Why is the selected person head of the household?
Q85. Current occupation of parents — (Father's Occupation) POCXiPATES
Q86. Current occupation of parents — (Mother's Occupation) MOCXJPATES 305
Please give your opinion (Level o f Agreement) about each of the following statements. Your opinions will be kept confidentiaL There are no wrong answers. If you agree, circle A. If you don't know or are undecided, circle U. If you disagree, circle D.
Level of Agreement CODE
3 2 1
Q87. Agriculture iu Uganda should aim at producing cash crops for expoit. A U D OBJcnv
Q88. Only men farmers should grow cash crops in Uganda. AU D MALECASH
Q89. Women farmers should produce only food for family consumption. AU D FAMPOCO
Q90. Men farmers should make the decisions on how land is used. AU D DBaSION
Q91. Inadequate access to land should not affects women farmers' ability to increase food production. A U D DMADEQir
Q92. Women can always get additional household labor to increase crop production. AU D HHLABOR
Q93. Men farmers should provide all the labor input on the family farm. AU D raoviDE
Q94. Women farmers have adequate farm tools for food production. AU D FARMTOOL
Q95. Women farmers have the money to buy improved farm tools for crop production. AU D MONR-
Q96. Women farmers should not use inputs such as fertilizers to increase food production. A U D FEFARMER
Q97. Fertilizers should be used only for the production of cash crops such as coffee and sugarcane. A U D CASHCROP
Q98. Most farmers always have the money to bty fertilizers. A U D MOST
Q99. Domestic work makes it difficult for women farmers to participate actively in extension programs. A u D FDOMESnc
QIOO. Domestic work makes it difficult for men farmers to participate actively in extension programs. A u D MDOMESnc
QIOI. Extension programs are useful to women farmers. A u D FUæRJL
Q102. Extension programs are useful to men farmers. A u D MUSEFUL
Q1Q3. Extension regularly organizes training programs for farmers. A u D TRAIN
Q104. Extension training programs should involve as many women farmers as men farmers. A u D INVOLVE
Q105. Men farmers should participate in extension training programs more than women farmers. A u D PARTOPr
Q106. Extension training sites are close to where most farmers live. A u D SITES
Q107. Most women farmers would participate in extension training programs if women extension agents invite them. A u. D INVITE
Q108. More women farmers would participate in extension training programs if childcare facilities were available. A u D DAYCARE
Q109, Women farmers' inability to imderstand English makes it difficult for them to participate actively in extension training programs. A u D FENGUSH
QUO. Men farmers' inability to tmderstand English makes it difficult for them to participate actively in extension training programs. A u D MENOJSH
QUI. At the present, extension agents lack transportation. A u D LACK
Q U 2 . Extension can serve farmers best if extension agents have ready access to transportation. A u D ACCESS
Q U 3 . Extension can serve farmers best if extension agents are adequately trained. A u D SERVE
Q114. At the present, extension agents are well trained. A u D WELTRND 306
Please give your opinion (Level o f Agreement) about each of the following statements. Your opinions will be kept confidential. There are no wrong answers. If you agree, circle A. If you don't know or are undecided, circle U. If you disagree, circle D.
Level of Agreement CODE
3 2 1
Ql IS. Extension will benefit fanneis the most if extension agents organize field days and on-farm demonstrations regularly. A U D ORGANIZE
Q l 16. Men and women farmers should have equal access to markets outside the village. A U D EQUAL
Ql 17. Women farmers should have direct access to loans/crediL A u D FDIRBCr
Q118. Men farmers should have direct access to loans/credit A u D MDlRECr
Ql 19. Men farmers find it easier than femen farmers to get credit from the hank. A u D c3îEDrr
Q120. Borrowing money for food production is not a wise decision. A u D UNWISE
Q121. Borrowing money for cash crop (coffee, tea. cocoa, etc.) production is a wise decision. A u D WISE
Q122. Women farmers should not borrow from the hank because they fear they may he unable to repay it A u D WFEAR
Q123. Men farmers should not borrow from the hank because they fear they may he unable to repay IL A u D MFEAR
Q124. Most farmers go to credit unions, merchants, or moneylenders when they need loans. A u D UNIONS
Q12S. Women farmers should not borrow from the hank because they may not he able to repay the laon A u D BNKDENYF
Q126. Men farmers should not borrow from the hank hecasue they may not he able to repay the loan A u D BNKDENYM
Q127. Women farmers cannot have credit without support (permission) from their husbands. A u D MSUPORT
Q128. Men farmers cannot have credit without support (permission) from their wives. A u D FSUTORT
Q129. Extension officers and farmers should play an important role in the agricultirral and economic development of Uganda. A u D ECONOMIC 307 Q130. Please suggest three projects you would like to see extension carry out for farmers in your area.
QlSI.W hy do you choose these projects?
Q132.Please detail in your own words the most important tasks you perform as an extension agent.
Q l33.What problems do you come across in your work as an extension agent?
Q134. How do you solve those problems? 308
For Extension Respondents Only. The following questions concern monthly activities of agricultural officials. Please respond to as many items as you can.
C3J35. Which of the following means of transportation do you have for your work? CODE (Please tick all that apply.) 01 ( ) None NONE0E 02 ( ) Bicycle BIKE 03 ( ) Motorcycle MOTORCY 04 ( ) Motor vehicle (car, van, truck, etc.) VEHICLE
0136. What is the condition of the means of transportation available to you for your work? (Please tick only one.) CONDITN 01 ( ) Not Available 02 ( ) Available in good condition 03 ( ) Available in fair condition 04 ( ) Available but out of use
0137. What demonstration materials do you require for your work? DEMO
0138. What quantity of training materials (Q3) do you require for your work? 0.UANT1TY
0139. What quantity of training materials (Q3) is available to you now for your work?
0140. Do you usually attend Monthly Training sessions for County extension officers? (Please tick one.) SESSIONS 01. ( ) NO 02 ( )YES 0141. How many monthly training sessions have you attended since January 1994? MONTHLY (Please tick only one.) 01 ( ) None 04 ( ) Three 02 ( ) One Only 05 ( )Fbur 03 ( ) Two 06 ( )Five
0142. Do you find monthly training sessions useful to you in your work? Why?
0143. Please list some useful things you have learned at monthly training sessions you have attended since January 1994.
0144. Number of male farmer groups you visited in May:. MGROUP
0145. Attendance______MATTEND
0146. Number of fe m a le farmer groups you visited in May:, FGROUP
0147. Attendance______FATTEND
0148. Number of young farmer (youth) groups you visited in May:, YGROUP
0149. Attendance ______—— ---- YATTEND
0150. Number of mixed-farmer groups (male, female, youth) you visited in May:. MXGROUP
0151. Any special problems you come across in your work? WISWJiE,IS EfSfWdD APPENDIX B
Permission to Conduct Study
309 310
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
UGANDA NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO CONDUCT RESEARCH [N 3.—Rtad inrtrutâau and guide in Am exei I and I I before completing this form)
FOR OFFICIAL USE Af f u c a t t o h N o -
F ie l d o f R e s e a r c h : P r o je c t N o ------
SECTION A: PARTICULARS OF APPLIC.ANT
1. FuU Name______(Surname to be underlined)
2. D ite >nd PUce of Birth
3. iMiiinl Scania______
t Nauonalicy ______
5. (t) Pernunent Addreaa
(ii) Local Institution Address.
6. Current Immigration Status:* (i/ already m Uganda)
7. Present Occupation Status:
(i) Post ------[iTemporary/ContraetlPermanent) (ii) Institutionc 311
u. (i) Estim ate cost or research
(ii) Source of funds ......
(iii) Duration—------
IS. BE.UCDOWN OF ExpENDrrtniE: (Give details of each item on a separate sheet of paper). (This table should be Sited by all applicants).
From I From* other 1 Year I Year 2 Year 3 Total UNCST. sources I t e s i I (Shs.) 1 (Shs.) (Shs.) (Shs.) (Shs.) (Shs.) ! J 1 1 1 ! 1 i ! I ! 1 i1 1i i ! ! 1 i
"If applicable.
16. Mames and addresses of two referees:
IT. (o) I undertake to subm it: (i) Six monthly progress reports on my projects; (ii) Final results on completion of project.
(6) I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the particulars given in this form are true and complete in all respects. 312
18. Comments by Head of Department—
19. Ethical clearance (especially for medical research).
{Head of Department). 20. Comments by Supervisor;
Signature......
S E C T IO N D : FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
21. Decision of the Committee.
M inute: Date: ....
Date Signature of Chairman...
22. Decision of the UNCST :
M inute ......
Signature of Chairman..
Date
23. Date applicant informed..
24. Project extended/suspended/abandoned/completed.
Signature......
Date.. 313
A N N E X I
^ ^ of ap p lets in Government or academic institunona, applications must be submitted through their Heads of Department.
(ii) Research to be carried o u t by non-Ugandans ;
(iii) If it entails interviewing members of the public or officers; (iv) Research involving access to Government archives or other Government documents;
(v) If it falls outside the research priorities set by the National Research Council.
4. Research failing under any of the following categories shall require notification of the Council,
(i) If it does not fall within the categories in I above;
(ii) If it is to be carried o u t b y undergraduates.
For undergraduate field research by students registered at an educational institution in Uganda., the Head of Department shall provide the following information to the Executive Secretary—UNCST :
(i) Name(s) of student(s). (ii) Subject of research assignments; (iii) Area in which research is to be conducted; (iv) Government documents required to be examined (if any) ;
(v) Estimated duration of research; (vi) Sources of funds;
(vii) Name(s) of supervisor(s).
3. The Uganda National Council for Science and Technology reserves the right to reject any research proposal.
ANNEX n
Guide far the Documentation of Research Proposais: By following this guide, applicants will greatly help in speeding up the processing and approving or otherwise of their requests to carry out research in Uganda.
Documentation: 1. In the first instance, the person wishing to undertake a particular research should provide particulars of him/herself on the official application form.
2. The proposed research project should have a title, review of literature on the subject, objectives, methodology, budget and the estimated duration.
4. In the review, take note of the following: (1) References: Place all references alphabetically BY AUTHOR, IN A NUMBERED LIST .AT THE END OF TH E review in a section entitled "References" when you refer in the text to a publication in this list, insert its number in brackets including specific page number if necessary, e.g. (12p, 126). (ii) Footnotes: Number footnotes consecutively throughout the paper, and note page by page. (iii) Tables: Tables should have clear headings and be numbered consecutively throughout the paper. (iv) Identificatian of research project: At the end of the paper the applicant should identify areas which require research in order of priorities, and indicate clearly the reasons for selecting a particular area.
5. The proposed research methodology, estimated budget and length of time, should then be provided, indicating sources of finance whether from a grant from Government, or any other institution. A statement as to what progress has been made in securing finances, would be of great help in processing the application. 314
OFrlCEOFfHE ^asw ea*»’: d ir e c t o r OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION. P.O. BOX z M wr eeMCU>a«ecfa> a^DOCO - iMt M M Ct fUAw M it ■•>— a.ua.^^0^ 'iMEiitPinucorucANO* ENTEBBE. UGANDA.
The Dlscrlct Agricultural Officer Mukono D istrict 3rd Maech, 1994
MR. OWUSU-ANSAH This Is to Introduce to you the above named person who Is a Ph.D student with Ohio State University, U.S.A. He would like to collect data from your d is tr ic t by Interviewing some extension Agents and farmers. You are therefore asked to Introduce him to the Central Government Rejjresentatlve (OCR) and assist him to make it possible to carry out the Interview.
/Ii Y.:<. DhaoutudhaDh ^ / t For: 01 rector Agricultural Extension 315
IZlII'Slirr OP ACTilCULTOnE AlIUUl INDOSISr
AiiD pisEsnnSi
p.O'. 3CK 7 2 , :s!aKoso.
.if lAJZ?A v 'l Oth î-iiroh, 1994.
TO m m I ? i-jv ; ccirczrtH.
Ttc bc=rcr= of tiii: letter arc cfficerc irorkirg uitt the Hiztis'try of ji'io'rl t-rrc Irdrstrics crsl Pis^criec in 2-iiixno Pis-trict. They are ■r'sntlj' '..'orl-f.;., •:ith J^ :. Qit^y.^V:, wfeo is coniuctin^
. rrcii for Is..; 3 nro^n.
_ ii iiLZii (:-i) PTi-f.r.'JTnr.TSspsioiT coiD.iruVTORA-in ■ .:vcN£i:f-i' ...;a to r I P. 3. : :.v 73 MUKcr. 3 = 316 Department of Agriculture P.O. Box 72 MUKONO May 19, 1994. Eri Chairperson RCII Ssebo/Nyabo, OKTTNONYEREZA KUBY’OBULIMI Nkutegeza nti omuiimu ogwasooka ogw’okukunganya amannya g’abaiimi mu byalo ebyalondebwamu muluka gwo, gwaggvva bulungi era tugwebaz^ Kati nkwanjulira amannya g’abantu bano n’ebyalo gyebabeera, abalondebwa mu ago agatuwebwa. Ekigendererwa ky’ebbaluwa eno kwekukutegeza nti abantu abo tujja kubakolamu omuiimu ogw'okunonyereza kuby’obulimi nga. Tusaba otegeze ab’obukiiko bwa RC I, wabeewo atuyamba nga tuzze. Era tusaba bategeze abalimi abalondebwa obutava waka wabwe. Amannya g’abantu bano gatekeddwa kulupapula emabega, n’abamu kub’obukiiko bwa RC I abatuwa amannya. Nze Kulwa District Agricultural Officer, cc: Chairpersons RC I 317 Dear Farmer: You have been œmputer-selected to participate in a study involving extension and farmers. The things we will talk about concern how best extension can help increase agricultural productivity and improve living standards of farmers in the rural areas of Uganda. The study is being conducted by J, P. Owusu-Ansah, a doctoral student of agriculture and rural sociology at The Ohio State University in Columbus, USA. JP is a Ghanaian. The results of the study will help extension to formulate and implement agricultural programmes that can meet the actual needs of farmers. We want to obtain your responses to all items in the questionnaire attached. Your responses will contribute significantly towards solving some of the problems we face in extension and agriculture. We assure you of confidentiality and anonymity. Yours sincerely, J. P. Owusu-Ansah 318 Department of Agriculture P.O. Box 72 Mukono May 19, 1994 Dear Extension Officer; You have been computer-selected to participate in a study involving extension and farmers. The attached questionnaire is about how best extension can help farmers increase agricultural productivity and improve living standards of farmers in the rural areas of Uganda. The study is being conducted by J. P. Owusu-Ansah, a doctoral student rural sociology at The Ohio State University in Columbus, USA. JP is a Ghanaian. The results of the study will help extension to formulate and implement agricultural programmes that can meet the actual needs of farmers. We are particularly desirous of obtaining your responses to all items in the questionnaire attached. Your responses will contribute significantly towards solving some of the problems we face in extension agriculture. We would appreciate it if you will take some time to complete the questionnaire and bring it to the monthly training session at Mukono DFT, Ntaawo, on Friday, May 27. Your responses will be kept confidential. Yours Sincerely, Allen Kebba District Extension Coordinator, Mukono. 319 Department of Agriculture P.O. Box 72 MUKONO June 15, 1994- Dear...: You remember the questionnaire I sent you a few weeks ago—an agricultural extension study conducted by a Ghanaian student from The Ohio State University in Columbus? Response to the study has been very encouraging. More than 90 percent of Mukono District Extension officials computer-selected for the study have returned their completed questioimaires. I am proud of that. However, I have not received yours— yet. Perhaps the packet containing your questiormaire got mixed up somewhere along the line. For your convenience, I am enclosing a fresh copy of the questiormaire. Please take a few minutes to respond to the items and return the completed questiormaire to my office by Wednesday, Jtme 22. Remember: As an experienced extension official, your responses are critical to the success of extension and agriculture in Uganda. Yours Sincerely, Allen Kebba District Extension Coordinator, Mukono. Enclosure