The Andhra Agric. J. 47 (1 & 2) :113-117,2000

Communication Pattern of Research and Extension (R-E)Personnel Within Their Organizations in Relation to The R-E

Linkages in Yemen

Khalil M.S. Alshar Jabi" and P.VenkataramaiahExtension Education institute, ANGR Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad 500 030

ABSTRACT

The institutional communication behaviour of research and extension personnel is of great importance within theirorganizations. Their infra-system communication patterns has something to do with the effectiveness and efficiency of R-Elinkages themselves. The study was-conducted in the Republic of Yemen. Six regions having both research and extensionservices were selected for the study. Out of their total 700 Research and extension personnel in the country 200 (i.e, about30%) were selected as a sample for the study using the stratified random sampling. However, 189 (27% of the total population)served as respondents for the study among whom 96 wereextensionists and 93 were researchers. The findings indicatedthat information relating to R-E linkages is mainly shared with colleagues and immediate superviors by research andextension specialists. Though field agents and directors were identified as important individuals in the communicationpattern of research and extension personnel inside their agencies, there is a ciear need to further strengthen thecommunication pattern of research and extension personnel with their senior staff and with higher level management.Further, communication with foreign experts need to be enhanced so as to enable local specialists to learn from theirexperiences and knowledge. On the other hand research and extension specialists required to know the processing anddissemination of farm information relating to various R-E linkages. It is better to create a post/unit and the services be keptat the disposal of their special its so as to further improve the process of generation, diffusion and utilization of farm informationin the context of R-E linkages.

The continuous process of generatingfarm information demanded the estabHshmentof different kinds of linkages with individuals,groups and institutions outside the agriculturalresearch and extension orqanlzations. Muchemphasis has been duly allotted to linkagesbetween research and extension sub-systemson one hand and on the other between bothservices with farmers and their organizations aswell as with other beneficiaries. However, thesharing of farm information within the researchand extension services themselves remainedpresent address: P.B. 87148, Dhamar, The Republic of yamen.

unattended to, or inadequately tackled and quiteoftenly triggered much intra-system comuni-cation problems. Many matters discussed in thevarious Research-Extension (R-E) linkag,es inparticular, require some level of informationsharing and exchange by personnel of theconcerned service, otherwise the disseminationof these information with others, be theyparticipants of the R-E linkages or not, wouldremain questionable and uncertain. Theinstitutional communication behaviour (1GB) ofresearch and extension personnel, therefore, is

114 Aishar Jabi and Venkataramaiah AAJ 47

of great importance within their organizations firstbefore and along with their being regularparticipants in the various R-E linkages. Theirintra-system communication patterns hassomething to do with the effectiveness andefficiency of the R-E linkages themselves.Hence, this study was envisaged necessary tounfold the communication pattern of the researchand extension personnel within their agenciesin relation to the R-E linkages in Yemen.

METHODOLOGY

The study was conducted in the Republicof Yemen. Six regions having both research andextension services were selected for the study.Out of the total 700 research and extensionpersonnel in the country, 200 (about 30%) wereselected as a sample for the study using thestratified random sampling method. However,189 (27% of the total population) served asrespondents for the study among whom 96extensionists and 93 researchers as they havereturned the filled-up questionnaire aftersufficient time lapsed. The questionnaire methodwas employed for collecting the data fromrespondents. The questionnaire was dulypretested with a group of research and extensionpersonnel in area other than the study area.

1GBwas defined as "the extent to whichthe individual research/extension specialistscommunicates farm scientific informationpertaining to his job, in relation to the variousresearch extension (R-E) linkages inside his ownagency ICB is used inter-changeably with intra ..system communication pattern used by otherresearchers such as Ambastha (1986) andJawahar (1993). An Index was also developedto measure 1GB of the respondents.

1GB was the dependent variable, whileage, family size, Job experience, Income, socialparticipation, In-service training, job satisfaction,achievement motivation, attitude towards job,perception on research/extension, Knowledge oncommunication methods and techniques,satisfaction with resources and facilities; Holeawareness and attitude towards R-E linkageswere the independent variable in tr18 presentstudy. Validity and reliability tests of thequestionnaire items were carried out appropriatestatistics were used to analyze the data and tomake appropriate conclusions. The salientfindings are presented in the followingparagraphs.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table (1) shows that majority of theextensionists (65.6%) were found under thecategory of average ICB, fol!wed by high (17.7%)and low (16.7%) categories. in case of theresearchers, majority also (66%) were foundunder the category of average 1GB,followed bylow (20%) and high (14%) categories. Similartrend could be observed at the level of the pooledsample.

Table 1: Distribution of respondents according to theirInstitutional communication behaviour (ICB)

....,......;--Category Extensionists Researchers All respondents

N '" 96 N = 93 N = 189

F % F % F %

Low 16 16.7 19 20 35 i8.5

Average 63 65.6 61 66 124 65.6

High i7 17.7 13 14 30 15.9

Mean 0.28 00.38

S.D 0.15 0.15

2000 Communication Pattern of R.E. Personnel to The R.E. Linkages in Yemen 115

The leB of the respondents was examinedin terms of the extent to which the respondentscommunicate matters relevant to the R-Elinkages inside their institutions and the findingsare shown in Table (2).

The results (Table 2) reveals that quitelarge majority of all respondents (~2.6%)communicate matters relating to R-E linkageswith their colleagues, followed by "immediatesupervisors" (86.8%). "Field staff", and "R-ECoordinators" were also commnicated with by78.3% and 76.7% consecutively. "High officials","Foreign experts" and, "communication officers"are shown to be the least communicated withby a percentage of approximately 39-29%.

In general, the researchers seems to havehad higher level of 1GB. Many of the Communi-

cates in the list are contacted by more numberof researchers as compared to extensionistsincluding high officials", and "foreign experts"who were the least communicated with at thelevel of pooled sample analysis. It is observedalso that some of the communicattee contacted/consulted are equally important for both groupssuch as "colleagues", "R-E coordinators", and"technical/extension director".

The respondents reported to havecommunicated matters relating to the R-Elinkages inside their agencies with a number ofindividuals. Colleagues and immediatesupervisor were mostly resorted to by bothresearch and extension specialists. These werefollowed by field staff and R-E coordinators whowere apparently consulted on some issuespertaining to the R-E linkages, the former due to

Table 2 : Percentage of respondents according to their communication inside their agencies regarding matters relevant tothe R-E Linkages

Extensionists Researchers All respondents81. No. Communicatee(s) ( N=96) (N = 93) (N=189)

F % F % F %

Colleagues 85 88.5 90 96.8 175 92.6

2 Immediate supervisors 78 81.3 86 92.5 164 86.8

3 Field agents/support technical staff 81 84.4 67 72 148 78.3

4 R-E Coordinators 73 76 72 77.4 145 76.7

5 Technical/extension director 47 49 88 94.6 135 71.4

6 Director of research station/Agric. Block 48 50 76 81.7 124 65.6

7 Local Consultants/ Advisors/National Coordinators 44 45.8 75 80.6 119 .63

8 Senior AlE Spaciallsts 44 45.8 73 78.5 117 61.9

9 Higher Officials 28 29.2 46 49.5 74 39.2

10 Foreign Experts 27 28.1 46 49.5 73 38.6

11 Communication/lnfrm. Officer 27 28.i 27 29 54 28.6

Ii 6 Aishar Jabi and Venkataramaiah

their knowledge of the field situation and fannersconditions and the latter iii view of theirresponsibilities as Coordinators or Organizersof the various R-E linkaqes. The results of thisstudy regarding the importance of "colleagues"is supportedbythe findings of Ambastha (1986)and Alsharjabi et al. (1993).

For both groups of respondents, i.e.researchers and extensionists, it was found that"immediate superiors/supervisors/office rs"occupied an important position among thecommunicates regarding matters relevant to R-E linkages inside their respective agencies. Thisparticular finding is consistent with the results ofNatikar et al. (1988). Immediate superior iswellknown to be of critical importance forsubordinates under the T & V extension systemespecially as a regular source of information andtraining. In general, also for researchers, directsupervisor could be of great importance particu-larly if he is senior in cadre and with highereducational qualifications. With respect to theR-E linkages, most of the matters pertaining tothem, have to pass through the hierarchicalstructure such as delegation for attendance inR-E activities, correspondence, circulation ofmeeting minutes and the like. As such theimportance of immediate supervisor sprung inthis study.

It is logical that Director of research/extension is resorted to more frequently than theDirector of Research Station/Agricultural Block.On the other hand, the findings revealed thathigher officials are not too much communicatedwith. interestingly, they have almost occupied thesame position as the "foreign experts" and"communication officers".

AAJ 47

Apparently specialists discuss some of theissues relating to the R-E linkages amongthemselves. i.e. with colleagues that areperceived as equal peer, and or with theirseniors. Then onward, some 6T the technicalmatters are discussed with "immediatesupervisors" and if required they bring thesematters to the technical/extension director.

Moreover, ifsome complex and importantproblems exist they bring them to the attentionof the "Director of the Research Station/Agricultural Block". If still unsolved, and whennecessary, then they resort to contacting thehigher level management of their respectiveagencies. It is weI! known that in the case of theInter-agency linkages, more often than not,problems. may arise for many reasons such asdifferences in educational background,privileges, conflict over who should lead or heada meeting or a committee. of a team and so.onarid so forth. Therefore, the hierarchical laddershows an important pattern in the in-housecommunication activities of the researchers· andextensionists likewise in relation to the R-Elinkages and perhaps on other scientific andadministrative aspects tor that matter.

The limited Communication with the"communication officers" indicates that someresearch and extension agencies still lack thiskind of specialists/units within their structures onone hand, while on the other, even when suchpost is available, it seems that its role is not yetclear as to what kind of service or duties thespecialists/unit should perform. In many cases,they are just available there for me service ofthe bosses, propaganda and public relationtasks.

2000 Communication Pattern of R.E. Personnel to The R.E. Linkages in Yemen 117

In this regard, a separate and detailedstudy on the intra-system communication patternwithin each research and extension agency,would be fruitful and will bring insight to theimportance of differences among individuals,peer groups, and the further sub-divisioning ofeach group and the purpose for which they arecommunicating.

It can be concluded that informationrelating to R-E linkages is mainly shared withcolleagues and immediate supervisors byresearch and extension specialists. Field agentsand directors were also identified as .Impcrtantindividuals in the communication pattern ofresearch and extension personnel inside theiragencies. Although this trend may be maintainedand that specialists should be encouraged to usefor exchanging information relating to R-Elinkages, there is a clear need to furtherstrengthen the communication pattern ofresearch and extension personnel with theirsenior staft and their higher level management.Moreover, communication with foreign expertshave to be enhanced so as to enable localspecialist to learn from their experiences and

knowledge. On the other hand, research andextension specialists need to know, appreciateand use the knowledge and skills of their in-house .communication and informationspecialists, if available, who should aid them inthe processing and disseminating farminformation relating to the various R-E linkages.When not available, management of researchand extension agencies should establish suchpost/unit and make its service at the disposal oftheir specialists so as to further improve theprocess of generation, diffusion and utilizationof farm information in the context of the R-Elinkages.

LITERATURE CITED

Alsharjabi, Khalil M, 1993 Agricultural information,communication and documentation in AREA. Theresearchers needs and assessment. A survey report.AREA, Dharnar, Yemen, P. 28·29.

Ambastha, e.K. 1986. Communication Pattern in InnovationDevelopment and Client System: A System Approach,B.A. Publishing Corporation, Delhi, India.

Jawahar, S. 1993. An Analysis of Communication Pattern ofAgricultural Researchers, Extension Personnel andTeachers, APAU, M.Sc. (Agri.) thesis, Hyderabad.

Natikar, K. 1988. Ind. J. of Ext. Edn., Vol. XX IV(3 & 4): 79-81.

(Received on 2-1-99 and revised on 24-2-99)