Accuracy of Extension Professionals’ and Farmers’ Perceptions regarding Privatization and Commercialization of Agricultural Extension Services

Author

Department of Agricultural Economics & Extension, Faculty of Agriculture Delta State University, Asaba Campus, Asaba, Nigeria

Abstract

This study examined the accuracy between extension professionals and farmers regarding their perceptions of privatization and commercialization of agricultural extension services. The study was carried out in Delta State, Nigeria and it had a sample size of 224 respondents comprising of 134 extension professionals of the Delta State Agricultural Programme (DTADP) and 90 farmers that were randomly selected. Data for the study were collected from the respondents through the use of validated questionnaire and interview schedule. The questionnaire was used for the extension professionals, while the interview schedule was used for the farmers. Spearman‟s rank order correlation coefficient was used to determine the accuracy in perceptions of respondents. Results of the study show that extension professionals estimated farmers‟ perception with a high degree of accuracy (r = 0.80 ), while farmers estimated extension professionals‟ perception with low accuracy (r = 0.22 ). The inability of farmers to accurately estimate extension professionals‟ perception could be due to differences in their background and knowledge of issues relating to privatization and commercialization of agricultural extension services. The study recommends that farmers‟ knowledge of issues relating to privatization and commercialization should be enhanced through seminars and workshops organized by the appropriate extension agency. [Ajieh , Patrick Chuks. Accuracy of Extension Professionals’ and Farmers’ Perceptions regarding Privatization and Commercialization of Agricultural Extension Services. International Journal of Agricultural Science, Research and Technology in Extension and Education Systems, 2013; 3(1):1-6].

Keywords


1. Berko, R. M., Rosenfeld, L. B. and Samovar, L.A. (1997). Connecting, 2nd ed. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
2. Broom, G. M. (1977). Community consensus-building: A communication experiment in two rural Wisconsin communities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
3. Buchili, V. and Pearce, B. (1974). Listening behaviour in co-orientation states. Journal of Communication, 24 (3): 62 – 70.
4. Connelly, N. A. and Knuth, B. A. (2002). Using the co-orientation model to compare community leaders‟ and local residents‟ views about Hudson River ecosystem restoration. Society and Natural Resources. 15 (10): 933 – 948.
5. Dolly, D. (1997). Accuracy, congruency and agreement among researchers, extension workers and pigeon pea farmers in Trinidad and Tobago. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 4 (1): 21 – 30.
6. Gantz, W., Wenner, L. A., Carrico, C., and Kroon, M. (1995). Assessing the football window hypothesis; A co-orientation study of the role of televised sports in long-standing relationships. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 19 (4): 352 – 376.
7. Groot, H. C. (1970). Co-orientation and technological change: Communication variables in perceptions of “miracle rice” in the Philippines. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
8. Gruning, J. and Hunt, T. (1984). Managing Public Relations. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Publishers.
9. Littlejohn, S. W. (1992). Theories of Human Communication, 7th ed. Belmont, C.A: Wadsworth Publishers.
10. Meiller, L. (1975). A co-orientation approach to consensus building in two Wisconsin communities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.