• Idris Bin Ismail PhD Candidate, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (USIM)
  • Rosidayu Sabran Faculty of Leadership and Management, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (USIM)
  • Mohd Yahya Bin Mohamed Ariffin Faculty of Leadership and Management, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (USIM)
Keywords: Situational Theory of Problem Solving (STOPS), Insufficient of Information Delivery, Agricultural Extension Service (AES), Farmers.


Purpose: Insufficiency of information delivery within agricultural extension services (AES) is a worldwide concern and been recognized as unresolved debate. This issue triggered AES on governance structure demand upward communication to encourage more input at farm level to allow farmers to make a decision and improve their ability to problem-solving.

Methodology:  Taking a communication perspectives, the Situational Theory of Problem Solving (STOPS) was used on Malaysian farmers to investigate their response towards insufficient of information delivery. This research includes review the literature on the issue, the theoretical arguments of STOPS and finally to test the items for the measurement of farmers’ response in this problem and identified items for future study. Items were tested through a survey distributed to 110 respondents. The exploratory data analysis was performed using principal components with varimax rotation to assess the performance of each items in measuring their respective variables. Study only retained items that loaded on the variables at .50 cut off criterion, and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO more than .50

Findings: Result of analysis found the items fell into factor groups as suggested by theory and finalized with 58 items of measurement for future study.

Practical implications: These results offer initial guidance into the relevance of STOPS on farmers response in problem-solving towards insufficient of information delivery within AES and how they react to issues that affect them.

Social Implications: The investigation of STOPS on sample in the local context of public would provide a deeper understanding of farmers in Malaysia on their dimensions of conceptual of situational perception, communicative behavior and motivation in problem-solving towards insufficient of information delivery.

Research Limitation: Evaluation of Malaysian farmer’s perception and communicative action is limited to the theoretical proposition of STOPS.

Originality Value: Study unleashed farmers response in problem-solving capacity towards insufficient of information delivery which have not been fully addressed through the assumption and concept of STOPS.


1. Ansari, & Sunetha. (2014). Agriculture information needs of farm women : A study in the state of north India. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 9(19), 1454–1460.

2. Babu, S.C., & Joshi, P.K. (2014). Reforming extension and advisory services in India: policy options and implications ", in Singh, R.B. (Ed.), Transforming Agricultural Education for Reshaping India ' s Future, National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, New Delhi,

3. Babu, S.C., Huang, J., Venkatesh, P., & Zhag, Y. (2015). A comparative analysis of agricultural and extension reform in China and India. China Agricultural Economic Review, 7(4), 541–572.

4. Baig, M.B., Shayaa Al-Shay, M., Straquadine, G.S. (2012). Agricultural extension in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Difficult present and demanding future. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences,(22)1, 239-246.

5. Bala, B.K., Alias, E.F., Fartimah, M.A., Noh, K.M., & Hadi, A.H.A. (2014). Modeling of food security in Malaysia. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 47, 152–164.

6. Burton, R.F. (2004). "Reconceptualising The Behavioural Approach in Agricultural Studies : A Socio-psychological perspective. Journal of Rural Studies, 20, 359–371.

7. Del Castello, R., & Braun, P. M. (2006). Framework on Effective Rural Communication for Development, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Deutsche Gesellschaftfür Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, Rome,

8. Enwelu, I. A., Asogwa, N. P., Nwalieji, H. U., & Ezeano, C. I. (2014). Assessment of Constraints To Cocoyam Consumption in Selected Communities of Enugu State, Nigeria. IMPACT: International Journal of Research in Applied, Natural and Social Sciences (IMPACT: IJRANSS), 2(3), 31–40.

9. Fahmi, Z., Abu Samah, B., & Abdullah, H. (2013). Paddy industry and paddy farmers well-being: A success recipe for the agriculture industry in Malaysia. Asian Social Science, 9(3), 177–181.

10. Faure, G., Desjeux, Y., & Gasselin, P. (2014). New Challenges in Agricultural Advisory Services from a Research Perspective: A Literature Review, Synthesis, and Research Agenda. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 18(5), 461–492.

11. Feder, G., Birner, R., & Anderson, J. R. (2011). The private sector’s role in agricultural extension systems: potential and limitations. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies, 1(1), 31–54.

12. Ferroni, M., & Zhou, Y. (2012). Achievements and challenges in agricultural extension in India. Global Journal of Emerging Market Economies, 4(3), 319–346.

13. Grunig, J.E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York, NY : Holt, Reneheart, and Winston.

14. Grunig, J.E., Nelson, C.L., Richburq, S., & White, T. (1988). Communications by the agricultural public : Internal and enternal orientations. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 65(1), 26–38.

15. Grunig, J. E. (1997). A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challenges, and new research. In D. Moss, T. MacManus, & D. Vercic
(Eds.). Public Relations Research: An International Perspective, 3–46.

16. Hair, J.F., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

17. Hallahan, K. (1993). The paradigm struggle and public relations practice. Public Relations Review, 19(2), 197–205.

18. Hanis Diyana, K., Nor Erlissa, A. A., Muhammad Khairulnizam, Z., & Nor Zaina Zaharah, M. A. (2015). Exploring Knowledge Sharing Practices among Paddy Farmers towards Building a Foundation for Knowledge Creation, International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 5(1), 112–115.

19. Hansen, B. G. (2015). A financial extension that challenges farmers' thinking in discussion clubs helps farmers improve their problem-solving abilities. Agricultural Systems, 132, 85–92.

20. Jasmin, A.S., Azizan, A., & Azahar, Ii. (2013). Roles of extension agents towards agricultural practice in Malaysia. International Journal of Advanced Science Engineering Information Technology, 3(1), 59–63.

21. Kartika Ekasari, Z., Saleh, S.A.M., Jusoff, K., Salman, D., Akhsan, Kasirang, A., Fudjaja, L. (2013). Communication pattern and conflict in agricultural extension. Asian Social Science, 9(5), 27–33.

22. Kidanemariam, G.G. (2015). The impact of agricultural extension on households", welfare in Ethiopia. International Journal of Social Economics, 42(8), 733–748.

23. Kim, J.N. (2006). Communicant activeness, cognitive entrepreneurship and a Situational Theory of Problem Solving. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

24. Kim, J.N., & Grunig, J.E. (2011). Problem Solving and Communicative Action: A Situational Theory of Problem Solving. Journal of Communication, 61(1), 120–149.

25. Kim, J. N., Ni, L., Kim, S. H., & Kim, R. J. (2012). What makes people Hot? Applying the Situational Theory of Problem Solving to Hot-Issue Public. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(2), 144–164.

26. Kim, J.N. and Krishna, A. (2014), ‘Publics and Lay Informatics: A Review of the Situational Theory of Problem Solving, Communication yearbook, Volume 38, pp. 71–106.

27. Leeuwis, C., & Aarts, N. (2011). Rethinking communication in innovation processes: Creating space for change in complex systems. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 17(1), 21–36.

28. Leeuwis, C., & Van den Ban, A. (2004). Communication for Rural Innovation : Rethinking Agricultural Extension, 3rd Ed. Blackwell Science Ltd, UK.

29. Major, A. (1998). The utility of Situational Theory of Publics for assessing public response to a disaster prediction. Public Relations Review, 24(4), 489–508.

30. McElwee, G. (2008). A taxonomy of entrepreneurial farmers. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 6(3), 465.

31. Mittal, S., & Mehar, M. (2013). Agricultural information networks, information needs, and risk management strategies: a survey of farmers in Indo-Gangetic Plains of India : Socioeconomics Working Paper 10.Mexico, D.F: CIMMYT.

32. Mohd Rashid, R., & Mohd Dainuri, M. S. (2013). Food and livelihood security of the Malaysian paddy farmers. Economic and Technology Management Review, 8, 59–69.

33. Muhammad Asif, N., & Mumtaz, A.A. (2013). Agricultural information needs of Pakistani farmers. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 18(3), 13–23.

34. Namondwe, Z., Ile, I.U., & Ukpere, W.I. (2014). Monitoring public participation processes at local government level: With specific reference to agricultural processes in Ntcheu District. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(4), 626–631.

35. Ni, L., & Kim, J.N. (2009). Classifying Public: Communication Behaviors and Problem-Solving Characteristics in Controversial Issues. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 3(4), 217–241.

36. Nowak, P.J. (1983). The obstacle to adoption of conservation tillage. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 8(June), 162–165.

37. Nur Bahiah, M. H., Azimi, H., Krauss, S. E., & Ismi Arif, I. (2013). The relationship between Decision-Making Inputs and Productivity among Paddy Farmers in Integrated Agriculture Development Areas ( IADAs ), in Malaysia, International Journal of Advanced Science Engineering, 3(1), 64–70.

38. Pennings, J. M. ., & Leuthold, R. (2000). The Role of the Famer's Behavioural Attitudes and Heterogeneity in Futures Usage. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 82(4), 908–919.

39. Rahim, M.S. (2008). Kompetensi dan Amalan Pendidikan Pengembangan (Concept and Practice of Extension Education). Buletin Pengembangan (Extension Bulletin), Universiti Putra Malaysia.

40. Rahman, Z.A.(2012).Agricultural research and development in Malaysia. J.ISSAAS,18(2),22–23.

41. Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

42. Rolling, N.G., (2004). Communication for Development in Research, Extension, and Education : Paper presented at the 9th UN Roundtable on Communication for Development, 6-9 September 2004. Rome.Italy.

43. Salim, H., & Siti Nur Syarafina, A. (2015). Personality Traits for the Majority of Paddy Farmers, in Mada, Kedah, Malaysia. Journal of Agricultural and Life Sciences, 2(1), 146–151.

44. Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business (4th ed). Hobokon, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

45. Shahrina, N.M., Noor, S.M., & Saad, M.S.B. (2014). Innovation diffusion of new technologies in the Malaysian paddy fertilizer industry. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 768–778.

46. Shucksmith, M., & Hermann, V. (2002). Future Changes in British Agriculture - Projecting Divergent Farm Household Behaviour, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 53, 37–50.

47. Stadlinger, N., Mmochi, A. J., & Dobo, S. (2011). Pesticide use among smallholder rice farmers in Tanzania. Environ.Dev. Sustain, 13, 641–656.

48. Turpin T.P. (2013). Unintended Consequences of a Segmqntation Strategy : Exploring Constraint Recognition among Black Women Targeted in HIV/AIDS Campaign. Public Relations Journal, 7(2), 96–127.

49. Wesley, A. S., & Faminow, M. (2014). Asian Development Bank (ADB) Economics Series, Research and development and extension services in Agriculture and food security.

50. Wisam Yako, A.M., & Norsida, M. (2016). Identify the Knowledge Level of Rural Leaders towards Paddy Farming Technologies in Muda Agriculture Development Authority, Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9 (15).

51. Zainudin Awang (2014). A Handbook on SEM for Academicians and Practitioners: The Step by Step Practical Guides for the Beginners. Bandar Baru Bangi. MPWS Rich Resources.
How to Cite
Original Research