CONCEPTUALISING COMMUNICATION MEDIA AND FARMER’S REACTION IN PROBLEM SOLVING

Main Article Content

Idris Bin Ismail
Rosidayu Sabran
Yahya Bin Mohamed Ariffin

Keywords

Communication media (Radio), Situational Theory of Problem Solving (STOPS), Insufficient of Information Delivery, Agricultural Extension Service (AES)

Abstract

Purpose: Agricultural Extension Services (AES) under structural governance reform that aimed to curb AES situational problem like insufficient of information delivery, suggested communication media principally radio as a tool for farmers to keep up with newest idea and information about agriculture technology and practices. It shows that, radio role is still pertinent on delivery of information for production output. Beyond that, this study is to examine radio as new concept that allow feedback and influence farmer’s information behavior in dealing with AES problem.


Methodology: This study propose the reaction of Malaysian paddy farmers could be shape to view insufficient of information delivery within AES as being intervention in increasing farmers’ utilization of communication media such radio. Drawing upon Kim and Grunig (2011) Situational Theory Problem Solving (STOPS) as the framework, aside from looking at the perception of publics towards certain problem. This study  construct a quantitative measure of radio through exploratory factor analysis using principal components with varimax rotation to assess the performance of each item in measuring their respective variables and to be examined within STOPS. An extensive reviews of literature then produced preliminary factor and items that were tested through a survey distributed among 110 respondents.


Findings: Exploratory factor analysis found the items fell into common factor group and finalized with seven (7) items of measurement for future study.


Practical Implications: These results offer initial guidance into the relevance of radio effected farmer’s reaction in problem solving within the proposed model of the STOPS especially at local context.


Social Implications: Study forwarded the idea of communication method that assisted public to be connected towards identified problem. Radio can be used to create awareness, share information and give a voice to the community


Research Limitations: New research to further investigate other needs of famers through the use of combination of media not specifically on radio only.


Originality Value: Study examined the role of radio in farmer’s reaction in problem solving towards insufficient information delivery to fill the gap of knowledge within the framework of the STOPS.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 114 | PDF Downloads 55

References

1. Ansari, & Sunetha. (2014). Agriculture information needs of farm women : A study in state of north India. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 9(19), 1454–1460. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2014.8503
2. Aldoory, L., Kim, J. N., & Tindall, N. (2010). The influence of perceived shared risk in crisis communication: Elaborating the situational theory of publics. Public Relations Review, 36(2), 134–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.12.002
3. Azizah, S., Kliwon, H., Keppi, S., & Hamidah, N. U. (2014). Participatory development communication (PDC) practice and farm input accessibility as enhancing factors of broiler farmers’ empowerment in Malang Regency, East Java, Indonesia. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 26(2).
4. Burton, R.J.F. (2004). Reconceptualising The “Behavioural Approach” in Agricultural Studies: A Sodo-psychological Perspective’,. Journal of Rural Studies, 20, 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2003.12.001
5. Choi, S., & Kim, J.N (2015). The Power of Contextual Talking : On Stimulation , Incorporation , and Situational Motivation that Lead to Communicational Chain. In Tourism Travel and Research Association International Conference. (pp. 1–6).
6. Chen, Y.R. R., Hung-Baesecke, C.J. F., & Kim, J.-N. (2016). Identifying Active Hot-Issue Communicators and Subgroup Identifiers: Examining the Situational Theory of Problem Solving. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, (5), 1–24.
7. Christoplos, I. (2010). Mobilizing the Potential of Rural and Agricultural Extension. The Global Forum for rural Advisory Services, Food and Agriculture Organization (FA0) : Rome.
8. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, .T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York, NY : Holt, Reneheart
9. 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.
10. Hair,J.F., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
11. Jamison, D. T., & McAnany, E. G. (1978). Radio for education and development . Beverly Hills: Sage Publication.
12. Kakade, O. (2013). Credibility of Radio Programmes in the Dissemination of Agricultural Information: A Case Study of Air Dharwad, Karnataka. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science, 12(3), 18–22. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-1231822
13. Kim, J.N., & Ni, L. (2013). Conceptualizing publics and variable in public realations theory : The Situtaional Theory of Problem Solving and its new research. Public Relations and Communications Management, 126–142.
14. Kim, J.N. (2006). Communicant activeness, cognitive entreprenership and a Situational Theory of Problem Solving . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univeristy of Maryland, College Park.
15. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01529.x
16. Kim, J.N & Viber, K. (2012). Network sociability and cybercoping : The effects of enabled personal nertwork and enhanced health outcomes among chronics health problem solvers. In S.Duhe ’ (Ed), New Media and public relations (2nd), 218-229. New York: Peter Lang.
17. 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 Publics. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(2), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2012.626133
18. Lee, T. (2016). The Role of Psychological Processing and Government-Public Relationship in Managing the Public ’s Communicative Actions of Problem-Solving, Working paper, KDI School of Public Policy and Management. Korea.
19. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2011.536344
20. McElwee, G. (2008). A taxonomy of entrepreneurial farmers. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 6(3), 465. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2008.019139
21. Md Salleh, H., Hayrol Azril, M. S., Muhamad Sham, S. A., & Nor Sabila, R. (2010). Agriculture agency, mass media and farmers: A combination for creating knowledgeable agriculture community. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 5(24), 3500–3513.
22. Md Salleh, H., Sulaiman, M. Y., Hayrol Azril, M. S., Mohd Shahwahid, O., Bahaman, A. S., Asnarulkhadi, A. S., & Siti Aisyah, R. (2011). Receiving the Agriculture Information through Mass Media and Interpersonal Sources among the Rural Community. American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science, 6(3), 451–461. https://doi.org/10.3844/ajabssp.2011.451.461
23. 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 Papaer 10.Mexico,D.F: CIMMYT.
24. 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.
25. Muhammad Asif, N., & Mumtaz, A.A. (2013). Agricultural information needs of Pakistani farmers. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 18(3), 13–23.
26. Mustaffa, C. S., & Asyiek, F. (2015). Conceptualizing Framework for Women Empowerment in Indonesia: Integrating the Role of Media, Interpersonal Communication, Cosmopolite, Extension Agent and Culture as Predictors Variables. Asian Social Science, 11(16), 225. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n16p225
27. Ni, L., & Kim, J.N. (2009). Classifying Publics: Communication Behaviors and Problem-Solving Characteristics in Controversial Issues. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 3(4), 217–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/15531180903221261
28. Nowak, P.J. (1983). Obstacle to adoption of conservation tillage. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 8(June), 162–165.
29. Nordin, S., Rizal, A. R. A., & Yahya, J. (2015). Impak komunikasi terhadap penerimaan inovasi penanaman padi. Jurnal Pengurusan, 44(2015), 35–45.
30. Ravi Kumar, K., Nain, M. S., Singh, R., Chahal, V. P., & Bana, R. S. (2015). Analysis of farmers’ communication network and factors of knowledge regarding agro meteorological parameters. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 85(12)
31. Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business (4th ed). Hobokon, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
32. 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.
33. 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).
34. 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.
35. Zakaria, S., & Nagata, H. (2010). Knowledge creation and flow in agriculture. Library Management, 31(1/2), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/01435121011013377