Socio-Technological Empowerment of Rural

Journal of Community Mobilization and Sustainable Development Vol. 12(1), 56-60, January-June, 2017

Socio-Technological Empowerment of Rural Households Through Community Radio Stations D.K. Krishna1, N.V. Kumbhare2, R.N. Padaria3, Premlata Singh4 and Arpan Bhowmik5 1

Ph.D. Scholar, 3Professor, 4Head, Division of Agricultural Extension, IARI, New Delhi-110 012 Incharge, Agricultural Technology Information Centre (ATIC), IARI, New Delhi-110 012 5 Scientist, ICAR-IASRI, New Delhi-110012 2

Downloaded From IP - 14.139.248.10 on dated 9-May-2017

www.IndianJournals.com

Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale

ABSTRACT A study was taken up to assess the impact of community radio stations on rural households in terms of socio-technological empowerment. Three community radios operational each under State Agricultural University (SAU), Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) and Non-Government Organization (NGO) were studied. The community radio stations namely Pantnagar Janvani (G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology), Pravara (KVK, Ahmednagar) and Yeralavani (Yerala Projects Society, Sangli) were selected purposively. The study revealed that a majority of the respondents (69.17%) were observed in the category of medium level of empowerment followed by high (12.50%) and low (11.67%) level of empowerment. Furthermore, 3.33 per cent respondents each were observed in the category of very low and very high level of empowerment, respectively. Keywords: Socio-Technological, Empowerment, Community, Radio Station

INTRODUCTION Community radio is a type of radio made to serve people; encourages expression, participation and that values local culture. Its purpose is to give a voice to those without voices, to marginalized groups and to communities far from large urban centres (Sharma and Kashyap, 2013). According to Al-Hassan et al. (2011) community radio is a type of radio service that offers a model of radio broadcasting beyond commercial and public service. In many parts of the world today, community radio acts as a vehicle for the community and voluntary sector, civil society, agencies, NGOs and citizens to work in partnership to promote community development. By the core aims and objectives of this model of broadcasting, community radio stations often serve their listeners by offering a variety of content that is not necessarily provided by the larger commercial radio stations. According to AMARC (1998) community radio signifies a two-way process, which entails the exchange of views from various sources and is the adaptation of media for use by communities. According

to Sharma and Kashyap (2014) community radio is distinguished by three essential principles: non-profit making, community ownership and management, and community participation. Community radio stations throughout the world have emerged in different political conditions initiated by individuals and groups with diverse background. Thus, the socio technological empowerment was operationalised as change in knowledge and the combination of health and sanitation, social participation, family welfare decisions and awareness and adoption of technologies. Thus, these indicators are analysed through Friedman’s test for k-related samples. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study was taken up to compare the status of three community radios operational each under State Agricultural University (SAU), Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) and Non-Government Organization (NGO). The community radio stations namely Pantnagar Janvani (G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology), Pravara (KVK, Ahmednagar) and Yeralavani (Yerala

Socio-Technological Empowerment of Rural Households Through Community Radio Stations




Projects Society, Sangli) were selected purposively. Four villages have been selected randomly from one purposively selected block. Forty (40) respondents from four randomly selected villages from each CRS jurisdiction along with 10 staff members of each CRS were selected for the study. Thus, a total of 150 respondents constituted the sample of the study. The Ex-post facto research design was selected in accordance with the adaptability of the proposed design with respect to the type of study, variables under consideration, number of respondents and phenomenon to be studied.

Friedman’s test: The Friedman test is the significance test for more than two dependent samples and is also known as the Friedman two-way analysis of variance: it is used to test the null hypothesis. In other words, it is used to test that there is no significant difference between the size of ‘k’ dependent samples and the population from which these have been drawn. Kruskal Wallis test: The Kruskal-Wallis H test (sometimes also called the one-way ANOVA on ranks) is a rank-based non parametric test that can be used to determine if there are statistically significant differences between two or more groups of an independent variable on a continuous or ordinal dependent variable. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Empowerment of rural households on health and sanitation: Table 1 below shows the mean rank of subindicators of health and sanitation. Importance of fruits Table 1: Empowerment of rural households on health and sanitation (N=120) Sub indicators Sum of Mean of Groups ranks ranks Awareness about child’s 283.000 2.358 A vaccination Sanitation and its importance 301.500 2.513 A Care for adolescence health 306.000 2.550 A and development Importance of fruits and 309.500 2.579 A vegetables in diet Friedman’s test: Q (Observed value) 2.933 Q (Critical value) 7.815 DF 3 p-value (Two-tailed) 0.402 alpha 0.05

57

and vegetables in diet with mean score 2.57 indicated a major change in listener’s’ perspective followed by care for adolescence health and development (2.55), sanitation and its importance (2.51) and awareness about child’s vaccination (2.35). The Freidman’s test statistic table below revealed that there was no major difference found among the sub-indicators of health and sanitation. This means that the CR programmes on health were equally contributing to their social empowerment.

Empowerment of rural households on social participation: The data related to empowerment of rural households on social participation is depicted in Table 2. The sub indicators of social participation were found significant at 5% level of significance. The mean rank of sub mean rank indicators revealed that there was an increase in attending social campaigns (2.78) followed by awareness about government schemes (2.44), attending Gram Sabha meetings (2.40) and involvement in group discussion over community welfare issues (2.37). The Freidman’s test statistic table below revealed that there was no major difference among the sub indicators which suggested that CR programmes on social issues and social capital building were equally contributing Table 2: Empowerment of rural households on social participation (N=120) Sub indicators Sum of Mean of Groups ranks ranks Involvement in group 284.500 2.371 A discussions over community welfare issues Attending Gram Sabha meetings 288.000 2.400 A Awareness about govt. Schemes 293.500 2.446 A Attending social campaigns 334.000 2.783 A Results of Friedman’s test: Q (Observed value) 11.608 Q (Critical value) 7.815 DF 3 p-value (Two-tailed) 0.009 alpha 0.05

Empowerment of rural households on awareness and adoption of technology: The data on empowerment of rural households on awareness and adoption of technology presented in Table 3 reveals the results about the perceived change in awareness and

58 D.K. Krishna et al.




adoption of technologies by the respondents. There is significant difference among the sub indicators as per the Friedman’s test statistic at 5% level of significance. There was a significant change in the listeners’ awareness about innovative farmers and their success stories with mean rank 2.74 followed by adopting new technologies in agriculture (mean rank 2.49), use of ICT tools (mean rank 2.47) and awareness about ITK technologies (mean rank 2.28). Table 3: Empowerment on awareness and adoption of technology (N=120) Sub indicators Sum of Mean of Groups ranks ranks Awareness about ITK 274.000 2.283 A technologies Use of ICT tools 297.500 2.479 A,B Adopting new technologies 299.000 2.492 A,B in agriculture Awareness about innovative 329.500 2.746 B farmers and their success stories Friedman’s test: Q (Observed value) 10.940 Q (Critical value) 7.815 DF 3 p-value (Two-tailed) 0.012 alpha 0.05

Empowerment of rural households on family welfare decisions: The data in Table 4 clearly revealed that the sub indicators were not significantly differing among themselves at 5% level of significance. The data in table 4 indicates that the need for everyone’s bank account was found major changes in listeners’ awareness towards family welfare decisions with mean of ranks 2.667 followed by non-discrimination among the boy and girl child’s needs (mean rank 2.541), equal participation of partner in taking financial decisions (mean of ranks 2.488) and consciousness among family members about financial matter (mean rank 2.321). Comparison of indicators: The impact of CR programmes on socio-technological empowerment of the listeners were further analysed using Kruskal Wallis to know whether there was any significant difference between the indicators of empowerment. Data regarding the socio-technological empowerment of rural households depicted in Table 5 revealed the significant difference of indictors, which

Table 4: Empowerment of rural households on family welfare decisions (N=120) Sub indicators Sum of Mean of Groups ranks ranks Consciousness among family 278.500 2.321 A members about financial matter Equal participation of partner 298.500 2.488 A in taking financial decisions Non-discrimination among 305.110 2.541 A boy and girl child’s needs Need for every one’s bank 320.500 2.667 A account Friedman’s test: Q (Observed value) 4.965 Q (Critical value) 7.815 DF 3 p-value (Two-tailed) 0.174 alpha 0.05 Table 5: Comparison of indicators on sociotechnological empowerment (N=120) Indicators Mean of ranks Groups Family welfare decisions 219.58 A Social participation 223.35 A Health and sanitation 246.79 A, B Awareness and adoption of 272.25 B technologies Kruskal-Wallis test: K (Observed value) 11.348 K (Critical value) 7.815 DF 3 p-value (Two-tailed) 0.010 alpha 0.05

were chosen to establish socio-technological empowerment index. Kruskal Wallis test for kindependent samples was carried out for independent sub-indicators. Change in awareness and adoption of technologies with mean of ranks (272.25) was significantly different from family welfare decisions (219.58) and social participation (223.35). Change in health and sanitation was observed on par with awareness and adoption of technologies, which is insignificant at 5% level of significance on Kruskal Wallis test. Social empowerment, which can be a result of positive changes in awareness towards health and sanitation can be attributed the programmes broadcasted in all the three CR stations. Programmes

Socio-Technological Empowerment of Rural Households Through Community Radio Stations




such as Apala arogya, doctornache bol, and programmes from KVK, Jagar Tichaya Arogyacha, Mahila Jagat from NGO and sakhi sangni, swasth saheli, and hello doctor from SAU-CRS are contributing in increasing their awareness level about health and related issues. Health and sanitation which is one of the important factors for secured livelihood need to take care by the community members. Hence, all the three radio stations are airing the best possible content to create awareness in this direction. Social participation, one of the indicators for social empowerment is addressed by number of programs by the radio stations time and then. Since the programmes are not fixed for time, there may be difference of weightage to the programme related to social capital building and social awareness among the radio stations. For instance, the programmes such as meri gram sabha, Janvani pathshala from SAU-CRS; baatamya, phone-in from NGO-CRS and gram jagat, gyanrang have contributed in this regard. Family welfare decisions is also an indicator for socio-technological empowerment, which plays role in financial awareness and security of any household. The consideration of gender equity in terms of family welfare and education is met through programmes from CR stations such as meenachi shala, mahila jagat, from NGO-CRS; Salam e jindagi, sakhi sangani from SAU-CRS and phone-in, gappa tumachya amchya from KVK-CRS have contributed to this factor. The major factor for awareness and adoption of technologies has been contributed by programmes like Krishi Sandesh, shodh sansthan, ek choti si pehal from SAUCRS; Krishi jagat, poultry from NGO-CRS and Krishi vani, yashvantache bol, and amachee sheti have contributed in this regard. Kruskal Wallis test for k-independent samples was carried out for independent sub-indicators. Change in awareness and adoption of technologies with mean of ranks (272.25) was significantly different from family welfare decisions (219.58) and social participation (223.35). Change in health and sanitation was observed on par with awareness and adoption of technologies, which is insignificant at 5% level of significance on Kruskal Wallis test. The index developed based on the scoring by the respondents for these indicators clearly revealed that

59

there is larger scope for reaching the masses through versatile programmes with much needed content by the local community. The socio technological empowerment, which may also bank upon other concepts than the mentioned in the study must be considered by the CR stations and programmes must be developed as accordingly. Table 6: Socio technological empowerment index of the rural households (N=120) Indicators Mean Weight Empowerment score assigned index score Health and sanitation 0.68 2.61 Social participation 0.64 2.92 0.64 Family welfare decisions 0.65 2.88 Awareness and adoption 0.63 3.12 of technologies

The data in Table 6 revealed that the socio technological empowerment index of rural households stands by the 0.64, which can be regarded to the CR programmes and their effective broadcasting in all three radio stations. The highest mean score was found in health and sanitation (0.68) followed by family welfare decisions (0.65), social participation (0.64) and awareness and adoption of technologies (0.63). Table 7: Distribution of respondents according to their level of socio technological empowerment (N=120) Category Frequency Percentage Very low (0.83) 4 3.33

The data related to the level of empowerment of the respondents based on the interventions of CRS is depicted in Table 7. It is revealed that a majority of the respondents (69.17%) were observed in the category of medium level of empowerment followed by high (12.50%) and low (11.67%) level of empowerment. Furthermore, 3.33 per cent respondents each were observed in the category of very low and very high level of empowerment, respectively. CONCLUSION The result clearly indicates that respondents’ socio– technological empowerment measured across four




60 D.K. Krishna et al.

indicators such as health and sanitation, social participation, family welfare decisions and awareness cum adoption of technologies. Empowerment through awareness creation can be more suitable to a radio than any other quantitative methods. Positive change in awareness and adoption of technologies was found to be improving their household situation followed by health and sanitation, social participation and family welfare decision. Public interest radio programming, including by community radio stations, can play a vital role in empowering poor people, accelerating community and local level problem-solving, and introducing more demand for accountability. Community radio stations, rural, cooperative, participatory, alternative, or popular radios, can facilitate information, voice, and local capacities for public debate on key development concerns. Developing informative programs about local issues and providing balanced reporting is one important way for local communities, including poor illiterate communities, to develop informed opinions, begin to form interest groups, and mobilize to address common concerns.

Fraser, C. and S. Restrepo-Estrada. 2002. Community radio for change and development. Development, 45(4): 69-73.

REFERENCES

Singh, B.K.; R.K. Kumar; V.P. Yadav and H.L. Singh. 2010. Social Impact of Community Radio in Karnataka. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education, 10(2): 10-14.

Al-hassan, S.; A. Alhassan and A.A. Malik. 2011. The Role of Community Radio in Livelihood Improvement: The Case of Simli Radio. Field Actions Science Reports, 5: 170-181.

Kavanaugh, A.L. and S.J. Patterson. 2001. The impact of community computer networks on social capital and community involvement. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3): 496-509. Kumbhare, N.V.; R.N. Padaria; P. Singh; A. Kumar and S. Sarkar. 2015. Community Radio: Preferences, Opinion and Listening Behaviour of Farmers. Indian Journal of Extension Education, 51(3&4): 20-24. Madhu, P. 2010. Awareness and listening behaviour of the listeners of krishi community radio station. M.Sc. Thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci., Dharwad. Michael, T.A. 2003. Analysis of mass media for agricultural information by farmers in Nigeria. Journal of Extension System, 19: 45-53. Sasidhar, P.V.K.; M. Suvedi; K. Vijayaraghavanl; B. Singh and S. Babu. 2011. Evaluation of a distance education radio farm school programme in India: implications for scaling up. Outlook on Agriculture, 40(1): 89-96. Sharma, A. and S.K. Kashyap. 2013. Information Need Assessment for Empowering Rural Women through Community Radio Programmes: A Study in Tarai Region of Uttarakhand. Journal of Community Mobilization and Sustainable Development, 8(2): 169-173.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Received on April, 2016, Revised on December, 2016