Farmer field schools (FFS): a second look: theoretical application of social psychology in rural development

The paper is a review of available literature based on the unasked question coming from social psychology. "Will people adopt new attitudes if we can persuade them to act differently?" This is a very relevant question today in the light of the acclaim by Southeast Asian governments of the efficacy and efficiency of the Farmer Field School (FFS) as an extension approach. Since the field of social psychology is too large to tackle for the present purpose, one of the components has been chosen to represent the field: social thinking. Given that, the analytical framework used is this: Social psychology/social thinking directly influences community development as well as extension education; all three directly and individually influence the FFS; and the FFS directly influences farmer's empowerment, sustainable community and quality of life. Social thinking comprises beliefs, knowledge, attitudes, behavior, and attribution (giving credit). FFS is presented, in a different form from the list in the field guide for the corn FFS, as composed of concepts; in this paper, they are listed in the order that they are actually experienced in the conduct of the FFS. Ecosystems, chemical pest control, record-keeping, soil management, fertilization, crop growth, selecting a mate (for decision-making), varieties, seed production, cropping system, weeds management, pests and diseases, and harvest and postharvest management. The "heart and soul of the FFS process", according to Velasco (2001), is the agro-ecosystem analysis (AESA), which is meant to "develop among FFS farmers an ecological or systems perspective of the nature of the pest problems and the agroecosystems". In other words, nature declares the checks and balances in the population of pests and non-pests without man interfering such as by spraying. This paper posits that AESA merely suggests the true essence of FFS. Indeed, the most powerful feature of the FFS is this: Teaching the farmer to become the decision-maker himself when it comes to any aspect of his own farming. The claim is that the farmer has changed his attitude of dependence on chemical agriculture once he graduates from the FFS. That the FFS changes the farmers' behavior is obvious during the FFS itself, but does the FFS change his attitude toward the so called calendared spraying, i.e., "playing safe" by spraying against any "impending attack" by any "unknown" pest(s)? Studies show that many farmers do not apply much of what they learn during the FFS, implying no change in attitude, among other reasons. Social psychology can contribute immensely to the greater success of the FFS in terms of the following: a) training needs assessment in terms of beliefs, knowledge, attitudes, behavior and attributions; b) design of the FFS, in terms of genuine participation by the farmers from planning to monitoring and evaluation; c) farmer empowerment, in terms of teaching self-initiative by discarding negative attitudes while assuming positive one, acquiring new knowledge while refining old ones, avoiding unproductive behavior while assuming productive one, and correcting wrong attributions, institutional and policy support in terms of R&D on, e.g. group influences, conflict and peacemaking