Communication networking and residents' participation in a community-based rice seed production project in Ilocos Norte, Philippines.

The study generally described, analyzed, and interpreted the process of communication networking among residents of rice-producing communities in Ilocos Norte as they implemented the Binhi-an sa Lalawigan seed production and seed garden project. A combination of the quantitative and qualitative research methods was used to address the concerns of the study. The communication linkage maps of the two study areas showed that at the barangay [village] level, farmer-cooperators had direct linkage with all the project actors that they identified. These were their fellow farmer-cooperators, officers and leaders of their association, barangay officials, agricultural technologist, barangay technician, PhilRice [Philippine Rice Research Inst., Munoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines] researchers, irrigation turnout leaders, and farmers' groups of other barangay. They did not have linkage with any cooperative and financing institutions, which could assist them in their material and financial needs for the project. At the municipal level, farmers had direct linkage with the agricultural technologists, municipal agricultural officers (MAO), seed inspectors, traders, buyers, and chemical suppliers. Linkage with the municipal mayor and his council was indirectly done through the MAO. At the provincial level, they had direct linkage with the provincial seed production and technology demonstration project coordinators, Sanguniang Panlalawigan chairperson on agriculture, and provincial agriculturist. Linkages with the soil laboratory technicians, governor, and rice R & D [research and development] program coordinator were indirectly done through the MAO. At the regional/national levels, farmers had direct linkage only with PhilRice, which provided their planting materials. A glance at the communication linkage maps of the two study areas reveal that there are few vertical linkages at the municipal, provincial, and regional levels; and at the provincial and regional levels, there are more linkages which are protocol in nature than which are functional. The focus group discussions revealed that farmers were very aware of the services and activities of the rice R & D program coordinator, as well as the researchers and extension workers of the PhilRice network in the province. They considered the services and activities of the project actors very relevant but found the services of the seed laboratory technician very untimely. They also found some actor's services not so accessible. Observations showed that the president of farmers' association usually initiated interaction among residents in the barangay. Then, he contacted other officers of their association who, in turn contacted other members of their association. They usually discussed topics concerning the project during informal meetings. During formal meetings, they still argued about topics pertaining to the project. The technology demonstration farm, barangay hall, and their homes, in that order, were favorite places of interaction and discussion. In-depth interview showed that individuals engaged in social networking because of their need for information providers, opinion leaders, task leaders, and conflict managers. Generally, the farmer-cooperators had favorable attitude toward the existing communication structures in their communities. Their level of participation was only moderate. They were limited to just doing their tasks as cooperators. They were never involved during the planning stage of the project, except in coordinating and arranging venues of regular meetings. Farmer-cooperators encountered problems not only on technology, but also on management, and social aspects when they implemented the project. The sociomatric analysis, as well as the observations during the whole cropping season, showed that the more linkages the farmers have in the community (centrality), the easier or faster they can be reached or contacted (betweenness), and the greater degree of freedom they have in discussing and in exchanging information regarding the project with other residents (closeness), the higher would be their level of participation in the project. However, these network indices were not related with their attitude toward the existing communication structures in their communities as shown by the correlation regression analysis. Likewise, farmer-cooperators' attitude toward their communication sructures did not affect their participation.