Issuu on Google+

Factors Associated with Virtual Knowledge Sharing as Perceived by Farmers, Agri Experts and Extension Workers Jezereel Louise C. Billano & Ronan G. Zagado Open Academy for Philippine Agriculture - Philippine Rice Research Institute National Rice Research and Development Conference IRRI, Los Banos, Laguna March 2010 Federation of Crop Science Societies of the Philippines Grand Regal Hotel, Davao City May 2012


Extension • empowers farmers with significant knowledge and strategies • enhances stakeholders’ capacity to make informed decisions “Knowledge sharing results to a dynamic discourse wherein we could formulate agricultural solutions that are fit to the specific needs of each community.”


ICT for Development • ICT applications are being tested to provide more convenient venues for knowledge sharing • OPAPA is a research-cum-development program that explores the use of ICTs in agriculture


The Web Conference It is a two-way audio and video electronic conferencing tool. Participants can see and talk to each other without being together.


Infrastructure the software/hardware that enables the communicational contact between participants.


Infostructure …set of formal rules that govern the exchange between actors


Infoculture ‌is the aspect that shows the role of information in the process.


Objectives • Determine perception of respondents on web conference’s socio-technical factors: infrastructure, infostructure, and infoculture • Formulate framework suggesting sociotechnical characteristics for effective conduct of web conference


Web conference is a convenient way to obtain agri knowledge from credible sources. Agri concerns are aired during web conferences.

Other farmers will be invited to web conferences.


Respondents’ ratings on webcon as a knowledge sharing tool

1=Highest; 5=Lowest


Perceived advantages Through web conferencing, communication is convenient. “Ang pakinabang ng web conferencing ay direkta na makuha naming ang sagot sa mga iksperto kahit nasa malayo sila” (The benefit of web conferencing is that we can directly get answers from experts even though they are far from us)- farmer, Banaybanay CyberCom

Web conference is a learning

venue.

“Nadagdagan ang kaalaman ng ating mga farmer di lang sa larangan ng pagtatanim kundi sa lahat ng aspeto ng agrikultura” (Our farmers gain knowledge not only in farming but also in all aspects of agriculture)webcon facilitator


Perceived disadvantages Web conferencing is dependent on modern technologies. “Need the equipment/hardware to facilitate the conferencing and equipment is oftentimes expensive- PhilRice expert

Physical absence may have a negative effect on the knowledge sharing process. “Hindi mai-hands on o maiaktwal na idemonstrate ng expert ang mga teknolohiyang ipinapaliwanag” (Expert cannot effectively demonstrate the technologies he/she is explaining)- farmer, Pampanga CyberCom


Farmers Characteristics Everyone is listening attentively

Socio-technical Factor

Mean

Infostructure

3.95

Participants introduce themselves before asking questions

Infostructure

3.90 3.87

Information from farmers is valued Technical staff is available to fix technical problems

Infoculture 3.87 Infrastructure 3.85

Internet is fast, works well. Equipment (computer, LCD, webcam, etc.) are easily accessed, manipulated, and maintained. Venue is convenient Salutatory messages, such as good morning, are used Participants get answers to their queries Topics discussed are relevant to participants’ concerns Everyone is given a chance to speak Video is clear Experts ask “naiintindihan po ba?” after answering participant’s question to ensure knowledge intake Facilitator intervenes when there is confusion between expert and participants Actual field experiences are shared Mistakes are politely corrected Certain words such as “copy”, “ok”, “go ahead”, are used to facilitate the flow of discussion Facilitators take note and review topics discussed Audio is audible Participants trust experts Contents of discussions address participants’ concerns Participants apply repetition to emphasize and clarify a point Foul and disgusting words are avoided Simple words are used No one is openly embarrassed for whatever reason Say “yun lang po” after asking a question Participants ask short and direct questions. Experts are sensitive of the participant’s situation and background Everyone speaks clearly and slowly Language, signs, and gestures used are acceptable to everyone Participants use verbal and nonverbal cues in communicating their ideas Participants have a hard time expressing ideas owing to language barriers There are no disturbing images on the screen/monitor Experiences automatic shutdown/system down Experiences delay in feedback Modern devices are not intimidating

Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure Infostructure Infostructure Infoculture Infoculture Infrastructure Infostructure Infostructure Infoculture Infoculture Infostructure Infostructure Infrastructure Infoculture Infoculture Infostructure Infoculture Infostructure Infoculture Infostructure Infostructure Infoculture Infostructure Infoculture Infostructure Infostructure Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure

Questions are answered politely

Experiences brown out

Infostructure

Infrastructure

3.83 3.79 3.79 3.79 3.79 3.79 3.78 3.77 3.77 3.76 3.76 3.76 3.70 3.69 3.68 3.66 3.66 3.63 3.57 3.53 3.51 3.42 3.41 3.38 3.36 3.30 3.22 2.87 2.84 2.84 2.62 2.50

2.24


Experts Characteristics

Socio-technical Factor

Mean

Venue is convenient Actual field experiences are shared Foul and disgusting words are avoided Information from farmers is valued Contents of discussions address participants’ concerns Participants get answers to their queries

Infrastructure Infoculture Infoculture Infoculture Infoculture Infostructure

3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.67

Experiences automatic shutdown/system down

Infrastructure

1.50

Topics discussed are relevant to participants’ concerns Participants use verbal and nonverbal cues in communicating their ideas Questions are answered politely Facilitator act as mediator when there is confusion between expert and participants Participants trust experts Mistakes are politely corrected Facilitators take note and review topics discussed Technical staff is available to fix technical problems Salutatory messages, such as good morning, are used Participants apply repetition to emphasize and clarify a point Experts ask “naiintindihan po ba?” after answering participant’s question to ensure knowledge intake Everyone is listening attentively Certain words such as “copy”, “ok”, “go ahead”, are used to facilitate the flow of discussion Everyone is given a chance to speak Experts are sensitive of the participant’s situation and background Video is clear There are no disturbing images on the screen/monitor Modern devices are not intimidating Participants have a hard time expressing ideas owing to language barriers Language, signs, and gestures used are acceptable to everyone Internet is fast, works well. Equipment (computer, LCD, webcam, etc.) are easily accessed, manipulated, and maintained. Everyone speaks clearly and slowly Participants introduce themselves before asking questions Participants ask short and direct questions. Say “yun lang po” after asking a question Simple words are used No one is openly embarrassed for whatever reason Audio is audible Experiences delay in feedback Experiences brown out

Infoculture Infostructure Infostructure Infostructure Infoculture Infoculture Infostructure Infrastructure Infostructure Infostructure Infostructure Infostructure Infostructure Infoculture Infoculture Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure Infostructure Infoculture Infrastructure Infrastructure Infostructure Infostructure Infostructure Infostructure Infostructure Infoculture Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure

3.67 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.33 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.67 2.50 2.50 1.75


Facilitators Characteristics

Socio-technical Factor

Mean

Venue is convenient Actual field experiences are shared Foul and disgusting words are avoided Information from farmers is valued Contents of discussions address participants’ concerns Participants get answers to their queries

Topics discussed are relevant to participants’ concerns Participants use verbal and nonverbal cues in communicating their ideas Questions are answered politely Facilitator act as mediator when there is confusion between expert and participants Participants trust experts Mistakes are politely corrected Facilitators take note and review topics discussed Technical staff is available to fix technical problems Salutatory messages, such as good morning, are used Participants apply repetition to emphasize and clarify a point Experts ask “naiintindihan po ba?” after answering participant’s question to ensure knowledge intake Everyone is listening attentively Certain words such as “copy”, “ok”, “go ahead”, are used to facilitate the flow of discussion Everyone is given a chance to speak Experts are sensitive of the participant’s situation and background Video is clear There are no disturbing images on the screen/monitor Modern devices are not intimidating Participants have a hard time expressing ideas owing to language barriers Language, signs, and gestures used are acceptable to everyone Internet is fast, works well. Equipment (computer, LCD, webcam, etc.) are easily accessed, manipulated, and maintained. Everyone speaks clearly and slowly Participants introduce themselves before asking questions Participants ask short and direct questions. Say “yun lang po” after asking a question Simple words are used No one is openly embarrassed for whatever reason Audio is audible Experiences delay in feedback Experiences brown out

Infrastructure Infoculture Infoculture Infoculture Infoculture Infostructure

Experiences automatic shutdown/system down

Infoculture Infostructure Infostructure Infostructure Infoculture Infoculture Infostructure Infrastructure Infostructure Infostructure Infostructure Infostructure Infostructure Infoculture Infoculture Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure Infostructure Infoculture Infrastructure Infrastructure Infostructure Infostructure Infostructure Infostructure Infostructure Infoculture Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure

3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.67

Infrastructure

1.50

3.67 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.33 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.67 2.50 2.50 1.75


KNOWLEDGE SHARING VIA WEB CONFERENCE • contents of discussion address farmers’ concerns • actual field experiences are shared • information from farmers are valued • mistakes are politely corrected foul • disgusting words are avoided

Infoculture • technical staff is available to fix technical problems • venue is convenient

Infostructure

• queries are answered politely • farmers queries’ are answered • facilitators act as mediator whenever there is confusion between experts and participants • salutatory messages are used • participants introduce themselves before speaking or asking questions and say “yun lang po” after asking • everyone is listening attentively

Infrastructure


Recommendations • Continue testing the said modality and other ICT applications to explore more possibilities and ways to improve it. • Involve farmers and other stakeholders in the evaluation of ICT modalities. Extension workers should participate in web conferences. • Comprehensive studies should be conducted to determine the effect of knowledge sharing through web conferences in the participants’ knowledge, attitude and practices.


Recommendations • LGUs are encouraged to invest in ICT applications to ease information delivery and communication. • A socio-technical approach is necessary in formulating virtual communication models that will cater to various stakeholders’ particular needs in the knowledge sharing process. • Extension should focus on different factors that contribute to the process of effective communication with rice stakeholders.


Acknowledgments

Oliver Domingo and Jen Maloles, OPAPA-PhilRice OPAPA-USEP Noel Cabral, Pampanga Agricultural College Aileen Casta単eda, PhilRice SocioEconomics Division


• •

LITERATURE CITED Al-Ma’aitah, M. 2008. Using electronic media in knowledge sharing phases: case study in Jordan hospitals. In: International Journal of Education and Information Technologies. Volume 2. Issue 4. ( http://www.wseas.us/journals/educationinformation/eit-74.pdf) Retrieved on 25/11/09 Dulany & Pellettiere. Knowledge management process: a socio-technical approach (research in progress). Aurora University. (www.swdsi.org/.../SWDSI %20Proceedings%20Paper%20S203.pdf) Retrieved on 20/10/09 Lodhi, S.A . 2005. Culture based knowledge sharing model. National College of Business Administration & Economics. Lahore. ( http://eprints.hec.gov.pk/963/1/695.html.htm) Retrieved on 12/12/09. Mohayidin, M.G., et.al. 2005. The application of knowledge management in enhancing the performance of Malaysian universities. In: The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management. Volume 5. Issue 3. ( http://www.ejkm.com/volume-5/v5-i3). Retrieved on 04/12/09


Sharatt, M. & Usoro, A. 2003. Understanding knowledge sharing in online communities of practice. University of Paisley. Scotland. (http://www.ejkm.com/volume-1/volume1-issue-2/issue2-art18sharratt.pdf) Retrieved on 23/10/09 Sun, S., et.al. 2009. Influence on willingness of virtual community’s knowledge sharing: based on social capital theory. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. (http://www.waset.org/journals/waset/v53/v53-22.pdf) Retrieved on 23/10/09. Supar, N., et.al Factors affecting knowledge sharing and its effect on performance: a study of three selected higher academic institutions. (http://74.125.153.132/search? q=cache:grYZb4c8lG8J:ickm.upm.edu.my/Parallel%2520Session%25204/Norizahsupar_Factors %2520Affecting%2520K-Sharing%2520%26%2520Its%2520Effects%2520on %2520Performance.doc+knowledge+sharing+infostructure+KM&cd=2&hl=tl&ct=clnk&gl=ph&client=firefo x-a) Retrieved on 04/12/09 Xiong, S. & Deng, H. 2008. Critical success factors for effective knowledge sharing in Chinese joint ventures. In: 19th Australasian Conference on Information Systems. Australia. (http://www.bsec.canterbury.ac.nz/acis2008/Papers/acis-0203-2008.pdf) Retrieved on 18/10/09 Yang & Lai. Knowledge sharing dilemmas in virtual communities: the impact of anonymity. Department of Management Information Systems. Taiwan. (http://academic-papers.org/ocs2/session/Papers/E5/4842120-1-DR.doc) Retrieved on 04/12/09


Rice Knowledge Sharing via Web Conference