1 / 21

Making knowledge accessible to people living in poverty.

THE TALKING BOOK. ghana pilot results. Making knowledge accessible to people living in poverty. AGENDA. Introduction Problem Current Solutions Participatory Design Process Overview of Pilot Study Evaluation Qualitative Results Quantitative Harvest Results Lessons Learned Future Work.

tara
Télécharger la présentation

Making knowledge accessible to people living in poverty.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. THE TALKING BOOK ghanapilot results Making knowledge accessibleto people living in poverty.

  2. AGENDA • Introduction • Problem • Current Solutions • Participatory Design Process • Overview of Pilot Study • Evaluation • Qualitative Results • Quantitative Harvest Results • Lessons Learned • Future Work

  3. PROBLEM In developing countries: • High illiteracy rates • 752 million people • Limited electricity • 1.5 billion people • Agriculture is major source of livelihood—often use inefficient practices

  4. CURRENT METHODS Traditional • Agriculture extension • High transaction costs • Small fraction reached • Low adoption levels ICT4D • Radio broadcast • Digital Green • Grameen’s CKW Farmers need locally generated agriculture guidance that they can listen to repeatedly and when they need it.

  5. PARTICIPATORY DESIGN PROCESS Iterative Design • 2 years of research • Numerous trips to Ghana • Explored many form factors  Current Model • Users can: • Listen to local experts • Record their own messages • Copy messages between devices

  6. OVERVIEW OF PILOT STUDY • Content Created by local experts in agriculture, health, and education. • Launch Delivered 21 devices to a rural village (~1000 residents, 90% illiteracy, no electricity). • Allocation and Training Completed by a local leadership committee. • Continual Support Visited biweekly for feedback/support. • Evaluation Interviewed about device, implementation, and harvest results. This research has been funded in part by the Seattle International Foundation

  7. QUALITATIVE STUDY Methodology >40 in-person interviews • Implementation • Device • Physical • Software / Content

  8. QUALITATIVE RESULTS Training and Usability • Audio instructions alone were effective for some, others required training • Misunderstandings about program • Requests for more training • General use • Proper handling Allocation • Devices were very valuable • Committee was protective, feared breakage. • Unequal access: schooling, gender, regions • Many requests for more devices I would change the device distribution to make it more fair. So if there are thirty devices, then women get 15 and men get 15 to prevent conflicts.

  9. QUALITATIVE RESULTS (cont.) Common Requests • Lights for night use • More pronounced buttons for blind • Embedded radio • Solar or rechargeable power • Reduce to pocket-size Durability and Maintenance • Rough handling of microphone jack • Some software issues • One device disassembled but still functioned 

  10. QUALITATIVE RESULTS (cont.) Behavior Change • Farmers reported: • Telling peers about what they had learned. • Learning and applying new methods. • Seeing improved results.

  11. MEET SUGLO It has a lot of benefits to me. It taught me that we should start clearing our farm lands before the farming season begins, start by March and finish between May and June. That we can just cultivate the land and plant the crops or plant them in beds and/or lanes; that those methods increase the amount of crops per land area compared to mounds which waste land and take up a lot of space. Beds also help accumulate water, prevent erosion and keep the soil within the farm moist. The beds actually make a big difference in terms of keeping the soil moist. Mounds are too high from the ground and they dry up very fast and our crops suffer during insufficient rain fall. Now we can still smile during short periods of draught because planting in beds keeps the soil moist for a little while. Since I heard that from this thing (talkbook), I tried it this year, and I am a woman but people exclaim whenever they see my crops in the farm and I just keep my mouth shut because I know the harvest is going to be good. With the small amount of rain that we get, the beds still keep the water around and the crops stay healthy for up to a week and I go to look at them with smile on my face.

  12. QUANTITATIVE STUDY Methodology • Interviewed 33 users, 40 non-users • Demographics (region, age, schooling) • Bags produced in 2008 and 2009 • Millet • Maize • Beans • Ground nuts • Changes in practices • Human labor • Farm animals • Pesticide and fertilizer use • Amount of land • Application of new guidance (users only)

  13. HARVEST RESULTS: ALL CROPS Users produced 48% more crops than nonusers (7.22 bags) after controlling for other factors (p=.008) 1 bag = ~120 lbs, 50 gallons • 1 ½ bags

  14. CROP YIELDS BY GROUP

  15. HARVEST Results: PER Crop • Users produced: • .76 more bags of millet; a 25% increase (p=.022) • 4.4 more bags of groundnuts; a 48% increase (p=.008) • Market value: $136 • Users did not produce significantly more maize or beans • Possible reasons : • Messages were not relatively as valuable • Improper application • Other unmeasured factors negatively impacted these specific crops

  16. RESULTS: EXPOSURE AND APPLICATION Village-wide exposure • ~360 people from 37 farms (~40% of village) Testing of Guidance • Partially applied – 52% • Applied to entire plot – 21% • Did not apply – 27%

  17. RESULTS: FARMER FEEDBACK Reasons for decreased yields (non users) • Over flooding • The land lost its fertility • Planted at wrong time What will users do with surplus? • 75% of farmers will sell to: • Pay for health insurance • Purchase seeds, labor, animals • Improve their houses • Pay for their children's school fees • 33% will use to properly feed their families

  18. Limitations of Study QUALITATIVE • Not a random sample • Foreigners are distracting QUANTITATIVE • Not a RCT evaluation • Subjectivity bias • -2 to 2 scale had flaws • Small sample size weakened analysis

  19. LESSONS LEARNED Committee • Buy-in from strong local leaders is key • Diversify committee leaders • Improve ongoing training Allocation • Household rotation • Gender issues • Leverage the device • Record “rules” on the devices • Improve feedback loop Behavior Change • Improving practices alone made a significant difference • Access to inputs inhibited some

  20. FUTURE WORK Behavior Change • In home vs. outside vs. word of mouth • Peer recognition Usability • Experiment with audio instructions • Upload/download using mobile phone Ownership • Value to farmers • Do not provide batteries • Talking Book microloan

  21. QUESTIONS? ?

More Related