Sociology: Ext. 101 ( Rural Sociology)

Dr. Yagya  Prasad  Giri

Lecture – 2.

Topic: Rural Sociology : Meaning, nature and scope

Rural Sociology

Rural Sociology is a specialized field of sociology. It is the study of life in rural environment, which systematically studies rural communities to discover their conditions and tendencies to formulate the principles of progress. It is limited to various aspects of rural society in the study of rural social relationships.

Definition of Rural Sociology

According to F. Stuart “ The sociology of rural life is a study of rural population, rural social organization and the social processes operative in rural society.”

According to Desai (1978),  “ Rural Sociology is the science of rural society” . So, it is clear that rural sociology is related to the organized and scientific study of the life of rural people and their mutual inter-relationship.

Meaning  and nature:

Rural sociology is a specialized branch  of sociology . Within the subject sociology , there are two distinctions and specializations such as urban and rural sociology. The majority of people on the earth live in villages and rural areas and follows the specific  pattern of  occupation and condition of lives different those of the people living in urban areas. People living in rural areas follow their specific way of life and they have their own  behavior  and believes . They have their own environmental  conditions they have to face for survival. Rural people’s behavior, way of life and beliefs are deeply influenced by their rural environment.

 A specialization of the field of sociology as rural sociology has been emerged to understand the rural people and their interaction in order to develop society . While sociology is the scientific study of man’s behavior in relation with groups with whom they have reciprocal interactions. similarly rural sociology  focuses on man living in rural areas. The rural locations of man’s residence and its consequences are the limits of this specialized field of sociology.  

Scope of Rural Sociology:

In comparison to other social sciences, rural Sociology is a novel branch of sociology and is a separate science that possesses its own subject matter and method of study. By scope of the  discipline, it is meant that what Rural Sociology refers to what it studies. To draw attention on the scope, N.L. Sims says, “The field of Rural Sociology is the study of association among people living by or immediately dependent upon agriculture. Open country and village groupings and groups behavior are its concern.”

According to Lowry Nelson, “The scope of Rural Sociology is the description and analysis of progress of various groups as they exist in the rural environment. In the words of Bertrand and his associates: “In its broadest definition Rural Sociology is the study of human relationship in

rural environment.” On account of the opinions given by Sims, Nelson and Bertrand, it is observed that the scope of Rural Sociology revolves around rural people, their livelihood and social relationship in rural environment.

Though it studies society from the rural perspective, its main aim is concentrated on rural lives. The subjects that are included within the scope are very comprehensive in nature and we can blindly say that its boundary is varying large. Rural sociology has big scope in conducting development program in  rural areas .

The Inter-relationship between Sociology and Agricultural Extension

Agricultural extension and rural sociology are extremely close to each other. Both fields are greatly concerned with the study of rural life. However, following are the major points which clearly indicate the mutual relationship between rural sociology and agricultural extension .

• Rural sociology is the scientific study of rural man’s behavior in relationship to other groups and individuals with whom he interacts. Agricultural extension is a non-formal education for farmers (rural people) with a view to develop rural society on desirable lines.

• Rural sociology studies the attitude and behavior of rural people whereas

agricultural extension seeks to modify or change the attitude and behavior of farmers.

• Rural sociology studies the needs and interests of rural society and agricultural extension helps farmers to discover their needs and problems and build educational programs based on these needs and wants.

• Rural sociology analyses rural social relationship or group or organization and leaders in rural areas. Agricultural extension utilizes the knowledge pertaining to groups, organizations and leaders to achieve the objective or agricultural development.

• Rural sociology studies social situation s and collects social facts of rural society. Agricultural extension makes uses of such social data as basis for building up extension programs for farmers.

• Rural sociology investigates the social, cultural, political and religious problems of rural society. Agricultural extension also studies these problems with special reference to their impact on agricultural extension work in the village. From the above interrelationship between the rural sociology and agricultural extension, one could understand that rural sociology will help the extension agent to identify problems of farmers and develop an extension program to help in solving the problems of farmers. Thus it can be concluded that both sciences are closely related

and benefited with each other by sharing the knowledge of each other.

The purpose of studying rural sociology is to develop greater understanding of the behavior of rural people and rural society. It equips the students with tools of understanding of the behavior of rural people and rural society . It helps the individuals to understand himself and his own social nature , his relation to other people in society . it also help to develop scientific attitude of thinking critically and objectively with precision . this  attitude is important for his future occupation as well as his survival in the society . 

The subject provide professional training to the student for his  future carrier as a rural sociologist , as a teacher, trainer, researcher in rural sociology field.

It also gives opportunity to be  consultant , extension worker and rural life analyst in program promoting rural community development .

The knowledge of rural sociology is equally important in problem identification, patriotization , program planning , implementation and even in monitoring and evaluation of project implemented in rural areas to develop the rural community . majority population live in rural areas and rural society in the world, it increases the important of rural sociological study manifolds. In Nepali context, knowledge of rural sociology is very important to develop numerous ethnic societies  living in different rural areas of Nepal.

  Importance of rural sociology in agricultural extension

The knowledge of rural sociology is very important in agricultural extension for the following reasons:

• The basic purpose of agricultural extension is changing the behavior of farmers as desired. Therefore, knowledge and understanding of rural people (farmers) is essential. It is the rural sociology which provides this knowledge and understanding about the farmer vis-à-vis rural social system in which he lives.

• It helps in devising an agricultural extension plans for farmers.

• It helps in identifying the groups, individuals, organizations and leaders.

Besides this, the interrelationship between agricultural extension and rural sociology also highlights the importance or rural sociology in agricultural extension.

Agriculture Extension System in Nepal

Agricultural extension is the application of scientific research and new knowledge to agricultural practices through farmer education. It now encompasses a wider range of communication and learning activities.

 Modern agricultural extension began in Dublin, Ireland in 1847 during the great famine. It expanded in Germany in the 1850s and later in the USA via the cooperative extension system in 1914. In the US, an extension agent is a university employee who assists people in economic and community development, leadership, family issues, agriculture and environment.

The history of agricultural development can be traced since 1950 and even before. But to have a comprehensive idea it can be divided into two parts, as follows:

 Before 1950 :

This period includes the opening of Nurseries, Veterinary Hospitals, Central Research Farm,  and Technical School etc. Administration was centralized, and there was no problems regarding linkages and coordination. Level of farmer's awareness and ambitions were very low and the farming was almost subsistence type.

 After 1950 :

Systematic efforts towards national development began in the fifties with the formulation and implementation of the first five-year plan in 1956. All the plans formulated since then have emphasized generation of appropriate agricultural technologies and their effective dissemination.

The agriculture extension program was first included as a build in component of the comprehensive Tribhuwan Village Development Program (TVDP), implemented through USAID assistance. It was essentially the integrated village development program, where  promotion of agriculture was the core component. Following "Block Development Approach" TVDP encompassed other social components like education, adult literacy, health and the general community development activities. However, TVDP could not continue longer.

The subsequent approaches followed in agriculture extension included the establishment of Zonal Agriculture Development Offices (ZADOs) and District Agriculture Development  Offices (DADOs) and recruitment of field level extension workers - Junior Technicians (JTs) and Junior Technical Assistants (JTAs), the JT/JTAs with a modest training in general agriculture, which also included agriculture extension as one of the subjects, were supposed to make the farmers aware and persuade them towards adopting new technologies, considered superior to those already in practice.

Various extension methods such as individual contacts, group contacts and mass contacts were used for awareness rising among the farming communities. Attempts were made to convince the farmers about the superiority, usefulness and profitability of the modern technologies, applying the most common extension tools, such as method and result demonstrations, agriculture fares and farmers day, farmers field visit and observation tours, and use of audio-visual aids.

This traditional approach of extension continued for many years before some of its basic weaknesses were recognized as the limiting factors in motivating the farming community to adopt the recommended agricultural practices. It was realized that these were some inherent drawbacks in the system in a way that majority of the farmers could not be reached. Specially, the poor and deprived communities remained, by and large, out of the reach of the extension services. The main reason attributed to such  situation was the limited number of field level extension workers, as compared to the vast number of farm households, combined with difficult terrains especially in the hill and mountain.

The traditional extension approach was based on the "Trickle down" theory of the dissemination of technologies. The underlying assumption of this approach was that if innovation is introduced to small number of "progressive farmer" "contact farmer", "leader farmers" and likes, the diffusion process will automatically take place, and there will be multiplier impacts of the interventions.

This approach met with limited success, mainly due to the limited resources in terms of technical advice, production inputs and credit, service in remote areas. Adequate motivation and persuasion were not there for the poor farmers to take the benefit of technology adoption. To overcome this problem, the need for deliberate attempts to reach such farmers was realized. To support and provide reinforcement to the field level extension workers - (JT/JTAs), Para extension workers (such as "Agriculture Assistants", and 'Tukis") were employed. However, these grassroots level extension support workers very soon became non-functional as they were poorly paid and inadequately motivated. And the JT/JTs again remained the sole extension agents with a lot of limitations.

Carrying out agriculture extension activities solely by JT/JTAs was not only the numerical problem of non-availability, but it also suffered conceptually. Under this system, too much emphasis was laid on technical support, and social mobilization aspect was neglected. It was deemed necessary that delivering the technical services without social preparedness, at the receiving end, is not going to achieve the purpose of agricultural development. Restoration of multiparty democracy in the country in 1990 gave Nepal a new multiparty democratic constitution in 1991, which appropriately recognized decentralization as a means to ensure optimum involvement of the people in the governance.

In this context it was therefore realized that social mobilization at farmers community should be done through farmers groups empowered to effectively participate in development programs. It was also considered important that government alone may not be able to cater fully to the needs of providing necessary production inputs and technical service to all farmers and in all geographical areas. Accordingly, the government has adopted the policy of carrying out the extension activities through following the farmers group approach and involving the Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and Non-Government Organization (NGOs), in the development efforts of the government, It is assumed that it will be easier for the

extension workers to reach the maximum number of farmers through groups; and the groups if properly developed can efficiently manage its activities through their capacity buildup. The approach may be sustainable even after the phasing out of the external assistance. Despite many perceived weaknesses in farmer group approach, the government is pursuing this approach to serve as the vehicle for bringing socio-economic changes at the grass root level. The government is trying at best to remove the weaknesses identified so far about the group and redefine the role of government.

Extension Approaches  adopted in the past

Training and Visit System:

This system was based on the principle of single line of command with continues training and contacts. Research extension linkage was stronger though material support for adoption was quiet weak.

Integrated Rural Development Approach.

This approach was based on the integration and coordinated management of resources for rural development. Technology support was not adequate.

Tuki Approach

This approach had the thrust of utilizing trained local farmers based on self - motivation principle. These farmers were also working as agri. input dealer, so that the technological message could go along with inputs required.

Farming System Research and Extension Approach.

This approach viewed research and extension in the whole farming system

perspective, so that cropping system research could be done. Farmers would know the interdependencies between components and could relate to physical, biological and socio-economic factors.

Block Production Program.

This program was based on the principle that intensive use of resources consolidated together in an area called "Block" could increase the productivity. This was not effective for scattered area.

 Approaches at present

Conventional Educational Approach.

Besides the group members, the key farmers are involved in the process of motivation and education. The farmers themselves in a wider area disseminate the knowledge and skills taught to them. This approach has been effective to facilitate the adoption of new innovation by interested farmer, which eventually radiated demonstration effect to neighboring farmers.

Pocket Package Approach

Pocket package approach refers to the production strategy on pocket area basis. The feasible pockets for a certain commodity is selected and then a project is developed through bottom up process. This has been positive to introduce the package of technologies as demanded by pockets. It has also helped to develop the crops/commodities on commercial scale.

Projectization Approach

Every commodity based production program has been implemented on the basis of Project-designed within the frame work of time duration, budget expenditure and expected output Package of activities which are required to achieve theoutput are identified and included in the Project. This approach has been adopted in all the seventy-five districts with a priority in the production pockets.

Farmers Group Approach

The principle is to put the farmers of same interest together and carry out the activities on group basis. This has been very effective to bring the innovation to the groups, which in turn expand to its command area farmers. The limited manpower and other resources can be well utilized by means of group.

Farmers Field School Approach

This is based on the principle of adult learning. This has been very effective approach in reaching farmers and helping them to have an access to the knowledge and skills required for crop management. This approach is becoming popular because of its democratic and participatory process.

Partnership Approach

Government organizations is undertaking partnership approach with other

organizations like Department of Irrigation, NGOs, CBOs, Private Organizations etc, to effectively deliver the extension services. This strategy has encouraged relevant stakeholders to join hands in development.

If we look at the agricultural extension system in Nepal, several metamorphoses can be seen from the Conventional Education Approach to the Pocket Package Approach. In the former approach, key farmers themselves disseminate the knowledge and skills taught to them, whereas in the Pocket Package Approach, production is on a pocket area basis. Until the recent past, the Department of Agriculture (DoA), under the Ministry of Agriculture, had the primary mandate of agricultural extension from the center to the region, and district to the community level. In addition to the Department, it had disciplinary directorates at the center, regional offices in each region and a District Agricultural Development Office (DADO) in the districts. The village level technicians, popularly known as JT/JTAs, were grass-roots level staff with a dense presence at all the levels.

Along with the adoption of the federal system in Nepal, agricultural extension has also been adopted accordingly. The agricultural extension system is basically a top-down approach. Nepal’s constitution has ensured the production function to the local level and to some extent to the provinces, giving the center the role of formulating acts, rules, regulations and international coordination. However, a similar spirit could not be ensured in the new organogram, which was prepared in 2074 BS. As a result, the major function of technicians has been deviating from technical backstopping to serving as input distributing agents. So they have a subsidiary role instead of being a technology generator and disseminator.

Some donor-supported programs and Prime Minister Agricultural Modernization Project (PMAMP) have been initiated, under the pocket package approach. The Farmers Field School (FFS) Approach has been in operation based on the principle of learning by doing and seeing is believing. This is one of the successful approaches in the Integrated Pest Management Program. Government organizations are undertaking a partnership approach with other organizations like the Department of Irrigation, Commerce, universities, media, NGOs, CBOs and private organizations to deliver the extension services effectively.

Agriculture as a science has to be linked to the practice of delivery of new innovations to the farmers. This needs regular capacity building of the staffs and organizations with strong coordination and linkages. However, at present, there is cryptic coordination among the Agricultural Knowledge Centers (AKC), under the provincial ministry, and the institutions working at the local as well as federal levels. In fact, AKCs were begun to provide expertise to the farmer by remaining in between the three tiers of governance. The AKC was to be the interface among the researcher, extension and students.

References

1. Chitamber, JB (1990) Introduction to Rural Sociology. Wiley Eastern Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi.

2. Dahama OP and Bhatnagar, OP (1987) Education and Communication for Development. Oxford  and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

3. Daivadeenam, Pujari (2002) Educational Psychology in Agriculture. Agrotech Publishing Academy, Udaipur.

4. Desai, AR (1978) Rural Sociology in India. Popular Prakashan, Bombay.

5. Ray, GL (2003) Extension Communication and Management. Kalyani Publishers. New Delhi.

6. Sharan, AK (1999) Social Psychology. Commonwealth Publishers. New Delhi

7. Vidhya Bhushan and D.R.Sachdeva (1999) An Introduction to Sociology. Kitab Mahal . Allahabad.

8. C.N. Shankar Rao (2004) .  Sociology . S. Chand and Company .New Delhi .

9. Metta Spencer and Alex inkeles (1979). Prentis-Hall International Inc. . London