Purpose: To describe the results of showing farmer learning videos through different types of volunteers.
Design/Methodology/Approach: Semi-structured interviews with volunteers from different occupational groups in Bangladesh, and a phone survey with 227 respondents.
Findings: Each occupational group acted differently. Shop keepers, tillage service providers, agricultural input and machine dealers reached fairly small audiences. Tea stall owners had large, male audiences. Non-governmental organisations and community-based organisations, reached more women. The cable TV (dish-line) operators showed the videos on local TV, but some were reluctant to do so again. The Union Information Service Centres showed the videos and reached women viewers. Half of the official government extension agents surveyed also showed the videos publically.
Practical Implication: This video featured maize, wheat and rice seeding machinery. Because the machinery is complex and requires hands-on training, this first video aimed to expose tillage and sowing service providers and farmers to the machinery, without trying to teach them how to use it. But some farmers were so interested that they watched the video many times to learn more about the equipment. Before farmers and service providers decide to buy machinery for direct seeding, they still want to see and learn from demonstration plantings, to examine first-hand how the crop behaves when planted with the new equipment.
Originality/Value: Video can be an effective way of sharing high-quality information with a large audience, if properly distributed. 相似文献
This introductory essay reviews the key contributions of David Teece's landmark paper “Profiting from Innovation” published in research policy in 1986. It summarises the contributions of each of the papers in the special issue. It then offers some perspectives on the key themes emerging from these papers, and on the broader challenges facing researchers, strategists and policymakers in the field of technology innovation today. 相似文献
Innovation has moved to the foreground in regional policy in the last decade. Concrete policies were shaped by “best practice models” derived from high-tech areas and well performing regions. These are often applied in a similar way across many types of regions. Here an attempt is made to show that there is no “ideal model” for innovation policy as innovation activities differ strongly between central, peripheral and old industrial areas. In this paper we analyse different types of regions with respect to their preconditions for innovation, networking and innovation barriers. Based on this classification different policy options and strategies are developed. 相似文献