chapter 4 users’ needs assessment 4.1 questionnaire...

Chapter 4: Users’ Needs Assessment

56

Chapter 4

USERS’ NEEDS ASSESSMENT One of the objectives of the present research was to assess the information needs of

different users of information on fungi i.e. mycologists involved in various activities,

and farmers. The survey method was used to collect the data. Two different

questionnaires were sent to scientists and farmers. The analysis was carried out with

different perspectives and is discussed in detail in this chapter.

4.1 Questionnaire analysis of Scientists

Since the needs of the scientists are determined by the context within which they

function, the questionnaire was designed to seek contextual information regarding

the research activities of scientists, their areas of specialization, subject expertise and

application areas of information collected by them. Questions relating to kinds of

information requested and difficulties in acquiring it were also asked.

Research activities

Areas of specialization

Scientists came from different subject areas such as botany, microbiology,

biochemistry, plant pathology, biotechnology, etc. While all of them worked with

fungal species and the work involved identifying species, the method used for

identification differed.

Table 4.1: Subject Areas

Subject area No. %

Agriculture and plant pathology 13 26

Biotechnology / Bioinformatics 17 34

Taxonomy – mycology 20 40

Total 50 100


57

Groups of fungi

Scientists were involved in research on different groups of fungi. Some of them

worked on multiple groups and hence the total in Table 4.2 exceeds the number of

respondents.

Table 4.2: Groups of Fungi

Sr. No.

Group of fungi No. %

1. Zygomycota 12 16

2. Phycomycetes 09 11

3. Ascomycetes 16 20

4. Basideomycetes 26 33

5. Fungi Imperfecti 16 20

Total 79 100

Table 4.2 indicates that basideomycetes, ascopmycetes and fungi imperfecti, which

affect several crop plants, are active areas of research among the different scientists.

Research activities

Respondents were requested to select research activities from five different activities

listed in the questionnaires and indicate their priorities (high, medium and low).

Respondents selected multiple options and the results are shown in Table 4.3

Table 4.3: Research Activities

High Medium Low Total

Activities

No % No. % No % No. %

Maintaining Herbaria 15 18.3 7 33 5 31.25 27 23

Specimen listing 21 25.7 4 19 3 18.75 28 24 1

Classification and identification 33 40.2 3 14 3 18.75 39 33

Producing molecular sequence 7 8.5 2 10 5 31.25 14 12 2

Bioinformatics 6 7.3 5 24 0 0 11 9

Total 82 100 21 100 16 100 119 100


58

Table 4.3 shows that classification and identification activity was a high priority area

for 40% of the respondents. It was also the prime activity (33%) among all

mycologists. Specimen listing was a high priority for 25.7% of the scientists while

maintaining herbaria was a high priority for 18.3% of the scientists. During

discussions with respondents it was recognised that these three activities are

interdependent. Mycologists are usually involved in all the three activities. Since

they identify and classify fungi, many of them are also involved in specimen listing,

and maintaining herbaria, which are supportive activities.

Other groups of researchers identified species with the help of molecular sequences

in laboratories. Researchers, engaged in bioinformatics use computer technology for

analysis of molecular sequence data produced in laboratories. In both the activities,

researchers handle sequence related information. Based on this understanding, all

respondents were categorised as undertaking 2 sets of activities:

i. Maintaining herbaria, specimen listing, identification and classification

ii. Producing molecular sequences and bioinformatics.

In correlating the activities with information needs, three new groups were created

due to interdependence of the activities. Group 1 consisted of mycologists involved

in maintaining herbaria, specimen listing and identification and classification. Group

2 consisted of mycologists involved in sequence analysis and bioinformatics research

while the third group consisted of scientists involved in both sets of activities.

Most of the scientists (80%) were involved in identifying specimens as per the

morphological characters, while only 6% scientists were involved in molecular

sequence analysis and 14% scientists were involved in both the activities (Table 4.4)

The traditional method of identifying species is still predominant in India, while

sequence analysis is yet to be firmly established as a research method in the institutes

studied. However, as many publications require that both morphological and

sequence based identification of species be reported, some beginning has been made.


59

Table 4.4: Research Activities & Groups

Activities Group No. %

Maintaining herbaria, specimen listing, identification and classification

1 40 80

Producing molecular sequences and bioinformatics

2 03 06

Maintaining herbaria, specimen listing, identification and classification and Producing molecular sequences and bioinformatics

3 07 14

Total 50 100

Application of data

Mycologists, as part of their work, collect considerable data. This data is useful in

areas such as industry and agriculture. Agriculture was found to be a major area for

use of this data (Table 4.5)

Table 4.5: Applications of Data

Applications Nos. %

Industry 10 20

Agriculture 30 60

Industry and Agriculture 10 20

Total 50 100

This information received from the research scientists provided the context in which

they sought information and has been used, as an independent variable, in the next

section to analyse the information needs.

Information needs analysis

Information needs and research activities

Respondents had been asked to indicate their information needs. Twenty one

different items of information had been identified and broadly grouped into clusters

such as taxonomic information, collection information, geographic information, host-

parasite interaction information, spore data, bioinformatics, bibliographic

information, images and prevention. When analysed (Table 4.6), the information


60

revealed that name of the fungus, bibliographic information and name of the host

were required by almost all respondents.

Table 4.6: Information Needs

Total

Category Information needs N=50 %

Rank

Name of the fungus 50 100 1

Name of the host 46 92 3 Taxonomic information

Family of fungus 37 74 10

Date of collection 36 72 12

Collector/collected by 35 70 13 Collection information

Field notes 28 56 18

Country 40 80 6 Geographic information State, district, local

area 37 74 10

Nature of infection 29 58 17

Period of infection 33 66 15

Effect of infection 33 66 15

Host-parasite Interaction

Life cycle pattern 38 76 8

Types of spores 39 78 7

Prominent spore type 38 76 8

Soral morphology 34 68 14

Nature of sorus 24 48 19

Spore data

Spore morphology 43 86 4

Bioinformatics Bioinformatics Databases/Databanks

20 40 20

Bibliographic information

Bibliographic details 49 98 2

Images Images 41 82 5

Prevention Prevention 7 14 21

An attempt was made to co-relate these needs with a) subject areas b) research

activities. Information needs changed slightly with both variables. The clusters of

information required by different groups of scientists were ranked according to their

importance. Thus for e.g. since geographic information was needed by more than


61

90% of agriculture and plant pathology scientists, it was categorised as of level I

importance for them. However, as it was needed by between 70% to 80%

taxonomists it was categorised as of being level II importance for them. Similarly

clusters which were considered important by more than 50% but less than 70% were

categorised as being of level III importance whereas those required by below 50% of

the scientists were categorised as being of level IV importance for them. Table 4.7

indicates that the clusters of information required by the three groups of scientists

varied slightly. However there was not much variation within the clusters regarding

different items.

Table 4.7: Information Needs and Levels

Sr. No.

Cluster Agriculture / plant pathology

Biotechnology Taxonomy

1. Taxonomic information I II I

2. Collection information II II I

3. Geographic information I I II

4. Host-parasite Interaction III III III

5. Spore data III IV I

6. Bioinformatics IV I IV

7. Bibliographic information I I I

8. Image III II IV

9. Prevention I I I

Information needs were then co related to the activity of the scientists. In this case,

too, there were some variations in the clusters. For example the need for taxonomic

information was greater in activity group 1 as compared to activity group 2 (Table

4.8 and Figure 4.1). There were also some differences in the item of information

needed by the different groups of scientists, for example while name of fungus and

name of host was needed by all in the first activity. Only one third of those involved

in the second activity needed it.


62

Table 4.8: Information Needs and Research Activities

Activity (Group 1)

Activity 2 (Group 2)

Activity 3 (Group 3)

Category Information

needs N=40 % N=3 % N=7 %

Name of the fungus

40 100 3 100 7 100

Name of the host

40 100 1 33 5 71 Taxonomic information

Family of fungus

30 75 2 67 5 71

Date of collection

29 72.5 2 67 5 71

Collector/collected by

28 70 2 67 5 71 Collection information

Field notes 23 58 1 33 4 57

Country 33 82 2 67 5 71 Geographic information State, district,

local area 31 78 1 33 5 71

Nature of infection

25 63 1 33 3 43

Period of infection

30 75 1 33 2 29

Effect of infection

30 75 1 33 2 29

Host-parasite Interaction

Life cycle pattern

35 88 1 33 2 29

Types of spores 35 88 1 33 3 43

Prominent spore type

35 88 0 0 3 43

Soral morphology

30 75 1 33 3 43

Nature of sorus 20 50 1 33 3 43

Spore data

Spore morphology

40 100 0 0 3 43

Bioinformatics Bioinformatics Databases/Databanks

10 25 3 100 7 100

Bibliographic information

Bibliographic details

40 100 2 67 7 100

Images Images 35 88 2 67 4 57

Prevention Prevention 6 15 0 0 1 14


63

Activities and information needs

0

20

40

60

80

100

120N

am

e o

f th

e f

un

gu

s

Na

me

of

the

ho

st

Fa

mily

of

fun

gu

s

Da

te o

f co

llect

ion

Co

llect

or/

colle

cte

d b

y

Fie

ld n

ote

s

Oth

er

info

rma

tion

tha

n a

bo

ve

Co

un

try

Sta

te,

dis

tric

t, lo

cal

are

a

Na

ture

of

infe

ctio

n

Pe

rio

d o

f in

fect

ion

Eff

ect

of

infe

ctio

n

Life

cyc

le p

att

ern

Typ

es

of

spo

res

Pro

min

en

t sp

ore

typ

e

So

ral m

orp

ho

log

y

Na

ture

of

soru

s

Sp

ore

mo

rph

olo

gy

Bio

info

rma

tics

Da

tab

ase

s/D

ata

ba

nks

Bib

liog

rap

hic

de

tails

Ima

ge

s

Pre

ven

tion

Information needs

Nu

mb

er

of

res

po

ns

es

Activity 1 Activity 2 Activities 1 and 2

Figure 4.1 Information Needs of Scientists


64

In the following section each cluster of information is discussed. Suggestions made

by respondents for additional information in that cluster are also included.

Bibliographic and image information

It is interesting to note that the two most needed types of information were

‘bibliographic’ and ‘image’. Both these types of information are in a sense ancillary

to the field but help in identifying the fungi. While the bibliographic information was

needed by all scientists, image information seems to be required more by activity

group 1 scientists than others. Some respondents suggested that in addition to general

bibliographic information, there should also be information about the recent

systematic position of fungal species.

Taxonomy

Taxonomic information was also required more by group 1 scientists who used

morphological characteristics to identify species. Group 2 scientists who used

molecular sequence analysis method to identify species needed this information the

least among the three groups.

Geographical Information

The need for geographical information, namely relating to the location of the fungal

species was high on the information requirement list. Here too, the pattern of need

between group 1 and group 3 were distinct, with group 2 falling midway between the

two. It is important to note here that almost one third of the respondents suggested

that exact information about co-ordinates (latitude, longitude, altitude, etc.) was also

required.

Spore Data

Spore information including types, size, colour of spores, nature of spores and soral

morphology play an important role in identifying fungal species. More than 70%

respondents from group 1 required this information. Scientists of group 2 had a lower

need for this information, while group 3 was in the middle of the other two groups.


65

Additional information needed by scientists included hyphal attachment, biochemical

information about spore and spore colour in different medium (mounting media).

Host-parasite interaction information

Host parasite interaction information including nature of infection, period of

infection, etc. is important for the identification of fungal species. Thus it was but

natural that group 1 scientists need greater information of this type than those of

groups 2 and 3. Few respondents required information about substrate, dormancy

method of propagation, type of parasite, and nature of penetration of fungus with the

host as well as parameters of soil.

Collection information

More than 70% of the scientists in each group needed information about the fungal

species collection such as date of collection, collector and field notes. However, the

needs of scientists in groups 1 and 3 were slightly more than group 2. The

respondents requested that information about weather, climatic conditions, mode of

nutrition, and laboratory notes be added to this cluster.

Bioinformatics

As regards this type of information, the trend was reversed. Group 2 and 3 scientists

needed this whereas a few from group 1 required this information. They also needed

linkages to existing molecular databases like GenBank, EMBL (European Molecular

Biology Laboratory) and SwissProt Databases as well as to genome databases like

yeast genome. Scientists of groups 2 and 3 also needed information relating to

fungicides, biological control agents, secondary metabolites, testing and screening of

varieties against diseases, etc.

Prevention

Information on prevention of fungal infection was least needed by scientists. Here

also scientists involved in group 1 activity had greater need for this information.


66

General

Some scientists also indicated that they needed pathological information such as life

cycle pattern, in detail and information about the culture collection such as pure

culture, viability, potency, etc.

Information behaviour

The focus of the next part of the research shifted to information behaviour. It first

looked at information-seeking behaviour i.e. sources used and difficulties faced and

then moved on to see how they managed their own information.

Information sources used

Scientists were asked to identify their main sources of information by selecting

options such as fieldwork, secondary sources, Internet etc. Respondents selected

multiple options.

Table 4.9: Sources of Information Collection

Information sources No. of responses

N=50

%

Field work 48 96

Secondary sources 46 92

Electronic databases 29 58

Internet 29 58

Other 11 22

Table 4.9 indicates that fieldwork is the prime (96%) source of information for the

scientists. Secondary sources like books, journals, conference proceedings, and

reports are equally accepted media (92%) for collecting information on fungal

species. Internet and electronic databases are also gaining popularity among

scientists. Almost a quarter of the respondents (22%) selected ‘other’ option and

mentioned personal contacts, conference proceedings, monographs, discussion

groups, etc.


67

Difficulties in obtaining required information

In response to the open-ended question-requesting scientists to share their difficulties

in gathering information, they mentioned several points relating to information

availability, quality, etc. which have been presented below. The comments along

with number of scientists commenting on the major aspects (in brackets) are given

below.

Information availability

§ Data is scattered and one needs to spend a lot of time to obtain specific information (20).

§ Existing databases do not provide required information (10). § Herbaria databases are not online and searchable (3). § Raw data not at all available (3). § Search results are often casual. § Type specimens are not available from Exsiccata.

Information quality

§ Data quality is often not verified. § Sometimes data are irrelevant. § Sometimes the data is not updated. § Misidentified information. § Lack of accurate information for precise identification of fungal species.

Standardization

§ Lack of digitized recognized herbaria (especially like Kew and IMI). § Lack of standards for data exchange (taxonomic). § Lack of use of existing standards (bibliographic), § Lack of standard data dictionaries (names, gazetteers, standards terminology for

structure and symptoms, landform types, habitat type, vegetation classification system).

§ Missing standards for names / nomenclature of fungi.

Information updation

The last section of the questionnaire was focused on finding out the information

updation frequencies, information on funding agencies and ownership of

information.


68

Information collected on fungal species was updated regularly by the respondents.

But the frequency varied. Respondents selected different options (Table 4.10).

Table 4.10: Information Updation Frequency

Frequency Total

numbers %

Monthly 16 32

Six monthly 10 20

Yearly 24 48

Total 50 100

Table 4.10 indicates that majority of respondents prefer to update the information on

a yearly basis. Monthly updation is also accepted.

Management of Data

Specimen collection

A majority of the respondents (41) maintained specimen collections. Their collection

ranged from a few (10) to a large number of specimens (3000). This indicated that

while some respondents worked on very specific fungi, others had a more general

interest. Respondents were asked to mention the genera and species they had

collected; 28 respondents shared this information.

Use of computers

Computers play an important role in storing and analyzing information.

Mycologists also used computers for analysis of information they had collected on

fungal species. Thirty-one respondents used computers, especially Microsoft tools

such as Access and Excel to manage the information. A few respondents used special

software developed in-house in their organisations.

Information was also sought whether the scientists were aware of free biodiversity

software packages (eg. Delta, Biota, etc.). It was found that these software packages

were not yet popular among Indian mycologists. Among those who did use


69

biodiversity software like Delta Access, Biota, etc., only 3 respondents referred to

the limitations of these software tools in managing mycological data. The size of the

data ranged from 100 MB to 15,000 MB.

Since metadata is useful in retrieving data on the Internet, a question sought to find

out if scientists were aware of the concept. Only 3 respondents were familiar with the

concept of metadata and its use in organizing fungal species information. Among

metadata standards they were aware of Dublin Core standards but not the

biodiversity metadata standards.

Information sharing

Information collected and data generated during the research often gets published in

journals, books, and conference papers. Further, information gets disseminated

through personal contacts. Therefore, respondents were asked if others were aware

about information collected by them. Table 4.11 shows the different ways of data

dissemination.

Table 4.11: Information Dissemination

Sr. No. Types No. of

responses (N=50)

%

1. Publications – journals / periodicals 45 90

2. Personal contacts 42 84

3. Conferences proceedings 36 72

4. Internet / Web 11 22

5. Others 06 12

The above statistics show that information dissemination through publications (90%)

is very popular among mycologists. Only five young scientists who had recently

completed their research had not shared their information through publications.

Publications like journal articles, fact books, reference books were preferred by

mycologists to disseminate information about their specimens. Use of the Internet is

slowly becoming popular among mycologists and 22% respondents have started

disseminating information about their research through Internet. Among the other


70

ways of disseminating information, 6 respondents indicated that they publish data in

the form of booklets or in annual reports and some institutional publications.

User awareness

Out of the 50 respondents, 42 (84%) accepted that there were other users of the

information collected by them. These included research students, industrialists,

farmers and plant pathologists. Further, when asked about their willingness to share

the information with others, 43 respondents (84%) were ready to do so.

Types of other users

Respondent were asked further details about scientists who have used their data,

potential users as per their perception and willingness to share information with

different groups (Table 4.12).

Table 4.12: Users of Information

Users Have used

(N=42) %

Potential users

(N=40) %

Will share with

(N=43)

%

Students

Graduate 17 12 16 10 9 7

Post graduate 29 21 15 10 20 16

Research fellows 20 14 25 16 16 13

Scientists

Environmentalists 13 9 15 10 10 8

Geneticists 12 9 6 4 9 7

Bioinformatics 5 6 10 6 13 10

Drug Discovery Research

9 6 12 8 10 8

Plant and animal breeders

14 9 20 13 10 8

Industrialists 7 5 16 10 12 10

Farmers 12 9 20 13 17 13

Total* 139 100 155 100 126 100 (*Multiple choice)


71

It is noticed from the above table that respondents were willing to share information

and data collected by them with others. They are also aware of the users and

potential users of the information.

Postgraduate and research students were recognised as the largest group of users of

the data. Plant breeders, farmers, environmentalists were also potential users and

respondents were willing to share their information with them.

A further question was asked to know if respondents were aware of the purposes for

which others used information. Out of 50 respondents, 35 mentioned that they were

aware of the purposes for which their information was useful. Table 4.13 shows the

use of the responses in different areas of applications mentioned in the questionnaire.

Table 4.13: Purposes of Information Use

Sr. No. Area of

application Total

Responses %

1 Pharmaceutical 22 29.73

2 Agriculture 29 39.19

3 Herbaria 13 17.57

4 Other 10 13.51

Total* 74 100

(* multiple choice)

Information collected by the scientists was mainly used for agricultural applicatios

(39.19%) followed by use in the pharmaceutical industry (29.73%). Very few

respondents worked in collaboration with industry and with researchers from other

fields. Therefore they were not familiar with the actual data used by them. This was

the main reason for the low percentage of responses.

The 10 respondents who selected ‘other areas’ of application, referred to

i) biotechnology ii) ecology and iii) entomology


72

Information ownership issues

With a view to identify possible ownership of the data, it was thought necessary to

request respondents to identify the funding agency supporting for their research,

since the survey was conducted in four different laboratories in Pune city and each

laboratory was funded by some agency. Further, respondents have their projects

funded either by their parent organization or outside agencies. Table 4.14 shows the

different funding agencies.

Table 4.14: Funding Agency

Sr. No. Funding agency Total numbers %

1. CSIR 03 06

2. DBT 15 30

3. DST 07 14

4. ICMR 04 08

5. MOE&F 03 06

6. UGC 06 12

7. Not mentioned 12 24

Total 50 100

Department of Biotechnology, Government of India is the major funding agency in

India for mycological research. Twelve participants did not mention any funding

agency for their research projects. University Grants Commission (UGC),

Department of Science and Technology (DST), Indian Council of Medical Research

(ICMR), Ministry of Environment and Forest (MOE&F) were other funding

agencies. This indicates that Government funding agencies support major research

activities in this area.

Apart from funding agencies it was necessary to find out who were the owners of the

information. Researchers worked for a certain organization and therefore parent

organizations may become owners of the data. Respondents selected different

options viz. parent organization, personal, company, etc. (Table 4.15). Most of them

mentioned, that they or their parent organisation were the owners of the information.


73

Table 4.15: Information Ownership

Owner Total Numbers %

Yourself 19 38

Parent organization 17 34

Not mentioned 14 28

Total 50 100

Final comments

Respondents were generally asked to comment on the survey and share any other

information they wished to. A few respondents commented that the survey was

useful in collecting and making available important information, which would help

scientists and farmers. However two important comments that related to the lacunae

in the present study are mentioned below:

1. “At present I do work with medically important fungi, such fungi are not receiving attention in your survey. I have answered as much as I can from your questions”.

2. “According to me you are collecting very superficial information. Nowadays

classificatory system is totally based upon the biochemical molecular studies. You haven't included this point. For example Oomycetes are now considered under straminipila depending upon molecular and biochemical studies”.

As far as the second comment is concerned, the respondent had not fully understood

the purpose of the database. Towards the end of the project when the respondent saw

the database she was appreciative of the work and willingly co-operated and shared

her data.

4.2 Analysis of Farmers’ Questionnaire

The farmer’s questionnaire was different from that used for the scientists. Apart from

the difference in questions it was in Marathi (local language). Before the analysis of

information needs, the sample of 30 farmers is briefly described.


74

Sample description

The farmers came from various districts in Maharashtra state. Table 4.16 shows their

distribution.

Table 4.16: Places from Where Farmers Responded

Place Nos. %

Pune 10 33

Nasik 4 13

Satara 3 10

Jalgaon 2 7

Amaravati 2 7

Nagpur 2 7

Sangali 5 16

Ahmednagar 2 7

Total 30 100

The farmers cultivated their crop on fields, which varied from 1-10 acres to more

than 50 acres with an average of 6 acres per farmer. On an average they took 7-8

crops in a year varying from 1 to more than 30.

The types of seeds used were either provided by government (40%) or were

purchased from private companies (30%). Some farmers mentioned that they used

their own seeds (17%).

These farmers cultivated various vegetable plants as well as cash crops as shown in

table 4.17.


75

Table 4.17: Crop Plants

Crops No. of

responses %

Cash Crops

Cotton 2 7

Grapes 2 7

Groundnuts 3 10

Soyabean 3 10

Sugar cane 3 10

Tur 4 13

Vegetables

Cauliflower 1 3

Cucumber 2 7

Cabbage 3 10

Onion 3 10

Tomato 4 13

Total 30 100

The farmers stated that they faced problems due to the following diseases on the

plants. Table 4.18 indicates the number of responses for each of the diseases.

4.18: Diseases on Crop Plants

Diseases No. of responses

Anthrecnose 03

Falkuj 03

Bhuri 02

Downey mildew 05

Powerday mildew 07

Kandimar 03

Karapa 03

Mava 01

Tambera 03

Most of the farmers used fertilizers for their crop plants but did not mention

particular names.


76

Almost 75% of the farmers recognized the fungal infections on plants; only 25%

farmers stated that they found it difficult to differentiate between fungal and viral

infections. All farmers use different fungicides to protect their plants such as urea,

kavak, (chemical), shen khat (organic) etc. More than three fourths of the farmers

used chemical fungicides while 23% used organic fungicides. It was also observed

from the responses that traditional remedies to protect crops from fungal diseases

were widely and regularly used. Overall, it was noticed that farmers were well

acquainted with fungal diseases and used various fungicides of different companies

along with traditional solutions.

These fungicides were used both after and before infection and were applied either in

the morning or in the evening. They used different equipments to apply fungicides

such as simple pumps, cover sprays, Knapsack pumps, etc.

Information needs of farmers

The next section of the questionnaire was focused to finding the information needs of

farmers and their information seeking-behaviour. It was noticed that the farmers

needed information about crop management including soil details, life cycle of

fungal species, and solutions for fungal infections. They required more information

in areas, which are as follows (Table 4.19)

Table 4.19: Types of Information and Responses

Types of information Responses

Fungal and viral infections their effects and remedies 15

Information on Chemical and organic fungicides 10

How to handle fungal infections 10

Crop management 5

Weather predictions and infections 5

Life cycle of fungi and remedies at each stage 5

Fungicides, their prices and company details 20

Information collection habits

It was interesting to know the sources used by farmers to collect information about

fungal infection (Table 4.20). Agricultural exhibitions were popular among farmers.


77

Special lecture series in these exhibitions on use of fertilizers, fungicides, and

pesticides increased the knowledge of the farmers. Personal contacts were important

sources of information. Farmers also collected printed information on fungicides

from company representatives as well as from shopkeepers from whom they

purchased fungicides.

Table 4.20: Information Collection

Choices No. of

responses %

Exhibition 17 29

Personal contacts 16 27

Company representatives 14 24

Shopkeepers 12 20

Total 59 100

Information media

The farmers mostly needed information in print form, though pictorial and

audiovisual formats were useful. They felt that printed material in local language

along with all details of fungal infections, list of companies, representatives, and

weather predictions would help a great deal.

Table 4.21: Information Media

Media Responses

(N=30)

%

Print 30 100

Image 16 53

Audio 6 20

Video 1 3

Sharing of information

Each farmer had some kind of information, whether about traditional remedies or

commercial solutions. It was found that 80% farmers were ready to share the


78

information they had with others, while the remaining 20% (i.e. 6 farmers) claimed

that they would not like to share their information with others.

4.3 Conclusion

The two surveys revealed the information needs of scientists and farmers. They

highlight the difference in information needs of traditional mycologists who use

morphological characteristics to identify species and those that use molecular

sequencing for the same purpose. The information needs of farmers related more to

crop management and crop protection. The items of information as specified by both

scientists and farmers were used in the creation of the database, which formed the

second phase of research.

chapter 4 users’ needs assessment 4.1 questionnaire...

Documents