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
Chapter 4: Users’ Needs Assessment
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
Chapter 4: Users’ Needs Assessment
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.
Chapter 4: Users’ Needs Assessment
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
Chapter 4: Users’ Needs Assessment
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
Chapter 4: Users’ Needs Assessment
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.
Chapter 4: Users’ Needs Assessment
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
Chapter 4: Users’ Needs Assessment
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
Chapter 4: Users’ Needs Assessment
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.
Chapter 4: Users’ Needs Assessment
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.
Chapter 4: Users’ Needs Assessment
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.
Chapter 4: Users’ Needs Assessment
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.
Chapter 4: Users’ Needs Assessment
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
Chapter 4: Users’ Needs Assessment
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
Chapter 4: Users’ Needs Assessment
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)
Chapter 4: Users’ Needs Assessment
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
Chapter 4: Users’ Needs Assessment
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.
Chapter 4: Users’ Needs Assessment
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.
Chapter 4: Users’ Needs Assessment
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.
Chapter 4: Users’ Needs Assessment
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.
Chapter 4: Users’ Needs Assessment
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.
Chapter 4: Users’ Needs Assessment
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
Chapter 4: Users’ Needs Assessment
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.
Top Related