HUSBAND AND WIFE PARTNERSHIPS - A KEY FACTOR IN THE IMPROVED
ADOPTION OF DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS FOR RURAL SMALL
BUSINESSES
Dale Gartshore1), Don Kerr2) and Heidimarie Winklhofer3)
1)
Griffith University (d.gartshore@mailbox.gu.edu.au)
2)
Griffith University (d.gartshore@mailbox.gu.edu.au)
3)
Griffith University (d.gartshore@mailbox.gu.edu.au)
Abstract
There is increasing concern by rural research and development funding bodies over
the considerable investment in, yet poor uptake of agricultural computer-based
decision support systems (DSS). Gender differences in the acceptance and usage of
computerised DSS can be used to advantage through a joint husband and wife team
approach to their use. Research indicates that farm women are the main computer
users for standard "off the shelf" applications and more willing than men to enter data
on a regular basis. For men, the perceived usefulness is a strong determinant in their
decision to use agricultural DSS. While the paradigms underlying these systems may
already discourage use, adoption rates are also low because male farmers feel that the
outside practical work is more important.
It is proposed that encouraging farm
women in the competent use of agricultural DSS software may help convince male
farmers of its strategic benefits. This in turn may enhance rural business decisionmaking.
1
1. Introduction
Farm businesses are overwhelmingly small businesses: 99.6% of Australian farm
businesses are family owned, the majority are husband and wife partnerships with
women becoming increasingly active in both management and practical aspects of the
businesses (Kilpatrick 1999). Studies (Rural Women and ICT’s Research Team
2000) have found that, on the family farm, rural women are the main users of
computerised cashbooks, and e-mail, the World Wide Web and word processing for
social networking. However, they are hesitant to use computer technology as a tool
for computerised farm management. James (1990) reports that there is a prevalence
of husband and wife farm partnerships and an increase in participation by women in
farm policy making. We suggest that a collaborative approach by husband and wife
to farm management through the adoption of computer-based DSS will benefit both
the family farm and the rural sector.
2. Rural Women and Technology
Stewart (1997) supports the feminist claim that ideologies of technology, like family
farming ideologies (Alston, 1995), are predominantly masculine. That is, technology
is gendered according to whether it is predominantly an indoor or outdoor tool. For
instance, mobile phones being either hand-held or located in vehicles are considered
masculine devices, while computers and telephones, based in the farm house, are
associated with women.
According to research by Stubbs, Markham and Straw (1998), male farmers qualify as
farmer producers, while farm women, who are usually more comfortable with
computers, are generally defined as the lower status computer users or data operators.
2
This attitude was confirmed by Stewart (1997) who found farm women often lack
confidence as controllers of data, and therefore avoided responsibility for applying
information systems for decision-making purposes.
A more pragmatic approach to the use of computers in agriculture is argued by
Urquhart and Rowley (1999) in claiming that many farmers find that the use of
computers conflicts with their lifestyle. Farmers usually work in isolation during the
day and value evening family time. The prospect of further solitary work at the
computer may therefore not appeal to them. This argument implies that the role of the
farm woman as a home-based computer user will remain unchanged.
3. Will adoption rates be improved with new technology?
Stewart (1997) predicts that as male farmers become more computer literate, and as
computers become more portable, women’s superior keyboard skills will lose their
value and men will compete with women in the use of on-farm computer software.
This prediction is based on an analogy with the use of mobile phones. As mobile
phones have been purchased for the family farm, it has become more efficient and
effective to the male farmer to receive and make calls using the mobile phone on the
tractor instead of waiting to make them back at the house at the end of each working
day.
Stewart (1997) further contends that increased device portability and useability
through the use of icons, mouse and touch screens will make computers ideally suited
for field work. This could remove them from the sphere of the farm house. Therefore
it is conceivable that, as the farm enterprise purchases a notebook computer or a hand-
3
held device such as a personal digital assistant (PDA) the male farmer will be
encouraged to enter the data himself and transact business from the field rather than
leaving the data to be entered by the farm woman in the evenings on the home-based
computer.
4. Agricultural DSS
However, others such as Cox (1996) and Newman (1999) propose that there are more
fundamental reasons for the non-adoption of computerised DSS in rural businesses.
These authors suggest that most agricultural DSS development has traditionally been
based on research models that have the primary aim of discovering and understanding
relationships between data or applied models that are used as a decision or policy
making tool. Farmers, however, look for tools that directly relate to their practical
and action-oriented mode of operation. Many of these systems have therefore not had
widespread acceptance by end-users (Cox 1996), (Carayannis and Sagi 2000),
(Kuhlmann and Brodersen 2001) and (Ohlmer et al 1998).
Cox (1996) outlines many of the problems associated with the adoption of DSS by
farmers. He suggests that these problems revolve around the different approaches to
problem solving between professional researchers and farmers. He also maintains
that farmers are not as computer literate as professional researchers and that DSS have
been too rigid because they are developed using a different paradigm, based on a
scientific approach rather than practical knowledge as would be used by the farmer.
Based on authors such as Cox (1996) and others, it would seem unlikely that adoption
rates would improve dramatically with the use of PDA technology because farmers
have fundamental problems with the use of DSS.
4
The limited use of information technology by farming men and women for farm
enterprises is discussed by Bryant (1999) in a report for the Rural Industries Research
and Development Corporation (RIRDC).
The recommendations for a workable
outcome were that men and women should work collaboratively to enter data, analyse
and interpret it. This study (Bryant 1999) identified the most compelling reasons why
farmers generally are not interested in computers for farm management. Apart from
the inflexibility and limitations of the farm management software, the reasons include
the perceived distinctions between inside and outside work. In effect, the attitude of
the farmer indicates that office work unlike physical, outside work, is not considered
to be real work. Further, the findings show the preservation of the traditional practice
where men are decision-makers and women support the enterprise as bookkeepers. It
is unlikely that this attitude is going to change with the introduction of mobile devices
that removes the indoor / outdoor distinction to computer-based management.
5. Is teamwork between men and women the answer?
There is evidence that divisions of responsibilities in farm management, largely based
on gender, may actually contribute to poor decision-making. A report for the RIRDC
(Daniels and Woods 1997) evaluated the use of training activities to improve farm
business management skills. The key findings were that that discontinuity existed
between management roles.
For example, although women collect, record and
analyse financial information for computerised cashbooks, ineffective communication
often results in poor decision-making with the male farmer making decisions without
the participation of his wife. In these cases, even though the woman has the computer
expertise and financial knowledge, her advice is not sought. Attitudes to decision-
5
making must change, if women are to achieve a greater involvement in farm
management, and their extensive use and experience of information technology
results in wider acceptance of agricultural DSS.
6. Focussing on computer training for rural women
Information systems research (Venkatesh & Morris, 2000) has examined gender
differences in technology acceptance and usage behaviour in the context of underutilised information systems.
The findings establish that men and women are
different with respect to technology acceptance and usage.
While perceived
usefulness is a strong determinant for men, women are influenced by perceived ease
of use and even subjective norms.
These results may have important implications for the development, usage and
training in information systems, such as computer-based DSS.
Hargreaves and
McCown (2000) and Kerr (2000) have researched computerised rural decision and
management support and confirm that it needs to be both practical and essential to
farm management. Kerr (2000) considers that user involvement in the development
process is essential and that this will result in a more acceptable product. To increase
computer self-efficacy, computer systems designers and trainers should emphasise
productivity-related factors for men and a more balanced analysis for women which
incorporates user-friendliness and peer acceptance.
Kilpatrick (1999) asserts that there is a recognition by rural industry leaders and
educators that education and training are essential for managing farm businesses if
they are to be viable and sustainable. Institutes of Technical and Further Education
6
(TAFE), the Queensland Department of Primary Industry (DPI), computer suppliers,
as well as rural industry associations are conscious of the need to run workshops to
train farmers in how to develop the skills in the use of information systems.
According to Stewart (1997) and Bryant (1999), more women prefer to do formal
training courses than men, especially in the initial stages of computer ownership.
This is yet another reason why women could play a significant role in the adoption of
agricultural DSS.
The Rural Women and ICT’s Research Team (2000) report that in their workshops
women can see the potential for new technologies to improve both their efficiencies
as farmers and their way of life. While the women are prepared to learn how to use
computers, they need to be supported and resourced, and the training needs to be
accessible, affordable and appropriate. Therefore to enhance farm women’s use of
computer-based support for decision-making, training courses should be set up with
particular attention to the needs of farm women and include DSS.
7. Conclusion
With the gaining of legal partnership status and through economic necessity, women
are moving away from their traditional support roles to become more involved in the
farm management side of the business enterprise. Increases in the number of husband
and wife farming partnerships suggest that a shared role is the way of the future. In
many cases, farm men have greater day-to-day working knowledge than their homebased female partner while farm women are more at ease with information systems
and its people-centred technology. Stewart (1997) suggests that close cooperation
between husbands (with farming knowledge) and wives (with computer knowledge)
7
could hold the key to improved adoption and usage of the computer for farm
management.
These partnerships could also provide the key to improved adoption rates of DSS for
small rural enterprises as many problems associated with adoption involve male
farmer’s aversion to entering and collating data. A joint team approach using the
strengths of both genders could be a useful strategy to increase the dissemination of
DSS to small rural businesses.
References
1)
Alston, M. (1995). Women on the Land: The Hidden Heart of Rural Australia.
Kensington, NSW: UNSW.
2)
Alston, M. (Ed.). (1998). Australian Rural Women Towards 2000: An Edited
Collection of Papers on Women in Rural Australia.
3)
Bryant, D. L. (1999). Computers on the Farm: Farmers' usage patterns and
impact on farm management ( 99/13): Rural Industries Research & Development
Corporation (RIRDC).
4)
Carayannis. E.G. and Sagi, J (2000) Dissecting the professional culture: insights
from inside the IT “black box”. Technovation, 21: 91-98.
5)
Cox, P.G. (1996). Some Issues in the Design of Agricultural Decision Support
Systems. Agricultural Systems, 52:355-381.
6)
Daniels, J. and E. Woods (1997). Evaluation of Training Activities to Improve
Farm Families' Skills. Brisbane, Rural Industries Research and Development
Corporation: 5.
8
7)
Hargreaves, D. M. G. and R. McCown (2000). Farmers, Advisors &
Researchers, Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation (RIRDC):
28.
8)
James, K. (1990). Women's Decision Making Extended Family Farm Businesses.
Key Papers Number 1 Rural Women. Wagga Wagga, Centre for Rural Welfare
Research, Charles Sturt University.
9)
Kerr, D. (2000). Application of the principles of knowledge based system
development for dairy farmers to other small businesses. Transcending
Boundaries: Integrating People, Processes and Systems, Griffith University,
Brisbane.
10) Kilpatrick, S. (1999). Learning on the Job: How do Farm Business Managers
Get the Skills and Knowledge to Manage their Businesses? Launceston, Faculty
of Education, University of Tasmania.
11) Kuhlmann F and Brodersen C. (2001) Information technology and farm
management: developments and perspectives. Computers and Electronics in
Agriculture 30: 71-83.
12) Newman S., Lynch T., and Plummer A.A. (1999) Aspects of Success and Failure
of Decision Support systems in Agriculture, Conference Proceedings for
Workshop titled “The Application of Artificial Intelligence, Optimisation and
Bayesian methods in Agriculture, Sydney 1999.
13) Ohlmer, B., Olson, K. and Brehmer B. (1998) Understanding farmers’ decision
making processes and improving managerial assistance. Agricultural Economics
18: 273-290
9
14) Stewart, J. (1997). "I don't touch it without the cook here": a case study of
gender and technology on family cotton farms. Unpublished Ph D, University of
Queensland, Brisbane.
15) Stubbs, A. K., Markham, N. R., & Straw, W. M. (1998). Personal Computers for
Farmers: Current and Future Use ( 98/33): Rural Industries Research &
Development Corporation (RIRDC).
16) The Rural Women and ICT's Research Team. (2000). The New Pioneers.
Brisbane: The Communication Centre, Queensland University of Technology.
17) Urquhart, C., & Rowley, M. (1999). Issues of Adoption of Information
Technology (IT): Barriers and Rewards in the Sunshine Coast Sub Tropical
Fruit Growers IT Group.
18) Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don't men ever stop to ask for
directions? Gender, social influence and their role in technology acceptance and
usage behaviour. MIS Quarterley, 24(1), 115.
10