See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/299425539

Assessing Palaycheck®Institutionalization in Selected Municipalities in Luzon,

Philippines

Article  in  Philippine Journal of Science · December 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 26

1 author:

Josefina Tamayo Dizon

College of Public Affairs and Development, University of the Philippines Los Baños
47 PUBLICATIONS   51 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Developing Community wellbeing index View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Josefina Tamayo Dizon on 25 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Philippine Journal of Science
143 (2): 167-176, December 2014
ISSN 0031 - 7683
Date Received: ?? ???? 2014

Assessing Palaycheck®Institutionalization in Selected

Municipalities in Luzon, Philippines

Aurora M. Corales1*, Josefina T. Dizon2, and Virginia R. Cardenas2

1
Philippine Rice Research Institute, Maligaya, Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija
2
College of Public Affairs and Development, University of the Philippines, Los Baños, Laguna

The study sought to determine PalayCheck institutionalization at the municipal level. A total of
230 farmers and 28 agricultural technologists in six municipalities in Luzon served as respondents
of the study. Primary data were gathered using semi-structured survey instruments. These
were tabulated and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Findings of the study showed that
PalayCheck institutionalization at the municipal level is currently at moderate stage. This means
that the system is still at a stage wherein shared social meanings are still being developed and
the drive for diffusion is more of through selective adoption. This further indicated that there
is no guarantee that the PalayCheck system will be fully accepted and valued at the municipal
level since the current activities are mostly externally-driven.

Keywords: agricultural innovation, diffusion, institutionalization, integrated systems-based, selective

adoption

INTRODUCTION The PalayCheck system has been introduced in the field

Over the years, the development and use of integrated
systems-based approaches have been highly favored by
the government. The Department of Agriculture (DA)
in particular, through its Rice Program, makes use of an
integrated systems approach called PalayCheck as its strategy
to achieve food security. Similarly, the banner program of
Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) in support to
the Rice Self-Sufficiency Plan is anchored on PalayCheck.
One important key point in shaping the integrated systems-
based programs is that systems putting together component
technologies and using limited resources efficiently
are necessary for maximizing contributions to overall
rice productivity (PhilRice 2006; Sebastian et al. 2006;
CDSFI 2008). Also, integrated systems approach such
as PalayCheck has the potential to improve the farmers’
financial status (Castañeda 2007) and offers great opportunity
for ensuring national food security (Cruz et al. 2005).
*Corresponding author: am.corales@philrice.gov.ph
starting wet season of 2004. After the successful piloting,
intensive promotion was done to enhance its acceptance
because DA believed that farmers will greatly benefit
in using this approach. Over five years after its initial
implementation in the country, revisiting the PalayCheck
sites was imperative to know if the approach had become
a permanent part of the normal routine of the local
government unit (LGU) and the farming community
over time.
According to Curry (1992), if an innovation is intended to
become a permanent part of the community or organization,
institutionalization should be a primary concern from the
very start. It does not mean recommending a standard
package for adopting innovations but a set of elements
that need to be part of the process to ensure sustainability
and full integration of innovations into the local system
(Veldhuizen et al. 2000). It is a relevant and important
part of the goal of promoting agricultural innovations
(Hayes 2002). Without institutionalization, the change

167
Philippine Journal of Science Corales et al.: Assessing Palaycheck Institutionalization
Vol. 143 No. 2, December 2014

or innovation is likely to be terminated despite how questionnaire which is under the supervision of the
well it may be communicated and implemented (Murray researcher was used in data gathering.
2008). “By institutionalization, we mean the process by
which new ideas and functions, through the instrument Data gathered were analyzed and interpreted using
of organizations, are integrated and fitted into developing descriptive statistics such as frequency counts, percentages,
societies, are accepted and acquire the capacity to sustain means, and standard deviation.
themselves, and in turn, influence the latter environment
in which they function (Esman and Bruhans as cited by Conceptual Framework of the Study
Ekanayake 1984).” In introducing innovations, the process usually takes place
according to these three stages: unfreezing, changing, and
In recent years, there appeared to be a growing trend in
refreezing or institutionalization. It is assumed that the
innovation research towards institutionalization (Surry &
same process holds in introducing a rice integrated crop
Ely 2002). This stemmed mainly from the need to learn
management system to farming communities and local
what factors and conditions help programs or projects
government units.
endure over time, rather than being dissolved immediately
once the project is over. It is in such area that this research Many people believed that our present productivity
hopes to contribute more light on. level is not enough to supply the needs of our growing
population. There is recognition that things could be
In general, the study sought to assess the level in which
better by improving the management practices at the
the PalayCheck system has been institutionalized
farm level. Change in the form of a technology platform
at the municipal level. It aims to determine how far
called PalayCheck is brought by change agents to farming
the agricultural innovation was absorbed or taken in
communities. They try to encourage users through the
into the regular LGU operations and the technical
use of support services and incentives. Resistance occurs
recommendations incorporated into the normal field
as farmers hold firmly to their existing system of rice
practices of farmers so that the system becomes widely
farming. Farmers find it difficult to give up the practices,
accepted and valued.
which they have been used to and have learned through
time. This kind of resistance inhibits change. As several
theorists stated, giving up old practice is not easy for it
requires painful unlearning and relearning. This phase is
MATERIALS AND METHODS referred to as unfreezing.
The study was conducted in six municipalities in Luzon,
On the other hand, when farmers change their perception
namely: Sta. Marcela, Apayao; Aurora, Isabela; Diffun,
and decide to learn about the new technology, they moved
Quirino; Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija; Magdalena,
into the second phase. But learning and putting into
Laguna; and Gubat, Sorsogon. The municipalities were
actual practice what was learned are two different things.
chosen because they were the pioneer sites for PalayCheck
Merely knowing the practice is not enough to ensure its
implementation in 2004-2005.
use. Successful hands-on application of learnings is the
The study employed the ex-post facto correlational ultimate goal of the institutionalization stage.
design. The respondents of the study were agricultural
The refreezing or institutionalization phase is reached
technologists (ATs), municipal agricultural officers
when there is confirmation that the performance of
(MAOs), and who have been trained and involved in
PalayCheck is effective based on the response of farmers.
PalayCheck implementation. Due to the small number of
In this stage, farmers have learned how to reframe their
ATs, a complete enumeration of 28 LGU staffers involved
thought processes about the technology. This process is
in PalayCheck promotion was purposely considered
viewed by theorists as cognitive restructuring or simply
samples. The number of farmer-respondents, on the
called learning. It is however presumed that there were
other hand, was determined through stratified random
factors that push the innovation as it encounters varying
sampling using proportional allocation based on the
degrees and forms of resistance as it stabilizes; factors
number of croppings and the site. A total of 230 farmers
that contribute in driving the change targets towards this
were interviewed for the study.
perspective shift.
The survey method of data gathering was employed.
For this study, focus will be on the four dimensions
Two sets of data gathering instrument were used – one
identified to judge the level of institutionalization and
for farmers and the other for LGU staffers. For farmers,
not on the success or failure drivers/factors contributing
a semi-structured interview schedule using a combination
to PalayCheck becoming valued. The four attributes
of close and open-ended questions was developed for the
which are expected to aid in the task of measuring
survey. For the LGU-respondents, a self-administered

168
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 143 No. 2, December 2014
institutionalization are adaptability or survival, spread
effect, innovative practice to influence, and public
acceptance.
Operational Definition of Terms
The following definitions are hereby given to provide
clarity of the terms used in the study:
Institutionalization refers to the process wherein
PalayCheck promotion is being integrated
into the regular operations of the LGU and the
recommendations are incorporated into the normal
field practices of farmers so that the system becomes
widely accepted and valued. For the purpose of
the study, institutionalization was examined using
four dimensions: adaptability or survival, spread
effect, innovative practice to influence, and public
acceptance. Based on the mean ratings of the four
dimensions or indicators, institutionalization was
categorized using a three-point scale: low - 1 to 1.66;
moderate - 1.67 to 2.33; and high - 2.34 to 3.
Adaptability or survival refers to the longevity or
continued existence of the system. It was examined in
terms of number of cropping seasons (CS) of PalayCheck
promotion and practice of key checks, for agricultural
technologists and farmers, respectively. Adaptability or
survival was categorized as follows: low - 1 to 4 cropping
seasons; moderate - 5 to 8 cropping seasons; and high -
more than 8 cropping seasons.
Spread effect refers to the widespread use of the
PalayCheck system. It was examined based on the number
of Farmer Field School (FFS) conducted as follows: low
- 1 to 4 FFS conducted; moderate - 5 to 8 FFS conducted;
and high - more than 8 FFS conducted.
Innovative practice to influence refers to the creative
activities, strategies, and services conducted by the
LGU to motivate and inspire farming communities
to engage in the PalayCheck system. It was measured
based on the responses using a three-point scale:
low - 1; moderate - 2; and high influence - 3. Low
influence means the innovative practice of ATs have
neither motivated nor inspired farming communities;
Moderate means the innovative practice of ATs have
not done much influence while high implies that the
innovative practice of ATs have certainly motivated
and inspired farming communities to engage in
PalayCheck.
Public acceptance means PalayCheck is being used for
the purpose it was designed for, which is to increase
the productivity and profitability of farmers. It further
means the system has been included in the LGU plan,
operations, and budget. It was measured using a three-
Corales et al.: Assessing Palaycheck Institutionalization
point scale: low -1; moderate -2; and high acceptance
-3. Low acceptance implies that a few (1-2 key checks)
of the key checks are being used by farmers; moderate
acceptance means that some (3-4 key checks) of the key
checks are being used, while high acceptance means
that most (5-8 key checks) of the key checks are being
used by farmers. At the LGU level, low acceptance
means the program is included in planning and
implementation but there is totally no budget allotment
coming from the organization; moderate acceptance
implies that in addition to planning and implementation
of activities, there is some counterpart fund allocated
for PalayCheck; and high acceptance indicates that
the LGU has integrated the technology in its regular
planning, implementation, and budgeting.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Many rice programs have been implemented in the past in
our government’s attempt to increase production. These
programs have surely achieved some impacts as evident
in increased productivity. However, short term gains
are not meaningful unless they are institutionalized
for the future (Cummings & Worley 2001; Navarro
1992). Cummings & Worley (2001) suggested that once
an innovation or development intervention has been
implemented and proven effective, attention should be
directed at institutionalizing the innovation. Through
institutionalization, the gains of the innovation have a
chance to reach down and be felt by other members of
the community.
Currently, PalayCheck is the banner program in rice
production management and PhilRice’s support to the
national rice self-sufficiency master plan (PhilRice
2009). It is an integrated crop management platform,
which aims to improve productivity, profitability, and
environmental safety by enhancing input efficiency.
In the following section, the extent to which the
PalayCheck system has become accepted and valued
at the municipal level will be described and analyzed
based on two aspects: a) integration into the regular
LGU operations; and b) adaption/adoption of key
check recommendations into the normal field practices
of farmers.
Measuring the level of PalayCheck
Institutionalization
Although a wide variety of studies carried out by many
investigators have been done, very little agreement in
the methods to investigate institutionalization existed
(Cantero 2005). For this study, PalayCheck persistence
was measured by applying the four dimensions of
169
Philippine Journal of Science Corales et al.: Assessing Palaycheck Institutionalization
Vol. 143 No. 2, December 2014

institutionalization – adaptability or survival, spread
effect, innovative practice to influence, and public
acceptance.
Adaptability or Survival
Table 1 shows the adaptability or survival of PalayCheck
in terms of the number of years and cropping seasons.
Results showed that farmers started getting involved
with PalayCheck activities in 2004 and continuing up
to present. Farmers’ involvement was highest first in
2005 after which, there were fewer farmers joining the
program for three years (2006 to 2008). It was only in
2009 that farmers’ involvement started to increase again.
Results further showed that majority (42%) of the farmers
belonged to the one to four CS (42.6) and the >8 CS
(42.2). There were only 15.2 percent farmers belonging
to the five to eight CS grouping. The mean number of
season farmers had been using the key checks was about
six CS or three years.
The less number of farmers who got involved in 2006 to
2008 could be due to less technology promotion activities
conducted by the LGUs as observed in the steady number
of ATs involved per cropping season until 2007 (Table 1).
On the other hand, ATs started getting involved with
PalayCheck activities in 2004 and continuing up to
present. For four years (2004 to 2007), the deployment
of ATs was kept at a minimum which is two. In 2008
and 2009, ATs involvement increased by 32.1% and
39.3%, respectively as funding support for outscaling
and upscaling of PalayCheck became available from
Department of Agriculture-Regional Field Office
(DA-RFO) the Agricultural Training Institute (ATI).
Furthermore, majority of the ATs (85.7%) got involved
with PalayCheck within the one to four CS bracket. The
mean number of cropping season involvement by ATs was
about three cropping seasons.
After the successful adaptability testing in 2004-2005, there
was a lag in PalayCheck implementation as the LGUs were
waiting for funding support from the national government
for upscaling the program. Some LGUs such as LGU-
Gubat, Sorsogon and LGU-Magdalena, Laguna which
have obtained initial training on PalayCheck from PhilRice
proceeded immediately with expansion activitieseven
without external funds. They were able to provide loans in
cash and in kind so that the key checks which are difficult
for farmers to follow can be done. Other LGUs were
not able to proceed with upscaling activities until funds
became available hence, the low number of farmers who
got involved in the PalayCheck system in 2006 to 2008 and
the one to four CS bracket involvement of ATs.
Based on set measures, it can be observed that there is
both low (42.6%) and high (42.2%) degree of adaptability
or survival at the farmers’ level. Even when there were
lags or cuts in the implementation in some of the sites

Table 1. Adaptability or survival of PalayCheck.

FARMER (n=230) Agricultural Technologist (n=28)

ITEM
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Year of involvement

2004 30 13.0 2 7.1

2005 76 33.0 2 7.1

2006 20 8.7 2 7.1

2007 12 5.2 2 7.1

2008 13 5.7 9 32.1

2009 79 34.3 11 39.3

No. of cropping season

1 to 4 CS (low) 98 42.6 24 85.7

5 to 8 CS (moderate) 35 15.2 2 7.1

> 8 CS (high) 97 42.2 2 7.1

Range 1-11 1-11

Mean 6.17 3.32

170
Philippine Journal of Science Corales et al.: Assessing Palaycheck Institutionalization
Vol. 143 No. 2, December 2014

pending the release of budget for upscaling activities, most common forms of services used by ATs, followed
the use of PalayCheck key checks has lasted for more by provision of support services such as subsidies and
than eight cropping seasons. At the level of LGUs, there loan (17.0%). Some (13.9%) mentioned the use of
was a low degree of adaptability. The number of ATs demonstration farms to showcase promising technologies,
getting involved in the program has grown only in 2008. while a few (5.2%) revealed tapping of political leaders
For four years (2004-2007), only two ATs per year were and local rice specialists as the LGUs’ strategies and
officially involved, and their period of involvement fell services. According to farmers, ATs have used the usual
within the one to four CS grouping only. This could be or common modalities in promoting technologies or
explained by the fact that an LGU has very few ATs and information.
most of them have individual assignments such as rice
coordinator, corn coordinator, and livestock coordinator. Table 3. Strategies and services used by Agricultural Technologists
So even if the MAO wants to deploy more ATs in the Rice as perceived by farmers.
Program, it would be difficult on their part. Upscaling FREQUENCY
needs a lot of budget and staff. Unless the national ITEM (n=230) PERCENT
government through DA provides funding support for Services & strategies*
such an activity, in general, it would be difficult for the
LGUs to conduct intensive promotion of PalayCheck Training & communication 188 81.7
hence, the less number of CS involvement by ATs. Provision of support services 39 17.0
Showcase technological
Spread Effect innovations 32 13.9
The second measure of institutionalization is spread Tap political & local leaders/
effect. The literature indicates that the wider the spread specialists 12 5.2
or coverage of an innovation, the more valued it becomes. None 8 3.5
Table 2 shows the spread effect of PalayCheck. Results Degree of influence by LGU-DA
showed that the highest percentage (93%) of FFS
facilitated by ATs was within the one to four bracket. Low 11 4.8
This means less than one FFS per year during the six-year Moderate 118 51.3
period. This is probably due to LGU budget constraints
as well as limited number of PalayCheck-trained ATs High 101 43.9
who will be bringing the technology to farmers. Since *multiple responses
upscaling FFS requires some additional budget, the LGU
is probably waiting for funding support as confirmed in
the increased number of FFS conducted in 2008 when Based on results, majority (51.3%) of the farmers claimed
funding became available from ATI. that when it comes to adapting/adopting PalayCheck key
checks, the ATs’ strategies and services have moderately
Table 2. Spread effect of PalayCheck.
contributed in inspiring and motivating them. This
probably indicates that ATs need to be more creative in
ITEM FREQUENCY PERCENT
bringing down agricultural innovations to farmers. In other
No. of FFS facilitated by ATs words, they have to imagine other ways of delivering the
(n=28) technicalities of PalayCheck to farmers instead of the
1 to 4 FFS (low) 26 92.9 usual lectures.
5 to 8 FFS (moderate) 1 3.6 Meanwhile, Table 4 shows the strategies and services
of LGU-DA as perceived by ATs. To sustain trainees’
> 8 FFS (high) 1 3.6
interest in attending FFS, the following responses
Range 0-19 were given by ATs: a) giving of rewards or incentives,
which could be in the form of study tour, seed packets
Mean 10.43
of vegetables or newly-released varieties of rice, or
subsidies (53.6%); b) development of good training
design based on farmers’ interests and needs (25.0%);
Farmers were asked about the strategies and services used c) use of participatory methods (17.9%); d) informing
by the LGU-DA in order to convince them to adapt/adopt training participants about the potential benefits of
PalayCheck (Table 3). Most of the respondents (81.7%) PalayCheck (14.3%); and e) inclusion of livelihood
mentioned that training and communication were the opportunities in the training (3.6%).

171
Philippine Journal of Science Corales et al.: Assessing Palaycheck Institutionalization
Vol. 143 No. 2, December 2014

Table 4. Strategies and services of Local Government Unit- Public Acceptance

Department of Agriculture as perceived by Agricultural The final measure of institutionalization is public
Technologists. acceptance. There is acceptance when knowledge and
FREQUENCY belief about the technology is commonly shared in the
ITEM (n=28) PERCENT organization or community (Cummings & Worley 2001).
Strategies to sustain farmers’ It means information, innovations, and best farming
interest in PalayCheck technologies are commonly practiced by the trainees and
training * other members of the community.
‚‚ Give rewards/incentives 15 53.6
One important component of the PalayCheck FFS is
‚‚ Good training design 7 25.0 sharing of best farming practices during meetings so that
‚‚ Use of participatory
more farmers would learn from one another. Also, one of
methods 5 17.9 the criteria in the selection of PalayCheck farmer-partners
‚‚ Ground work/follow-up
was that they should be willing to share their learnings to
participants; monitoring other farmers. Using this premise, PalayCheck farmers
of farms 4 14.3 were asked whether they are sharing knowledge learned
‚‚ Include livelihood from FFS. Results revealed that majority (65.7%) of
opportunities in the the respondents are sharing their knowledge and more
training 1 3.6 than one-third (33.9%) did not share their knowledge on
Support services for PalayCheck to other farmers. Since this is quite a big
PalayCheck farmers* proportion of the respondents, personal random discussion
‚‚ Facilitate provision with farmers was conducted to determine their reasons for
of subsidies & other not sharing as follows: a) farmers keep the technological
assistance 26 92.9
information by themselves because they want to avoid
‚‚ Technical assistance & being blamed or ridiculed in case the practice they have
training 13 46.4
shared fails; b) they might be tagged as arrogant; and c)
‚‚ Financial support/loan 2 7.1 neighboring farmers do not show interest nor belief in
‚‚ Marketing assistance & the innovation. Rola et al. (2002) in their study about
linkage 2 7.1 IPM trained farmers following the FFS approach found
LGU influence (n=25) a similar result wherein trained farmers did not share
much of their knowledge to other farmers. The reason
‚‚ Low 2 8.0 presumed by the authors is that the content of the FFS
‚‚ Fair
training is not easy to transmit in a casual, non-structured
9 36.0
communication.
‚‚ High 14 56.0
Majority (63.5%) claimed to like all the PalayCheck
* multiple responses
activities such as experiential learning using demo farms,
sharing of best practices among farmers, technicians
regularly visiting farmers, and evaluation or checking
Moreover, ATs enumerated the support services they of practices.
provide in order to sustain the farmers’ interest in the
Findings of the study further revealed that more than
PalayCheck program. A large percentage (92.9%) of the
half (50.9%) highly recognized PalayCheck as a tool for
ATs revealed that facilitating access to subsidies, input
improving farm productivity, followed closely by 47.0%
loan, and information materials was the primary assistance
who mentioned a moderate level of acceptance. The
given to PalayCheck farmers. Others (46.4%) mentioned
high level of acceptance could be due to increased yield,
technical assistance and training while a few stated either
which some farmers experienced by following the key
financial support (7.1%) or marketing assistance (7.1%).
check recommendations particularly the use of certified
Collectively, more than half (56%) of the ATs believed and hybrid seeds. Since there is high acceptance, it could
that they have greatly influenced the farmers’ decision to also indicate that there is high perception among farmers
adapat/adopt the recommended practices of PalayCheck. that the system can be actually applied by them.
This implies high degree of LGU influence in terms of
Meanwhile, among the LGU-respondents interviewed,
the innovative practice to influence marker.
majority (78.6.0%) mentioned that they included
PalayCheck in their planning and field operations while
a few (10.7%) did not (Table 6). For respondents who

172
Philippine Journal of Science Corales et al.: Assessing Palaycheck Institutionalization
Vol. 143 No. 2, December 2014

Table 5. Farmers’ acceptance of PalayCheck. Tables 7 and 8. Table 7 shows the level of PalayCheck
institutionalization at the level of farmers while Table 8
FREQUENCY PERCENT
ITEM (n=230) refers to institutionalization at the LGU side.
Are PalayCheck farmers In terms of adaptability, PalayCheck institutionalization
sharing their knowledge? was evident at the farmers’ level based on their use of
‚‚ Yes 151 65.7 Key Checks for more than 8 cropping seasons. Although
‚‚ No
there were some lags or cuts in the implementation, the
78 33.9
use of key checks has lasted for several years. Based
‚‚ No response 1 0.4 on set measures, institutionalization was also quite
PalayCheck activity preferred by farmers*
apparent at the LGU level but at a low degree. This
is because their involvement with the project is within
‚‚ All of the activities below 146 63.5 1 to 4 cropping seasons only and there are also lags in
‚‚ Experiential learning using
implementation. In reality, it is difficult to ascertain
demo farms 41 17.8 whether institutionalization has taken place in some of
‚‚ Sharing of best practices
the LGUs because they became active only in 2008 after
among farmers 23 10.0 funds for PalayCheck FFS became available from the
Department of Agriculture. However, in the case of
‚‚ Technicians are visiting
farmers 23 10.0 LGU-Gubat, Sorsogon and LGU-Magdalena, Laguna,
even without external funds, they developed schemes after
‚‚ Evaluation(checking) of 12 5.2
farmers’ practices the piloting in order to help farmers sustain their use of
PalayCheck practices. They were able to provide loans in
Level of acceptance by farmers (n=227)
cash and in kind so that the key checks which are difficult
‚‚ Low 2 2.2 for farmers to follow can be done. Implementation was
‚‚ Moderate 108 47.0 was almost continuous also in LGU-Aurora, Isabela and
‚‚ High 117 50.9 LGU-Diffun, Quirino because of the support provided
by DA-RFO2 and ATI through the farmer-extensionists.
However, the efforts were geared towards expansion in
included PalayCheck in their planning and operations, new areas through training and not in sustaining what has
the following reasons were given: a) to help increase been started. Therefore, it can be deduced that in terms
farmers’ yield and income (13.6%); b) to help improve of adaptability, PalayCheck has moderately survived at
farmers’ standard of living (9.1%); and c) to influence the farmers’ level (Table 7) but still at a low level within
farmers to attend training and enhance their knowledge LGUs (Table 8).
in rice farming (9.1%). Spread effect based on the number of FFS conducted
More than one-third (35.7%) of the respondents revealed that by ATs was quite low. Because of several limiting
there was a specific budget allocated for PalayCheck while factors within the organization, the conduct of FFS was
half of the respondents mentioned that there was none. The revitalized only in 2008 when funding from ATI became
reasons cited by the respondents why there was no budget available. Training and retraining of farmers about
allocated for PalayCheck were the following: a) not a priority PalayCheck was done for almost three years. With
by the LGU (35.7%); and b) no funds available or the budget funding from ATI, more trainings has been done lately,
within the LGU is limited (21.4%). which are contributing to the enhanced utilization of the
technology platform. However, spread effect at the level
Based on the set measures, the LGUs’ inclusion of of ATs was at a low level.
PalayCheck in its planning, field operations, and budgeting,
showed there is moderate acceptance of the innovation. This Institutionalization was also evident in the innovative
means they have not yet fully integrated the innovation within practice to influence. Farmers considered the activities,
their organizational system due to financial constraints and services and strategies provided by ATs helpful in keeping
limited political support, among others. them at pace with PalayCheck. This is probably because
farmers expect more from ATS when it comes to conduct
of training, farm monitoring, and provision of assistance.
Level of Institutionalization Majority of the farmers claimed that the strategies and
Institutionalization was measured using the four indicators services used by ATs were alreadycommon and influenced
– adaptability or survival, spread effect, innovative them only moderately. However, ATs believed, that their
practice to influence, and public acceptance as shown in efforts were highly influential in the practice of PalayCheck.

173
Philippine Journal of Science Corales et al.: Assessing Palaycheck Institutionalization
Vol. 143 No. 2, December 2014

Table 6. Local Government Units’ acceptance of PalayCheck.

FREQUENCY PERCENT
ITEM (n=28)
1. Inclusion of PalayCheck in LGU planning & operations

 Yes 22 78.6

 No 3 10.7

 No response 3 10.7

Reason for including PalayCheck in planning & operations (n=22)

 Help increase farmers’ yield & income 3 13.6

 Help improve farmers’ standard of living 2 9.1
 To influence other farmers to attend training/enhance knowledge on farming 2 9.1
 Others 3 13.6
 No response 12 54.5
2. Is there a budget allocated for PalayCheck?

 Yes 10 35.7

 No 14 50.0

 No response 4 14.3

Reasons for NOT allocating budget for PalayCheck

(n=14)
 Not a priority by the LGU 5 35.7
 No funds available/lack of budget 3 21.4
 No response 6 42.9
3. Level of acceptance by the LGU (n=27) 1 3.7

 Low

 Moderate 19 70.4

 High 7 25.9

Table 7. PalayCheck institutionalization among farmers.

FREQUENCY
INDICATOR Average rating
Low Moderate High

ƒƒ Adaptability or survival 98 (42.6%) 35 (15.2%) 97 (42.2%) 2.0 (moderate)

ƒƒ Innovative practice to influence 11 (4.8%) 118 (51.3%) 101 (43.9%) 2.39 (high)

ƒƒ Public acceptance 2 (2.2%) 108 (47%) 117(50.9%) 2.51 (high)

Overall rating 2.30 (moderate)

Legend
1-1.66 –low
1.67-2.33 –moderate
2.34 -3 - high

174
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 143 No. 2, December 2014
Table 8. PalayCheck institutionalization among Agricultural Technologists.
INDICATOR
Low
Adaptability or 24 (85.7%)
survival
Spread effect 26 (92.9%)
Innovative practice to influence 2 (8.0%)
Public acceptance 1 (3.7%)
Overall rating
Legend
1-1.66 –low
1.67-2.33 –moderate
2.34 -3 - high
The fact that farmers highly recognized PalayCheck as a
tool for improving farm productivity revealed a high level
of acceptance. Meanwhile, due to budget constraints and
limited inclusion of PalayCheck in planning and field
implementation, institutionalization in terms of LGU
acceptance was at a moderate level.
The four measures of institutionalization indicate
that PalayCheck has reached a certain degree of
institutionalization. Farmers have used the key
checks for a long time. This means farmers value the
technology so that they kept using it. At the LGFU level,
institutionalization was also quite evident. However, most
of the activities were still dependent from funding from
the national govern,ent, which means the challenge of
institutionalization is still there.
Findings revealed that the overall level of institutionalization
considering measures from both farmers and agricultural
technologists was within moderate level (Tables 7 and
8). Referring to the process model developed by Tolbert
and Zucker (1994), this implies that PalayCheck is more
or less at the semi-institutionalization stage. This means
that PalayCheck is still at a stage wherein shared social
meanings or consensus are still being developed and the
drive for diffusion is more of through selective adoption.
REFERENCES
CANTERO M. 2005. Processes of institutionalization.
The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture, and
Change Management. Melbourne, Australia. Volume 5.
CASTAÑEDA AC. 2007. An evaluation of the potential
impact of the PalayCheck system for the Philippine rice
industry. [MS thesis].Quezon City, Diliman: University
of the Philippines-Diliman.
Corales et al.: Assessing Palaycheck Institutionalization
Frequency
Average rating
Moderate High
2 (7.1%) 2 (7.1%) 1.21 (low)
1 (3.6%) 1 (3.6%) 1.11 (low)
9 (36.0%) 14 (56.0%) 2.48 (high)
19 (70.4%) 7 (25.9%) 2.22 (moderate)
1.76 (moderate)
CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT SPECIALISTS
FOUNDATION, INC. (CDSFI), DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE - BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL
RESEARCH (DA-BAR). 2008. An external review of
PhilRice impact. Volumes 1 and 111.
CRUZ RT, LLANTO GP, BARROGA KET, BORDEY
FH, REDOÑA ED, SEBASTIAN LS. 2005.
PalayCheck: The Philippines’ rice integrated crop
management system. Paper presented during the
Consultation Workshop on Rice Integrated Crop
Management Systems – Rice Check Methodology
for Food Security, Livelihood Improvement and
Environmental Conservation; 2005 Feb 28-Mar 2;
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: International Rice
Commission Newsletter. Volume 54.
CUMMINGS TG, WORLEY CG. 2001. Organization
development and change, 7th ed. California: South-
Western College Publishing.
CURRY BK. 1992. Instituting enduring innovations:
Achieving continuity of change. ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report No.7, 1992. The George Washington
University.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. 358 809). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/
fulltext/ED358809.pdf on 8 May 2008.
EKANAYAKE, A. 1984. Institution Building: An
Introduction to a Model for Evaluative Studies.
Vidodaya.F.Arts, Sci.Lett.,Silver Jubilee pp. 48-
60. Downloaded article from dl.sjp.ac.lk/dspace/
bitstream/123456789/.../Institution%20Building on
January 3, 2014.
MURRAY G. 2008. On the cutting edge of (Torpor):
Innovation and the pace of change in American
higher education. Association for the Advancement
of Computing in Education (AACE) Journal 16
(1):47-61. Retrieved from www.editlib.org/p/24217/
article_24217.pdf on 8 May 2008.
175
 Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 143 No. 2, December 2014
NAVARRO RL. 1992. Public-private partnership in
development administration: GO-NGO collaboration
in agricultural development. [PhD dissertation]. Los
Baños, Laguna: University of the Philippines-Los
Baños.
PHILIPPINE RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE (PhilRice).
2006. The new R&D program 2006-2010. Maligaya,
Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija.
PHILIPPINE RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE (PhilRice).
2009. Directing rice science and technology for
sustainable human development. PhilRice Corporate
Strategic Plan for 2010-2013 and 2020. Maligaya,
Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija.
ROLA AC, JAMIAS SB, QUIZONJB. 2002. Do Farmer
Field School graduates retain and share what they
learn?: An investigation in Iloilo, Philippines. Journal
of International Agricultural and Extension Education
9 (1): 65-67.
SEBASTIAN LS, BORDEY FH, ALPUERTO VB.
2006. Research and development in securing rice,
reducing poverty: Challenges and policy directions.
The Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate
176
View publication stats
Corales et al.: Assessing Palaycheck Institutionalization
Study (SEARCA), Philippine Rice Research Institute
(PhilRice) and the Department of Agriculture-Bureau
of Agricultural Research (DA-BAR), Philippines.
SURRY DW, ELY DP. 2002. Adoption, diffusion,
implementation, and institutionalization of educational
innovations. In:Reiser, RA, Dempsey JV. editors.
Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and
Technology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
TOLBERT PS, ZUCKER LG. 1994. Institutional analyses
of organizations: Legitimate but not institutionalized.
Institute for Social Science Research. Paper 5, Volume
VI. 1994-95. Biotechnology Studies. Los Angeles:
University of Caifornia.
VELDHUIZEN LA, WATERS-BEYER, DE ZEEUW
H. 2000. Institutionalizing participatory technology
development. Participatory Research and Development
for Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource
Management: A Sourcebook. Los Baños: International
Potato Center-Users’ Perspectives with Agricultural
Research and Development.