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

net/publication/226653224

The role of culture in farmer learning and technology adoption: A case study of
farmer field schools among rice farmers in central Luzon, Philippines

Article  in  Agriculture and Human Values · January 2006

DOI: 10.1007/s10460-006-9012-6

CITATIONS READS

69 5,332

1 author:

Florencia Palis
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
30 PUBLICATIONS   927 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Florencia Palis on 27 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Agriculture and Human Values (2006) Ó Springer 2006
DOI 10.1007/s10460-006-9012-6

The role of culture in farmer learning and technology adoption: A case study
of farmer field schools among rice farmers in central Luzon, Philippines

Florencia G. Palis
Crop and Environmental Sciences Division, International Rice Research Institute, Manila, Philippines

Accepted in revised form June 20, 2005

Abstract. The goal of this paper is to show how culture – shared norms and values – is challenged and used to
facilitate cooperative behavior within the context of farmer field schools (FFS) in central Luzon, Philippines. The
success of the FFS is primarily associated with cultural norms that encourage experiential and collective learning
and eventually lead to the adoption of integrated pest management (IPM) methods among the farmers. The study
was conducted in central Luzon, the rice granary region of the Philippines, from 1992 to 1995 and again in 1999.
Both qualitative and quantitative research methods were employed. Results indicate that a keen understanding of
Filipino culture and values is essential if FFS is to be successful and if farmers are to successfully learn and practice
IPM.

Key words: Collective learning, Culture, Experiential learning, Farmer field school, Integrated pest management,
Philippines, Rice farmers, Technology adoption

Abbreviations: FFS – Farmer field school; IPM – Integrated pest management; IRRI – International Rice Research
Institute; SIR – Smooth interpersonal relations

Florencia Palis has a PhD in anthropology and is working as a post-doctoral fellow at the Crop and Environmental
Sciences Division (CESD) of the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines. She is also an adjunct faculty
member at the Department of Agricultural Systems of Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.

Introduction farmers are profit maximizers. Hence, the decision to

Technology adoption in agriculture has often been
problematic. Although various agricultural technologies
have been developed over the past half-century, many
can be found only in scientific journals and are not being
practiced by their target users – farmers.
Integrated pest management (IPM) is an agricultural
technology that has been promoted since the 1970s, but
did not gain widespread adoption until the 1990s, when it
was disseminated through the farmer field school (FFS).1
IPM aims to reduce pesticide use while at the same time
sustaining food production, protecting the environment,
and ensuring the good health of farmers, their families,
and consumers. It uses a host of techniques such as
cultural practices, plant resistance, and biological and
chemical control methods for the management of weeds,
insects, rodents, and diseases, with pesticides used only
as a last resort to prevent crop loss. Initially, IPM focused
on insect pests, and the decision to spray was based
on economic threshold level (ETL). ETL assumes that
spray is made when pest damage levels reach the point at
which the value of an incremental reduction in yield is
equal to the cost of preventing its occurrence (Headley,
1972; Palis et al., 1990). Due to the complexity of
this approach, IPM did not gain widespread adoption.
IPM however evolved in the 1990s, from an economic to
an ecologically-based perspective and from having an
insect pest focus to a farmer focus. In this new guise,
it enhances farmers’ capacity to observe and make
informed decisions.
IPM initially gained success in Indonesia when it was
disseminated through the farmer field school (FFS). This
extension approach was later used as a model in the
Philippines, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, and Nepal (Dilts and
Hate, 1996; Matteson, 2000). In the case of the Philip-
pines, the approach received overwhelming acceptance
among farmers who had had a national crop protection
policy for a long time (Navarro et al., 1998).
FFS is essentially an informal educational approach
to IPM extension that is experiential and participatory
 Florencia G. Palis
in nature. It is often called a ‘‘school without walls’’ in
which farmers learn together by undergoing intensive
training in IPM over the entire life cycle of the crop.
Over the course of 14–16 weeks, farmers attend weekly,
half-day sessions facilitated by the village agricultural
technician (barangay). These sessions and learning
activities are based on farmer experimentation and
take place in the agricultural fields (Department of
Agricultural, 1991).
The FFS uses an ecological approach that builds on
biological control as its ecological foundation. The
program is anchored by four guiding principles: (1)
growing healthy crops by using pest-resistant crop
varieties, better seed selection processes, and efficient
nutrient, water, and weed management; (2) conserving
natural enemies (i.e., beneficial predators and parasites);
(3) observing the field on a weekly basis to determine
management actions necessary to produce profitable
crops; and (4) working with farmers to help them be-
come IPM experts and trainers (Department of Agricul-
ture, 1991).
The objectives of this paper are fourfold:
(1) To demonstrate the effectiveness of experiential and
collective learning through FFS;
(2) To illustrate how FFS can challenge and reconfigure
some aspects of culture, such as pre-existing belief
systems, for the purpose of managing insect pests;
(3) To show how Filipino culture encourages coopera-
tive behavior among FFS participants and thereby
enables collective learning in FFS; and
(4) To document the adoption of IPM among FFS rice
farmers in central Luzon.
Knowledge, the actor, the venue, and IPM adoption
Learning theorists have observed that people learn in
different ways. According to Kolb (1984), learning is the
process whereby knowledge is created through the
transformation of experience. Effective learning entails
the possession of four elements, which represent the
experiential learning cycle: (1) concrete experience, (2)
observation and reflection, (3) the formation of abstract
concepts, and (4) testing in new situations (Kolb and Fry,
1975). These elements of experiential learning are
especially noteworthy in relation to FFS, where farmers
experiment as a group in testing IPM principles. They
use their concrete experiences to test ideas and conse-
quently change their pest management practices. They
interpret observations, facts, and experiences both indi-
vidually and as a group, the consensus generated may
become culturally enforced later on. Following Kolb and
Fry’s (1975) work, it is hypothesized that experiential
learning is effective in educating farmers about IPM,
which eventually generates farmer adoption of IPM
principles and practices.
The FFS participant is recognized as an actor in a
society that already has its own body of knowledge and
practices – its own culture. Culture consists of beliefs,
symbols, and values that define actions. It essentially
defines a total way of life – the way a people think,
behave, and feel – that is shared, learned, symbolic, and
transmitted from generation to generation (Ferraro et al.,
1994). The FFS participant is socialized into a cultural
system and, thus, shares its views of the world, its logic,
and its verbal and non-verbal language. Yet the FFS
participant also has the ability to adjust his or her
actions within cultural limits, thereby challenging and
readjusting information and institutional structures.
Within the context of FFS, culture, pre-existing knowl-
edge, and beliefs, can be challenged by participating
farmers. Following the idea of phenomenological
inquiry, participants can act on the basis of these mean-
ings to facilitate adaptation (Macdonald et al., 2000). In
this sense, then, FFS is a venue for knowledge and
meaning formation that farmers, individually and col-
lectively, can apply to IPM.
FFS builds on group experimentation. In this way,
participant behavior affects the nature of cooperation
and dynamism within the group and enables collective
and experiential learning. Although they are actors,
participants must constantly negotiate between what
they have been used to and what is being introduced to
them through their participation in FFS. This follows
Giddens (1979) with regard to structure and action,
whereby structure and action exist and change as a
result of each other. According to Giddens, the actions
of individual actors are partly conscious and rational
and partly based on reflexive and unacknowledged
structural paradigms. Actors continuously monitor,
rationalize, and reflexively adjust their actions to
conform to their structural understanding, which in turn
affects structure.
Culture, then, is the underlying pattern of meaning
guiding the behavior of FFS participants, both as indi-
viduals and as members of a collective group of farmers.
In this sense, culture also functions to bring about
cooperative behavior that enables the experiential and
collective learning essential to the success of the FFS and
thus IPM adoption. As Alejo states, ‘‘people are acting,
albeit in limited but also unique ways, according to their
understanding of who they are and what they want’’
(Alejo, 2000: 23).
I also hypothesize that culture enables (or impedes)
cooperative behavior and experiential and collective
learning and that the latter affect the success of FFS and
the continuing widespread adoption of IPM. Since cul-
ture varies by society or social group, understanding
cultural norms, values, and the specific beliefs associated
with agricultural production is an important consider-
ation when IPM is implemented through FFS.
 The role of culture in farmer learning and technology adoption
Methodology
This study was conducted in the village of Matingkis,
one of 37 villages in the municipality of Muñoz, Nueva
Ecija Province in Central Luzon. This area is known as
the rice granary of the Philippines and has a mixed
population of Ilokano and Tagalog speakers, though
Tagalog is the lingua-franca. Matingkis includes more
than 160 households spread over 180 hectares, with a
total population of around 1,000. It is primarily a rice-
farming village with a total agricultural area of roughly
160 hectares. Since the Green Revolution in the 1970s,
farmers have adopted high-intensity rice cultivation
techniques, planting rice in both wet and dry seasons to
increase rice production, meet food demands, and in-
crease income. Onions, garlic, and various vegetables
and fruits are grown as secondary sources of income.
The study formed part of the Village (Barangay)
Integrated Pest Management project, jointly implemented
by the International Rice Research Institute, the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Philippine Depart-
ment of Agriculture, and the Philippine Rice Research
Institute (PhilRice), from 1992 to 1995. I was involved
with this project throughout the study period. In 1999 I
returned to the same site to follow up on the original
study and to conduct my dissertation research (Palis,
2002). This provided additional insight into the sustain-
ability of the introduced technology.
IPM training was implemented in Matingkis, Muñoz
during the 1993 dry season and included 28 participating
farmers. These farmers were chosen from the Matingkis
MultiPurpose Cooperative, Incorporated (MMPCI). The
IPM training through FFS lasted for 14 weeks (Febru-
ary–May 1993) and encompassed the entire crop-grow-
ing season. FFS activities mainly consisted of weekly
meetings that lasted half a day and included short
lectures, field exercise, farmers’ reporting, and group
experimentation. Farmers tested IPM concepts such as
understanding and conserving natural enemies and
regular field monitoring (preferably once a week). Fellow
farmers from the nearby village of Bantug, Muñoz
trained the FFS farmers. These farmer-trainers had been
previously trained by IPM experts from the FAO, IRRI,
and PhilRice.
Participating FFS farmers (3 women and 25 men)
ranged in age from 20 to 67 years with an average mean
age of 43 years and an average of 23 years of farming
experience (Table 1). The majority of the farmers had
received some formal schooling, at least completing the
elementary level. Average farm size was 1.3 ha with a
range of 0.5–3 hectares. Farmers generally made their
own farm decisions, since most of them were the owners
and recipients of the government’s land reform program,
particularly the Presidential Decree No. 27, in 1972 that
restricted land reform to tenanted rice and corn lands and
set the retention limit at seven hectares. This gave
farmers who were former tenants the freedom to make
their own decisions in rice cultivation. Most farmers in
the village were members of MMPCI, the sole farmers’
cooperative in the village. It started with 40 members in
May 1988 and has grown to include more than 80% of
the total village households as its members. The MMPCI
provides credit to farmers in terms of cash and agricul-
tural inputs for their rice and vegetable farming.
Various qualitative and quantitative research methods
were employed. These included: household surveys,
including structured and semi-structured questionnaires
with personal interviews; key informant interviews;
focus group discussions; and field observations. Baseline
data on inputs and outputs of rice production were
gathered in 1992. Seasonal monitoring of the 28 FFS
participating farmers was done from 1992 to 1995 and
again in 1999. A team of entomologists from IRRI and
PhilRice monitored the levels of pests and natural ene-
mies in the village from 1992 to 1995.
A combination of quantitative and qualitative analy-
ses was employed. Texts from personal interviews were
examined to obtain common perceptions of pests and
associated risks in rice production, farmer learning, and
patterns of behavior. Field observations and focus group
discussions were summarized to provide direction in
re-focusing informal interviews and to provide further
context on the findings. Graphic representations and
descriptive statistics such as means, ranges, and
frequency distributions were used for quantitative
inferences.
Table 1. Basic demographic information on the 28 FFS farmer
participants (25 men, 3 women) in Matingkis, Nueva Ecija,
Central Luzon, Philippines.
Variable Mean Range
Age (years) 43 20–67
Formal schooling (level) 8 0–14
Farm experience (years) 23 4–44
Farm area (hectares) 1.3 0.5–3
Household size (# individuals) 6 3–9
Number
College education
11
Land tenure
Owner
8
Lease holder
3
Certified land transfer
16
Mortgage 1
 Florencia G. Palis

Overcoming fears collectively visual experience, I now understand that not all insects
are harmful.
Risk and technology are social processes rather than
Through observation and experiential learning, Mang
physical entities that exist independently of the humans
Tasyo and the IPM farmers learned that not all insects
who assess and experience them (Bradbury, 1989).
harm rice plants. This knowledge gave them the courage
Hence, farmers’ perceptions of the risk associated with
to ignore insects when they saw them on their respective
new technology (i.e., IPM) are embedded within their
farms, as long as there were sufficient spiders around.
economic, social, and cultural environments. This
This is contrary to their previous practice of applying
includes their beliefs and systems of meaning. These risk
insecticides whenever they saw insects in their rice fields,
perceptions are likewise largely influenced by a combi-
and spiders now serve as a way to gauge the quantity of
nation of confidence and fear that, in turn, constrain and
friendly insects in their fields. The account of Mang
enable particular behaviors.
Tasyo is illustrative of the general experiences of FFS
During the FFS, farmers are confronted with different
participants and reaffirms the effectiveness of experien-
kinds of fears – physical, economic, and social – and
tial learning (De Santillana and Zilsel, 1941; Kolb and
their decisions go beyond risk utility analysis (i.e.,
Fry, 1975).
weighing the economic benefits and costs) (Douglas and
Widavsky, 1982). Aspects of culture such as social
relations, for example, can become a driving force for Fear that insects will transfer from a sprayed farm
change, allowing individual farmers to become more to an unsprayed farm
confident in challenging normative ideas and practices.
Accounts below illustrate how various fears were over- Fearing that insects would migrate to their own fields if
come together by the FFS participants. they did not spray, farmers generally sprayed their fields
at the same time their neighbors did (Binamira, 1985;
Palis, 1998). Likewise, farmers often sprayed their fields
Fear that insects will always harm their rice plants
in the first 40 days after planting due to a belief that
young plants (those still at the vegetative stage) are more
The general belief among farmers that all insects are
vulnerable to pests and diseases. However, research has
harmful is one of the underlying causes behind the con-
indicated that damage at the vegetative stage does not
tinuous and indiscriminate use of insecticides (Bentley,
affect crop yield (Heong et al., 1994).3 In order to alter
1989; Palis, 1998). As all insects are perceived to inflict
the traditional views that lead to insecticide spraying, the
damage to rice plants, a majority of rice farmers still
FFS emphasized the concept of plant compensation.
practice prophylactic insecticide spraying to prevent
Plant compensation deals with the capacity of the plant to
insect attack and to prevent the presence of insects in
compensate for and recover from early leaf damage,
their fields. This is so in spite of the wide dissemination
especially in the first 40 days following planting.
of the IPM message in the late 1980s (Litsinger et al.,
The internal negotiation of these concepts by FFS
1980; Espina, 1983; Heong et al., 1994).
participants continued throughout the IPM training. As
In order to explore fears of insect-induced crop loss,
Mang Crispin narrated,
participants in the FFS conducted an insect zoo experi-
ment. Farmers went to the field in groups to collect While learning IPM, I had wanted to spray, especially
spiders and the eggs of brown planthoppers or stem when my neighbor farmer sprayed his field. I saw leaf-
borers.2 These pests (stem borers or brown planthoppers) folder damage both on my neighbor’s farm and on mine.
were placed together in a cage with a rice plant in it. As I was still afraid that the insects from the sprayed field
farmer Mang Tasyo recounted, would transfer to my unsprayed farm. However, based
on what I saw in our IPM experiments, and from my
I, together with other participants, saw the interplay of
observation of the unsprayed fields of my co-FFS par-
the population dynamics of pests and predators. We
ticipants, the damaged leaves were replaced with new
placed in a cage one rice plant with friendly insects
ones. Besides, I observed that there are more friendly
represented by four spiders and two kinds of pests or
insects on my farm than harmful ones. I told myself, I
harmful insects – two stem borers and two green leaf-
want to try it this time. If not now, then when?
hoppers. The following day, only the spiders were left
on the rice plant. The spiders ate the pests. I even saw Actual experimentation and observation changed the FFS
one stem borer trapped in the spider’s web. At first, I farmers’ fears that insects would migrate from the
had some doubts about the veracity of the existence of sprayed farm to the unsprayed farm. While in the field
friendly insects. Had I not seen for myself that the school, they refrained from spraying their own fields
spiders killed the pests, I would have continued to (93%), even when neighboring fields had been sprayed.
believe that all insects damage the rice plant. With that They did it with lakas ng loob (courage) that came from
 The role of culture in farmer learning and technology adoption
their camaraderie as members of the same cooperative
with common goals and aspirations.
A revealing anecdote involving one of the FFS
participants reinforced the group’s courage. The farmer
who owned the demonstration farm secretly sprayed his
farm with insecticides because he observed whiteheads
(WH) in his field. He was afraid that insects from nearby
fields had moved into his field and that he would be left
with a lower (or even no) yield. The other FFS partici-
pants also observed WH on their respective farms but
did not spray. Whiteheads are caused by stem borers that
attack the rice plant during its ripening and are mani-
fested by a whitening of the grains. The FFS participants,
farmer facilitators, the PhilRice consultant, and the
farmer himself were caught by surprise when they saw
the tremendous spread of whiteheads on the demonstra-
tion farm. The owner admitted that he secretly sprayed
his plants because he doubted the effectiveness of IPM
practices. This unnecessary spraying explained the high
rate of IPM adoption in the following season and
afterward.
Fear of losing a crop or having a lower harvest
‘‘I am obliged to spray, else I will not have any harvest,’’
said Mang Marcelo. ‘‘What will happen to my family?’’
Farmers’ perception of the risk associated with not
spraying insecticides has been a major obstacle for IPM
adoption. Risk utility analysis compares risks by placing
costs and benefits on a common economic plane, so that
decisions are made on a rational basis (i.e., more benefits
than costs) (Douglas and Widavsky, 1982). But for
subsistence farmers, including the farmers of Matingkis,
these risk assessment strategies are not just a matter of
choosing the option that maximizes profit, they are
fundamentally a matter of choosing life, not only theirs
but also those of their whole family.
One of the oldest and most accepted generalizations in
decision theory is that people are generally ‘‘risk averse.’’
Earlier research has indicated that this is true for Filipino
rice farmers (Sillers, 1980). However, during the course
of the study, FFS farmer participants demonstrated that
they can be risk takers. ‘‘It was a risk; we took it because
we were in it together,’’ the cooperative chairman
declared. Indeed, together with the technical knowledge
they gained from the training, social bonds formed
between individuals who were simultaneously members
of the cooperative and involved in FFS. The IPM training
program had given them confidence and empowered
them to act together in overcoming the risk associated
with insect pests.
‘‘I felt nervous and anxious always, because I did not
spray,’’ says Aling Menang, a widow with three children.
She became particularly apprehensive when the white-
heads observed in the FFS demonstration field and in
some other participants’ fields were also noted in her
field. She explained,
When I observed those whiteheads in my field, I was
afraid that I would harvest nothing. I mustered courage
by asking for help from the board of directors of the
farmers’ association. Conversing with them and with
other FFS trainees encouraged me and gave me the
confidence to continue believing in IPM, to continue
refraining from spraying because there are more
friendly insects in my field that will take care of the
harmful ones, especially stem borers, the insects that
cause whiteheads. When you spray, you kill more
beneficial insects than pests because stem borers are
inside the plant’s stem. My co-trainees kept assuring me
that I would be better off if I did not spray, so that the
damage would not spread.
Unlike the owner of the demonstration field, however,
Aling Menang and many others managed to refrain from
spraying their fields. She made herself more courageous
by asking for assistance from her co-members, particu-
larly the board of directors, who helped monitor pest
problems during the FFS. In contrast to the demonstra-
tion farm owner who had secretly sprayed his farm,
Aling Menang was able to save money by not spraying.
The whiteheads on her farm did not spread and her fields
produced a yield comparable to past seasons.
Only three women participated in the FFS. This is
because the decision-making arena within rice-production
is still largely male-dominated. While Paris et al. (2005)
have shown that agricultural labor includes both men and
women, male participation is greater. In terms of decision-
making, men make decisions on farm-related matters
while women are responsible for household-related
decisions. For Aling Menang, the passing of her husband
brought about her role as household head and, conse-
quently, farm decision-maker.
Ultimately, the FFS farmers were right in their
assessment that natural enemies can control the level of
pests present on Matingkis farms. Entomological data
show very low pest pressure in the 1993 dry season and
this continued until the end of the project (IRRI, 1993–
1995). Thus, by the end of the field school most partic-
ipants (89%) believed that refraining from insecticide
use would increase or not adversely affect yields. Their
new belief contrasts with generally held beliefs found in
earlier studies that no insecticide spraying will reduce
yield by as much has 20–22% (Cañedo, 1980; Litsinger
et al., 1980; IRRI, 1989; van Schoubroeck et al., 1991;
Palis, 1998).
The social fear – pakikisama and hiya
Pakikisama and hiya are two strong Filipino group-
oriented norms, aspects of Filipino culture that regulate
 Florencia G. Palis
social relationships. At the core of interpersonal relations
are the concepts of kapwa (a sense of fellowship, recip-
rocally shared identities) and pakikiramdam (a feeling for
another) (Jocano, 1997). These norms influenced how the
FFS participants related to one another, how they acted
together, and how they followed IPM principles. They
also explain why the FFS participant who owned the FFS
demonstration farm sprayed secretly.
Pakikisama refers to the commonly-shared expectation
of getting along with others for the good of the group
(Jocano, 1997). Filipinos highly value smooth interper-
sonal relations or SIR (Lynch, 1962).4 Pakiramdam, by
contrast, refers to the heightened awareness of and sen-
sitivity to another person. Pakiramdam not only requires
engagement in cognitive-intentional activities but, more
importantly, it has an affective component. It is through
the capacity for pakiramdam that pakikiisa (unity) in
interpersonal relations is achieved (Enriquez, 1982).
Kapwa, by contrast, highlights the importance that Fili-
pinos give to harmonious relationships (Jocano, 1997)
and reflects the relational imperatives of the Filipino
value system. By cultural orientation, Filipinos are rela-
tionalists and not individualists, despising individualism
or kanya-kanya, especially if it is not good for commu-
nity affairs. Individualism is a common trait of Western
culture, and both independence and self-reliance are
encouraged in professional workplaces and among Fili-
pino youth. However, for many adults – especially for
those dwelling in rural communities – individualism is
still negatively regarded.5
Closely associated with pakikisama is hiya, the most
popular and emotionally charged cultural norm (Jocano,
1997). It is variously defined as shame, embarrassment,
timidity, and shyness. Walang hiya (no shame), for
example, is attributed to someone behaving in an unbe-
coming manner. Since FFS participants, who were all
members of the cooperative, had earlier agreed not to
spray, the FFS farmer who secretly sprayed his field was
attempting to avoid a situation in which he might be
accused of having no pakikisama, or walang hiya, as this
would suggest a bad character. His secret spraying was a
way of avoiding hiya (shame), of being branded as
mahina ang loob (having a weak personality), since an
FFS participant who sprayed his field is percieved as a
weak person, a coward, someone who does not have
courage or guts. Thus, the norms of pakikisama and
hiya reinforced the FFS participants’ ability to act
together when experimenting and when practicing IPM
principles.
Tiwala at lakas ng loob (trust and courage)
The FFS meetings were held once a week and farmer
participants first assembled in front of the cooperative
office at around 7:30 a.m. before going out to the field. In
the course of a discussion Mang Antonio asked, ‘‘What if
my neighboring farmers sprayed their fields? Would my
yield still be okay?’’ Mang Daniel worried, ‘‘What if I
was wrong that there are more harmful insects than
friendly ones?’’ The FFS participants expressed a lot of
anxieties, indicating their apprehension about the out-
come of practicing IPM.
Tiwala is the Tagalog word for trust. There are four
interrelated types of trust that reinforced farmers’ cour-
age to practice IPM: (1) tiwala sa mga sarili (trust in
themselves); (2) tiwala sa bawat isa (trust among
themselves); (3) tiwala sa IPM (trust in IPM as a new
way of managing the farm); and (4) tiwala sa Pangulo
(trust in the cooperative chair, who strongly espoused the
adoption of IPM in the village).
Trust or confidence in IPM was gained through the
technical knowledge gained through participating in FFS.
Actual experimentation and observation enabled FFS
participants to trust in IPM principles. Trust in them-
selves was gained through their personal experience
while learning IPM in the FFS. The knowledge they
gained from the FFS empowered them to overcome
commonly shared fears. Trust among themselves was
gained through their long-term associations and personal
relationships developed as members of the same farmers’
cooperative. This is regulated by SIR, a common values
among Filipinos (see endnote #4) (Lynch, 1962; Jocano,
1997). Trust in the cooperative chair was gained over the
duration of his chairmanship in the farmers’ association.
The four levels of trust were reinforced by working with
the FFS. The knowledge gained and the social bonds
created among members of the cooperative allowed for
pakikipalagayang loob (feeling comfortable with each
other) and interpersonal relationships at the level of
mutual trust and understanding.
Trust was manifested when FFS farmers surmounted
their various fears and obtained lakas ng loob (the
courage) to adopt IPM practices, as demonstrated by
Aling Menang, Mang Antonio, Mang Daniel, Mang
Crispin, and other participants who did not spray during
the FFS.
Adoption of IPM by FFS farmers: Changes in pest
management practices
Although IPM adheres to an agroecosystem perspective
that includes agronomic, crop physiology, ecology, and
health topics, this discussion is limited to insecticide use
and the cultural practice of synchronous planting.
Insecticide use
Before the FFS, 86% and 83% of the participants
sprayed insecticides one to six times during the wet and
 The role of culture in farmer learning and technology adoption

Table 2. Frequency of insecticide application of FFS farmers in Matingkis, Nueva Ecija, Central Luzon, Philippines.
Applications (no.) 1992 1993 1994 1995 1999

N % N % N % N % N %

Dry season (DS)

0 4 17 13 54 18 82 20 87 15 71
1 5 22 8 33 3 14 3 13 6 29
2 8 35 3 13 1 5
3 4 17
4 1 4
5 0 0
6 1 4
Mean 1.9 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.3
Total respondents 23 100 24 100 22 100 23 100 21 100
Wet season (WS)
0 4 14 21 75 18 64 28 100 17 71
1 7 25 5 18 9 32 7 29
2 7 25 1 4 1 4
3 8 29 1 4
4 1 4
5 1 4
Mean 1.9 0.4 0.4 0 0.3
Total respondents 28 100 28 100 28 100 28 100 24 100

dry seasons respectively, with an average of two
applications per season (Table 2). With the FFS, how-
ever, the proportion of FFS farmers who applied
insecticides declined dramatically (Figure 1). The pro-
portion of insecticide users dropped during the period of
FFS training, from roughly 85% in the 1992 dry season
to 54% during the 1993 dry season. Of the 11 farmers
who sprayed in the 1993 dry season, five claimed to
have sprayed before the training began. The common
reasons for spraying (especially for those who planted
late) were the presence of deadhearts (DH) and white-
heads (WH).6 There was also a dramatic decline in the
number of sprayers the following wet season, from
more than 85% in 1992 to 18% in 1993. Since then,
the proportion of insecticide users has dropped consid-
erably and continuously (Figure 1). Results demonstrate
that the FFS experiential approach, regulated and
enabled by cultural norms and values, changed the FFS
farmers’ perceptions and translated into reduced insec-
ticide use.
Synchronous planting
Before the FFS training, most of the farmers practiced
asynchronous planting in the dry season for various
reasons – insufficient capital, labor availability,

90
% of farmers using insecticide

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
92DS 93DS 94DS 95DS 99DS 92WS 93WS 94WS 95WS 99WS

Year / Season

Figure 1. FFS farmers’ insecticide use, 1992–1995 and 1999. DS = Dry Season; WS = Wet Season.

100
% of farmers planting withing a month
80
60
40
20
0
92DS
Figure 2. FFS farmers’ practice of synchronous planting, 1992–1995. DS = Dry Season; WS = Wet Season.
convenience, and other personal reasons (Figure 2).
Some planted early so that they could harvest early. At
the time of their harvest, most village farmers still had a
standing crop, which allowed the early harvesters to
demand a higher price.
Some farmers also planted onions before planting rice
in the dry season. Those who owned water pumps
planted earlier than those who depended on irrigation
water. During the wet season, however, FFS farmers
planted at almost the same time because the coming of
the rains signaled the start of land preparation and
planting activities (Figure 2).
After the field school, farmers were able to put into
practice the concept of synchrony, which they had learned.
Farmers with adjacent fields consulted one another
regarding their planting dates to ensure synchronous
planting, preferably within two weeks to one month of
each other. They were able to relate the IPM concepts they
had learned to what happened to the late planters. Thus,
the percentage of farmers who had planted within a month
of each other increased from the 1993 to 1995 dry season.
The chairman of the cooperative explained,
There were five late planters in the village. What hap-
pened was that stem borers attacked their plants at the
flowering stage. It’s because almost all farmers had
already harvested by then. Naturally, all the stem borers
fed on the remaining crops. Now, each one is afraid of
planting late.
Conclusion
Fear of risk, coupled with the confidence to face it, is
directly related to the knowledge, culture, and social
relations that exist among the members of a society or
social group. Participation in FFS is no exception. The
technical knowledge gained as a group through experi-
Florencia G. Palis
93DS 94DS 95DS 92WS 93WS 94WS
Year / Season
ential learning enabled participating farmers to overcome
their fears, particularly those associated with the eco-
nomic risk caused by insect pests.
The experiential learning process among the partici-
pants, however, was not easy or straightforward. A lot of
individual negotiations and group negotiations took place
throughout the FFS process. Social pressures – such as
those associated with public failure – and the social bonds
that existed among FFS participants (who were also
members of the same cooperative) helped to generate the
collective courage to overcome the commonly shared fear
of crop failure caused by insect pests. Filipino culture,
particularly as expressed through the shared value of SIR
and the group oriented norms of pakikisama and hiya,
regulated social relations among the FFS participants. This
included providing social pressure to encourage coopera-
tion and participation in FFS learning activities and en-
abling experiential and collective learning. The knowledge
gained through the FFS was essential in forming new
practices geared towards adopting new methods and
technology. The experiential learning among Filipino rice
farmers in the FFS was translated into IPM adoption.
Culture, then, was a vital force for bringing about
cooperative behavior among Filipino rice farmers. It is
therefore suggested that implementation of the FFS needs
to consider the cultural understandings, the shared norms
and values, and the cultural history of the target popu-
lation in order to achieve success and ultimately the
widespread adoption of IPM.
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges the mentorship, encourage-
ment, and support of Dr. Mahabub Hossain, Division
Head of the Social Sciences Division at IRRI and
Stephen Morin, former IRRI anthropologist. She is also
grateful for the guidance of her PhD committee mem-
 The role of culture in farmer learning and technology adoption
bers, Drs. Francisco Datar, Realidad Rolda, and Michael
Tan. Many thanks are due for the critiques and comments
of external reviewers, Drs. Stephen Morin, and Manuel
Bonifacio, as well as for the financial support of Dr. K. L.
Heong, the project leader of IPM at IRRI and the assis-
tance of Melina Magsumbol, Marcelino Rivera, Nelia
Garcia, Tess Yarcia, and Liza and Brenda Alcaraz in data
collection. Thanks go to Jo Catindig for her assistance in
clarifying entomology terms and to Rica Joy Flor for her
assistance in revising the manuscript. Finally, the author
thanks Dr. Bill Hardy for editing the manuscript.
Notes
1. It would be helpful to look at IPM in two distinct, but
mutually supportive, ways. First, IPM is a knowledge-
intensive technology that is fully integrated, or adop-
ted, through farmer participatory education. Second,
IPM is a philosophy that enables farmers to think
about pest control from an ecology-based perspective.
2. While the spider is not an insect, farmers considered it
as such. It also was one of the friendly insects most
commonly mentioned. Brown planthoppers (BPH)
and stem borers (SB) are common insect pests in rice
plants. BPH can cause hopperburn while SB can
cause deadhearts and whiteheads (Reissig et al.,
1986). Hopperburn is the drying up of rice plants
caused by the predation of leaf and planthoppers,
which remove plant sap. Deadheart is dead rice tiller
caused by a stem borer that girdles its base. Dead rice
tillers are wilted tillers that reduce ultimately the
number of tillers that will produce panicles or grains.
Whitehead refers to the white empty panicles that
result from the attack of a stem borer that cuts into the
lower portion of the stem.
3. Heong et al. (1994) found that leaf-folder damage at
the vegetative stage does not affect rice crop yield.
4. ‘‘Smooth interpersonal relationships’’ are character-
ized by ‘‘going along with’’ or ‘‘yielding to’’ what is
common or acceptable in an effort to avoid conflict
even under difficult circumstances (Lynch, 1964: 8–9).
This also may involve extravagant praise, use of
metaphors rather than frank expressions, smiling, and
not losing one’s temper (Guthrie, 1968). According to
Panopio and Rolda (2000), SIR is a mechanism for
avoiding hiya (shame or loss of face), pleasing others,
and gaining social acceptability.
5. Cultures may be characterized as individualistic or
relational (Hall and Hall, 1989). Individualistic cul-
tures (e.g., Western societies like US and UK) are
ones in which information is provided explicitly with
less dependence on nonverbal cues or environmental
context. These also are cultures that lack well-devel-
oped social networks. Relational cultures (e.g., Asian
societies like Philippines, China, and Japan), on the
other hand, emphasize the group more than the indi-
vidual. Here, information flows freely and networks
are extensively maintained. Each individual takes into
account the environment, situation, gestures, mood,
as well as other non-verbal cues in the process of
communication.
6. Deadheart is damage caused by stem borers during
the vegetative and reproductive stages of the plant,
whereas whiteheads occur at the ripening stage
(Reissig et al., 1986).
References
Alejo, A. (2000). Generating Energies in Mt. Apo. Manila,
Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Bentley J. W. (1989). ‘‘What farmers donÕt know canÕt help
them: The strengths and weaknesses of indigenous technical
knowledge in Honduras.’’ Agriculture and Human Values 6: 1.
Binamira, J. S. (1985). ‘‘Marketing study for the integrated pest
control technology.’’ Paper presented at the FAO IPC Impact
Meeting, Rome, Italy.
Bradbury, J. A. (1989). ‘‘The policy implications of differeing
concepts of risk.’’ Science, Technology, and Human Values
14: 380–389.
Cañedo, F. M. (1980). Change AgentsÕ Perceived Credibility
and Their Influence in the Innovation-Decision Process of
Development Programs. PhD dissertation. University of the
Philippines – Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines.
Department of Agriculture (1991). ‘‘Kasaganaan ng sakahan at
kalikasan’’ (Bounty of agriculture and nature). Program
Document of National IPM Program. Quezon City, Philip-
pines: Department of Agriculture.
De Santillana, G. and X. Zilsel (1941). The Development of
Rationalism and Empiricism. Chicago, Illinois: University of
Chicago Press.
Dilts, D. and S. Hate (1996). ‘‘IPM farmer field schools:
Changing paradigms and scaling up.’’ Agricultural Research
and Extension Network Paper 59b: 1–4.
Douglas, M. and A. Widavsky (1982). Risk and Culture: An
Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental
Dangers. London, UK: University of California Press.
Enriquez V. (1982). ‘‘Mga batayan ng sikolohiyang pilipino sa
kultura at kasaysayan (The basis of Philippine psychology
in culture and history).’’ In R. Pe-Pua (ed.) Sikolohiyang
Pilipino, Teorya, Metodo at Gamit (Philippine Psychology,
Theory, Method, and Use) (pp. 20–35). Quezon City, Phil-
ippines: UP Press.
Espina M. L. P. (1983). Rice FarmersÕ Perceptions and
Responses to Pest Hazards. MA thesis, Manila, Philippines:
Ateneo de Manila University.
Ferraro, G., W. Trevathan, and J. Levy (1994). Anthropology an
Applied Perspective. Minneapolis, Minnesota: West Pub-
lishing Company.
Giddens, A. (1979). Agency, Structure. Central Problems in
Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social
Analysis. London, UK: MacMillan.
 Florencia G. Palis
Guthrie, G. (1968). The Philippine Temperament: Six
Perspectives on the Philippines. Manila, Philippines: Book-
mark Publishers.
Hall, E. T. and M. R. Hall (1989). Understanding Cultural
Differences. Tarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press.
Headley, J. C (1972). ‘‘Economics of agricultural pest control.’’
Annual Review of Entomoloy 17: 273–286.
Heong, K. L., M. M. Escalada, and V. O. Mais (1994). ‘‘An
analysis of insecticide use in rice: Case studies in the
Philippines and Vietnam.’’ International Journal of Pest
Management 40(2): 173–178.
IRRI (International Rice Research Institute) (1993–1995).
Laguna, Philippines: Barangay Integrated Pest Management
(BIPM) Reports. Vols. 1–27.
IRRI (International Rice Research Institute) (1989). ‘‘A survey
on the overview of pesticide usage in Central Luzon, Phil-
ippines.’’ Laguna, Philippines: Unpublished.
Jocano, F. L. (1997). Filipino Value System: A Cultural Defi-
nition. Manila, Philippines: Punlad Research House.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kolb, D. A. and R. Fry (1975). ‘‘Toward an applied theory of
experiential learning.’’ In C. Cooper (ed.) Theories of Group
Process (pp. 27–56). London, UK: John Wiley.
Litsinger, J. A., E. C. Price, and R. T Herrera (1980). ‘‘Small
farmer pest control practices for rainfed rice, corn, and grain
legumes in three Philippine provinces.’’ Philippine Ento-
mologist 4: 65–86.
Lynch, F. (1962). ‘‘Lowland Philippine values: Social accep-
tance.’’ In F. Lynch (ed.), Four Readings on Philippine
Values (pp. 100–117). Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de
Manila University Press.
Lynch, F. (1964). Four Findings of Philippine Values. Quezon
City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila Press.
Macdonald, M., L. Harvey, and J. Hill (2000). Theories and
Methods. London, UK: Hodder and Stoughton Educational
Press.
Matteson, P. C. (2000). ‘‘Insect pest management in tropical
Asian irrigated rice.’’ Annual Review Entomology 45: 549–
574.
Navarro, R. L. and J. D. Medina Callo (1998). Empowering
Farmers: The Philippine National Integrated Pest Management
Program. Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines: Southeast Asian
Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture
(SEARCA).
View publication stats
Palis, F. (1998). ‘‘Changing farmersÕ perceptions and practices:
The case of insect pest control in Central Luzon, Philip-
pines.’’ Crop Protection 17(7): 599–607.
Palis, F. (2002). The Impact of Social Capital in Technology
Sharing and Learning on Integrated Pest Management in
Central Luzon, Philippines. PhD dissertation. Department of
Anthropology, University of the Philippines-Diliman.
Palis, F. G., P. L. Pingali, and J. A. Litsinger (1990). ‘‘A multi-
pest economic threshold for rice production (A case study
from the Philippines).’’ In P. Teng (ed.) Crop Loss Assess-
ment in Rice (pp. 229–242). Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines:
International Rice Institute.
Panopio, I., and R. Rolda (2000). Society and Culture: Intro-
duction to Sociology and Anthropology. Quezon City, Phil-
ippines: JMC Press.
Paris, T., G. M. Gim, Y. Kim, S. Fajardo, and J. Luis (2005).
‘‘Gender differences in roles, knowledge and decision-
making on integrated pest management (IPM): A case study
in rice-vegetable farming in Nueva Ecija, Central Luzon,
Philippines.’’ Paper presented in the 9th International Inter-
disciplinary Congress on Women. June 19–24, 2005. Seoul,
Korea.
Reissig, W. H., E. A. Heinrichs, J. A. Litsinger, K. Moody,
L. Fiedler, T. W. Mew, and A. T. Barrion (1986). Illustrated
Guide to Integrated Pest Management in Rice in Tropical
Asia. Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines: International Rice
Research Institute.
van Schoubroeck, F. H. J., M. Herens, W. De Louw,
J. M. Louwen, and T. Overtoom (1991). ‘‘Managing pests
and pesticides in small-scale agriculture’’ Wageningen,
Netherlands: Center for Development Work in the Nether-
lands.
Sillers III, D. A. (1980). Measuring Risk Preferences of Rice
Farmers in Nueva Ecija, Philippines: An Experimental
Approach. PhD dissertation. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale
University.
Address for correspondence: Dr. Florencia G. Palis, Crop and
Environmental Sciences Division, International Rice Research
Institute, DAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines
Phone: +63-2-580-5600; Fax: +63-2-580-5699;
E-mail: f.palis@cgiar.org