System of Rice Intensification (SRI) and Labouring Bodies: Exploring Socio-technical Interactions Sabarmatee Knowledge, Technology and Innovation Group, Wageningen University
My puzzle began here During my exploratory visits from January to June of 2011 in around 30 villages, I got to interact with people who were doing rice cultivation before selecting my study villages and formulating my questions and questionnaire. Village typology and discussion on drudgery issue No. of villages Where discussed on drudgery issue 2 villages Non-SRI, so no discussion on drudgery issue 7 villages Could not discuss drudgery issues for different reasons 1 village Women of same community do not do any on-field task in rice-fields at all 20 villages Discussed drudgery issue
Learning at Preliminary Stage Prior to the current research work, I heard women saying SRI is less strenuous. During my preliminary visits, mostly women, who worked in SRI fields, reported some - direct effect and - indirect effects of SRI on their bodies
Direct Effects Reported - Reduction in infections in hands and legs withn SRI (more specifically if chemical fertilizers and pesticides are not applied in the SRI fields) - SRI is less strenuous. Reasons given - Do not have to put hands and legs continuously inside muddy water for long. - Reduction in work hours. - Reduction in total amount of work - Men shared women s work - Change in postures - Change in type of work
Indirect Effects Impact - Get more time to cook and eat comfortably, - Get more time to rest and hence feel better Reasons given - Change in nature of the work - Change in total hours of work - More participation of men which relieved women of their workload
Puzzle continued. Same technology, same tasks, same gender: but experiences of young and old are not same!! Chandrabati, below 40, Gunjigaon Tulasi, above 50, Rajnapalli
Even experiences of husband and wife were different Leshu and Chandrabati Sabita and Jambeswar
Realized that: - Impact of SRI on labouring bodies is different, not only for men and women, but also between young and old, which has differential ramifications. However, - Although very important, assessing all the impacts within the present study was not manageable. - This required different research methods (mainly experimental combined with clinical), additional budget and support of expertise from the fields of medicine like dermatology, epidemiology, physiology, etc. This can be considered as future researchable issue.
What I explored within the framework of this study was: SRI is less strenuous plus the dynamics of change Main research question: How do SRI and labour mutually shape each other? Sub-research question: What happens to labouring bodies because of introduction of SRI, and in turn, how do people s bodily experiences shape SRI?
Historically, drudgery and pain assessment are, often, not integrated in mainstream studies on technology impact assessment. Exclusion of this has resulted in not developing appropriate mechanisms to address the health issues of a large vulnerable labouring group.
Mutual Shaping of Labour and Technology Agriculture as a performance is part of the wider performance of social life Paul Richards Social and technical cannot be seen apart Bijker and Law Technology may have been seen as socially shaped, but shaped by men to the exclusion of women Wajcman
International Food Policy Research Institute s conceptual framework of the linkages between agriculture and health: Agricultural producers [farmers and workers] through intermediary processes of labour [energy, time, amount, location] while interacting with environment [water, air, soil] become exposed to occupational health risks like water associated vector borne diseases. [Hawkes, Corrinna and Ruel, Marie T, Understanding the Links Between Agriculture and Health, Brief-1, Focus 13, IFPRI, USA, 2006 ]
Materials and Methods Materials: - Purposively selected 3 villages located in 3 districts of Odisha, India, having diverse: agro-ecology, ethnic groups, rice cultivation practices, labour characteristics, and institutional interventions. - General observation of agricultural operations in 2011-12, but focused on randomly-selected 20 sample SRI farming families in each village having 545 rice plots during 2012.
Materials and Methods Methods: Multiple Parallel Case Study Design, exploratory in nature Tools: Technographic Approach Primary sources: Focus Group discussions Participant-observation of tasks and measuring technology-specific materials and distances Individual informal interviews Story-telling RaCoPA Pain Mapping Tool & Ergonomics Tool Filming and Ppotography
Social scientists, by and large, face the challenge of selecting recommended scientific methods or using tools for assessment of drudgery and pain that involve use of sophisticated and expensive instruments by skilled persons during the actual work in the rice field.
In this context, it was essential to design and use a participatory and innovative tool to understand the bodily experiences like pain and drudgery A tool was designed called RaCoPA (Rapid Comparative Pain Assessment) taking inspiration from concept of PRA and using body maps and FGD tools
Process of RaCoPA: Some Glimpses
What are the specific activities that men and women (also children) do to produce rice, and which ways of growing rice cause how much pain in which parts of their bodies?
Pointing out points of pain Pointing Pain
Explaining posture and points of pain
RaCoPA Product
Name of the village and address Date Focal Group: Specify gender and age group (may attach a name list with age, years of experience, etc.) Physical Pain Experienced by Women Labourers of Village Activities Conventional Transplanting Method SRI Direct Sowing Method e.g. Manual Weeding Hand, palm, back, elbow, waist, thighs, knees, feet, nails - more Hand, palm, back, elbow, waist, thighs, knees, feet very much less Hand, palm, back, elbow, waist, thighs, knees, feet, nails more than conv. TP method Mechanical weeding Mandva weeder not used, no pain Shoulders, hand including wrist and palm, chest leg Not used, no pain
Trade-off between reduction and increase in drudgery Women Reduction in drudgery - Uproot fewer seedlings - Transport less seedlings, lighter in weight, due to smaller-size seedlings - Men participated in tasks like weeding Increase in drudgery - Have to do more numbers of weeding - Use of mechanical weeder - More supervision Men - Smaller-size nursery making - More women participated in nursery raising - Work for longer time for land leveling, channel- making, bund dressing - Participated in marking, transplanting and weeding
Hours spent on different tasks (per acre) Land prepatractor Power tillenursery UprootingTransportiTranspalntWeeding Harvesting Rajanapalli Conv 80-90 4-5 6-10 7-8 70-80 20-30 130-150 100-150 90-100 SRI 90-100 4-5 6-10 2-3 6-8 10-15 75-90 40-50 90-100 Gunjigaon conv 150-160 4-5 8-12 25-30 8-14 150-160 100-120 SRI 160-170 3-4 4-5 4-8 110-120 40-50 100-120 Kokariguda Conv 70-80 4-5 20-30 5-10 90-100 45-50 50-60 SRI 70-80 2-3 5-10 3-5 70-80 20-25 40-50
Leveling and channel making additional tasks for men
Sensing the drudgery of additional tasks, many men did not support SRI and still do not support SRI. But women like Laxmi Mohanty or Ahalya Nahak manage to do SRI in spite of opposition from their spouses. After 2-3 years of efforts as plots became more leveled, drudgery is reduced. Women also started participating in channel making, bund dressing, etc.
Size of nursery, quantity of seed determine the amount of work SRI nursery Conventional nursery
Often SRI nurseries are closer to main field or inside the main field so travelling distance is reduced
Seed and Nursery per acre Seeds Need to handle only 2-3 kgs in SRI instead of 20-40 kgs in conventional method Nursery - Need to managed only 1 decimal area for raised bed in SRI; 10 decimals for a conventional nursery What happens to labouring bodies in this case?
Weight and distance matters a lot Carrying seedlings for conventional plots Carrying Seedlings for SRI plots
What is transported and how much is transported SRI Conventional
Seedling weights vary across methods, so does drudgery Average seedling weight for conventional method Actual weight of seedlings carried by labourers Actual weight carried by labourers women Actual weight carried by Men and Women in SRI
Same posture in different methods but amount of work differs, as does time SRI Conventional
Transplanting in SRI Although drudgery is reduced due to lesser number of seedlings, planting single, younger seedlings at wider spacing -- elderly women do not like it. Concentration on planting at certain points (in grid) is boring and hence more stressful to them. But younger ones find it less painful and hence they like it. Average time of pushing the hand into the muddy water in conventional method is 40-50 times per minute, and in SRI, just 6-10 times per minute.
Gender-wise work participation in weeding (in number of labourers) No. of weeding Gender Rajnapalli Gunjigaon Kokariguda 1 st weeding Men 22 54 14 1 st weeding Women 158 68 275 2 nd weeding Men - 29 2 2 nd weeding Women 26 18 1 3 rd weeding Men - 3-3 rd weeding Women - 18 - Men s participation reduced women s drudgery, and increased men s drudgery.
Design and weight of weeders has different impacts on bodies, and hence on SRI Cono weeder- heavier - more painful - discarded Mandva weeder lighter, less painful - In use now
Cono weeder was replaced by Mandva weeder model mainly because both men and women experienced more drudgery while using it, besides the fact that it did not work well in some soils.
Weeding by using weeder is fun for them No man above 50 participates in weeding? No elderly woman too
Due to adaptations, drudgery is reduced in conventional method also wider spacing, less seedlings to handle SRI is changing conventional practice
Conclusion - Issue of drudgery is a product and process in social and material interactions which may not necessarily show any predictable pattern of outcomes. - Drudgery is less in case of SRI, especially for women, more specifically when men share their tasks. - But reduction in drudgery does not necessarily lead to appreciation of the technology by all age groups. - Drudgery could be a potential contributing factor for acceptance or rejection of a tool like a particular design of weeder or even a technology like SRI.
Bodily experiences are potential contributing factors for skilling and deskilling. Bodily experiences are yet to be recognized from labourers perspectives who are actually end-users of a technology like SRI or artifacts like weeders. Extension strategies, tool designing can be better done if bodily experiences are taken into account.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH