adfa, p. 1, 2011.© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Farmer Response towards the Initial AgricultureInformation Dissemination Mobile Prototype

Lasanthi De Silva1, Jeevani Goonetillake1, Gihan Wikramanayake1, Athula Ginige2

1The University of Colombo School of Computing, Sri Lanka{lnc,jsg, gnw}@ucsc.lk

2 The University of Western Sydney, AustraliaA.Ginige@uws.edu.au

Abstract. Agriculture information is the source of energy from which farmer will gain power in decision making. Finding the right approach to providing in-formation to empower farmers is vital due to the high failure rate in current ag-ricultural information systems. As most farmers now have mobile phones we developed a mobile based information system. We used participatory action re-search methodology to ensure high farmer participation to ensure sustainabilityof the solution. The initial version of the application based on the preliminary studies focused on the crop choosing stage of the farming life cycle. This initial prototype was evaluated with a sample of farmers to check their willingness in adapting such technology, usefulness of provided information and usability of the application in order to support their day to day decision making process.The sample group strongly endorsed the various aspects of the prototype appli-cation and provided valuable insights for improvement.

Keywords: Farming Life Cycle, Action Research, Crop Choosing Stage, Mo-bile Technology, Agriculture information systems.

1 Introduction

Today we are in an era where we have access to almost any information regardless of our current location. The evolving technology is the secret behind this availability and accessibility of information. Information is vital to make optimal decisions at the right time. However, making this information available at the right occasion via correct technology targeting the right population is the challenge unrelieved among the re-search community.

Even though the technology is in place, today there are people in developing coun-ties who are unable to access information that are crucial for their livelihood activities due to lack of information visibility. Farming community in Sri Lanka is such a group of people. As a result farmers face many challenges within their entire farming life cycle. Main reason behind this issues is the lack of information visibility at the time of decision making [1]. This results in farmers not being able to make optimum decisions at different stages of the farming life cycle making a huge impact on the farmer’s revenue.

Not being able to meet the expected yield quality, supply and the demand at the market level are some of the main issues faced by these people. As a result, a huge increase in suicide rate has been reported among the farming community [2]. Accord-ing to reports this is mainly due to the frustration that they undergo being unable to pay their debts. As such poverty has risen creating a huge impact on the sustainabilityof the agriculture sector. Consequently, this has generated an impact on the youngergeneration as they tend to go away from the farming industry threatening the near future of the country. Further information related to the issues faced by the farming community and the need for better farmer centric information flow model can be found in [1].

In our preliminary studies it was identified that farmers need information at the right stage of the farming life cycle to make better informed decisions [1, 3]. The information need varies mainly depending on the stage of the farming life cycle [4].Further, it was identified that the way this information should reach the farmer should be made more efficient due to the inefficacy of the existing information dissemination methods such as face to face communication via agriculture officers, web sites and other applications implemented targeting the farming community. The preliminary studies [1, 3] and other surveys carried out by different researchers [5-7] highlighted the need for a systematic approach to address the information gap among the farming community. Moreover, providing information along is not sufficient to empower the farming community [8]. Thus, it is essential to identify how the farmers can be moti-vated to use this information in decision making. This energized us further to dig and research how this can be made more efficient via the evolving technology in a sys-tematic way.

This work is a part of an international Collaborative research project to develop mobile based applications for people in developing countries. First application was developed aiming to address the problems farmers in Sri Lanka face due to lack of information visibility. More information regarding the collaborative project can be found on www.sln4mop.org web site.

The rest of the paper is comprised of the following sections. Following this intro-duction, section 2 discusses the methodology that was adapted in this study. The main reason behind choosing this methodology is highlighted under this section. It also describes the systematic process which is adapted in this study. Section 3 provides a detail description of the evaluations. Objectives, evaluation planning and the actual evaluation setup were discussed under this section. Results that were obtained fol-lowed by the discussions will be found in Section 4. The way forward is illustrated in section 5 and finally the concluding remarks in section 6.

2 Research Methodology

The study adapted participatory action research to ensure active stakeholder collabo-ration. This methodology has been extensively used in healthcare and education to successively improve and enhance their current practices [9-12]. Action research is a systematic investigation where collaboration between the researchers and stake-

holders are highly anticipated [13-15]. Due to this systematic behaviour it looks intothe practical problem in a scientific and a holistic manner.

Specific characteristics of action research; the practical nature, change and profes-sional development, cyclical process and high user participation [16] made us use this approach to make an intervention to the current practical situation faced by the farm-ing community. The key point in applying action research to a problem of this nature is the ability to integrate the research and the actions rather than applying them sepa-rately. Further, action research addresses the utility of the system from the stakeholder point of view [17], which is lacking in the existing systems developed for the farming community. As stated by Denzin and Lincoin “it sees human beings as co-creating their reality through participation, experience and action” [18] thus adding more bene-fits while enhancing relationships, communication and participation between all stakeholders [19].

Kurt Lewin who is known as the farther of Action research described it as a cycle of planning, executing and fact finding [20]. Gradually, with more research, research-ers started to define the action research life cycle more precisely [14, 15, 21]. As stated by Susman and Everd action research life cycle consists of five main phases;Diagnosing, Action planning, Action taking, Evaluating and Specifying learning [15].

1. Problem Diagnosis: As such, during the preliminary studies we diagnosed the problem to identify the context of the farming community [1]. Having identified the ground level issues we have come up with a conceptual model to meet the in-formation gap of the farmers [3]. Further, these studies open up opportunities to identify their information need in different stages of the farming life cycle.

2. Action Planning: Crop choosing stage where farmers decide what to grow in the coming season is the most crucial stage of the farming life cycle. The selected crop(s) will go through different stages of the farming life cycle. At each stage farmer has to invest labour, time and money to obtain good revenue when the har-vest is sold. Thus, if they choose a wrong crop at this stage their entire expecta-tions might go in vain. As such we decided to select this phase of the farming life cycle to plan the first set of actions. We adopted mobile technologies having identi-fied the increase use of mobile phones among the farming community irrespective of the education level. Another reason behind this is the high failure rate of the cur-rent systems developed for the farming community.

3. Action Taking: Based on the findings we designed a mobile prototype targeting the crop choosing stage of the life cycle. Some other members of the international col-laborative research team working on this research project carried out further re-search on suitable mobile interfaces [22, 23] and developed the mobile application based on our prototype interfaces and research findings. After number of iterations among the members of the international research team the initial mobile informa-tion system mainly targeting the crop choosing stage evolved.

4. Evaluation and Reflective Learning: Next two sections will describe the evaluation process of the initial mobile information system and the results derived from theseuser studies. This will be further supported based on a discussion out of the find-ings.

3 Mobile Prototype Evaluation

3.1 Objectives

The main objectives behind this mobile prototype evaluation was to,

assess the farmer reaction towards the mobile technology. identify the usability issues in using the application. find out detail information to facilitate their decision making in relation to crop

selection.

3.2 Design of Evaluation Study and Main Instruments

Evaluation study activities were designed in order to assess the above mentioned objectives. Foremost, farmers’ ability to adapt to the new technology was assessed while letting them few minutes to play with the mobile phone. The application was designed especially for a low cost Smartphone. Thus, this activity was identified as an important aspect as currently most of the farmers are not using Smartphones. The farmer reaction was further captured using a questionnaire at the end of this activity.

The initial prototype and the questionnaire are the main instruments used in this evaluation study. The questionnaire included both multiple choice questions and open ended questions to encourage and capture wide range of answers based on the partici-pants’ knowledge. This gave us the capability to capture farmers’ ideas freely. One such open ended question was to identify the factors / functionality which attracted the farmers towards using this application.

The prototype included a basic login facility to identify the farmer and directed to an interface where the 6 main stages of the farming life cycle is included as shown in Fig. 1(a). As mentioned earlier the prototype targeted mainly the crop choosing stage. Thus, only the crop planning functionalities were available in the initial version used for the evaluation. Crop planner function directed the user to the next screen, illus-trated in Fig. 1(b). It included 3 main categories namely vegetables, fruits and other. These categories were identified based on the preliminary field trials carried out with a sample of farmers and other agriculture experts. Suitable vegetables and varieties were listed based on the region and the season.

A colour coding scheme was used to visually represent the current production level of a crop as shown in Fig. 1 (c). Specific colours were used to represent different thresholds and when it reaches a specific threshold farmers were warned of the danger (highlighted using Red) of selecting the same crop as it may create an oversupply at the market level. Once the farmer selects a specific crop variety it shows the variety specific special characteristics such as yield colour, weight, length/size etc. Moreover,

it also illustrates special statistics (refer Fig 1(d)) such as current production and last year production to make farmers aware of the current as well as the last year situation.

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e)

Fig. 1. Screenshots of the Initial mobile Prototype. (a) Stages of the farming Life Cycle, (b) Vegetables types and varieties (c) Colour code scheme (d) Special information related to a

vegetable type (e) History

The image illustrated in Fig 1(e) relates to the functionality provided under His-tory. This functionality was included to show what farmer has cultivated or planned in the recent past. Another special feature included in this prototype is the comparison facility of two or more crops. It also gave the flexibility to select two or more crops based on one’s desire and to decide on what to select minimizing the risk of losses.

The issues related to usability were investigated by asking the participants to per-form the following 3 tasks.

Select a crop and a quantity to be cultivated. Compare two or more crops using the comparison facility. Use the history functionality to check the cultivated or planned crops in recent past.

In order to measure their performance, the starting and the end time were recorded during each task. After performing the tasks separate questionnaire was given to get their feedback on the initial prototype. Main intension behind this part of the study was to identify possible problems farmers might experience in using the mobile appli-

cation to make decisions and what new features can be incorporated in order to en-hance the usability.

This part of the questionnaire was also used to assess the issues in relation to the information provided for the crop choosing stage of the farming life cycle and to iden-tify new functionalities that are needed.

3.3 Evaluation Setup

Matale District is one of the districts in Sri Lanka involved in cultivating wide range of vegetables. Farmers in this area engage in producing vegetables in large scale mainly due to the rich weather and soil conditions. Thus, as a test bed we have chosen this district for the initial investigation. Within this district we selected two main agrarian service divisions where a high percentage of the population is engaged in thefarming industry.

The evaluation study was conducted with 18 farmers during the first day at the Dambulla Agrarian Division and 14 farmers on the second day at the Galewela Agrar-ian Division.

The evaluation study comprised of a demonstration session where farmers were given a small introduction to what the research is about and what is expected from them. Five key researchers got involved in the evaluation process in the two consecu-tive days taking one or two farmers at a time. First a training session was carried out to make farmers familiar with the touch screen technology. Their demographic datawas collected using a questionnaire.

Next the crop planner prototype was demonstrated while illustrating the key fea-tures incorporated in to the application. Then the activities mentioned on section 3.2 were given in order to evaluate the prototype.

4 Evaluation Results and Discussion

4.1 Demography

Basic characteristics of the sample population mentioned in the evaluation process are listed in Error! Reference source not found..

Table 1. Demographic Data of the Sample Population

Age % Education %

Galewela 14 44% Primary 2 6%

Dambulla 18 56% Secondary (O/L) 22 69%

Age % Secondary (A/L) 5 16%

21 - 30 4 13% Diploma 0 0%

31 - 40 9 28% Graduate 2 6%

41 - 50 11 34% Post Graduate 0 0%

> 51 8 25% No Proper Education 1 3%

4.2 Farmer Reaction towards Technology

Computer vs. InternetBasically, we had questions to find out related technology usage among farmersis to find out how many use a computer or the internet facility in their daily In general the computer usage among farmers was reported to be low. This was sistent with findings during our earlier field trials. In this sample population it was reported to be around 25%. Also the Internet usage among the farming community is relatively low. It was around 3% for the sample population. There was one farmer even not heard about the Internet. Rest had a basic idea of what internet is and 9% of them were frequent internet users. Out of the frequent internet users two of them acessed internet at least once a day and the other on average once in 2 weeks. Those who were aware ent services provided via the internet through a mobile or a computer. As shown in Fig. 2, 56% of the sample population was aware of at least one service provided via the Internet. The awareness of the population about different services available on the Internet is depicted on the bar chart in

Fig. 2. Awareness of at least one service provided via Internet through a mobile /

Computer vs. MobileThe most significant fact is that, wusage is relatively high among the was recorded to be around 81%. sample of farmers during the problem diagnosis stage to identify the mobile phone availability among the farmers. demonstrated similar statistics for mobile phone availability irrespective of thtion level. However, their main intension behind using a mobile phone was basically

Awareness of at least one service provided via Internet

Farmer Reaction towards Technology

questions to find out related technology usage among farmers. This how many use a computer or the internet facility in their daily activities

In general the computer usage among farmers was reported to be low. This was coduring our earlier field trials. In this sample population it was

reported to be around 25%. Also the Internet usage among the farming community is relatively low. It was around 3% for the sample population. There was one farmer

he Internet. Rest had a basic idea of what internet is and 9% of them were frequent internet users. Out of the frequent internet users two of them acessed internet at least once a day and the other on average once in 2 weeks.

Those who were aware of internet were also aware about the availability of diffeent services provided via the internet through a mobile or a computer. As shown in

, 56% of the sample population was aware of at least one service provided via the Internet. The awareness of the population about different services available on the

e bar chart in Fig. 2.

Awareness of at least one service provided via Internet through a mobile /a computer

The most significant fact is that, when compared to computer usage, the mobile phone usage is relatively high among the farming community. For the sample population it

ed to be around 81%. A preliminary study was also conducted using a sample of farmers during the problem diagnosis stage to identify the mobile phone availability among the farmers. Compared with this study the sample characteristics demonstrated similar statistics for mobile phone availability irrespective of the educ

However, their main intension behind using a mobile phone was basically

At least one56%

44%

Awareness of at least one service provided via Internet through a mobile / computer

. This activities.

con-during our earlier field trials. In this sample population it was

reported to be around 25%. Also the Internet usage among the farming community is relatively low. It was around 3% for the sample population. There was one farmer

he Internet. Rest had a basic idea of what internet is and 9% of them were frequent internet users. Out of the frequent internet users two of them ac-

of internet were also aware about the availability of differ-ent services provided via the internet through a mobile or a computer. As shown in

, 56% of the sample population was aware of at least one service provided via the Internet. The awareness of the population about different services available on the

computer

the mobile phone For the sample population it

d using a sample of farmers during the problem diagnosis stage to identify the mobile phone

sample characteristics e educa-

However, their main intension behind using a mobile phone was basically

to make and receive calls. This percentage was recorded to be around 96%. Compared to this, percentage accessibility of other services such as short message service (SMS), Multimedia Message Service (MMS), internet etc are found to be relatively low.

Though Smartphone usage among farmers were found to be very low, all most all the farmers to whom the prototype was demonstrated got used to the technology within about 5 to 10 minutes. During this time period, they were been capable of tak-ing a call, type a short message and to take a picture using the camera. According to the observations in general they have valued this type of technology and showed their eagerness in adoration even though, most of the farmers are new to the touch screen technology.

4.3 Usability Evaluation

The usability issues were monitored with aid of the activities listed in section 3.2. According to the observations in general the initial version was a success as most of the farmers used the mobile device in few minutes time and were able to do the activi-ties as instructed by the researchers. However, in some instances it was identified that some farmers had issues in navigation due to poor wordings and onscreen instruc-tions. Further, it was also observed that some farmers tend to select wrong options as the button areas were too small.

According to the farmer response around 56% was attracted to the idea presented using the colour coding scheme. Farmers were bit concern on the accuracy of yield information through this method and the ability to make a correct decision based on the colour code. A percentage around 47% farmers found the information provided with respect to crop types and different varieties very useful for them to continue in using the application. As our initial prototype contains all possible vegetables and their different varieties on the same screen without having a better classification,farmers found it difficult to select or search for the crop varieties that they were look-ing for. 34% responses were received in favour of the comparison facility and around 25% for the information provided using the functionality history. However, some have also mentioned the importance of showing more information such as the price sold and the issues faced with respect to the selected crops in the previous seasonswill add more value to the history functionality. Some mentioned that they were at-tracted due to the language used and the presentation of information which is clear for any novice users to learn and understand. Similarly, some have liked the application as it provides more valuable information which can be accessed in lesser time and cost. Around 81% of the correspondents mentioned that there is nothing they can identify as an unwanted feature. However, some have mentioned that it is difficult to find the next action due to the lack of clarity, making it harder to use the application.

Further, based on the questionnaire which included questions as listed in Table 2was evaluated on a liker scale; strongly agree (SA), agree (A), moderately agree (M), disagree (D) and strongly disagree (SD). To better visualize the responses the per-centages recorded under SA and A, D and SD were aggregated and based on Fig. 3the above claims were further verified.

A total of 93% fully agreed that the prototype evaluated is easy to use and can be learnt easily by anyone. However, 7before using the application to gain most out of it.

Table

1. All information for the crop choosing stage is provided2. Information is sufficient for decision making3. Provide knowledge on different crop varieties4. Knowledge on history is important5. Market prices of the previous year are important in deciding a crop6. Crop comparison facility is essential in deciding a 7. Information provided using the Colour code is clear 8. Colour code usage is important in deciding a crop

9. Functionality provided in this system can be easily learnt by anyone

Fig. 3. Farmer view with respect to the Crop Planner Prototype

4.4 Detail Information to FSelection

It was identified that farmers do consider different factors when choosing a crop duing this stage of cultivation.complete, almost all were willing to use the system. This was visible mainly due to the ability of making better decisionstion provided via the applicatknowledge to their limited experience to enhance their farming activities. At the same time, they have started seeing the ability in making decisions with help of this info

63%

47%

100%

37%

50%

0%0% 3% 0%

1 2 3

Farmer View on the Crop Planner Prototype

Agreement

A total of 93% fully agreed that the prototype evaluated is easy to use and can be learnt easily by anyone. However, 7% stressed the need for providing a better training

using the application to gain most out of it.

Table 2. Interview Questions based a 5 liker scale

All information for the crop choosing stage is providedInformation is sufficient for decision makingProvide knowledge on different crop varietiesKnowledge on history is importantMarket prices of the previous year are important in deciding a cropCrop comparison facility is essential in deciding a cropInformation provided using the Colour code is clear Colour code usage is important in deciding a crop

Functionality provided in this system can be easily learnt by anyone

Farmer view with respect to the Crop Planner Prototype

Information to Facilitate Decision Making in Relation to Crop

It was identified that farmers do consider different factors when choosing a crop duing this stage of cultivation. Despite crop knowledge presented in the prototype is not complete, almost all were willing to use the system. This was visible mainly due to

ability of making better decisions that they have started seeing within the informtion provided via the application. They have also mentioned that this will add new knowledge to their limited experience to enhance their farming activities. At the same time, they have started seeing the ability in making decisions with help of this info

100%

80%

97% 100%93% 93%

0% 0%

20%

3% 0% 3% 7%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0%

4 5 6 7 8 9

Farmer View on the Crop Planner Prototype

Agreement Average Disagreement

A total of 93% fully agreed that the prototype evaluated is easy to use and can be % stressed the need for providing a better training

rop

It was identified that farmers do consider different factors when choosing a crop dur-spite crop knowledge presented in the prototype is not

complete, almost all were willing to use the system. This was visible mainly due to they have started seeing within the informa-

ion. They have also mentioned that this will add new knowledge to their limited experience to enhance their farming activities. At the same time, they have started seeing the ability in making decisions with help of this infor-

mation to enhance their cultivation practices. Ability to acquire knowledge at any time from any place was the benefit they have seen from this type of technology when compared to other existing approaches.

In total as shown in Fig. 3, 63% of the farmers agreed that the initial prototype has covered the basic information needs at the crop choosing stage. Rest expected more information related to crop variety and seeds. They also agreed that this information isessential knowledge during this stage of farming life cycle which they lack in current practices.

5 Way Forward: Specifying Learning

As mentioned throughout this paper the main intension of this evaluation process is to check the farmer motivation and willingness to use the technology to obtain required information to make optimal decisions on time. In order to facilitate this we have used rapid development with increased user interaction. Thus, only some basic information relevant to the crop selection stage was made available in the initial prototype.

After analysing the evaluation results it is evident that there is a need for more fea-tures or functionalities in addition to what was provided within the initial prototype. Information with respect to quality seeds, new cultivation techniques, possible pest and disease attacks were among the farmer feedback. Most of these responses were also similar to what was gathered from the preliminary studies [3]. Due to the time limitation though these were not incorporated in the initial version we would look intothese features before going on with further development to aid the crop choosing stage of the farming life cycle. In addition to that, we would also look into the new requirements identified such as water availability, cost prediction per crop, market condition etc and will further analyse on how these can be incorporated in order to facilitate decision-making.

As such now we are in the process of developing the next version of the mobile prototype addressing the missing needs for the crop choosing stage. Further, we areplanning few more user studies based on this initial version with other stakeholders of the farming community such as agriculture extension officers, agriculture experts and vendors. This will aid us further verification as it is essential to review other view-points to support better decision making. Further, it will open up opportunities in resource sharing strengthening sustainability and making the application a success.

Hence, the initial version will be enhanced based on the farmer feedback as well as based on other studies that will be conducted among other stake holders in the near future. The second version will be deployed in the middle of this year to record their usage pattern and to obtain more feedback.

6 Conclusion

As a whole farmers wanted to use the application with more features included to acquire new knowledge for their farming practices. At the same time they have wit-nessed the importance of such technology to bridge the information gap and thereby

to make optimal decisions at the right phase of the farming life cycle to enhance their livelihood. Most notably their readiness in moving towards the technology to enhance their current practices was extremely astounding. Thus, they have shown a positive reaction towards using the mobile application. Moreover, they have highlighted the importance of using such techniques to help educate the inexperience younger genera-tion to encourage them to retain within the farming industry. It was also mentioned the importance of providing highly accurate, recent information if they are to rely on the application. The importance of making linkages between other agriculture re-search institutes all over the world to obtain new knowledge is also pointed out by some farmers to make this application a success. Moreover, some have brought up the idea of providing the information for free and to give a thorough training for the farmers to teach them how to use it and what can be get out of the application to in-crease the popularity towards using the application.

Thus, it is obvious that the possibility of presenting the information using right technology in a user friendly manner will aid the farming community to make better decisions. Further, this will add new opportunities while ensuring sustainability both in terms of farmer and the solution.

Acknowledgements

Authors of this paper would like to provide our heartiest thanks to all the farmers in two regions who took part in the evaluation process regardless of their valuable time and bad weather condition. We would also like to thank the officers at the agrar-ian service centre for facilitating these meetings and for gathering farmers to make this a success. Further, we value their comments and suggestions provided from the beginning of the project to enhance the application. Last but not least we would ap-preciate the commitment received in developing the mobile information system from the members of the internationally collaborative team. Their invaluable comments and suggestions made the evaluation process a success.

References

1. L. De Silva, et al., Towards using ICT to Enhance Flow of Information to aid Farmer Sustainability in Sri Lanka, in Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS)2012: Geelong Australia.

2. Amaranath, S. Sri Lanka suicide rate one of the world’s highest. World Socialist Web Site 2012 [cited 2012 27, February]; Available from: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/09/sril-s28.html.

3. L. De Silva, et al., A Holistic Mobile Based Information System to Enhance Farming Activities in Sri Lanka, in The IASTED International Conference on Engineering and Applied Science (EAS 2012)2012: Colombo, Sri Lanka.

4. Lokanathan, S. and Kapugama, N., Smallholders and Micro-enterprises in Agriculture: Information needs & communication patterns, 2012, LIRNE asia: Colombo, Sri Lanka. p. 1-48.

5. Punchihewa, D.J. and Wimalaratne, P. Towards an ICT enabled farming Community. in E-Governance in Practice. 2010. India.

6. Pavitrani, A.D.S., et al. The effectiveness of existing ICT modules in addressing issues of Farming community in Sri Lanka: Empirical Study. in National information technology conferrence. 2011.

7. T. S. Parikh, N. Patel, and Y. Schwartzman, A Survey of Information Systems Reaching Small Producers in Global Agricultural Value Chains, in International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Development(ICTD)2007: Bangalore, India.

8. Ginige., T. and Richards., D., A model for Enhancing Empowerment in Farming using Mobile based Information System, in 23rd Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS 2012)2012: Geelong.

9. Ferrance, E., Action Research, 2000, The Education Alliance.10. Marshall, M., et al., Development of an information source for patients and the public

about general practice services: an action research study. Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2006. 9(3): p. 265-74.

11. Dickinson, A., et al., Hospital mealtimes: action research for change? The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 2005. 64(3): p. 269-75.

12. Sax., C. and Fisher, D., Using Qualitative Action Research to Effect Change: Implications for Professional Education. Teacher Education Quarterley, Spring 2001. 28.

13. O'Brien, R., An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research, in Theory and Practice of Action Research, R. Richardson, Editor 2001: Toronto.

14. Baskerville, R.L., Investigating Information Systems with Action Research.Communication of the Association for Information Systems, 1999. 2.

15. Susman, G.I. and Evered, R.D., An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1978. 23: p. 582-603.

16. Denscombe, M., The Good Research Guide for small-scale social research projects, 2007, McGraw-Hill Open University Press: Berkshire. p. 122-131.

17. Jarvinen, P., Action research as an approach in design science, in European Academy of Managment (EURAM) Conference2005, Net Publications: Munich.

18. Denzin., N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S., The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd ed2005, Thousand Oaks, California: Saga.

19. Stringer, E.T., Action Research: A handbook for Practitioners1996, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

20. Lewin, K., Action Research & Minority Problems. Journal of Social Issues, 1946. 4 (2): p. 34-46.

21. Elliott, J., Action Research for Educational Change1991, Philadelphia: Open University Press.

22. Giovanni, P.D., et al., Building Social Life Networks through Mobile Interfaces� the Case Study of Sri Lanka Farmers in IX Conference of the Italian Chapter of AIS (ITAIS 2012)2012: Rome, Italy.

23. Giovanni, P.D., et al., User Centered Scenario based Approach for Developing Mobile Interfaces for Social Life Networks, in 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2012) - UsARE Workshops2012: Zurich, Switzerland.