Profile characteristics of farm scientists in Karnataka

Introduction

Indian Scientists' work on agriculture research has made tremendous contributions and it is attempted to discuss few of them. The contribution of M.S. Swaminathan was the land mark in the Indian Agriculture by developing wheat varieties to vanish hunger and poverty. The Wheat pathologist, S. Nagarajan worked on wheat rust by gene deployment strategy and gene matching techniques saved 6 to 7 MT of grains per year due to the outbreak of wheat rust diseases. The polyculture technique of raising fish in one habitat by Modadugu Gupta turned ditches on roadside and other fallow lands for fish cultivation which significantly contributed to fish production. The eminent Veterinary Pathologist and Microbiologist Chinta Mani Singh made outstanding contributions in etiopathogenesis and diagnosis of animal diseases mainly listeriosis, salmonellosis, mycoplasmosis, bovine lymphosarcoma and slow viral respiratory diseases. The famous Scientist G.S. Randhawa worked on improvement of grapes, plant growth regulators, taxonomy and nutritional studies in banana. Internationally renowned Scientist Prof. Rajeev Varshney had contributed to Genomics Assisted Breeding (GAB) to GAB 2.0 and new concepts of 5Gs for crop genetic improvements. He had decoded genomes of more than ten crops with collaborations which helps to find solutions to sustain against climate change and pests' attacks. G.S. Sekhon worked on phosphorous fertilizer with only 70% in water soluble form made cheaper fertilizer availability to farmers. Even though there are many inventions in agriculture, the diversified nation like India and the agriculture investment demands much more productive research from the scientific community. Therefore, the present study focussed on the personal, socioeconomic and psychological characteristics of Farm Scientists would facilitate in more understanding of them. Further, it helps to analyse the variables that influence the productivity of Farm Scientists and suggest necessary suggestions to overcome their limitations.

Materials and Methods

The characteristics that are important for shaping the scientist and influence in their inventions and research productivity were listed by considering the experts' opinion. Both the nominal and ordinal variables were included in the listed variables. The variables with their definitions were sent to 10 experts and the score was calculated based on their response in two-point continuum for the inclusion of the variables. The variables scored above 80% were selected considering the Lawshe's content validity ratio. Further, 199 scientists from six Agriculture and allied Universities are selected purposively for the study which facilitated easy permission. Moreover, all the Universities are ranked at different levels from higher to lower according to Agricultural Universities ranking by Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). All the scientists working under Directorate of Research and other research projects of Universities are selected for the study. Pre-tested questionnaire was sent through mail and due to the poor response, communicated about the importance of study by visiting their research stations. www.extensionjournal.com

Results

The results revealed that more than one-third of the Farm Scientists (37.69%) belonged to early degree holders followed by 33.67% of little late degree holders and 28.64% late degree holders. It was also observed that majority (64.32%) of them were male and the rest female (35.68%). The highest 43.72% of overall respondents were Assistant Professor cadre followed by 31.66% and 24.62% belonged to Professor and Associate Professor cadre. Further, nearly half (48.24%) of the Farm Scientists had medium grade followed by high (30.15%) and low (21.61%) grades respectively. Equal per centage (36.18%) of respondents belonged to urban and semi urban backgrounds and the rest 27.64% of them belonged to rural background. The results confirmed that Farm Scientists (46.73%) belonged to medium family income followed by 39.70% were low and 13.57% were high family income categories. With respect to spouse occupation, more than half (55.78%) of Farm Scientists belonged to households followed by Government service (18.09%), private service (17.09%), business (4.02%), any other (3.01%) and independent professional (2.01%). Further, more than two-fifth (43.72%) belonged to medium professional experienced category followed by low (37.19%) and high (19.09%) categories respectively. In case of Job autonomy, more than two-fifth (46.74%) of Farm Scientists had experienced very high job autonomy followed by 40.70% and 12.56% moderate and very little respectively. Majority of them experienced low extra working hours (57.79%) followed by medium (22.61%), very low (11.06%), high (8.04%) and very high (0.5%) categories. Accordingly, more than two-fifth (44.22%) of Farm scientists had average perception of workload followed by light (42.21%), very light (8.04%), heavy (4.53%) and too heavy (1%). Similarly, majority Farm Scientists belonged to medium digital usage status might be due to the less time to dedicate for updation on the digital technologies. The findings are in agreement with the findings of Tukaram (2007) [13] . It appears one-third (35.17%) of the Farm Scientists had high empathy followed by low (33.67%) and medium (31. 15%) levels. Further, 42.72% of Farm Scientists had good health status followed by 30.65% and 26.63% belonged to average and poor health status respectively. The findings revealed that more than one third (34.17%) of Farm Scientists had high opportunities followed by medium (33.67%) and low (32.16%) opportunities. Scientists of SAUs felt very high facilities. Further, more than one-third 35.18% felt medium level of facilities provided followed by high (25.63%), very low (16.58%), low (12.56%) and very high (10.05%) facilities.

Discussion

Most of the Farm Scientists realized the importance of Ph.D. degree in the scientific career. After completion of master's degree, they joined Ph.D. immediately. Further, nonavailability of better alternatives was also a reason. The results were not in-line with the findings of Kaur (2004) [8] might be due to the temporal and spatial variations. However, the majority Farm Scientists were male, this was related to fewer females had PG degree during the previous decades. However, this situation reversed in the present scenario. The above findings are in line with the findings of Senthilkumar (1999) [12] , Borah (2013) [1] and Faizan (2018) [2] . The majority Farm Scientists were male, this was related to fewer females had PG degree during the previous decades. However, this situation reversed in the present scenario. The above findings are in line with the findings of Senthilkumar (1999) [12] , Borah (2013) [1] and Faizan (2018) [2] . Further, the probable reason for the observed trend of their grades might be difference in grades at various levels of education. The present results were confirmatory with the findings of Jhansirani (1985) [6] , Jagadale (2004) [5] and Keshavrao (2014) [9] . Further, reason attributed to the medium family income of Farm Scientists might be due to salary was main source of income and also most of their spouses were house-holds. Similar findings were reported by Gopal (1995) [3] , Varghese (2006) [14] and Kobba (2015) [10] . The scientist's choice to marry a house-hold to perform/manage household activities as customary in Indian society. The results were far away from the findings of Kaur (2004) [8] might be due to the spatial and temporal variations. Many Farm Scientists enjoy working extra hours might be due to their efficient utilization of resources to excel in their professional career. The professional experience of the majority Farm Scientists was less and medium might be due to most of their posting in the research stations only at the beginning of their career. The results were in consonance with the findings of Gopal (1995) [3] , Gutte (1996) [4] , Kaur (2003) [7] , Jagadale (2004) [5] and Varghese (2006) [14] . Moreover, medium level of work load perceived by the majority due to shared responsibilities minimized the work pressure. The study was supported by the findings of Yunus (2016) [15] . The high empathy of the Farm Scientists might be due to good mutual understanding among Farm Scientists. Thus, high empathy provides better working environment in the research stations. However, it may sometimes lead to ingrouping which oversee the scientific rationale. Further, majority of Farm Scientists had very good health status might be due to the good natural environment in research stations which were generally located outside the urban areas. Further they had opportunity to get healthy food in their workplace. The reason that could be attributed for high opportunities provided by universities might be due to permission granted to Farm Scientists for participation and involvement in different activities to achieve the scientists as well as universities long-term goals. The above results were in line with the findings of Jhansirani (1985) [6] . The majority of Farm Scientists felt medium level of facilities provided due to their non-availability at the appropriate time of experiment/research. This might have affected the scientist's www.extensionjournal.com performance in research. The above findings seek support from Jhansirani (1985) [6] , Prashant (2009) [11] , Keshavrao (2014) [9] and Kobba (2015) [10] .

Conclusion

The comprehensive over view of the study shows the nost scientists were agree degree holders and Assistant Professor cadre with medium grades and experience. Both the urban and semi-urban were equally represented and the moderate socio economic status. The positive features like favourable work conditions, job autonomy and low extra working hours are encouraging. The changing trends in Farm Scientists' choices and background are necessary for policy formulation regarding scientist's human resource development.

References

1. Borah S. A study of organizational climate of the selected State Agricultural Universities in India. Ludhiana: Punjab Agricultural University; 2013.