Impact of agricultural extension participation on women's self-confidence and community leadership roles

Introduction

Self-confidence can be defined as an individual's trust in their capacity to perform effectively, make decisions, and assert influence within their social environment [2] . For rural women in Latin America, where gender norms have historically limited women's public roles, self-confidence represents a gateway to broader participation in community life and agricultural governance [3] . Extension programs, by bringing women together in learning groups and giving them technical expertise, may build this confidence indirectly-even when empowerment isn't an explicit program goal. Chile's agricultural extension system has actively recruited women participants since reforms in the early 2000s, and women now make up roughly 38% of extension program enrollment in the Maule Region [4] . But assessments of these programs have focused almost entirely on agricultural outcomes: crop yields, technology adoption, income changes. Whether participation reshapes how women see themselves and how their communities see them has received little formal attention [5] . International evidence suggests the link is real. Research from South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa has shown that women who participate in farmer groups report higher self-efficacy, greater willingness to speak in public, and more involvement in household and community decisions [6] . But the pathways connecting extension participation to empowerment outcomes aren't well mapped, and the relationship likely depends on program design, cultural context, and participation intensity [7] . Few investigations have measured these connections in Latin American settings, where gender dynamics differ from the African and Asian contexts where most evidence originates. This research measured the association between agricultural extension participation and two empowerment outcomesself-confidence and community leadership engagementamong rural women in central Chile. It also tested whether participation intensity (measured by session attendance) showed a dose-response relationship with empowerment indicators.

Theoretical Framework

This research drew on Kabeer's empowerment framework, which conceptualizes empowerment as the expansion of people's ability to make strategic life choices across three dimensions: resources, agency, and achievements [8] . Extension programs provide resources (knowledge, skills, networks), which may strengthen agency (self-confidence, www.extensionjournal.com decision-making power), leading to achievements (leadership roles, community influence). The cyclical model tested here (Figure 3) proposes that participation builds knowledge, knowledge builds confidence, confidence enables leadership, and leadership reinforces further engagement-creating a self-sustaining empowerment cycle [9] .

Instrument Development and Validation

Two instruments were developed for this research. The Self-Confidence Index (SCI) comprised 20 items across four sub-dimensions: agricultural decision-making confidence, social interaction confidence, financial management confidence, and personal agency. Items used a five-point Likert response format, and the composite score was converted to a 0-100 scale [10] . The Leadership Role Assessment (LRA) measured engagement across four domains: community decision-making, cooperative leadership, household financial management, and public speaking/advocacy. Both instruments were reviewed by a panel of five experts in rural development and gender studies, achieving a content validity ratio above 0.80 for all items. Pilot testing with 32 women from a non-sample commune yielded Cronbach's alpha values of 0.87 (SCI) and 0.84 (LRA), confirming acceptable internal consistency [11] .

Material and Methods

Material

This research was conducted from March 2022 through January 2023 at the Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Talca, Talca, Chile. Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Talca Bioethics Committee (Protocol UTalca-BEC/2022-018, approved January 14, 2022). All participants provided written informed consent. A cross-sectional comparative design enrolled 224 rural women from five communes in Maule Region. The participant group (n = 150) included women with at least 12 months of continuous extension program enrollment, stratified into high (>12 sessions/year, n = 55), moderate (7-12 sessions, n = 53), and low (1-6 sessions, n = 42) participation categories. The comparison group (n = 74) comprised women from the same communes who had never enrolled in extension programs, matched on age range and farming involvement [12] .

Methods

Data collection used face-to-face structured interviews conducted by trained female enumerators between April and August 2022. Enumerators received 16 hours of training on instrument administration and gender-sensitive interviewing techniques. In addition to the SCI and LRA instruments, the questionnaire collected sociodemographic data, farming characteristics, and extension program details. Formal leadership positions held (cooperative board member, community committee member, local government representative) were verified through organizational records. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 27. Group comparisons used independent samples t-tests and one-way ANOVA with Tukey post-hoc tests. The association between participation intensity and leadership position holding was assessed through logistic regression, controlling for age, education, household size, and farm area [13] . Significance was set at p < 0.05.

Ethical Considerations

All participants received clear explanations of research objectives and procedures in Spanish before providing written consent. Confidentiality of individual responses was assured, with data coded and stored in password-protected files accessible only to the research team. Participants could skip any question or withdraw entirely without consequence.

Non-participant women received informational materials about available extension programs after data collection was completed.

Results

Comprehensive Interpretation

Self-confidence scores showed a clear dose-response gradient across participation levels (Table 1 and Figure 1). High-participation women scored 30.6 points above nonparticipants on the overall SCI, and each step down in participation intensity corresponded to roughly 10 points lower on the scale. Financial management confidence showed the widest gap (30.6 points between high participants and non-participants), while social interaction showed the narrowest (30.4 points). Leadership engagement followed a similar pattern (Figure 2), with participants scoring higher across all four domains. Notably, 52.7% of high-participation women held at least one formal leadership position compared to 14.2% of non-participants (Table 2). Logistic regression confirmed that high participation was associated with a 3.7-fold increase in the odds of holding any formal position after controlling for confounders.

Discussion

The dose-response relationship between participation intensity and self-confidence provides strong cross-sectional evidence that extension involvement and empowerment are linked. The 30.6-point gap in overall SCI scores between high participants and non-participants exceeds what Malapit and Quisumbing found in Bangladesh (22 points), possibly because Chile's extension programs involve more intensive group-based learning formats that build social confidence alongside technical skills [6] . The leadership findings are especially relevant for policy. High-participation women were 3.7 times more likely to hold formal positions-a practical effect that extends well beyond farming outcomes. These women become advocates for agricultural investment in community budgets, voices for rural women's priorities in local government, and role models for younger women considering community engagement [7] . The empowerment cycle model (Figure 3) captures this dynamic: participation builds knowledge, knowledge builds confidence, confidence enables leadership, and leadership experience reinforces continued engagement. While our cross-sectional design can't confirm the direction of this cycle, the intensity gradient strongly suggests that more participation produces more empowerment rather than simply attracting alreadyconfident women [9] . That said, the narrower gap in public speaking confidence (compared to agricultural decisionmaking confidence) suggests that extension programs are better at building domain-specific confidence than general social assertiveness. Programs seeking broader empowerment effects may need to incorporate explicit communication skills training alongside technical agricultural content [14] .

Limitations

The cross-sectional design cannot establish causationwomen with higher baseline confidence may self-select into extension programs. The comparison group wasn't randomly assigned, introducing potential selection bias despite matching. Self-reported confidence measures may differ from behavioral indicators. The research was limited to Maule Region, and extension program formats vary across Chile's regions. Longitudinal research tracking women from initial enrollment would better establish the direction of the participation-empowerment relationship.

Conclusion

Agricultural extension participation was strongly associated with higher self-confidence and greater community leadership engagement among rural women in central Chile. The dose-response pattern-with each increase in participation intensity corresponding to higher empowerment scores-suggests that sustained involvement matters more than mere enrollment. High-participation women scored 30.6 points above non-participants on selfconfidence and were 3.7 times more likely to hold formal leadership positions. These findings reframe extension programs as more than agricultural service delivery-they appear to function as platforms for women's empowerment that generate benefits extending into community governance and household decision-making. Extension planners who design programs with this dual purpose in mindagricultural and empowerment outcomes-can maximize the return on investment in rural women's development.

References

1. Alkire S, Meinzen-Dick R, Peterman A, Quisumbing AR, Seymour G, Vaz A. The women's empowerment in agriculture index. World Development. 2013;52:71-91.
2. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review. 1977;84(2):191215.
3. Deere CD, Leon M. Empowering women: Land and property rights in Latin America. University of Pittsburgh Press. 2001;1(1):1-478.
4. Instituto de Desarrollo Agropecuario Chile. Annual report on extension program participation by gender and region. INDAP Statistical Reports. 2021;14(2):1-126.
5. Ragasa C, Berhane G, Tadesse F, Taffesse AS. Gender differences in access to extension services and agricultural productivity. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 2013;19(5):437-468.
6. Malapit HJ, Quisumbing AR. What dimensions of women's empowerment in agriculture matter for nutrition in Ghana? Food Policy. 2015;52:54-63.
7. Fletschner D, Kenney L. Rural women's access to financial services: Credit, savings, and insurance. ESA Working Paper. 2011;11(7):1-28.
8. Kabeer N. Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measurement of women's empowerment. Development and Change. 1999;30(3):435-464.
9. Cornwall A. Women's empowerment: What works? Journal of International Development. 2016;28(3):342-359.
10. Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M. Generalized self-efficacy scale. Measures in Health Psychology: A User's Portfolio. 1995;1(1):35-37.
11. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education. 2011;2:53-55.
12. Oficina de Estudios y Politicas Agrarias Chile. Maule Region agricultural census: Household and farming profiles. ODEPA Publications. 2020;8(3):1-164.
13. Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage Publications. 2018;5(1):1-816.
14. Quisumbing AR, Pandolfelli L. Promising approaches to address the needs of poor female farmers: Resources, constraints, and interventions. World Development. www.extensionjournal.com 2010;38(4):581-592.
15. Doss CR. Women and agricultural productivity: Reframing the issues. Development Policy Review. 2018;36(1):35-50.