Analysis of the Characteristics of Womens Groups and Their Role in Rural Development
| dc.contributor.advisor | Mohammed Hussain, M | |
| dc.contributor.author | Sherin Muller | |
| dc.contributor.author | KAU | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2020-11-24T06:35:13Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2020-11-24T06:35:13Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 1997 | |
| dc.description | P G | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | The present study under the title "An analysis of the characteristics of women's group and their role in rural development" was undertaken to assess the group characteristics of wornens group which were conducive for rural development and also to find out means to improve these group characteristics. 20 women's group were selected based on their proportion from 12 NES blocks of Thiruvananthapuram district Among these 20 groups 10 groups selected were effective groups comprising 98 members and 10 were non effective groups comprising 102 members selected based on a performance appraisal by the DRDA officials. Thus the total sample comprised of 200 women selected from the women's groups started under the DWCRA (Development of Women and Children in Rural Areas) programme of DRDA. Data was collected using an interview schedule and suitable stasticial technique was employed in the analysis of data. The group characteristics found conducive for rural development are ; interdependence of members, group interaction, group decision making, group leadership, group co-operation, group cohesiveness, participation in group activities, interpersonal liking, group goal achievement, need satisfaction, interpersonal communication, group competition, interpersonal trust and group motivation. 2 The results of the correlation anulysis indicate thut interdependence of members is positively and significantly correlated with social participation, information source utilisation, DRDAl Block visit andtraining and negatively and significantly correlated with age, educational status of family and period of group work in the effective groups. In the noneffccuvc groups the variables land holding, social participation, extension participation, infoi n.ation source utilisation and period of group work showed a negative signi ficunt correlation with interdependence of members while training showed a positive correlation. There is a negative significant correlation shown between the vuriablcs age, educational status of family, trade union participation, extension participation, annual income, period of group work and cosmopoliteness with group interaction, while social 'participation and training showed a positive correlation to group interaction in effective groups. In the noneffective groups annual income showed a negative significant correlation with group interaction. The group characteristic group decision making in the effective group showed a positive and significant correlation with extension participation, information source utilisation, cosmopoliteness, DRDA visit, land holding and training while a negative significant correlation was shown with the variable educational status of family. In the noneffective groups the variables educational status of family, annual income, trade union participation. DRDA visit and training showed a positive and significant correlation with group decision making while a negative and significant correlation was shown with period of group work and cosmopoliteness. -s, 3 In the effective groups the variables information source utilisation, DRDA visit and training showed a positive and significant correlation with group leadership while the variable educational status of family showed a negative significant correlation, In the nonctfecuvc groups the variables educational status of respondent, information source utilisation, and DRDA visit showed a positive significant correlation while the' variable annual income and period of group work showed a negative significant correlation with the group characteristic, group leadership, In effective groups the variables educational status of respondent, land holding, social participation, extension participation, information source utilisation, cosmopoliteness, DRDA visit and training showed a positive correlation with group co-operation while the variable, period of group work showed a negative significant correlation, In the noneffective groups the , ., variable social participation, period of group work and trui ni IIg showed u • I negative significant correlation with group co-operation. The variables educational status of family, annual income and period of group work showed a negative significant correlation while the variables extension participation, information source utilisation, cosmopo/iteness, and training showed a positive significant correlation with group cohesiveness in the effective groups. In the noneffective groups the variables age and cducuuonul status of fumily, showed u positive sil,l.lIificnnt corrchuiuu while the variables period of group work and cosrnopoliteness showed a negative significant correlation with the group characteristic, group cohesiveness. 4 In the effective groups the variables age and period of group work showed a negative significant correlation with participation in group activities while the variables educational status of respondent, extension participation, information source utilisation, DRDA visit and training showed a positive significant correlation. In the noneffective groups the variable educational status of respondent showed a positive significant correlation while the variables social participation, and extension participation showed a negative significant correlation with participation in group activities. In effective groups the group characteristic namely interpersonal liking is seen to be positively and significantly correlated with social participation, while it is negatively and significantly correlated with the personal and socio-psychological variables namely educational status of family, land holding," annual income, trade union participation, extension participation, information source utilisation, period of group work, cosmopoliteness and DRDA visit In noneffective groups the variable age is positively and significantly correlated " "' with interpersonal liking- while the variables period of group work and training are negatively and significantly correlated. The group characteristic namely group goal achievement is shown to have a positive and significant correlation with extension participation, information source utilisation, period of group work, cosmopoIiteness and training and a negative and significant correlation with educational status of family, annual income and social participation in the effective groups. In the non effective groups the variables, social participation, trade union 5 participation and land holding showed a positive and significant correlation with group goals achievement while the variables period of group work and cosmopoliteness 'showed a negative and significant correlation with group goals achievement. In effective groups the variables land holding, extension participation, information source utilisation, period of group work, cosmopoliteness, DRDA visit and training showed a positive and significant correlation with need satisfaction while the variables educational status of family and annual income showed a negative significant correlation. It is seen that in the noneffective group the variable educational status of family, trade union participation, information source utilisation and DRDA visit showed a positive and significant relationship with need satisfaction while the variables period of group work and cosmopoliteness showed a negative and significant relationship with need satisfaction. The group characteristic, interpersonal communication showed a positive and significant correlation with educational status of respondent, land holding and training in the effective groups. In the noneffective groups, the variable educational status of respondent showed a positive significant correlation and the varia~le period of ,group work showed a negative and significant correlation with the gr~)Up characteristic interpersonal communication. The variables age and land holding showed a negative and significant correlation while extension participation, cosmopoliteness and DRDA visit 6 showed a positive and significant correlation with group competition III the effective groups. In the noneffective groups the variables educational status of respondent and' information source utilisation showed a positve and significant correlation while the variable period of group work showed a negative and significant correlation with group competition. The group characteristic interpersonal trust showed a positive and significant correlation with so.cial participation and a negative and significant correlation with educational status of family, annual income, trade union participation, extension participation, information source utilisation and period of group work in the effective groups. In the noneffective groups land holding, social participation, extension participation, information source utilisation and period of group work showed a negative and significant correlation with interpersonal trust while the variable annual income showed a positive and significant correlation with interpersonal trust. The group characteristic, group motivation showed a positive and significant correlation with information source utilisation and DRDA visit in the effective groups. In the noneffective groups, group motivation is positively and significantly correlated with educational status. of respondent and negatively and significantly correlated with: period of group work. With regards to the constraints experienced by the women's group comparative high cost of raw materials, low economic status of members, improper repayment of loans, non availability of adequate raw materials, lack 7 of local demand for the products produced, lack of interest of officials at block / district level, lack of follow up activities by department, inadequacy of revolving fund, wrong selection of members, lack of team spirit, drop out of members due to marriage and other reasons, lack of homogeniety among, members, lack of effective leadership, lack of initiative and interest at desired level among members, fear to avail loans, lack of co-operation among members, lack of quality consciousness among members about products, lack of co- operation and lack of group cohesiveness were identified as the major constraints for effecti ve group action. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.citation | 171520 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/handle/1/5810155630 | |
| dc.keywords | Rural Development | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | English | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Department of Agricultural Extension, College of Agriculture, Vellayani | en_US |
| dc.sub | Agricultural Extension | en_US |
| dc.theme | Characteristics of Womens Groups and Their Role in Rural Development | en_US |
| dc.these.type | M.Sc | en_US |
| dc.title | Analysis of the Characteristics of Womens Groups and Their Role in Rural Development | en_US |
| dc.type | Thesis | en_US |