Referente al desarrollo de la “Cultura Emprendedora” del alumnado:

The raters were asked to assess entrepreneurial performance of individual dairy entrepreneurs by ranking each into one of three categories, ‘high’, ‘medium’, and ‘low’. The correspondence between the field performance ratings (FPRs) for Mjima and Ravat is shown in Table 36.

Table 36 : Inter-rater Correlation of FPRs

Chimbia Entrepreneurs (n = 112)

Performance Score

Mjima

High Medium Low All

Rav at High 25% 17% 19% 61% Medium 2% 7% 21% 30% Low 0% 1% 8% 9% All 27% 25% 48% 100%

The table indicates that the range of subjective assessment rating of Ravat (MBG Treasurer) differed markedly from that of Mjima (resident technical specialist). Only 40% of their ratings intersect across the three performance categories. However, in the ‘high’ category there is a close correspondence of Ravat with Mjima (Table 37) if not vice versa (Table 38). 18% 70% 12% 48% 52% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Absolutely Somewhat Not at all Males Females

Roy H Thompson PhD Thesis Page 150

Table 37 : FPR Correspondence of Ravat with Mjima Performance

Score

Mjima

High Medium Low

Rav

at High 93%

Medium 29%

Low 17%

Mjima’s rating overall could be described as more stringent. Overall their subjective assessment ratings in relation to household headship demonstrate a broadly consistent pattern.

Table 38 : FPR Correspondence of Mjima with Ravat Performance

Score

Mjima

High Medium Low

Rav

at High 41%

Medium 24%

Low 90%

Mjima’s performance ratings by household headship are shown in Figure 30. The group with the highest percentage of low performers is that of the Female-headed households (FHHs) with two thirds having a low performance rating, compared to 51% of FWRPs and 38% of MHHs.

Figure 30 : FPRs by Household Headship – Mjima

While Ravat rates a smaller percentage of entrepreneurs in the low performing category and a higher percentage in the high performing category across all household

22% 28% 28% 11% 21% 34% 67% 51% 38% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% FHH FWRP MHH

Roy H Thompson PhD Thesis Page 151 headships, he rates the percentage of high performers roughly equally for FWRPs and MHHs with two thirds rated as high performers (Figure 31).

Figure 31 : FPRs by Household Headship – Ravat

The performance ratings of the two ‘key informants’ for the entire population of Chimbia entrepreneurs are further compared with those entrepreneurs that were sampled for in- depth interview and observation by the second technical specialist, MacMillan Masache. The sample and population ratings are compared in Table 39.

Table 39 : FPR Correspondence of Chimbia Sample vs. Population Key

informant

HH Group

High Medium Low

Pop Sam P-S P2 S2 P-S P3 S3 P-S Mjima FHH 22 25 -3 11 17 -6 67 58 +9 FWRP 28 27 -1 21 18 +3 51 55 -4 MHH 28 28 0 34 28 +6 38 44 -6 Ravat FHH 39 50 -11 56 50 +6 6 0 +6 FWRP 66 73 -7 23 27 -4 11 0 +11 MHH 64 72 -8 28 24 +4 9 4 +5

The distribution of subjective performance ratings for the sampled entrepreneurs appears to represent a reasonable approximation of the population distribution; the relative differences being lower for Mjima than for Ravat. Information concerning inter- rater reliability between Mjima and Masache is presented in Table 40.

Table 40 : Inter-rater Correlation of FPRs Performance

Score

Masache

High Medium Low

Mj ima High 19% 6% 2% Medium 8% 10% 4% Low 10% 19% 21% 39% 66% 64% 56% 23% 28% 6% 11% 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% FHH FWRP MHH

Roy H Thompson PhD Thesis Page 152 The intersection of ratings across the three performance categories sums to a total of 50% of entrepreneurs rated.

Table 41 : FPR Correspondence of Mjima with Masache Performance

Score

Masache

High Medium Low

Mj

ima

High 50%

Medium 29%

Low 77%

Mjima has a higher correspondence with Masache in relation to the entrepreneurs rated by the latter as low performers (Table 41). In contrast, Masache has a higher correspondence with Mjima in his rating of high performers (Table 42).

Table 42 : FPR Correspondence of Masache with Mjima Performance

Score

Masache

High Medium Low

Mj

ima

High 69%

Medium 45%

Low 42%

Masache’s overall assessment of performance by household headship suggests that MHHs have a relatively higher percentage of high performers than either FWRPs or FHHs and equally that FHHs have a markedly higher percentage of low performers. Figure 32 : FPRs by Household Headship – Masache

Sampled entrepreneurs in Chimbia

25% 27% 48% 33% 45% 32% 42% 27% 20% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% FHH FWRP MHH

Roy H Thompson PhD Thesis Page 153 Mjima’s FPRs do not suggest the same level of marked differences between the household headship groups as Masache. While his assessment does effectively rank MHHs as the higher performers, overall (with 56% of entrepreneurs rated as high or medium performers compared to 45% of FWRPs and 42% of FHHs) there is not the same dichotomy. Masache’s assessment was made immediately after in-depth discussions with the entrepreneur and direct observation of the enterprise. Mjima’s assessment was made more remotely from a review of the entire population of entrepreneurs operating in Chimbia at that time, but with a greater depth of knowledge concerning the ‘evolution’ of the enterprises.

Figure 33 : FPRs by Household Headship for sampled entrepreneurs – Mjima

Despite the differences between raters’ performance assessments there remains a general theme running through the field performance rating (FPR) exercise, and this is that contrary to a priori expectations FHHs have a higher percentage of entrepreneurs assessed as relatively low performers, while MHHs have a higher percentage of high- rated performers, with FWRPs falling somewhere in the middle.

25% 27% 28% 17% 18% 28% 58% 55% 44% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% FHH FWRP MHH

Roy H Thompson PhD Thesis Page 154 4.6. Body Condition Score as a Proxy Indicator of Performance

Body condition scoring (BCS) is a technique for assessing the condition of an animal based on a visual examination by a trained evaluator. According to Neary and Yager (2002) while body condition scoring is a subjective practice “it is usually quite accurate when performed by trained evaluators”. Dairy animals are scored from 1 to 5, the lower the number the thinner the animal. More detail is provided in APPENDIX VI: Description of BCS for Dairy – Neary and Yager (2002) on page 315.

The Body Condition Score (BCS) of the animal provides a proxy indicator of the ‘health’ of the enterprise for the following reasons:

 BCS reflects adequate nutrition which is a prerequisite for a high level of total production throughout the cycle of milk production

 BCS reflects the overall health of the animal and general health is considered important in reducing the risk of the animal succumbing to opportunistic infections which would result in discontinuance of the enterprise, or at minimum a major setback in the development of the enterprise. Without the intervention of the MDEDP the loss of the principal animal would mean the discontinuance of the enterprise

 BCS reflects at least partially on the general management of the enterprise by the owner and manager

Caveats to the use of BCS as an entrepreneurial performance measure are that it does vary depending upon the stage of lactation and particularly of pregnancy of the animal. Sickness may also reduce the BCS of the animal temporarily. These other confounding influences can only be controlled for by triangulation with other evidence of enterprise performance and therefore BCS would not be used as a sole indicator of performance but rather as one measure to accompany a suite of others, as is the case in this analysis.

Roy H Thompson PhD Thesis Page 155 4.7. Body Condition Score of the Principal Dairy Animal

The principal asset of the enterprise is the first or replacement dairy animal, since she provides both the productive asset and the opportunity for both repayment of the loan and increasing capital formation of the enterprise. The body condition score (BCS) of the principal animal in each

enterprise is averaged across the household grouping and the findings (Figure 34) indicate that there are relatively minor differences in the BCS between the groups but with male headed households having animals with the highest body condition score

overall. This suggests that this proxy indicator of performance favours male-headed households relative to females with resident partners and female-headed households.

An indicative comparison of the body condition score of animals in 2004 with 2008/9 is provided in Table 43. The comparison is tentative at best for a number of reasons; the first being that scoring has an element of subjectivity inherent in the measurement and measures made by different individuals particularly at different times in the year cannot afford direct comparison of t0 against t1. One individual undertook the scores on each occasion across the entire group of entrepreneurs and this affords at least some element of internal consistency in the measurement.

Table 43 : Comparison of Chimbia Body Condition Scoring 2008/9 with 2004

Body Condition Score No. of animals assessed

Year Fem Male All Fem Male All

2004 2.5 2.5 2.5 34 31 65 2008 2.5 2.8 2.7 22 26 48 2.5 2.7 2.8 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 FHH FWRP MHH

Roy H Thompson PhD Thesis Page 156 What is evident from the comparison between females and males is that in the base year of 2004 there was no difference in the average of BCS scores but some difference is evident at the end of 2008.