Socio-personal, economic, psychological, and communication characteristics of rural women
Socio-economic status refers to the social and economic position of the respondents within their community. To assess this, the scale developed by Pandya and Pandya (2007–08) was employed. The scale considered multiple factors, including caste, occupation, education, annual income, family type, family size, landholding, socio-political participation, material possessions, herd size, type of housing, and personal achievements.
Table 1: Socio-personal, economic, psychological, and communication characteristics of rural women
|
Sr. No.
|
Profile characteristics
|
No.
|
Percentage
|
|
1.
|
Age
|
|
|
(i) Young Age (less than 39)
|
20
|
12.99
|
|
|
(ii) Middle Age (39-54)
|
104
|
67.53
|
|
|
(iii) Old Age (above 54)
|
30
|
19.48
|
|
2.
|
Caste
|
|
|
|
|
(i) General
|
94
|
61.00
|
|
|
(ii) OBC
|
41
|
27.00
|
|
|
(iii) ST
|
11
|
7.00
|
|
|
(iv) SC
|
8
|
5.00
|
|
3.
|
Occupation
|
|
|
(i) Professional/ Service in Govt.
|
7
|
5.00
|
|
|
(ii)Farming/Business/Farming with service/ Farming with other enterprise
|
123
|
80.00
|
|
|
(iii) Skilled occupation
|
0
|
0.00
|
|
|
(iv) Service in private
|
5
|
3.00
|
|
|
(v) Unskilled occupation
|
19
|
12.00
|
|
4.
|
Education
|
|
|
|
|
|
19
|
12.33
|
|
|
|
41
|
26.62
|
|
|
(iii) Middle school
|
21
|
13.63
|
|
|
(iv) Primary school
|
39
|
25.32
|
|
|
|
11
|
7.14
|
|
|
|
23
|
15.00
|
|
5.
|
Annual income
|
|
|
(i) Above 2,00,000
|
0
|
0.00
|
|
|
(ii) 1,50,001 to 2,00,000
|
0
|
0.00
|
|
|
(iii) 1,00,001 to 1,50,000
|
11
|
10.00
|
|
|
(iv) 50,000 to 1,00,000
|
46
|
27.00
|
|
|
(v) Upto 50,000
|
9
|
63.00
|
|
6.
|
Family type
|
|
|
(i) Joint
|
41
|
26.62
|
|
|
(ii) Nuclear
|
113
|
73.38
|
|
7.
|
Family size
|
|
|
|
|
2.59
|
|
|
|
|
21.42
|
|
|
(iii) 5 to 6 members
|
|
51.00
|
|
|
(iv) 7 to 8 members
|
|
20.12
|
|
|
|
|
5.19
|
|
8.
|
Land holding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(iii)Semi medium (2.01 to 4 ha)
|
|
|
|
|
(iv) Small (1.01 to 2 ha)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(iii) Financial contribution or raising funds for the community
|
|
|
|
|
(iv) Official position in the social and political committee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(iii)Motorcycle/Electricity/Newspaper/Sofa/VCD / DVD
|
|
|
|
|
(iv) Bullock cart /Fan/Radio/Camera
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(iii) Poultry
|
|
|
|
|
(iv) Bulls/Heifers/Goats/Sheep/Donkeys
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(iii) Tiled and brick wall
|
|
|
|
|
(iv) Mud walled/Metal sheet roof
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(iii) Award in education
|
|
|
|
|
(iv) Award in sports
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The data presented in Table-1 highlights:
Age: The majority of rural women (67.53%) fell within the middle age group (39–54 years), followed by 19.48% in the older age group and 12.99% in the younger age group. This indicates that more than half of the respondents were between 39 and 54 years of age.
Caste: Most of the respondents (61.0%) belonged to the general caste, followed by 27.0% from the OBC category. Smaller proportions included 7.0% from the ST category and 5.0% from the SC category. The predominance of women from the general caste may be due to the significant presence of Brahmins and Thakurs in the village population.
Occupation: A substantial proportion of respondents (80.0%) were engaged in farming, either exclusively or in combination with business, service, or other activities. This was followed by 12.0% involved in unskilled work, 5.0% employed in government service or professional roles, and 3.0% in private service. Interestingly, none were found working in skilled occupations, suggesting that farming remains the primary source of livelihood source in the study area.
Education: The data shows that the highest proportion of women (26.62%) had studied up to high school, followed closely by 25.32% who had completed primary education. Approximately 15% were illiterate, 13.63% had completed middle school education, and 12.33% had attained college or postgraduate education. Only 7.14% were functionally literate. These findings suggest that most respondents had an educational background up to the high school or primary level, while relatively few pursued higher studies.
Annual income: Majority of respondents (63.0%) earned ₹50,000 or less per year, while 27.0% fell into the income range (₹50,000–₹1,00,000. A smaller proportion (10.0%) reported annual incomes between ₹1,00,001 and ₹1,50,000. None of the respondents earned above ₹1,50,000, indicating that most rural women in the study area belonged to low- to moderate-income groups. This disparity may be attributed to associated with variations in landholding sizes among households.
Family type: The data show that most respondents (73.38%) lived in nuclear families, while 26.62% were part of joint families, indicating a gradual shift toward the nuclear family system.
Family size- Total 51% of respondents had 5 to 6 members, 21.42% had 3 to 4 members, 20.12% had 7 to 8 members, 5.19% had more than 8 members, and only 2.59% reported family sizes of 1 to 2 members. Overall, over 72% had families consisting of 3 to 6 members, a pattern likely linked to the prevalence of nuclear families in the region.
Landholding- Distribution indicates that 59.09% of respondents had marginal holdings (0.01–1 ha), 20.78% had small holdings (1.01–2 ha), and 16.23% had semi-medium holdings (2.01–4 ha). Only 3.9% possessed medium holdings (4.01–10 ha). None were landless or owned extensive holdings (above 10 ha). This pattern can be attributed to the fragmentation of landholdings in the area.
Socio-political participation- Socio-political participation was observed to be minimal, with 96.8% of respondents reporting no involvement. Only 3.24% served as office bearers, and none were engaged in community work, fundraising, or held positions in socio-political organizations. These results suggest either a lack of awareness, limited opportunities, or disinterest in socio-political involvement among rural women. In terms of material possessions, all respondents (100%) reported owning essential household assets, indicating a comparatively better standard of living in this aspect.
Herd size- Total 85% of women owned buffaloes or cows, while 79.87% kept bulls, heifers, goats, sheep, or donkeys. Poultry was maintained by 15.58%, and only 3.89% kept bullocks. No respondents reported keeping pigs or having no livestock at all.
Type of house: The data revealed that most respondents lived in well-constructed concrete houses, reflecting relatively favorable living conditions in the study area.
Personal Achievement: The respondents' personal achievement data are presented in Table 1. It is clear from the table that most of the respondents (98.89%) had not received any awards, followed by a 1.11% proportion of respondents who received an award in agriculture. It was also observed that none of the respondents had received any awards in the fields of education, social service, sports, or bravery. The data clearly shows that only a few individuals were found to have received any awards for personal achievement. It is also evident that none of the respondents received such awards in any area other than education.
Overall Socio-economic status: Table 2 shows that a large proportion of rural women (83.8%) were classified in the higher socio-economic category, with scores exceeding the class range of 41. This was followed by 12.3% of respondents who fell into the middle category (range 23–35), while only 3.9% were placed in the upper-middle category. Notably, none of the respondents were recorded in the lower-middle or lower socio-economic groups. These findings indicate that the majority of women in the study area belonged to the higher socio-economic category, with no representation in the lower socio-economic classes.
Table 2: Overall socio-economic status of rural women
|
Sr.No.
|
Categories
|
Frequency
|
Percentage
|
|
1
|
Higher (Above 41)
|
129
|
83.8
|
|
2
|
Higher Middle (36-41)
|
6
|
3.9
|
|
3
|
Middle (23-35)
|
19
|
12.3
|
|
4
|
Lower Middle (17-22)
|
0
|
00
|
|
5
|
Lower (below 17)
|
0
|
00
|

Figure 1: Overall socio economic status of study sample (n=154)
Attitude of rural women towards dairy farming
Table 3- Attitude towards dairy farming
|
Sr. No.
|
Particular
|
SA
|
A
|
UD
|
DA
|
SD
|
|
|
Responses
|
|
1
|
Dairy Farming is a profitable venture (+)
|
43
|
56
|
45
|
10
|
0
|
|
|
2
|
I think animal husbandry activity is worthwhile for efficient and effective resource use of the farmer (+)
|
43
|
59
|
52
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
3
|
Animal husbandry is helps in reducing risk in farming (+)
|
54
|
68
|
32
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
4
|
There is a lot of scope for animal husbandry enterprise, which is getting momentum in India as the demand for milk is increasing day by day (+)
|
59
|
52
|
38
|
5
|
0
|
|
|
5
|
I don’t want to keep an animal as it requires engagement around the day (-)
|
46
|
108
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
6
|
I believe it helps women to get access to credit and loans (+)
|
57
|
62
|
34
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
7
|
I think it improves women's position in the family and society (+)
|
48
|
70
|
34
|
2
|
0
|
|
|
8
|
Illiterate but functionally literate women can do animal husbandry practices (+)
|
47
|
78
|
29
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
9
|
I think it helps reform old traditional thoughts (+)
|
42
|
97
|
15
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
10
|
I think dairy farming is the best way to get self-employment (+)
|
56
|
71
|
27
|
0
|
0
|
|
SA= Strongly Agree, A= Agree, UD= Undecided, D= Disagree, SD= Strongly Disagree
1. Dairy farming is a profitable venture (+): A considerable number of respondents either agreed (56) or strongly agreed (43) with the view that dairy farming is a profitable activity. Only a small portion (10) disagreed, and none strongly disagreed. This demonstrates a widely accepted perception of profitability in dairy farming, consistent with findings that highlight its role in generating stable income in rural areas.
2. I think animal husbandry activity is worthwhile for efficient and effective resource use of the farmer (+): A majority of respondents (59 agreed and 43 strongly agreed) expressed a positive opinion about the usefulness of animal husbandry in efficiently utilizing farm resources. The absence of any disagreement supports earlier research, which indicates that integrated livestock systems enhance overall agricultural productivity.
3. Animal husbandry is helping in reducing risk in farming (+):The responses revealed strong agreement, with 54 respondents strongly agreeing and 68 agreeing, showing that animal husbandry is widely recognized as a valuable strategy for mitigating risks in farming.
4. There is a lot of scope for animal husbandry enterprise, which is getting momentum in India as demand for milk is increasing day by day (+): This statement also received substantial support, with 59 strongly agreeing and 52 agreeing. The results reflect the respondents' understanding of the expanding market for milk and dairy products in the country.
5. I don’t want to keep animals as they require engagement around the day (-): Most respondents either disagreed (108) or strongly disagreed (46) with the statement that they would avoid keeping animals due to the time commitment required. This suggests that time-related challenges are not viewed as a significant barrier, contradicting common concerns often associated with livestock farming.
6. I believe it helps women to get access to the credit and loans (+): A large proportion of respondents (57 strongly agreed and 62 agreed) acknowledged that dairy farming can be a helpful tool in enabling women to access financial services, in line with studies that associate dairy enterprises with women’s economic empowerment.
7. I think it improves women's position in family and society (+): A large proportion of respondents (57 strongly agreed and 62 agreed) acknowledged that dairy farming can be a helpful tool in enabling women to access financial services, in line with studies that associate dairy enterprises with women’s economic empowerment.
8. Illiterate but functionally literate women can do animal husbandry practices (+): The belief that even women with minimal formal education can effectively carry out dairy-related tasks was shared by most respondents (47 strongly agreed and 78 agreed), supporting the notion that basic literacy is sufficient for managing animal husbandry operations.
9. I think it helps reform old traditional thoughts (+): An overwhelming majority of respondents (97 agreed and 42 strongly agreed) viewed dairy farming as a progressive force in reshaping outdated rural mindsets.
10. I think dairy farming is the best way to get self-employment (+): A significant number of respondents (71 agreed and 56 strongly agreed) endorsed the idea that dairy farming serves as an effective and sustainable self-employment option, reaffirming its value as a livelihood strategy.
Table 4: Distribution of respondents according to their attitude towards dairy farming (n=154)
|
S.No.
|
Category
|
Frequency
|
Percentage
|
|
1.
|
Strongly unfavourable (upto 21.60)
|
00
|
00.00
|
|
2.
|
Unfavourable (21.61 to 31.20)
|
09
|
5.80
|
|
3.
|
Neutral (31.21 to 40.80)
|
46
|
29.90
|
|
4.
|
Favourable (40.81 to 50.40)
|
81
|
52.60
|
|
5.
|
Strongly favourable (50.41 to 60)
|
18
|
11.70
|
|
|
Total
|
154
|
100.00
|
Table 4 indicates that most rural women engaged in dairy farming (52.6%) exhibited a favourable attitude toward dairy farming practices. This was followed by 29.9% who expressed a neutral attitude, 11.7% with a strongly favourable attitude, and 5.8% with an unfavourable attitude toward animal husbandry. Notably, none of the respondents reported a strongly unfavourable attitude toward dairy farming. These findings suggest that the majority of rural women held a favourable perception of dairy farming. This positive attitude may be attributed to factors such as stable milk prices and a reliable source of income that requires minimal additional resources.