Promoting Information Literacy to Mitigate Misinformation on Agricultural Government Schemes: A Farmer-Focused Perspective

1 Introduction

Agriculture is the backbone of numerous economies worldwide, sustaining billions of lives and livelihoods. For many rural farmers, who often have limited education and skills, agriculture is more than a profession; it is their primary means of survival (Mawlong, 2017). To support this critical sector, agricultural government schemes, also called agricultural development programs, play a vital role. These initiatives, implemented by governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), international agencies, and private organizations, are designed to drive agricultural growth, combat poverty, and ensure food security. According to Omonijo, Toluwase, and Oludayo (2014), the central objective of these programs is to boost food production and raise farm incomes for rural households in targeted areas, thereby improving the welfare and living standards of farming communities and contributing to poverty reduction. These schemes, encompassing subsidies, grants, technical assistance, and insurance programs, provide essential support to those working on the land. However, despite their potential, the agricultural sector continues to face significant hurdles. As Mazumder (2020) observed, government subsidies and welfare schemes often fail to reach marginalized farmers, disproportionately benefiting larger landowners. This gap is further exacerbated by the spread of misinformation, which hinders farmers’ ability to access accurate information about these schemes and fully utilize their benefits.

According to the American Library Association (2021), misinformation is defined as the “false information that is spread, regardless of whether there is intent to mislead.” For example, in agriculture, misinformation might include outdated farming techniques or misconceptions about crop yields. Misinformation, like stubborn weeds in a paddy field, can choke the growth of progress and prosperity for farmers. Misinformation takes many forms, from rumors spread through word of mouth to misleading information circulated on social media platforms. These falsehoods can have serious consequences, leading farmers to make ill-informed decisions, miss out on valuable opportunities, or even fall prey to exploitation. The rise of digital technologies has also exacerbated misinformation, presenting challenges and opportunities for farmers. While the internet offers unprecedented access to information, it also provides a fertile breeding ground for falsehoods to flourish. In this complex information landscape, information literacy serves as a crucial framework that enables individuals to critically assess, interpret, and navigate vast amounts of information with accuracy and confidence.

The term “information literacy” was introduced in 1974 by Paul Zurkowski. Since 1974, numerous organizations, associations, and individuals have offered definitions of “information literacy” and developed various models and frameworks to represent it (Wann, Khongtim, & Chyne, 2024). According to the American Library Association (1989), to be information literate, a person must be able to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the required information.

The Alexandria Proclamation on Information Literacy and Lifelong Learning of 2005 states: “Information Literacy lies at the core of lifelong learning. It empowers people in all walks of life to seek, evaluate, use, and create information effectively to achieve their personal, social, occupational, and educational goals. It is a basic human right in a digital world and promotes social inclusion of all nations” (IFLA, 2005).

In agriculture, information literacy equips farmers with the tools to evaluate information, question sources, and verify claims critically. Empowering farmers with the skills to discern fact from fiction to navigate the labyrinth of information confidently is critical to mitigating the impact of misinformation. It is a shield against ignorance, a safeguard against exploitation, and a catalyst for change. Farmers can learn to distinguish credible sources from dubious ones through targeted education and awareness campaigns, cross-reference information, and seek clarification when in doubt. According to Raya, Wastutiningsih, Penggalih, and Puspitasari (2018), agricultural information literacy (AIL) is a prominent aspect of farmers’ growth as it can enhance farmers’ human capital, increase agricultural productivity, and contribute to better living conditions for farmers. Jiaoping, Yangkui, and Yaoquing (2009) defined farmers’ information literacy as discovering and receiving the needed information and their ability to absorb and utilize the acquired information to satisfy their information searching and objectives. According to Wang (2016), farmers’ information literacy refers to the fact that farmers can search, judge, and select needed information through the utilization of information equipment such as computers, the internet, and so on, and have the ability to apply the information in agricultural production and daily lives.

2 Review of Literature

3 Objectives

1. To examine the role of information literacy in enhancing farmers’ understanding and utilization of agricultural government schemes.

2. To explore the cognitive and social factors influencing farmers’ ability to identify misinformation related to agricultural government schemes.

3. To assess the impact of misinformation on farmers’ trust in agricultural government schemes and analyze how information literacy can help build trust.

4 Data Analysis and Interpretation

The demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the respondents reveal several key findings. First, the age distribution demonstrates a mature workforce with a concentration in the 41–50 age bracket (33.5%), followed by the 31–40 age group (21%). Conversely, a relatively smaller proportion (18.5%) of respondents belonged to the younger age groups (below 30 years). Second, the gender distribution indicates a female-dominated sample, with females constituting 62% of the respondents compared to 38% of males. This suggests a potential shift toward increased female participation within the specific domain or sector under investigation. Third, the educational attainment of the respondents reveals a moderate level of education. A majority (54.5%) have completed education between classes 6–10, while a considerable proportion (29%) have education below class 5. A smaller percentage (2%) possess higher education qualifications (degree and above). Furthermore, the analysis of language proficiency reveals that besides their local dialect, Khasi is the most commonly known language (68%), followed by multilingualism (13.5%). English and Hindi are also spoken by a significant proportion of respondents (21 and 8.5%, respectively). Finally, the experience levels of the respondents demonstrate a seasoned workforce. A substantial majority (86%) possess more than 12 years of experience, indicating a high level of professional expertise within the sample (Table 1).

The data reveals a significant level of awareness among farmers regarding government schemes, with 63.5% (127 out of 200) of respondents indicating awareness (Table 2).

Table 2 also presents the levels of awareness among farmers regarding five key government schemes. The data reveal significant variability in awareness across these schemes. The PM-KISAN scheme demonstrated the highest level of awareness, with 64.5% of respondents indicating familiarity. This suggests this program’s high penetration and potential effectiveness in reaching target beneficiaries. Conversely, the PMFBY exhibited the lowest awareness level, with only 16.5% of farmers reporting knowledge of the scheme. This finding highlights a significant gap in awareness and potentially limited participation in this crucial agricultural insurance program. The Lakadong Turmeric Mission and the Ginger Mission, with awareness levels of 55.0 and 39.0% respectively, demonstrated moderate awareness among farmers. The National Food Security Mission (NFSM) – Rice, Maize, Pulses scheme, with 32.5% awareness, showed a level of awareness between the higher- and lower-performing schemes.

Although farmers recognize the aforementioned agricultural schemes and express a general understanding of their purpose, they often struggle to find accurate and up-to-date details, as they generally lack awareness of the specific official government websites or helplines that are designed to provide comprehensive scheme-related information.

These data reveal that peers (fellow farmers, friends, and family) are the most significant source of information about agricultural schemes for farmers, with 36.5% of respondents citing this as their primary source. This highlights the strong reliance on social networks and interpersonal communication within the farming community for information dissemination. Community Meetings emerged as the second most important source, with 22.5% of respondents indicating they learn about schemes through these gatherings. This suggests that community-based platforms play a crucial role in disseminating information and fostering knowledge sharing among farmers. Government-led initiatives, such as the Agricultural Extension Service, were identified as a source of information for 20% of the respondents. This indicates that while government efforts are underway, their reach and impact may be limited compared to social and community-based channels. Traditional media sources like Radio and Television, and print media (newspapers) were relatively less significant, with 9.0 and 6.0% of respondents, respectively. Social Media emerged as a relatively minor source (6.0%), suggesting that its role in disseminating information about agricultural schemes may still be limited among this group of farmers (Table 3).

Table 4 provides an assessment of farmers’ information literacy skills concerning agricultural schemes, utilizing a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree). The results reveal a mixed perspective on these crucial skills.

For Statistic 1, the median is 3, which indicates that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that they were confident in their ability to evaluate the accuracy of information about agricultural government schemes. The mode is 2, which suggests a slight tendency toward agreement, implying that some respondents were somewhat confident in their ability to evaluate the accuracy of information. For Statistic 2, the median is 3, which indicates that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that they could evaluate the reliability of the sources providing information about agricultural schemes. The mode is 3, which further supports this neutral stance, with a significant portion of respondents neither strongly agreeing nor disagreeing with their ability to evaluate the reliability of sources. For Statistic 3, the median is 3, which indicates that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that they understood the objectives of government agricultural schemes. The mode is 4, which suggests a slight tendency toward disagreement, implying that some respondents may not fully understand the objectives of these schemes. For Statistic 4, the median is 3, which indicates that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that the information they received about agricultural schemes was easy to understand and apply. The Mode is 4, which suggests a slight tendency toward disagreement, implying that some respondents found the information challenging to understand or apply. For Statistic 5, the median is 3 which indicates that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that the communication methods (e.g., pamphlets, TV, internet) used to share information about agricultural schemes were effective. The mode is 4, which suggests a slight tendency toward disagreement, implying that some respondents may not find the current communication methods to be effective.

A series of independent-samples Mann–Whitney U tests was conducted to examine the distributions for various aspects of farmers’ information literacy skills related to agricultural schemes across the gender categories. The significance level was set at 0.050. As shown in Table 5, the analysis reveals that for all five aspects tested, there was no statistically significant difference in the distributions across the gender categories. Specifically, the distributions of participants’ confidence in evaluating the accuracy of information about agricultural government schemes (p = 0.000), ability to evaluate the reliability of the sources providing information about agricultural schemes (p = 0.000), understanding of the objectives of government agricultural schemes (p = 0.000), ease of understanding and applying information received about agricultural schemes (p = 0.000), and perceptions of the effectiveness of communication methods used to share information about agricultural schemes (p = 0.000) did not vary significantly based on gender.

As a result, all the null hypotheses were retained, indicating no evidence to support the presence of gender-related differences in these aspects of farmers’ information literacy skills related to agricultural schemes among the participants. These findings suggest that, within the context of this study, gender does not appear to be a significant factor influencing these information literacy skills and behaviors.

A Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to explore the relationships between the participants’ qualifications, experience, and various aspects of farmers’ information literacy skills concerning agricultural schemes. The data set comprised 200 participants. For the Pearson correlation matrix (Table 6), the various agricultural-information-related skills (information literacy assessment) were coded as follows for ease of comprehension:

IL1 = The information I receive about agricultural schemes is easy to understand and apply.

IL2 = I am confident in my ability to evaluate the accuracy of information about agricultural government schemes.

IL3 = I can evaluate the reliability of the sources providing information about agricultural schemes.

IL4 = I understand the objectives of government agricultural schemes.

IL5 = The communication methods (e.g., pamphlets, TV, internet) used to share information about agricultural schemes are effective.

The correlation analysis reveals complex relationships between farmers’ information literacy skills, qualifications, and experience. While qualification and experience showed negligible and non-significant correlations with information literacy skills (IL1–IL5) (e.g., education with IL1, r = 0.872**; experience with IL1, r = 0.572**), strong positive correlations emerged among the information literacy skills themselves. Farmers who found the information easy to understand (IL1) were also more likely to be confident in evaluating it (IL2, r = 0.945**), judging source reliability (IL3, r = 0.937**), understanding scheme objectives (IL4, r = 0.976**), and finding communication effective (IL5, r = 0.967**). This pattern held across the IL skills, suggesting a synergistic relationship where strengths in one area support others (e.g., IL2 with IL3, r = 0.979**; IL2 with IL4, r = 0.935**; IL2 with IL5, r = 0.959**; IL3 with IL4, r = 0.931**; IL3 with IL5, r = 0.957**; IL4 with IL5, r = 0.956**).

Overall, the weak and non-significant correlations with education and experience highlight the complex interplay of factors influencing farmers’ information literacy, suggesting that access to information, social networks, and individual learning styles likely play crucial roles beyond formal qualifications and years of farming.

Table 7 provides an assessment of farmers’ misinformation skills concerning agricultural schemes, utilizing a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree). The results reveal a mixed perspective on these crucial skills.

For Statistic 1, the median is 2, which indicates that the respondents tended to agree that they were aware of the prevalence of misinformation in agricultural activities, whereas the mode is 1, suggesting a strong tendency toward agreement, implying that a significant portion of respondents strongly agreed that misinformation is common in agriculture. For Statistic 2, the median is 2, which indicates that the respondents tended to agree that misinformation has caused them to make poor decisions in their farming activities, whereas the mode is 1, suggesting a strong tendency toward agreement, implying that a significant portion of respondents strongly agreed that they had made poor decisions due to misinformation. For Statistic 3, the median is 3, which indicates that the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that they had experienced financial losses due to inaccurate agricultural information. The mode is 4, which suggests a tendency toward disagreement, implying that some respondents did not experience financial losses due to inaccurate information.

First, farmers were asked whether they had encountered false or misleading information about agricultural government schemes, and most farmers responded “Yes” to various kinds of misinformation.

Figure 1 presents the types of misinformation about agricultural government schemes encountered by the respondents. The figure reveals that “Politicized or biased information” was the most prevalent type of misinformation encountered by farmers, reported by 57 respondents. This highlights the potential influence of political factors or biases in the information dissemination process. “Misleading information about benefits” was the second most common type, reported by 51 respondents. This suggests that farmers may be receiving inaccurate or exaggerated information about the financial benefits and support available through government schemes. “Incorrect deadlines or application processes” was reported by 47 respondents, indicating that a significant number of farmers faced challenges due to inaccurate information about deadlines or the application procedures for accessing government schemes. “Promises that were not fulfilled” were reported by 45 respondents, indicating that farmers may have been misled by promises made about government schemes that were not ultimately delivered. This could lead to disillusionment and decreased trust in government programs. “False eligibility criteria” was the least common type of misinformation reported, with 43 respondents. This suggests that while some farmers may have some understanding of the basic eligibility requirements, there may still be confusion or misinformation regarding specific criteria.

Figure 1

Misinformation about the agricultural government schemes encountered by farmers.

First, in response to a survey question regarding the frequency of encountering misinformation about agricultural government schemes, a significant portion of the surveyed farmers indicated that they come across such misinformation sporadically. However, despite its seemingly infrequent occurrence, these farmers emphasized that the encountered misinformation has a substantial negative impact on their overall trust in the integrity and effectiveness of these government-sponsored agricultural programs.

Figure 2 visually represents how misinformation about agricultural government schemes affects farmers’ participation. A significant majority (72 respondents) reported that misinformation leads to reduced trust in these schemes, hindering their participation. Furthermore, 56 farmers stated that misinformation directly discourages them from participating. Conversely, only 21 respondents believe misinformation has no influence, while a negligible 8 believe it increases their trust. Thirty-three respondents were unsure of the impact. These findings underscore the critical role of accurate information in fostering farmer engagement and the success of agricultural government programs.

Figure 2

Impact of misinformation about the agricultural government schemes.

Response to: How do social factors (e.g., peer influence, community leaders) affect your ability to evaluate and trust information about agricultural government schemes?

Many farmers believe that social factors, such as peer influence and community leaders, play a significant role in shaping their ability to evaluate and trust information about agricultural government schemes. Some farmers suggest that they often rely on the experiences and opinions of fellow farmers when assessing the credibility of information, as shared experiences help them determine what is trustworthy. Many farmers believe that community leaders, including village elders, act as key sources of information, and their guidance influences decision-making. However, some farmers suggest that misinformation can also spread within these social networks, especially when trusted individuals unknowingly share inaccurate details.

Response to: Do you think information literacy training could help reduce misinformation and increase participation in government agricultural schemes? Why or why not?

Many farmers believe that information literacy training could help reduce misinformation and increase participation in government agricultural schemes. Some farmers suggest that such training would equip them with the skills to critically assess the accuracy of the information they receive, making them less vulnerable to false or misleading claims. Many farmers believe that by learning to verify sources and fact-check details, they can make more informed decisions about applying for and benefiting from government schemes. Also, some farmers suggest that increased awareness through information literacy could encourage more farmers to trust official channels and actively participate in available programs. However, a few believe that without proper implementation and accessibility, training programs may not reach all farmers, limiting their effectiveness in reducing misinformation.

Response to: Which training format would you prefer? (e.g., in-person workshops, online tutorials, radio programs, printed materials)?

It is widely observed that the majority of farmers express a strong preference for in-person workshops as their primary training format. While some acknowledge the potential utility of alternative methods such as online tutorials, radio programs, and printed materials, farmers often encounter significant limitations with these approaches. The inherent challenges posed by the digital divide, encompassing issues of inconsistent internet access and varying levels of digital literacy, diminish the efficacy of online tutorials. Radio programs, though broadly accessible, lack the crucial interactive component necessary for the clarification of complex concepts and individualized inquiries. Printed materials, while serving as valuable reference tools, may not sufficiently address the nuanced questions and practical demonstrations required for comprehensive understanding.

In contrast, in-person workshops facilitate direct engagement between trainers and participants, enabling immediate clarification of doubts and fostering a collaborative learning environment. The opportunity for hands-on demonstrations and the exchange of experiential knowledge among farmers significantly contributes to a more thorough and effective learning experience. Furthermore, these workshops cultivate a sense of community and peer support, which is paramount for the dissemination of knowledge and the adoption of new agricultural practices. Consequently, when considering the distinct needs and learning preferences of the farming community, in-person workshops emerge as the most conducive and impactful format for promoting information literacy regarding agricultural government schemes.

RQ1: What role does information literacy play in helping farmers identify and counter misinformation about agricultural government schemes?

Many farmers believe that information literacy empowers farmers to critically evaluate information sources, identify biases, and verify the accuracy of claims about government schemes. By developing these skills, farmers can distinguish between reliable information from official government channels and misleading rumors spread through social media or word-of-mouth. This allows them to make informed decisions about their participation in government programs, reducing the risk of falling victim to misinformation and its potential negative consequences.

RQ2: What are the primary challenges farmers face in accessing accurate information about agricultural government schemes, and how can information literacy address these issues?

Farmers face numerous challenges in accessing accurate information about agricultural government schemes, including limited access to reliable sources, low levels of digital literacy, language barriers, complex and ever-changing information, trust issues, etc. Some farmers believe that being in rural areas, poor infrastructure, such as limited internet connectivity and inaccessible media channels, further hinders the dissemination of accurate information. Additionally, misinformation or incomplete details spread through informal networks, such as word of mouth or unverified social media posts, often contribute to confusion. Trust issues also play a significant role, as farmers have limited confidence in government sources, making them skeptical of official information and more susceptible to rumors and misinformation.

Many farmers believe that information literacy can address their challenges by equipping them with the skills to evaluate and critically verify the information they receive. Some farmers suggest that training programs can help them recognize credible sources, fact-check claims, and navigate digital platforms effectively, whereas most farmers believe that transparent communication from government agencies, combined with community outreach programs and farmer-to-farmer networks, can further build trust and ensure they have access to accurate and reliable information.

5 Discussion

Misinformation research has not evolved into a multi- and inter-disciplinary agenda (Chowdhury et al., 2023). Participatory and community-based strategies have played a critical role in mitigating misinformation in the fields of health and politics across the globe. However, the use of these strategies in addressing agricultural misinformation is still a grey area (Chowdhury et al., 2024). The findings of this study underscore the crucial role of information literacy in mitigating misinformation surrounding agricultural government schemes. These findings align with Čechmánek (2024), who asserts that combating agricultural misinformation is crucial for community well-being and sustainable development. Similar to Eluvangal’s (2024) observations, farmers in this study reported being misled by exaggerated or incorrect claims about the scope and benefits of schemes, particularly with MSP.

The results also indicate that farmers who possess higher levels of information literacy are better equipped to evaluate, verify, and utilize agricultural information effectively. This aligns with Kankanamge et al. (2025), who observed that fact-checking practices and staying current with diverse news sources significantly improved the ability to identify misinformation. However, challenges remain in ensuring widespread information literacy among farmers. Despite their education and experience, Kankanamge et al. (2025) note that individuals remain vulnerable to misinformation due to its pervasiveness across media channels, underscoring the need for ongoing media and information literacy efforts. This supports the assertion that misinformation is not merely an issue of information availability but also comprehension and critical assessment. The analysis further reveals that perception capability and decision-making practices significantly influence the way farmers interpret and respond to agricultural policies and schemes. When farmers can critically assess information, they are less susceptible to misleading narratives and more likely to make informed decisions regarding their agricultural practices. Moreover, the pathways analyzed in the study suggest that information literacy serves as a mediating factor between access to information and the effectiveness of agricultural policy implementation. However, challenges remain in ensuring widespread information literacy among farmers. Limited access to quality information, digital literacy gaps, and trust issues with information sources were highlighted as barriers. Addressing these requires targeted interventions that include training programs, government support, and the involvement of local community leaders to enhance trust and comprehension of agricultural schemes.

6 Implications

This study has significant implications for various stakeholders, including policymakers, agricultural extension workers, and information professionals. For policymakers, it highlights the need for structured programs that integrate information literacy training into agricultural extension services. Government bodies should collaborate with academic institutions and NGOs to design modules that enhance farmers’ ability to critically assess and utilize agricultural information. Agricultural extension workers should focus on developing communication strategies that accommodate different literacy levels and digital proficiencies, ensuring that all farmers can access and benefit from accurate information. Furthermore, information professionals, including librarians and information scientists, play a crucial role in curating reliable agricultural information. Rural libraries should be leveraged as public service agencies, providing information and addressing agricultural queries, and should collaborate with agriculture centers and extension services, as suggested by Aina (2006). Strengthening community-led initiatives such as farmer information groups and peer-learning networks can also help counter misinformation and facilitate the dissemination of credible agricultural knowledge. By implementing these strategies, stakeholders can work together to improve information accessibility, enhance farmers’ decision-making capabilities, and ultimately promote sustainable agricultural practices.

7 Conclusion

This study highlights the importance of information literacy in combating misinformation and disinformation related to agricultural government schemes. By equipping farmers with critical evaluation skills, they can better navigate the vast array of information available to them, ultimately making informed decisions that enhance their agricultural productivity and economic well-being. The research also points to the necessity of a collaborative approach involving policymakers, agricultural extension workers, information professionals, and farmers themselves to ensure that accurate and accessible agricultural information reaches rural communities. Woodside (2024) emphasizes that combating agricultural misinformation requires all stakeholders to rely on evidence-based information, strengthen scientific literacy, and promote transparent communication for informed, sustainable policy decisions. Future research should explore the impact of digital platforms and emerging technologies in enhancing farmers’ information literacy and their effectiveness in combating misinformation. Even well-educated and experienced farmers are not immune to misleading claims, as Kankanamge et al. (2025) point out, which highlights the ongoing relevance of information literacy training in rural contexts. Addressing these challenges will require continuous effort and adaptation to the evolving information landscape. However, the long-term benefits, such as increased agricultural productivity, improved policy implementation, and enhanced rural livelihoods, make this endeavor worthwhile.

8 Recommendation

To address the challenges identified in this study, several recommendations are proposed:

1. Enhance information literacy training: Develop specialized training programs that focus on critical evaluation skills, source verification, and digital literacy to help farmers differentiate between accurate and misleading information.

2. Strengthen agricultural extension services: Provide continuous professional development for extension workers to ensure they effectively communicate and disseminate verified agricultural knowledge to farmers.

3. Leverage public libraries and community centers: Establish rural libraries as key information hubs where farmers can access credible agricultural data, attend workshops, and seek expert consultations.

4. Improve government communication strategies: Simplify and translate agricultural scheme information into local languages, using multiple formats such as radio broadcasts, mobile alerts, and illustrated guides. Recent institutional efforts, such as Karnataka’s fact-checking teams and IT Rule amendments (Suraksha & Aryan, 2023; The Hindu Bureau, 2023), should be expanded to rural districts.

5. Encourage collaborative efforts: Foster partnerships between policymakers, research institutions, and community organizations to implement fact-checking mechanisms and create awareness campaigns on misinformation.

6. Integrate digital and mobile technologies: Promote the use of mobile applications, SMS alerts, and social media platforms to provide farmers with real-time, verified agricultural information.

9 Future Research Directions

• Investigate the use of artificial intelligence and chatbots in delivering real-time, verified agricultural information to farmers.

• Assess the long-term impact of community-based information literacy programs on farmers’ decision-making and scheme participation.

• Explore regional differences in digital literacy and misinformation vulnerability among different farming communities.