Empowering Agriculturalists through Structured Experimentation

Last registered on June 18, 2026

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Empowering Agriculturalists through Structured Experimentation
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0017287
Initial registration date
June 12, 2026

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
June 18, 2026, 9:22 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
IIES, Stockholm University

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Queen Mary University of London
PI Affiliation
London School of Economics and Political Science
PI Affiliation
London School of Economics and Political Science

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2026-01-11
End date
2026-12-31
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
The project will evaluate the impact of a program that teaches farmers how to conduct field trials on their own plots. We evaluate the value of own-farm experimentation, measure the returns to new inputs, and evaluate the program's impact on the efficiency of input adoption.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Bryan, Gharad et al. 2026. "Empowering Agriculturalists through Structured Experimentation." AEA RCT Registry. June 18. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.17287-1.0
Sponsors & Partners

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
The EASE project aims to train small-holder maize farmers in Eastern Uganda to engage in small-scale experimentation on their own farm to identify which agricultural technologies are most profitable for them.
Intervention Start Date
2026-02-01
Intervention End Date
2026-08-15

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
1. We study the value of own-farm experimentation (in terms of the profitability of the generated input recommendations), versus a range of alternative sources of input recommendations.

2. We study the impact of the EASE program on
a. Farmer’s adoption of improved seeds and chemical fertilizers.
b. Farmer’s adoption of experimental methods in the subsequent season.
c. Projected profit gains due to choice of input adoption.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
1. The value of own-farm experimentation is computed by estimating returns to the best-performing input on the farmer's own trial, and comparing those to the input that would have been selected if following a range of pre-specified external recommendations. See pre-analysis plan for details.

2. EASE program impacts
a. Farmer’s adoption of improved seeds and chemical fertilizers. This is measured by an incentivized choice, plus follow-up survey measurement.
b. Farmer’s adoption of experimental methods in the subsequent season. This is measured by an incentivized choice, plus follow-up survey measurement.
c. Projected profit gains due to choice of input adoption. We use machine-learning methods to predict farmers' individual returns to the inputs they select from the incentivized choice experiment, and study how the training directs them to more profitable input choices.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
- We provide estimates of average returns to different inputs, complementarities between these inputs, and heterogeneity, including dependence on soil characteristics.
- We measure how farmers' beliefs about input returns respond to own-farm experimentation.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Villages and farmers are randomly selected and assigned to treatment or control. Treated farmers benefit from training to experiment with agricultural inputs, while control participants receive inputs but no training in how to conduct experiments do not receive this component. Data are collected through surveys and field observations.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization conducted in office by computer, reproducible (Stata).
Randomization Unit
Villages are first randomly assigned to treatment villages or control villages. Within each selected treatment village, eligible maize-growing farmers are listed, and a subset of 8 is randomly assigned to participate in the experiment (treated farmers).

Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
120 villages
Sample size: planned number of observations
8 farmers per village (960 units of observations).
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
75 villages treated (600 treated farmers) and 45 villages control (360 control farmers).
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
For a single treatment-control comparison using the full randomized sample, an outcome standardized to unit variance, and a two-sided 5 percent test, the approximate minimum detectable effect for 80 percent power is 0.22 standard deviations when the intracluster correlation is 0.05, 0.24 standard deviations when the intracluster correlation is 0.10, and 0.29 standard deviations when the intracluster correlation is 0.20. These calculations do not incorporate precision gains from baseline covariates.
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
LSE Research Ethics Review Board
IRB Approval Date
2026-01-09
IRB Approval Number
660771
IRB Name
Mildmay Uganda Research Ethics Committee (MUREC)
IRB Approval Date
2026-01-13
IRB Approval Number
MUREC-2026-1827
Analysis Plan

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information