Abstract

This paper discusses the development and application of Participatory Action Research (PAR) approaches within a Victorian Department of Primary Industries (DPI) project - the Developing Social Capability (DSC) Project. The project aimed to enhance the capability of people in the food, agriculture and natural resource management sectors through the implementation of a soft systems approach in order to increase the development and use of new skills and technologies for sustainable, productive land management.

In 2001 the Developing Social Capability project team embarked on a trial of RAAKS (Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems) – a soft systems PAR approach developed by Engel and Salomon (1997). Through this method, issues and solutions that would not emerge from a government or scientific perspective alone are brought to the surface and the notion of a central driver for change is broadened to encompass the possibility of a multiplicity of solutions or pathways of development and innovation.

RAAKS provided the starting point for project implementation. However, during the course of the project, the DSC project team adapted the process and identified additional methods and tools to implement the process. This paper is written to provide an insight into this journey.

Keywords

Introduction

Extension practice in DPI is focused on influencing the decision making of land managers with the intention of achieving balanced outcomes for the Victorian economy, the environment and for the social good of the local community.

In recent times a shift has occurred from a predominant focus on production to an interest in sustainability. The focus on sustainability entails an emphasis on social and environmental, as well as the economic dimensions of the development process. Furthermore, this shift has highlighted that the stakeholders in agriculture are not just the farming industry, but also the broader community (Mullen et al. 2000).

The implication of this changing emphasis and stakeholder base means that the prevailing configuration of networks is unable to deal with the challenges that the agricultural context of change presents (Engel, 1997). According to Engel and Salomon (1997:13) “it has become apparent that a uniform extension system, ‘fed’ regularly with pre packaged technical information cannot respond to the demands of richly differentiated target groups”. The challenges faced in agriculture and natural resource management can only be addressed through a reconfiguration of the networks around agricultural innovation (Engel,1997). Government activities need to include activities that target the broader community of stakeholders and aim to reconcile the competing interests around productivity, environmental and social outcomes (Mullen et al. 2000).

The aim of the DSC project was to facilitate a process of innovation within agricultural extension in order to address these complexities of sustainable development. Following an analysis of a review of relevant literature, the Monash Regional Australia Project (MRAP) recommended that the DSC project develop an interactive and participatory approach to social capability building that strongly focused on building links

with other groups, sectors and organisations (Cocklin et al. 2001) The DSC project team identified and selected the Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems (RAAKS) process as a starting point to develop a soft systems participatory action research (PAR) process, as this was consistent with the recommendations made by the MRAP group.

This paper discusses the development and application of RAAKS within the DSC project. A soft systems approach requires that professionals within the organisation become facilitators of learning systems that bring together a multiplicity of stakeholders to learn their ways forward (Bawden et al. 2000). The DSC project provided an opportunity to gain insight into the application of soft systems thinking through a trial of RAAKS in existing extension projects within the organisation.

During the course of the DSC project, the project team expanded their views and adapted RAAKS to meet the specific needs of the extension projects within which it was trialed. These included TOPCROP, the Environmental Best Management Practices Project (EBMP) and FarmBis. Each pilot project incorporated a variety of PAR methods and tools to address contextual issues and demands.

This paper will discuss the journey of the project from RAAKS to its various adaptations.

Soft Systems Theory and RAAKS

The DSC project was based on soft systems theory, as initially developed by Checkland (1981) and further expanded upon and related to the agricultural context in Australia by Bawden and Macadam (1991). Bawden argued that issues emerging in agriculture, such as environmental degradation and social issues, were largely systemic and these need to be addressed in a systemic way. Moreover, it was argued that agricultural practitioners are part of the system and need to learn to think in a systemic way. Consequently, the priority for agricultural professionals is not “learning about systems through enquiry”, but learning “how to become systems of enquiry” (Bawden et al. 2000:400). Furthermore, proponents of soft systems thinking believe that achieving positive change to complex real world situations can be enhanced by taking into account the different norms, values and beliefs of a community. Knowledge generated by investigative science is only one form of knowledge. It forms a part of the solution or pathway for change, but does not direct it.

Soft systems approaches to dealing with change are often characterised by a participatory action research methodology, as this entails working with people, rather on, or for people, and this allows for incorporation of local knowledge. A participatory action research approach provides a vehicle to construct an interactive learning system within agriculture that includes practitioners as well as other stakeholders in the learning process.

Informed by soft systems thinking, the DSC project trialed a systems methodology based on the RAAKS process. RAAKS is “a participatory action research methodology for studying innovation related problem situations and for designing possible courses of action” (Engel 1995:5). At the core of RAAKS are the appreciations; the perceptions, judgements and understandings, of all principle stakeholders. Originally developed for use in agricultural and rural development situations, the tool has been applied to non-rural situations such as the management of services for the elderly and the introduction of solar energy in the Netherlands. RAAKS is not a simple step by step kit, more a series of questions to guide thinking and processes which can be selected on a needs basis.

RAAKS provides ways for a diverse range of people involved in complex situations to begin to find answers for themselves. It is useful in a situation where working together can be expected to promote positive change and offers tools for gathering, organising and interpreting information in a participatory manner. The process develops a shared sense of purpose between stakeholders and a basis for developing and implementing innovative solutions focusing on people’s practice and knowledge. It builds relationships and understanding between stakeholders, which provides a platform for developing innovative solutions and practice change.

In fact, the RAAKS methodology is explicitly focused on improving the social organisation of innovation, and this distinguishes the RAAKS process from other participatory action research approaches. As Engel argues "… [t]he big difference between this and more traditional SSM [Soft Systems Methodologies] and PAR approaches is that it will have to be suited to dealing with problematical situations in which no joint management structure is typically available (Engel 1997:159). As such it is ideally suited to the agricultural change context in which DPI is operating, which requires a reconfiguration of networks and management structures in order to engage a broader range of stakeholders in the change process. RAAKS is therefore designed to develop the capability of a social collectivity to act to manage change, in other words to develop social capability (Boxelaar forthcoming).

Implementing RAAKS

The DSC project was implemented in two phases. The first phase, the process development phase, involved the DSC team in developing a systems based PAR approach that (potentially) would improve the efficacy of extension or change management activities in DPI. This was done through an action-learning approach. Using RAAKS as a guide the team identified and explored the problematic situation “how to enhance the capability of people in the food and agriculture and natural resource management sectors to generate – and respond – to change”. In this way the team learnt about and developed the approach, and at the same time generated new knowledge about the problematic situation.

Following RAAKS principles the DSC team focused on strategic diagnosis of the problem rather than immediately focusing on specific solutions. The definition of the problem was iterative and emerged from the interaction of people within the system, rather than being pre-empted. The focus was on people’s practice and how to improve or change practice to resolve problems, and on the way stakeholders build and maintain relationships with each other to foster innovation (how they organise themselves to learn, network, co operate, and communicate). The team built learning and evaluation processes into the project, used multiple perspectives and group inquiry and had context specific processes designed within an overall framework working towards designing and implementing sustainable action. The key elements of these were the use of a systems approach through team work, focused collection of information, qualitative analysis, shared learning and strategic decision making.

Figure 1: The DSC Process

The second phase of the DSC project, the process implementation phase, involved testing the process developed in the previous phase within existing extension projects. Issues and opportunities for developing social capability identified in the first phase were explored within three ‘pilot’ DPI extension projects. Each extension project identified a problematic situation they wished to address and project staff worked with members of the DSC team to implement the systems based PAR process to address their situation.

This PAR cycle was iterative and designed to explore possible courses of actions and contribute to the emergence of shared understanding of issues among a wide variety of stakeholders. It was a direct consequence of this iterative process that enabled the team to adapt RAAKS and explore new PAR approaches within the pilot projects and build on the experiences and learning gained through RAAKS.

Learnings from RAAKS during the DSC Project process development phase

RAAKS formed the basis for the PAR approach used by the DSC project, however there were several factors that limited the useability of RAAKS by the DSC team. The language in the kit and associated literature was complicated and at times difficult to interpret. Many team members had limited understanding of the theory behind RAAKS and this impacted on their ability to explore and build on the learnings and insights presented. There was also confusion within the DSC team of individual team members' roles and identity, which influenced where they positioned RAAKS in relation to their construct of the project. Some team members commenced in the project viewing RAAKS as the latest extension tool or kit that they would be using in their new work as a RAAKS Project Officer. Others felt RAAKS was a tool or approach that would guide, but not direct, project activity.

The significance of the differing perceptions of the roles team members would take resulted in a need to explore and discuss both the roles of team members and RAAKS early in the project. The process used led to an acceptance of a team culture of challenging, questioning, exploring and testing that formed the basis for the iterative nature of the project.

PAR approaches in the Pilot Projects (Project specific applications of PAR)

Three pilot projects were conducted in the second stage of the DSC project, each of which employed PAR processes involving distinct iterative steps. Each pilot aimed to explore the use of PAR processes to provide ways for a diverse range of people involved in complex situations to find answers. Each began at different times, involved different types of issues and had reached different stages at the end of the DSC project.

The first pilot to be implemented involved members of the grains industry extension project, TOPCROP, in examining opportunities for improving the management of stubble in Victorian cropping areas. The TOPCROP team had a particular interest in stubble burning and the associated concerns held by various sections of the community.

The second pilot focused on a region in south west Victoria, rather than an agricultural industry. Staff involved in the Environmental Best Management Practice (EBMP) project were interested in exploring ways to improve the capacity of people within a catchment to take collective action to improve environmental conditions.

The third pilot was initiated late in the project, and involved a much smaller community of practice. It involved people interested in improving the well being of people in the indigenous community in East Gippsland through involvement in aquaculture businesses. The project brought together staff from the FarmBis program, Fisheries and the Gippsland based Koori co-ordinator.

DSC Pilot Project 1: TOPCROP

The TOPCROP pilot was the first to be initiated and followed the RAAKS guide closely, using the phases of RAAKS to determine action and activity. This included iterative cycles of stakeholder identification, issue definition and action planning.

Guided by the learnings and understanding developed from applying RAAKS in the first stage of the project, the DSC team members working with TOPCROP designed this pilot process to begin with simple principles and actions rather than the theory of RAAKS. New principles and theoretical frameworks were gradually introduced as the pilot team stopped to reflect on their actions before planning the detail of the next stage of the pilot. This approach facilitated learning as understanding and confidence in the process grew with each stage of the process. This highlights the importance of the reflection points in developing learning. A reasonable degree of trust in the process and in the DSC team was required, particularly in the early stages of the pilot project.

Fifty-two people were interviewed to explore the different views and practices in relation to stubble management, and the data was analysed and documented in a discussion paper. The paper was circulated to stakeholders prior to a workshop which involved participants from a diversity of groups and organisations such as grains industry representatives, farmer groups, EPA, local government, CFA and Catchment Management Authorities. Participants shared their perspectives, explored the issues in more depth and identified pathways to improve stubble management.

The TOPCROP team engaged with a much broader range of stakeholders than they would have done using a traditional approach to address this issue. Initially TOPCROP’s aim for the stubble management project was to study views and practices related to stubble burning. However, once introduced to a systems thinking approach they quickly recognised that stubble burning is part of the larger stubble management issue, and therefore, acknowledged the need to broaden their focus to this wider topic. The interview process provided them with a broad range of perspectives of stubble management. The team commented on the richness of the picture created from the process, indicating that it raised issues they had never considered previously.

The full cycle of process (see Figure 1) was completed. Actions for change, including networking and new relationships were identified and owned by the workshop participants. However, not every stakeholder in the system has been engaged directly. Therefore, there is still challenge in bringing other people on board through the activities to follow. The process has been successful in achieving alternative pathways for change for the TOPCROP team, compared with their original intention (pre pilot) of developing a set of best management practices that would have focused on the development of technical solutions. As a result of the joint project between TOPCROP and the DSC team, the 'social organisation' (Engel 1997) of this issue was also addressed and explored, which has resulted in networking opportunities and activities to develop shared principles and policies to resolve issues.

DSC Pilot Project 2: Environmental Best Management Practices Project (EBMP)

The EBMP project requires a high level of interaction and cooperation between a range of stakeholders to promote and implement positive change in agricultural and land management practices. The DSC pilot provided an opportunity to enable the EBMP project to explore a different approach to initiating community involvement in catchment management.

The EBMP pilot team initially identified the system and the stakeholders using the RAAKS kit as a guide. They then chose to use an Open Space workshop to identify the issues around ‘community involvement in catchment management – the issues and opportunities’. The workshop enabled a breadth of views and opinions to be captured in a less resource intensive manner and over a relatively short period of time compared with a large number of semi structured interviews. It also provided an opportunity to determine the value of Open Space as a tool in the PAR process. The Open Space process proved to be an effective means of exploring perspectives, thoughts and views without imposing structure or agendas. The process of data collection from the workshop was complicated and required considerable insight, planning and skill on behalf of the pilot PAR team. A small number of semi-structured interviews were also required to ensure that all the views in the system had been included. The information from both the Open Space workshop and the interviews was analysed by the team and a discussion paper was written to assist the team to launch into the next stage of the pilot.

At the time of this paper the EBMP pilot project had completed three of the four steps of a systemic PAR process loosely based around RAAKS. Although the pilot has not yet reached the action planning stage, participants in the pilot team showed significant shifts in their learning about the process. The pilot helped the team make connections with people in the system and broaden their understanding of the people which form part of the catchment community. These connections and the enhanced understanding provide a solid platform for bringing stakeholders together in the next stage of the pilot, to develop pathways to move forward on the issues identified. The EBMP staff involved in the pilot reported some changes in practice resulting from their involvement in the pilot project. The pilot had made them think more broadly and enable them to extend their network to people they would not usually work such with such as a diversity of agricultural industries and local community organisations outside their immediate relationships. Team members saw a shift in the way they were doing extension from telling and informing, to listening and then developing plans and strategies using the different perspectives. The participatory processes used and the understandings developed in the first stages of the pilot will provide a platform for future work in the EBMP project.

Compared with the TOPCROP pilot, the EBMP pilot operated with limited staff resources. This presented a challenge to the team being able to complete the pilot in the timeframe allocated. It also impacted on the depth of team learning and skill development. Resource constraints meant that it was difficult to build momentum and continuity within the pilot project for team members and the participating community members.

DSC Pilot Project 3: FarmBis

One of the goals of the FarmBis program is to increase the participation level of indigenous people in its training activities. The FarmBis fishing industry co-ordinator was seeking ways to ensure that FarmBis training was relevant to indigenous people interested in the fishing industry in order to meet the program’s participation targets. The pilot project aimed to distinguish factors that assist and those that inhibit learning about aquaculture in the Koori community in Gippsland, and to create appropriate learning programs. The role of DPI’s FarmBis program in implementing the options also needed to be identified.

The FarmBis pilot used a systems based PAR approach, specifically aiming to use ‘rapid’, less resource intensive options than were being used in the TOPCROP and EMBP pilots. This pilot team also has also completed a full cycle of the PAR process, designing a learning package with members of the indigenous community interested in aquaculture. The application of the pilot to this stage has involved only four days of interaction with relevant community members and 4-5 pilot team meetings, some of which were conducted over the phone.

In comparison with the other pilots this pilot used a much less formal approach to finding out about how stakeholders viewed the issue. A series of questions, similar to those created for a semi structured interview was drawn up, but the information was gathered during a ‘walk and talk’ session as the pilot team was shown around the local aquaculture enterprise owned and run by a member of the indigenous community. Further conversations were held with other stakeholders including a local state politician and the local Koori community development officer. Data to answer the questions was gleaned from the conversations but was not analysed formally, using Nvivo for example. Instead it was interpreted by the team in face-to-face and electronic discussions. This was documented informally by team members as they had been informed that a written report was not wanted by the community.

A process that involved stakeholders in developing their own learning package was then created. This took into account the issues raised in the previous stage and enabled the departmental staff to work with the stakeholders to explore and find ways to resolve them. A learning provider was engaged to assist with this process. The learning package created in collaboration with the community specifically meets their needs, compared with the predetermined training courses offered previously. The feedback received from the indigenous community about the training has been extremely positive. The trainers have achieved appropriate trust, repour and respect from the group involved in the program. This was identified at the outset of the pilot as a major factor in achieving the desired outcomes for all stakeholders.

Adapting RAAKS

In implementing the pilot project, the DSC project team adapted the RAAKS process, but also made sense of the participatory action research approach by drawing on other texts (Such as Wadsworth, 1991). While the underlying soft systems principles of RAAKS and the key phases identified in RAAKS largely continued to inform project implementation throughout (although to varying degrees), the team identified other methods and tools in order to respond to the specific circumstances in which pilot projects were implemented. These differences are outlined in Table 1, below.

Each particular pilot project issue, team and organisational priorities influenced the different methods and tools used. The TOPCROP pilot produced a more thorough result in terms of stakeholder ownership, but was more time consuming than EBMP or FarmBis pilots. EBMP used an open space workshop, which was less time consuming, but still required follow up face-to-face interviews. The depth of understanding of the various perspectives achieved through this multi-staged process was compromised though lack of continuity within the pilot team. FarmBis utilised a rapid process, but the system was very small compared with the other two. Potentially some views were missed (eg TAFE providers).

Step	TOPCROP	EBMP	FARMBIS
Problem definition and stakeholder engagement	Interviews with stakeholders	Open Space Workshop and interviews with stakeholders	Walk and Talk in the community
Synthesis of information	Qualitative data analysis using NVivo software - Discussion paper produced to inform participants	Qualitative data analysis using NVivo software - Discussion paper produced to inform participants	Face to face and electronic discussions and reflections between participants
Action planning	Workshop with participants to identify pathways for action	Workshops to be conducted in order to move toward local catchment action	Workshop with participants to develop learning package

Table 1: Methods and tools used within the three pilot projects

Furthermore, it is evident that there are specific issues more suited for PAR – complex issues that involve many stakeholders with diverse views. There are also particular operating environments within organisations and specific team and personal attributes that enable PAR to be effective in developing social capability or managing change. These include the capability of the individual, personal confidence, team values, practices and behaviours and allowing the time and space needed to undertake PAR activities.

Challenges and Opportunities

The DSC team identified a number of existing paradigms and cultural norms within DPI that provide challenges to the broader utilisation of a systemic PAR approach such as RAAKS. The extension officers sense of identity, the emergent nature of the PAR process, the time required to build relationships and networks, the value placed on reflective practice within the organisation, the level of understanding of soft systems within a hard systems organisation and the challenge of changing the change agent were all identified.

However, people within and outside Government appear to be genuinely interested in learning how to improve their practice by engaging more effectively with the communities with which they work. They are seeking processes to do this as well as support in building their capacity in this area. Although some people are looking for set methods or recipes it is clear from this research project and from the literature in general that ‘quick fix’ solutions are not appropriate where there are complex interactions between the social, environmental and economic dimensions of an issue. The MRAP group stated in their recommendations that there is no ‘on-size-fits-all’ approach to capacity building. The outputs, including learning or evaluation findings, from the DSC project provide a flexible process that fits the criteria recommended by the MRAP group and that has been tested in different situations. It provides an approach for situations or issues where a range of people with diverse views has an interest in the issue, and behavioural change is reliant on negotiated action. In these situations traditional approaches typically will not have achieved desired outcomes in the past. It is also a valuable approach where the stakes resulting from inaction are high. The approach has the potential to provide an extra dimension to extension capacity, thereby increasing the efficacy of their activities and as a consequence the perceived value of organisations within communities.

The process also offers an opportunity in assisting programs to deliver triple bottom line outcomes in an integrated manner. The interaction between a wider group of stakeholders and the inclusion of a broad range of views means social, economic and environmental perspectives are most likely to be included in the problem definition and pathways for action.

A further opportunity offered by developing this approach is the potential to broaden the skills base and critical thinking capacity of extension staff, enabling them to be more forward and outward looking. The thinking and learning skills developed from being involved in a systems based PAR process can be applied in other areas of work, causing staff to reflect on and critically review their practice with the aim of continuously improving their practice.

Conclusion

The systems based PAR process developed and tested within this research project is most suitable to situations where there is a range of perspectives of the problematic situation, when some form of negotiated action needs to be created for change to occur, and where values and belief systems have an influence on decision making. It is a valuable tool where the stakes are high. The process has the potential to build capacity of stakeholders, including extension professionals, to learn to continuously improve their situation or practice as the environment in which they exist continues to change around them.

In testing the process used in the first stage of the project, a number of different methods and tools were used with differing results. Confidence in and acceptance of the fact that these methods and tools can not be used in a standard ‘recipe’ format was crucial to the success of the PAR approach used. Through the project it became evident that larger, more complicated systems and issues require more work and resources and that gaining an understanding of the range and depth of views of the problematic situation takes time. Traditional extension approaches tend to assume this knowledge, or to discount it in deference to scientific understanding. The risk of doing this is to miss out on identifying many of the pathways that could contribute to improving the situation. For example, in the TOPCROP pilot, networks were developed within the grains industry as part of the PAR process in addition to the technical solutions identified. The decision to use RAAKS or any other approach needs to be based on sound project planning principles which ensure project staff have clear objectives and a project logic before selecting extension or engagement methodologies.

Each of the pilots has successfully explored three very different issues within their extension projects and introduced PAR approaches within these projects. The DSC project has enabled the extension projects involved to develop a richer picture of the problematic situation identified, develop the skills and capability of their teams, and to broaden their view of who has an interest in the issues. This is a positive step towards more effective pathways for development and innovation and has contributed to social capability.

References

Bawden, R. and Macadam R (1991) Action Researching Systems – Extension Reconstructed. Proceedings Agricultural Knowledge Systems and the Role of Extension Workshop, University of Honehein, Stittgart, Germany. (May) pp 21 - 25

Bawden, R., Packham, R., Macadam, R. and McKenzie, B. 2000, 'Back to the future: Reflections from Hawkesbury' in Cerf, M., Gibbon, D., Hubert, B., Ison, R., Jiggins, J., Paine, M., Proost, J. and Roling, N. (Eds.) Cow up a tree: Knowing and learning for change in agriculture. Case studies from industrialised countries, Institute National de la Recherche Agronomique, Paris, pp. 397-409.

Boxelaar, L. Forthcoming PhD thesis,, Institute of Land & Food Resources, University of Melbourne.

Checkland, P.B (1981) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wiley and Sons Chichester.

Cocklin, C., Dibden, J., Kilpatrick, S., Higgins, V., Sass, J., Snell, D., Birrell, B., Falk, I., Pfueller, S. and Waddell, D. 2001, Social Capability in Rural Victoria: The Food & Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Sectors, The State of Victoria, Department of Natural Resources and Environment.

Engel, P. and Solomon, M. L. 1997, Facilitating innovation for development: A RAAKS resource box, Royal Tropical Institute, The Netherlands.

Engel, P. 1997, The social organisation of innovation: A focus on stakeholder interaction, Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam.

Mullen, J. D., Vernon, D. and Fishpool, K. I. 2000, 'Agricultural extension policy in Australia: public funding and market failure' in The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 629-645.

Wadsworth, Y. (1991) Everyday Evaluation on the Run. Melbourne: Action Research Issues Association