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 criteria developed by the MRAP group.

This paper discusses the development and application of RAAKS within the Developing Social Capability 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. (Bawden####?) 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 usually 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 RAAKS (Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems). 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. This is a systems approach. 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 an appropriate methodology 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.

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.

Initially in the first phase of the DSC , RAAKS was closely followed. The windows and tools that form the kit guided project development. In implementing a systems methodology, the DSC project did not start with a hypothesis that was to be tested, nor were specific outcomes defined at the outset of the project. A problematic situation was tentatively defined and later redefined in interaction with other stakeholders during the course of the process. Ways to improve the situation emerged from the process.

The project started with a process of identifying the various ‘actors’ within the system. These ‘actors’ included government and non-government extension practitioners, research scientists, funding groups, farmers, local governments, catchment management authorities, specific interest groups including conservation groups, relevant businesses and financial institutions. Representative actors from each of these groups were then interviewed using a semi-structured process from which an understanding of the different views of issues and opportunities for change in the natural resource management sector emerged. These issues and opportunities were explored in more depth in a series of focused discussion groups where participants were asked to reflect on current practices and activities. Through this process a much broader range of issues and solutions than would have been expected from a traditional, technical based approach emerged.

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 in learning and evaluation processes, 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.

In the next phase of the project, team members worked within three existing DPI extension projects to develop joint action plans to deal with the issues that emerged. This participatory research 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

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.

Toward the end of 2002 the DSC team reflected on the fact that within the pilot projects different approaches to PAR were being used. One pilot followed the RAAKS process quite closely, while other pilots had adapted RAAKS and incorporated additional tools and methods. These differences occurred as responsive and flexible processes were developed to build on the needs of individual pilot projects.

The remainder of this paper will discuss these different approaches within the pilot projects in greater detail.

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 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 an environmental project known as Environmental Best Management Practice (EBMP) 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 the process, and, at the end of the process, team members reflected on the value of these reflection points in developing their learning. Never the less, a reasonable degree of trust in the process and in the DSC team was required, particularly in the early stages. Having the support and involvement of the two TOPCROP managers also provided the TOPCROP staff with the confidence to be involved in the pilot.

Fifty-two people were interviewed to explore the different views of stubble management, and the data was analysed using Nvivo. A discussion paper was prepared and circulated to stakeholders prior to a workshop in which participants shared their perspective, explored the issues in more depth and identified pathways to improve stubble management.

The full cycle of process was completed. Actions for change were identified and owned by the workshop participants. However, although these participants represent the different views within the system, not all stakeholders have 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. That is, compared with the TOPCROP project's 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.

The TOPCROP team engaged with a much broader range of stakeholders in addressing this issue, and this has led to the development of networks around stubble management that were not in place prior to the pilot project. As such, this pilot has contributed to the development of social capability in relation to the issue of stubble management.

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, the need to broaden their focus to this wider topic. The interview process provided them with a broad range of perspective 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.

Two staff members from TOPCROP had a considerable portion of their time allocated to this pilot. This dedicated time and commitment to the outcome facilitated the TOPCROP team members’ learning and enabled the project to be completed. However, it was still necessary to negotiate resources, specifically time commitment priorities with these staff at regular intervals as other activities called for their attention. Typically, extension staff are stretched between a number of priorities, and ensuring they are available at critical stages of the process is important.

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

The EBMP pilot project used a systems based PAR process that was based loosely around RAAKS. The PAR team initially identified the system and the stakeholders, however chose to use a different approach to explore the issues. An Open Space workshop was held to capture people’s initial views about ‘community involvement in catchment management – the issues and opportunities’. The Open Space workshop was considered for several reasons. The format built on the network mapping undertaken by the PAR team. Open Space 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. Finally, Open Space was considered to provide an opportunity to explore an alternative PAR tool than had been used previously by the DSC project. The Open Space workshop proved to be both an innovative means of data collection and an entry point for participation and potential involvement of stakeholders. Many people attended the Open Space workshop with expectations and participated willingly in discussions that formed the basis of the analysis and project discussion paper. The Open Space process was an effective means of exploring perspectives, thoughts and views without imposing structure or agendas, however the process of data collection from the workshop, was complicated and required considerable insight, planning and skill on behalf of the pilot PAR team.

After the Open Space, the team reviewed the diversity of the people that had so far been engaged. Where gaps were found, one-to-one semi structured interviews were conducted to capture the additional views and explore views in more depth. The information from both the Open Space workshop and the interviews was analysed by the team using NVIVO, mind maps and discussions. 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. 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 and how the process can develop social capability. One participant described his understanding of the pilot approach to be about knowledge and about trying to make links between different people and across different people, so that they could share that knowledge.

The pilot helped the team make connections with people in the system and broaden their understanding of the people and connections, 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 with and then use this network to assist others. 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 team are still working on the pilot beyond the life of the DSC project, indicating real commitment and ownership for the process and the outcomes. The participatory processes used and the understanding developed in the first stages of the pilot will provide a platform for the future work of this team.

Compared with the TOPCROP pilot, the EBMP pilot operated with limited staff resources. This presented many working challenges to completing the pilot in the timeframe allocated and impacted on the depth of team learning and skill development. Resourcing constraints meant that it was difficult to build momentum and continuity within the pilot project for team members and the participating community members. The system based PAR process used challenged team members’ paradigms of extension. Continuity in the team itself and in the activities of the team enables continuous questioning and learning. This continuity, which is seen as a crucial element in developing a deep understanding of the process and its differences compared with other extension approaches, was difficult to maintain within the EBMP pilot project.

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 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

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.

At the end of the life of the DSC project this pilot team had negotiated their way through three of the four stages of a systemic PAR process: identifying the system and problematic situation, identifying issues relevant to actors within the system and exploring them in more depth. The application of the pilot to this stage has been comparatively ‘rapid’ involving only two days of interaction with relevant community members and 4-5 pilot team meetings, some of which were conducted over the phone. The remaining members of the pilot team are working to complete the pilot.

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 a written report for the stakeholders was considered inappropriate.

A process that involved stakeholders in developing their own learning package was 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.

In the final stage of the process, members of the pilot team and the learning provider will meet with key stakeholders to create a learning package that suits the needs of the indigenous people involved in aquaculture in Gippsland. The package will be created that specifically meets these needs, rather than providing the group with a set of predetermined training courses.

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####). 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 the table below:

Methods used in process	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

The differing methods and tools used were influenced by each particular pilot project issue, team and organisational priorities. 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, however 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 not included (eg TAFE providers). Therefore it was nowhere near as thorough.

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,.

Conclusion

The process used in the DSC project was developed and then tested within DPI during 2001 – 2003. The project team initially developed an understanding of what people within the food, agriculture and natural resource management sectors see to be the issues and opportunities for developing social capability. These findings have implications for how extension is conducted – for example, in relation to information management, it became clear that the problem for many stakeholders is not a lack of information, but a difficulty to make sense of the myriad of often conflicting information that is available.

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.

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 is has an interest in the issues. This is a positive step toward 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.

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 (to be sourced)