Abstract

Extension delivery approaches have fascinated extension professionals and industry groups arguably more than any other topic within the agricultural extension domain. The rise in the prevalence of farmer groups to replace the role of one to one extension delivery has been well documented. More recently, delivery mechanisms have been the focus of discussion and debate due to perceived problems associated with group based extension. This paper brings together extension research from three projects in the dairy industry with a view to exploring issues of delivery to support change. Three cases are compared and contrasted in this paper with respect to the differences in the role and function of delivery approaches used in the dairy industry, viz.: supporting change in farm employment practice; supporting change in pasture and grazing management; and supporting improved milk quality. The role of the extension professional in relation to managing change using different approaches is discussed. Conclusions are drawn about the outcomes these different delivery mechanisms provide, and guidelines are provided for decisions regarding different choices in delivery. The paper concludes that the focus on generic (and/or least cost) approaches to extension delivery inhibits the development of appropriate and contextual extension mechanisms that could enhance outcomes for the people involved and project effectiveness. The extension profession needs to more strongly argue its case in project design and development and this paper aims to provide relevant support to this cause.

Media summary

Keywords

Introduction

Agricultural extension has undergone significant shifts over the past 30 years in terms of the underlying principles for effective extension delivery. In the beginning, the transfer of technology (ToT) top-down approach (Rogers, 1983) provided a foundation for expert to farmer delivery of new technologies. One to one methods of delivery were the main technique for extension here with little dialogue and feedback mechanisms in place. Beyond ToT delivery, farmer participation then became the focus, using a bottom up approach and farmers being included as part of the research-extension continuum. Group extension methods became the focus in this era as it was viewed as being better value for money by extension agencies (Woods et al. 1993). However in extension circles today, delivery is focused on building capacity (Macadam et al, 2003). The concept is still in its infancy; however it has led to challenging the extension profession to once again reflect on the tools and processes being implemented for delivery. A more professional approach to extension is being developed, through questioning and analysing the appropriateness and effectiveness of different extension tools and processes being used in different contexts.

This paper seeks to explore and present the opportunity for extension practitioners to be more professional about their practice. An approach is suggested for extension practitioners to incorporate an understanding of the requirements of extension delivery in terms of aligning the learning environment (context) with the delivery mechanisms and the nature of change being sought. Three case studies are presented from the Australian dairy industry, which highlight how the context of individual farmers determines the level of support and learning relationship that is required from extension practitioners to assist change. The paper uses the three cases to demonstrate how different learning environments call for 1-1 delivery, groups or a combination of approaches. The role of the extension practitioner in the process of determining approaches and delivery mechanisms and also building the capacity of extension within these processes is a central component of discussion. The paper concludes with a framework for choices on delivery approaches for extension managers, extension practitioners and funders.

Literature

There is more written about extension delivery approaches than any other topic within the extension domain. In particular, group delivery methods in extension have been a popular focus.

Extension delivery through groups

Coutts (2002) believes the group approach is facing a number of developing problems:

• The number of groups that farmers can, and often need to, participate in is growing rapidly. The group approach is becoming the major method that R & D corporations are using to disseminate the results of research that is being conducted with their funds by an increasing number of private sector-sector organisations. For farmers this means a plethora of groups, often with high participation costs and possibly a low pay-off, or at least one that is potentially difficult to determine. The problems faced by members of groups are those of participation costs, conflicting objectives, raised expectations, and the co-opting of groups by the powerful and articulate.
• Information flow beyond groups is, on the whole, lacking (Coutts, 2002). Groups are also contributing to the fragmentation of knowledge. Enormous amounts of farmer knowledge are being generated, but generally there is poor documentation, collation and dissemination in a wider framework beyond the group.
• Potential for conflicting objectives and interests to develop between farmers and R & D corporations as to how groups are to be used. Groups are often required to operate under the guidelines outlined to obtain funding. There is some conceptual difficulty in coming to terms with an extension philosophy that espouses to be ‘farmer-driven’, but only within the confines of imposed ‘top-down’ goals. This could eventually prove a problem for funders as groups opt out in order to control their own directions.

The concept of ‘farmer-driven’ group-based extension, in itself, raises further issues. Vanclay and Lawrence (1995) point out that it relies on farmer awareness of their own problems and that, with a truly ‘bottom-up’ philosophy, farmers must be free to make mistakes.

Despite this, support of participatory research and extension (often involving groups of farmers) has occurred internationally and within Australia (Fulton et al. 2000).

The role and focus of extension and the extension professional

There currently exists a theoretical tension as to whether extension should be ‘person-focused’ or ‘technology-focused’, and a developing emphasis on the former. There is a tendency to treat the two (‘farmers-needs pull’ versus ‘science-push’) as mutually exclusive (Cary, 1993). Indeed a logical consequence of the increased involvement by producers in extension is the perceived need to address issues other than technology transfer. This tension has spawned an increasing emphasis in extension on the development of human capital resources.

Fulton et al (2000) found that the research on processes for facilitating change on farm is largely limited to single evaluations of individual projects or programs. There is little comparative analysis of different approaches to facilitating change or of the combinations of processes that are likely to be most effective under given circumstances. Despite an increase in evaluation of extension, there is still little publication of findings beyond the institutions for which they have been conducted. In addition there is little evidence of the research on these topics to date drawing on disciplines outside education and extension. For the research or extension practitioner it is difficult for them to determine what processes are most appropriate for their situation, and thus how they should design their extension effort to be more effective, and more efficient.

Extension research gaps

Barriers to participation in learning or change opportunities may be factors related to an individual, their spouse, their family situation, and the characteristics of their farm, business, rural community or industry. They may also be related to the content, accessibility or delivery of the learning or change opportunities presented to the farmer. Fulton et al (2000b) conclude that the research on barriers to participation is limited in its depth and breadth, particularly in terms of understanding who is participating, why and what can be done to address barriers to participation. They argue it is only in doing this that appropriate education products can be delivered effectively.

Therefore, industries need to be mindful of the impact of increasing group-based approaches on participants’ time resources as well as the purpose of group-based approaches. This highlights the need for an internal assessment process for monitoring group progress and assisting groups in setting and achieving specific outcomes.

The literature however is limited in its analysis of the role and function of the advisory or extension relationship in change - whether it be based on groups, short courses or one to one. There is a need to understand more about managing the facets of the advisory relationship. To address this gap, results from research in the dairy industry are presented to explore the nature of the advisory relationship in different contexts (approaches to delivery) and draw conclusions about the role and place of different forms of relationship in achieving change. Conclusions about the role of groups and one to one advisory support are presented.

Findings from extension research

Case 1: Research into the role of groups in practice change (dairy farm employment)

A group of 11 farm employers working on improvement in employment was formed as part of a research study into dairy farm employment and support for change (Nettle, 2001). Involvement with this action research group in which participants are co-researchers in the study aimed to test a ‘learning focussed’ intervention as a possible means of improvement in employment. The group provided an environment in which employers could closely examine their employment relationships, reflect on them and enact change. The researcher supported the group in learning by facilitating the group process, documenting the work of the group and providing analyses, reports and alternative perspectives as contributions to the strategy of the group. Results from this group based intervention are noted here in relation to the role of the group in individual and group practice learning and change.

Farmers came together in the group because they recognised that their own skills needed to improve (not just those of their employees) but they were unsure how to progress. They realised that they could learn from each other, and they had questions about their own performance as employers and how they might “bring all the learning together” for their own farm.

One employer was willing to be a focus for the group as he was contemplating changing his employment structure. This issue was highly relevant to others in the group:

J: “It’s very interesting - we are going to have to alter our structure a bit later on…”
M: I identify with you very strongly because I like to be in control - total control...
F: I do too…

This dialogue suggests that a key feature of group learning about employment is that of group members being able to identify with each other’s situation and therefore engage with the group – but also focus or validate their learning. The concept of group member “identification” and the role it plays in change can be seen as a key group process, as can the role of the group in “mentoring change”. The dialogue also indicates the role of the group in supporting each other in what will be a time of transition in their employment relationships – suggesting a key group process in “coping with change”.

Initially the group tended to talk about employees as a resource - a factor of production. Employment issues were "externalised" - outside of employer control. The questions and comments the group made initially included:

M: "…they won’t do or finish the work they are asked to do - do you think it would make any difference if they were on a share - or a salary - or a weekly package? I mean if he was on an hourly rate - I wonder whether or not his attitude would be different?"
F: "…you know most people have no idea and if something breaks they just stop and walk off - it’s the little things like that they don’t seem to worry about."
F: “Because it doesn’t affect their wage at the end of the day.”
M: “Yeh, they don’t care”.

Over the life of the group (fifteen months) the group moved toward a greater focus on relationships in employment. The emergence of the importance of the employment relationship to employment “success” led to self-analysis of their attitudes and beliefs impacting employment, away from labour as a “factor of production”. The group interactions supported this change and suggest another key group process: “change in attitudes and beliefs”.

The importance of the researcher-facilitator as a “critical friend” was evident through an employer comment:

F: "…and it’s…like you are giving us permission to ask these difficult questions."

This highlights the importance and role of supporting third parties in group processes: that of the “challenging and critical position” required for learning and change.

The group played a role in learning of individuals and how their approach changed on their own farm. This was achieved through supporting action (on the farms) and questioning and learning (within the group) about those actions:

B: "…define for me more responsibility [for employees]. Does it mean making decisions or increasing your workload?"
T: "…what do you think they thought responsibility was? They said they wanted more responsibility – do you think they got what they wanted?"
A: " I don’t know – I’ll be interested to sit down and talk with them about it. "

This demonstrates the role of the group in “questioning and challenging each other” about their employment relationships.

B: "… wouldn’t you be better at doing that [managing the new employees]?"
M: "…you’ve taken the easy way out by [doing that]."
A: "…I think you folk are at a point where you’ve probably got to plan what you are going to do for next year – because you just can’t keep on keeping on like you are going."

Here the group members demonstrate how they are taking responsibility for supporting and challenging each other. This leads to a realisation of their own learning and change through reflection on the groups activities:

B: "I wonder if we look at last year – we weren’t prepared to ask them (employees) ‘why are you leaving’ we said: ‘ just go’. Now we are saying to ourselves …’ we want you to stay - how can we make you stay – or how can we offer you to stay’. Our perceptions as employers today …all of us has gone around that corner – we were confronted with major movement (of employees) and even though we probably didn’t want to talk about it then – we are now seeing we don’t want that to happen this year – so lets try and make it sweet…”
A: " …Pro-active…"

Could this have been achieved through individual learning or work one-to-one with an adviser or friend? The previous discussion of group processes evident in this work would suggest not.

Do groups “learn”?

The action research led to learning about the processes of employment relationship building. The main areas of group learning involved: Identifying mutual commitment in employment relationships; Understanding the role of communication in ensuring mutual understanding between employment participants; Understanding the process involved with "contracts"; Understanding what is possible when employment relationships "work" for the farm, and; learning to "watch” the relationship. Such a focus was possible because of the groups focus on individual action – but in the context of group learning and reflecting on those actions. So although the topic areas could be viewed as something any individual could work on – the group environment and group processes discussed previously support the new emphasis of group members on understanding what is going on in employment – a shift away from the pragmatic “labour as a factor of production” orientation.

These aspects of group learning were identified by the researcher through observing change in group dialogue over time. For instance, the group developed an ability to focus on “watching" (observing and reflecting) each other’s relationships. Little "watching" was going on previous to the group formation, as people spent more time observing each others employees to see if they could “poach” them for their own farm. “Watching”, then, appears to be a key process that can assist groups and individuals in understanding and taking action in their employment relationships. Group learning occurs through an understanding of the outcomes of individual action and extending the thinking beyond the individual to make generalisations for themselves and the group. Extension can facilitate improved observation of relationships as a ‘watching’ process by their challenge to group participants to reflect on the impact of their activities.

Principals from – Case 1: the role of groups

This case study of group processes in employment documents some of the key group processes that can impact directly on changed practices. Principles were developed about the role of groups in change: These included the role of the group in enhancing identification with issues, mentoring and coping with change, changing attitudes and beliefs and the role of a facilitator in presenting a critical and challenging position. Individual and group learning acted synergistically through questioning, challenging, and developing a shared sense of responsibility for change. It is argued that often these processes are undervalued and/or poorly understood in extension, with group delivery options chosen on the basis of cost-effectiveness or seen more as a “training” option. From this case it is evident that the role of groups in supporting learning and change requires a nurturing of the relationships between facilitator and participants to support the key group processes identified here. It is also suggested that documenting processes by the extension practitioner as well as content and outcomes can support learning at a project level, ensure the right delivery mode for the focus of change and increase the extension practitioner’s capacity to facilitate change through reflection on their practice.

Although this case focuses on the issue of employment relationships, it is suggested that other issues with a learning requirement involving common or shared problems, ill-defined and diverse opportunities for improvement and cultural change amongst participants can benefit from such reflective group involvement.

Case 2: Research into the role of one-to-one advice and support in practice change (pasture and grazing management)

A DRDC (now Dairy Australia)¹ funded research project “Learning plans” was conducted in Victoria in 2002 looking at ways to build relationships between advisers and farmers that impact farming system performance, create demand for learning and grows/matures the capability of both adviser and farmer (Paine and Kenny, 2002).

The research was located in the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (now DPI) Victoria and specified a learning process that complemented the technical messages generated by the existing program (in this case, Target 10). Interviews were used to investigate farmers’ current learning planning practices, develop a learning plan process and integrate this with the development and testing of products emerging from the Pastures Program. Linkages with other products and programs that help farmers to chart meaningful learning pathways were then explored. A conceptual model and protocols for the use of a learning planning process for working with farmers was developed and documented as workshop reports.

Qualitative analysis of the interview data culminated in the development of a conceptual model that explained the learning behaviour of farmers who practice dairy grazing management. The resultant model was used in a second stage of this project that involved an action research group who were charged with the task of using the initial research findings to develop practical outcomes for the Target 10 program. Five advisers from the program participated in the action research team. A series of workshops and piloting of workshop outputs (eg. methods etc.) were conducted by members as part of their routine extension work. After about 12 months of development work the team organised their findings into a methodology referred to as ‘Germinator’, a term describing the emergent nature of learning relationships (ie. like a seed germinating). This methodology was designed to help advisers/extension to better understand farmer learning requirements in terms of: their Worldviews; their intentions with respect to the area of work; their position relative to current and desired practice; their preferences in terms of strategies to bridge the gap between current and desired practice. This methodology provides the adviser with a series of tools organised in a simple step-wise process that together facilitates the formation of a learning partnership with the farmer (Nettle and Paine, 2003).

In summary, the Germinator methodology involves: determine the position of the farmer (with respect to management performance) using a questioning framework; gain an appreciation of farmer intentions by using a comparative mind mapping exercise; look for opportunities for improving practice by formulating strategies to close the gap between current and ideal practice (as defined by the farmer for their situation); and then extension positions itself in a support role to facilitate this closing of the gap, being cognisant of its resource constraints and professional development challenges.

To understand the place of this methodology in relation to the role of one to one extension support, a case study of the use of the germinator in extension practice is provided here. An extension adviser within the learning plans research wrote of their experience in using the germinator methodology in supporting change at an individual level (Refer Box 1).

Here we have an example of reflexivity in practice – the role of the extension and farmer relationship in tailoring a response to farmer needs – that not only supports change at the farm level – but builds the capacity of the adviser. This case example tells us that: 1. the steps in Germinator are relevant; 2. the process is workable in the field; 3. it makes a difference to the nature of the relationship; 4. it changes the focus of the technical exercise between advisor and farmer; 5. it promotes reflection (ie. how is the farmer seeing things?)

Principals from – Case 2: the role of one to one support in change

This case study demonstrates the nature of the relationship and the learning partnership which makes change effective for the farmer. It is the extension practitioners that align their knowledge of the farmer practitioner, the farming system and the farming practice – to better position their service provision to meet intentional change sought by farmers as learning partners. Therefore it is the management and positioning of the advisory relationship which is important in change – not just the mode of delivery (eg one-to-one interaction per se). This case demonstrates not only the limits sometimes of groups in identifying and addressing needs – but also demonstrates the professional capacity required in ensuring one to one interactions are transformational for both the farmer and advisor.

Although this case focuses on the issue of pasture and grazing management, it is suggested that other issues with a learning requirement involving a technical issue with relatively defined opportunities for improvement can benefit from such tailored advisory interaction (learning partnership) that would be cost-effective and transformational – to both client and adviser.

An example of the client-advisor relationship role in supporting change

“The situation was a Feeding Pastures for Profit (FPFP) participant in Gippsland. We had covered the theory and presented the group with a set of tools to allow the system to be "personalised" to their farm. The first on-farm day was where the system was being very well implemented and the result from using the theory and tools were easy to see. The group was pretty much as one about FPFP.  No apparent confusion and plenty of positive feedback from members of the group about how they were using the system on their own farms and what they were intending to do next. The second on-farm day saw some members missing.  One in particular had also been a very keen member of a new nutrition group.  The thought was that the farmer must have had some calving or other urgent priority come up.

A couple of days later a phone call comes in from that farmer looking for some advice about how to get out of a predicament they found themself in.

Up to now I had largely focused on the knowledge, skills and the tools plus the practicalities of using the system. The farmer was grazing at the 1 leaf stage because they were short of feed. "I know all about the theory but I can't do anything about it" the farmer said.  The temptation was to look at the theory and say, "well all you need to do is allocate the area recommended on the rotation right tool...". Interestingly, the sticking point had nothing to do with the system.  It had to do with cash flow.  The farmer was already feeling the pressure from being behind in repayments to the feed company and so the extra feed required to slow the rotation couldn't be supplied.

This prompted me to remember the work we did with “Germinator”.

When engaging with a farmer, Germinator recommends we first understand the farmers view/perspective.  In this case, I was assuming there was a difference (between the farmer and myself) in what was believed would give the best result from grazing or feeding supplements OR perhaps there was a preference for a fast rotation, despite understanding what I was advocating about how to manage pastures and supplements (eg it was easier to manage or fitted some other goal of higher priority).

Further discussion revealed it was cash flow and the farmers ability to buy the feed required to implement the system.  It could have been any of an infinite number of issues (personal, risk, technical, etc). Germinator would then suggest I establish if I was able to provide the assistance required by the farmer (not what I think is the best practice but what is best given the farmers preferences). I was able to establish with the farmer that I was able to provide the required assistance (I had the required skills and it was core business for the program).  Had I not been in the position to provide the required assistance, Germinator would suggest I sign-post to someone who is appropriate or indicate I was not able to assist and end the exchange.

Germinator would then suggest I look at what is required to service the farmer’s needs and provide appropriate assistance (there is a combination of issues to consider). What is my message?

Firstly, it was jumping to a technical solution and over-looking the unique perspective that the farmer (or any individual) has. Secondly, having established that I needed to deal with the farmer’s unique perspective, I found the Germinator model a very good tool for dealing with the issue. Thirdly, I am now wondering about some other members of the group.  Have I omitted to deal with their unique perspective with my approach to delivering the program?  I need to establish contact and find out and I will use Germinator as a process whilst doing this.

We were able to assist the farmer to develop a plan that met their needs.  A key element was being able to develop a strategy for the farmer to take to the feed company; which met with their approval.   The feed company will allow repayments to be made in a manner that is manageable (by the farmer).”

Ref: This case provided courtesy: Greg O’Brien: Target 10 extension officer: Department of Primary Industry, Victoria: e-mail greg.o’brien@dpi.vic.gov.au

Case 3: The role of groups (course-based) and individual advisory support in practice change (milk quality)

In 1999 the Countdown Downunder program² was instigated to promote best practice in terms of mastitis management on farms. Dairy Australia and State departments in Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania fund the program. The main aim of the program is to have all milk supply below 400,000 cells/mL and 90% of supply at less than 250,000 cells/mL. In order to achieve this, the program team has, among other things, developed the Farm Guidelines (Brightling, 2000) that provide recommendations to farmers and advisers in terms of mastitis management on farms.

The difficulty in affecting change in milk quality is that high cell counts are due to mastitis and are caused by a number of different bacteria that infect the udder and cause disease. The bugs get in for many reasons – muddy paddocks, stress of calving, teat damage due to faults in milking practice, and poorly adjusted milking machines.. The best dairy farmers will aim to prevent mastitis infections. It requires them to follow quality procedures, getting many small things right every day of every year.

If a mastitis problem does develop, then identifying the underlying cause can be complex and time consuming. It can involve a host of different professionals including vets, milking machine technicians, factory advisers and others. Prior to Countdown Downunder, farmers complained that the people advising them often gave confusing and inconsistent advice – they didn’t work as a team to solve the farm problem. Therefore, underpinning the program is a participatory approach that involves a shift from technology transfer by ‘experts’ to farmers, towards a more holistic approach that involves a team of farmers, farm workers and external advisers working together in a co-ordinated fashion on mastitis problems on farms.

Countdown focuses on two windows of opportunity to motivate adoption of best practice on farm: firstly when farmers had direct one-on-one interactions with their advisers, and secondly when they participated in continuing education experiences designed to help them improve their management planning in mastitis and milk quality (the Countdown “Farmer Short Course”). The course encourages participants to take control of their farm systems by having the confidence to use resources available to them, being clear about how they can contribute given their responsibility on the farm and recognising their technical and management limitations.

The mechanism that the course uses to achieve this is to create a challenge for participants to ‘close the gap’ between their current practice and best practice as recommended by the Farm Guidelines. This allows participants to ‘fast track’ to the elements they need to discuss in detail to improve the situation on their farms and tick-off on elements that they already do well. It also enables them to structure their plans in terms of their own risk management approach.

Over the course participants build a “Mastitis and milk quality action plan” (MAP) for their individual farms using the Farm Guideline recommendations. In the final session each participant is asked to present the plan for their farm to the group. This allows others to contribute comments and increases the chance of individuals taking home plans that are meaningful and practical to implement. The MAP is therefore farm specific but based on best management practice because they are developed using the guidelines, the goals and experience of the farmer, and the multiple experiences of others in the group.

Research to understand the role of Countdown Downunder in on-farm practice change sought to explore the role of the Farmer Short Course on mastitis management and the role of one to one advisory support for change in milk quality. Eleven case study farms were chosen and the results indicated the synergistic role of both the group based interventions and one to one support in practice change. Two study farms are reported here to indicate the role of the course and advisory support in change.

Farm 1: Steve and Carla milk 150 cows and are relatively new to dairying. Their farm is at a development stage and they are very keen to seek out lots of information. It was their vet who suggested they attend the Countdown Downunder Farmer Short Course. As a consequence of their actions straight after attending the course they halved their bulk milk cell count, yet still had difficulty lowering the number of clinical mastitis cases at calving. They were having trouble prioritizing critical elements to success in reducing clinical cases with so many farm development needs, they were choosing easily implemented but partial remedies. They were not backward in seeking lots of information – however it tended to come from informal “chats” with various service providers and they did not develop a real sense of direction – more “clutching at straws”.

This suggests that their “Mastitis Action Plan” developed from attending the Countdown farmer short Course provided a useful framework for action, but Steve & Carla needed a clear path to adviser support. This would help them implement and review their plan and goals. The key finding was that advisers need to be able to identify this form of need and position their service appropriately. This particular case was used in a presentation to advisor conferences around Australia to help advisers identify different needs like that of Steve and Carla. As a result many advisers gave thought to how they can better understand and meet needs. This case also demonstrates the importance of the combination of group and course work and tailored advisory support.

Farm 2: Peter milks 470 cows on the family property. He had ongoing bulk milk cell problems – consistently exceeding factory standards and was under pressure to “do something about it”. His vet conducted an investigation and a particular bacterium was diagnosed requiring specific treatment and management intervention to control. His vet recommended he attend the Countdown farmer Short Course. After attendance at the course Peter implemented radical changes to his management and over time twice halved his bulk milk cell count. The Farmer Short Course & Mastitis Action Plan provided a clear focus and independence for his management. After the course he had little follow up with his vet and, although maintaining a low cell count was using relatively un-economical methods of keeping BMCC low (heavy culling & using high count milk for calves). What was required was regular adviser interaction to monitor his protocols and critically review his progress – this would also have the advantage of equipping Peter for future challenges that often occur with the bacterium in his situation.

These two farm cases indicate the synergistic role of group based and individual interventions in supporting change. It is evident that advisory support must service different needs rather than just different problems and farmers often require support to facilitate action from their planning in groups.

• Principals from – Case 3: the alignment of group and one to one support in change

The synergistic relationship possible between group and individual delivery approaches is evident through this case – but also identifies the importance of a “tuned in” advisory sector in meeting different needs and aligning their service to these needs. The importance placed on effective group interventions, building capacity of an advisory sector to respond and the importance of one-to-one relationships identifying and working with different needs is highlighted.

Once again, the nature of the advisory relationship and managing of that relationship is highlighted as the critical issue in support of change and support to group based interventions.

Conclusion

It is evident that group based or one-to-one interventions per se do not result in change – but it is the nature of the learning relationship and the alignment of activity with needs (whether group or 1-1) that are the foundational principles for change. Once needs are adequately defined by a farmer and advisor working together, the mix of group and one on one approaches to servicing these needs will be designed according to the extent of the change required, the resources available including the capacity of the extension practitioner and the infrastructural/ demographic features of the region (eg. high concentrations of farmers with many private sector providers, or dispersed farmer groups with primarily public sector servicing).

Thus rather than a call for more 1-1 or suggesting groups don’t go far enough in change we suggest the more critical focus ought to be about the type of support required for change and building a capacity to design appropriate interventions, paying particular attention to the place and role of partners in a supportive learning relationship.

The framework for choosing a delivery mechanism therefore consists of:

1. Defining the nature of the change being sought

2. Selecting the most appropriate form of the advisory relationship

3. Developing the key group processes needed to support change,

4. Building the capacity of the advisory sector to manage the client-adviser relationship and

5. Monitor and support change according to the identified needs of the learning relationship.

Each of these steps in the framework will benefit from research and development that will improve the critical assessment of our professional contribution to industry and environmental change programs in Australia.

References

Brightling PB (2000). Farm guidelines for mastitis management. Dairy Research and Development Corporation.

Cary JW (1993). ‘Changing Foundations for Government Support of Agricultural Extension in Economically Developed Countries’. Sociologia Ruralis 23, 336-347.

Coutts J, Roberts K, Frost F, Roberts J, Coutts R (2002). Project A: A National Extension/Education Review - what works and why? Activity Report & Supporting Documentation, November 1. Capacity Building for Innovation in Rural Industries Co-operative Venture.

Fulton A, Fulton D, Tabart T, Ball P, Champion S, and Weatherley J (2000 a,b,c,d.). “Summary of relevant research on agricultural extension, learning and change (Joint RDC briefing paper 1-4) Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation (LWRRDC).

Macadam R, Drinan J, Inall N and McKenzie B (2003). Growing the Capital of Rural Australia - the task of capacity building. A report for the Rural Industry Research and Development Corporation.

Nettle RA (2001). Dairy Farm Employment and Support for Change. PhD Thesis, University of Melbourne.

Nettle RA and Paine MS (2003). Effective Adviser-Client Relationships: Findings from “The Learning Plans Project” for Farm Advisers. National workshops, May-June 2003, Institute of Land and Food Resources, Innovation and Change Management Group, University of Melbourne.

Paine MS and Kenny SN (2002). The Learning Plans Project - Final Report. Dairy Research and Development Corporation. Project UM10733. August 2002.

Rogers EM (1983). Diffusion of innovations. The Free Press: USA.

Vanclay F and Lawrence G (1995). The Environmental Imperative: Eco-Social Concerns for Australian Agriculture. Rockhampton, Queensland: Central Queensland University Press.

Woods E, Moll G (1993). Information Exchange. A report commissioned by Australia’s rural research and development corporations. Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation.

¹ Dairy Australia is the new organisation formed on July 1 2003 responsible for industry strategy and performance in relation to manufacturing, production and services (RD&E). It formed from the merger of the Australian Dairy Corporation and the Dairy Research and Development Corporation.

² www.Countdown.org.au