Abstract

Every extension strategy, like the actions of individual extension staff, reflects particular world views about the nature of knowledge and truth. These worldviews become the (usually) hidden assumptions about why we are doing extension, and why we prefer particular methods or approaches over others. Extension has a long heritage in science, and applying objective measures of reality. This has been based upon one (positivist) way of viewing the world, nature, and how to address the agricultural issues that have arisen. Recent trends in agriculture and rural communities have highlighted issues that cannot be resolved through science. Indeed in some cases, it has been the widespread adoption of particular technologies and scientific results that have added to existing problems (e.g. in the environment). This has led some extension people to apply new strategic approaches from interpretivist, radical humanist, and radical structuralist to their work. Each of these approaches is associated with world views that affect all parts of an extension strategy from its purpose, its structure, its methods, and the competencies required in delivery. It is when inconsistencies arise in a strategy between say the world views forming its intent (which may be science based) and the world views underpinning its delivery (which, for example may be based upon critical theory) that internal coherency is compromised, debilitating the delivery of any extension activities. People considering strategies based upon world views that they are unfamiliar with, may find themselves needlessly challenging the technical content of such proposals when the strength may be based upon other priorities such as relationship building or social emancipation.

This paper is intended to be an introduction to studies into world views and their application in policy interventions, research and extension. Its results will assist extension people to consider the applicability of a wide range of world views as the basis to informing their practice and framing strategy.

Media Summary

Keywords

Introduction

This paper is intended to challenge some of the assumptions that extension practitioners may make about different and alternative extension approaches when they are describing “how things are done around the profession” (Paine 1997). The paper deals with peoples’ world views as the basis to our behaviour and how we give meaning to events around us. World views include assumptions about how reality might be understood (ontology), and how knowledge about reality might be obtained and communicated (epistemology) (Dodds 1989). Whether people are aware of it or not, we all approach significant issues in our lives through a particular frame of reference or world view, which reflects our assumptions about the nature of the world, and how it might be investigated (Burrell and Morgan 1979).

In introducing these concepts to extension practitioners, this paper is intended to be descriptive rather than explanatory or applied. We have kept the references to the most salient for clarity; people wishing to examine the concepts in more detail should follow these up. We will begin with a metaphor in an attempt to appeal to a wide cross-section of learning styles. The metaphor likens extension to a river and how it might be managed¹. Our application of the metaphor starts by asking how the current state of the river should be valued and what its future management might provide.

For some people, the value of the river can be measured by laboratory tests of its water quality e.g. water clarity, the presence of pathogens, and nutrient concentration; and then by comparing these results to national standards for various levels of human contact from water consumption to secondary contact e.g. via washing. For these people, future improvements to the river would result in improved laboratory test results.

Other people might value a river by how much it contributes to the lives of the people living around it. These people might measure its affects upon local peoples’ feelings of relaxation, recreation and production and how the river might be managed to increase these benefits.

For some people, the significance of the river results from its history and its embodiment in human traditions. They might describe its importance to the prehuman environment and the early human inhabitants of the land. Then, how pressures upon the river have increased as a result of greater numbers of people, colonisation, and economic pragmatism. For these people, the best potential for the river would be for it to be returned to its primordial state and for it to be managed to meet the needs of its original stakeholders with the greatest socio-cultural dependence upon maintaining its natural integrity.

For other people, the river is a natural resource which at the same time is contributing to, and limiting social development in surrounding communities. Some groups in these communities may have limited access to the river because its existing use is being controlled and exploited by people ‘in power’. Future management of the river could therefore be directed towards recognising and addressing the imbalances created by these power relationships.

The metaphor about management of the river relates to four contrasting world views, each highlighting a different approach to extension. They range from people who may be very science focussed, to people concerned about associated social relationships, or human development, or a waterway as a resource controlled by a powerful community “elite”. Any extension approach having a particular world view can be considered in relation to particular sets of characteristics (Burrell and Morgan 1979) forming the basis of two continuums. To make the differences more explicit and reduce confusion we present them in their most polarised form. One continuum represents the ‘objective-subjective’ dimension of a world view, the other, the ‘consensus-radical change’ dimension. These two dimensions provide the main basis to the differences between each of the world views influencing theoretical developments in extension (see figure 1).

World views with objective approaches (on the objective-subjective continuum), consider social reality to be independent of any observer (and like the natural world) able to be measured in concrete terms using systematic protocols. People are expected to respond to changes in environmental conditions in a predictable and mechanistic way. Applying this approach theories can be developed that describe consistent roles for human behaviour. The objective approach is contrasted with subjective approaches that consider social reality to be a product of peoples’ consciousness, determined by personal experience and insight.

In a subjective approach, the social world is relativistic and can only be understood from the point of view of the individuals directly involved. Generalised theories do not fit this approach which instead provides unique understanding about particular situations and the issues that they contain.

With a consensus approach (on the consensus-radical change continuum) the emphasis is upon understanding the underlying social order and equilibrium in human affairs. This approach assumes an underlying cohesion exists in society that can provide the basis to consensus decision making and stability. In contrast, radical change approaches are based upon society being malintegrated, divided, requiring coercion to achieve conformity, resulting in conflict, hostility, and finally its own disintegration.

Four Extension World Views

Positivist World View

People with a positivist world view apply objective approaches to understanding and building universal theories and laws for improving agricultural productivity (Kowlakowski 1972, Miles and Huberman 1984). A positivist world view is problem orientated; creating practical solutions for practical problems so that people can have increased control over resourcing and achieving their goals (both individual and collective). Scientific developments in extension are associated with developing and applying theories consistent with a positivist world view. These theories may come from economics, psychology, systems dynamics (hard systems), modelling and computer simulation. Extension people with a positivist world view provide advice to agriculturalists and landowners about natural resource utilisation and farm production.

Interpretivist World View

An interpretivist world view considers all knowledge to be socially constructed from subjective experience and inference (Schutz and Luckmann 1973). Knowledge is given value by individuals or groups of people when it meets their needs for a particular situation therefore its meaning and significance, can only be understood from within their social context. An interpretivist world view assumes that scientific knowledge is also founded upon a set of unstated conventions, beliefs, and assumptions, and should be given no more applied value than the common sense or intuitive understandings obtained from any other source of secondary information. According to this world view, the business and social world only becomes visible as it emerges from the many intentional acts of people behaving individually or in concert with one another. An interpretivist world view is not suitable for studying concrete issues to do with industry structure or policy. Interpretivist projects do not create general frameworks or guidelines, or add extra complexity over that required for dealing locally with an actual situation.

Figure 1. Dimensions and Attributes of Extension World Views

In these projects extension people are not involved in finding the underlying relationships as they would with a positivist world view, but instead they take a ‘Farmer First’ approach and assume that an underlying social cohesiveness exists to give meaning to peoples’ actions. Grounded theory derived from local experience and local knowledge can provide the basis for further learning. Extension people working within this world view may facilitate group activities to resolve particular natural resource or farm production issues. The facilitation is used to provide a process of inquiry and assist group decision making rather than to produce any predefined output or achieve set performance targets.

Radical Humanist World View

The radical humanist world view aims to ensure human fulfilment through changes in individual consciousness and cognition (Habermas 1972). Both the interpretivist and radical humanist world views assume that individuals create the social order in which they live (a subjectivist viewpoint). An interpretivist world view reveals order; whereas radical humanists are part of changing it. This world view is based upon peoples’ social norms and expectations constraining them and depriving them from ever fulfilling their potential as complete human beings. A radical humanist world view rejects organisations and industry structures as authoritarian, rule based social constructs that distort peoples’ consciousness so that they can’t understand or appreciate their own potential and become alienated from their true being.

Applying critical theory, extension practitioners within this world view may analyse the structure of domination embedded in language, discourse, and the influence of new technologies. Rather than creating improved solutions to social ills or leading to greater progress, positivist science is believed in this world view to have created many of the issues needing to be addressed. These issues result from science being based upon an ideology of domination, including the domination of humans over the environment, and scientific results over peoples’ experience.

Extension people working from a radical humanist viewpoint are likely to participate in local action groups spurning any organisational role or structure. They will encourage greater autonomy, creativity, and responsibility in decision making and action amongst group members. They will also select and adapt technologies to local conditions to improve the sustainability of rural communities, reduce the environmental damage caused by farming, and provide rural landowners with greater independence for personal fulfilment.

Radical Structuralist World View

The radical structuralist world view addresses the limiting effects that structural relationships can have upon individual and group freedom (Marx and Engels 1968). The conflict and contradictions often inherent in social structures are considered to be inevitable, leading to political and economic crises that are a necessary means of generating radical change for greater human emancipation. This world view is similar to the positivist world view in that it considers society and the world to consist of tangible entities with an independent existence that is possible to measure objectively. It differs from the positivist world view in that practitioners take action against the bureaucracies, authorities, and world powers that are creating economic inequality and social domination.

Applying the radical structuralist world view will lead extension people into publicly exposing the intentions of the power holders in government and industry organisations. They will simultaneously highlight the interests and needs of powerless farming and community groups making these so distinct and intractable that open conflict between these groups becomes natural and inevitable. The issues being addressed are likely to be at a sufficiently large scale so as to cause social crises, these might include such things as greenhouse gas production and increased ‘free-trade’.

Discussion and Conclusions

Each of the world views described has implications for the outcomes to be expected from an extension intervention and the methods to be applied. Positivist interventions are intended to achieve predictable changes in human and social behaviour, where as, interpretivist interventions will provide changes in peoples’ decision making processes. Radical humanist and radical structuralist interventions make public the underlying power relationships and encourage conflict between people and organisations with different values. Much of the funding in Australasia for extension projects is derived from government and industry investors. These groups can be expected to prefer positivist and interpretivist interventions in agriculture and rural communities so as to build upon and develop existing social structures and institutions. Non-government organisations, development, and aid organisations may include radical change interventions in situations where they consider their clients to be in oppressive relationships. Few theorists have considered intervention strategies to integrate all four world views. One who has is Bob Flood (1999), who has used a ‘four window’ approach to designing such strategies. The four window approach considers every social issue to be made of four different interactive systems or windows. Each window is used to examine a situation from a different world view (Parminter and O’Connor 2003). That this approach provides a structured approach for integrating all four world views indicates that it itself reflects a positivist world view. Never the less, it does provide a way for government and industry organisations to appreciate and recognise the contributions to social development by people from within each world view.

Extension methods such as farming systems trials, newspaper articles, field days, discussion groups, Landcare groups, and learning circles, all reflect the world views in which they were developed. Those methods which involve selected speakers, pre-defined topics, or objective information e.g. field days, suit a positivist world view. Methods which provide processes for sharing subjective experiences, knowledge and introspection, e.g. learning circles, were developed in situations which required an interpretivist world view. Methods based upon uncovering and acting upon meanings discovered through reflexivity, discussion, and ideal comparisons e.g. work groups, protests, and acts of liberation, reflect a radical humanist or structuralist point of view. Having a particular method though does not determine which world view is being applied. Most methods with some adaptation can be applied and interpreted by people operating within any of the four world views (Van den Ban and Hawkins 1996). For instance the community mapping method used in participatory inquiries (Mikkelsen 1995) can be used to add information to GIS maps (a positivist application). Alternatively, the map can be used by a community to discuss and decide upon the site for a well (an interpretivist application,) or it could be used to expose power relationships and gender oppression consistent with radical change world views.

Checking that the extension methods used are consistent with project and stakeholder worldviews, whether these are assumed or explicit, should be part of any approaches to project evaluation.

A knowledge of the different world views can assist team leaders forming interdisciplinary project teams. They will need to assist their team members describe their world views and arrive at a shared approach that they can be committed to for the life of the project. A selected world view can assist the team clarify the expectations of a projects investor and their desired outcomes, as well as the most suitable methods to use.

Professional organisations such as APEN that encompass a range of world views can expect these to create some conflict and confusion. People very committed to their own world view might find that they have more in common with people from other professional organisations with whom they share similar values. If APEN is to draw strength from its diversity, then ways for its members to acknowledge, respect, and learn from a variety of world views will be important to its future. This paper is intended by its authors to begin such a process by describing the range of world views recognised in selected theoretical literature so that practitioners can reflect upon them and develop their own conclusions about how coherent and helpful they might be to future developments within the extension practice.

References

Burrell G and Morgan G (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. Reprinted 2000. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Aldershot.

Dodds MME (1989). The need for an appropriate method of inquiry concerning human development. Chapter three in Development: the human challenge. Development Society of Southern Africa, pp43-64.

Flood RL (1999). Rethinking the fifth discipline: Learning within the unknowable. Routledge, London.

Habermas J (1972). Knowledge and human interests. Heinemann, London.

Kowloski L (1972). Positivist philosophy. Penguin, Harmondsworth.

Marx K and Engels F (1968). Selected works. Lawrence and Wishart Ltd, London.

Mikkelsen B (1995). Methods for development work and research: a guide for practitioners. Delhi, Sage Publications Ltd..

Miles MB and Huberman AM (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Sage, California.

Paine MS (1997). Doing it together: Technology as practice in the New Zealand dairy sector. PhD Thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University.

Parminter TG and O’Connor MB (2003). The value and pitfalls of taking a consultative approach to waste management: A community case study. In the New Zealand Land Treatment Collective annual conference technical session proceedings, New Zealand.

Schutz A and Luckmann T (1973). The structures of the life-world, translated by R.M. Zaner and T. Engelhardt, Heinemann, London.

Van den Ban AW and Hawkins HS (1996). Methods of influencing behaviour. Chapter three in Agricultural Extension, second edition, pp42-49.

¹ The authors are indebted to Ian Tarbotton who provided the idea for this analogy during the final discussion session at the 1st Australian Farming Systems Conference in September 2003.