Abstract

Media summary

Keywords

Introduction

Professional context

From 1999 to mid 2003 PPP facilitated NSW dairy farmers to set their own learning agenda for on-farm investigation and innovation to maximise their profitability. With the resources of Dairy Australia, the Dairy Industry Development Company, NSW Agriculture, Charles Sturt University and University of Western Sydney PPP farmers established their own learning communities across DIDCO’s entire Regional Dairy Group network. These communities self-organised to create action on a wide range of on-farm issues resulting in farmer-driven problem solving research including soil analysis and interpretation, fertiliser trialing, pasture species trialing, silage system efficiencies, Kikuyu research, nutrient budgeting, calf rearing practices, and pasture establishment amongst many others.

As described in the PPP Final Report (Dairy Australia 2003): “PPP learning agenda[s] were chosen first and foremost by farmers through group forums of various kinds including on-farm discussion groups and focus farms that operate[d] within an Action Research framework. These farmer forums [sought] professional advice and partnerships with industry, agribusiness and research agencies as required, ensuring that local project design, method, implementation and results [were] effective and relevant to farm management practice. Genuine farmer participation … committed farmers to [take] ownership and responsibility for local learning outcomes and improved industry performance. PPP farmers are continuing to improve their businesses by better understanding their farming system, generating higher order research questions, and taking action that is informed by reflection upon past successes.”

By focusing on, and promoting, the role of farmers within local learning levels, and doing this across seven Regional Dairy Groups (RDGs), PPP recognised it was operating on several tiers of learning and research (Figure 1). These were identified as Primary, Secondary and Tertiary levels, that respectively, involved farmer learning and research on-farm, regional community and industry research, as well as meta-research stemming from the application of AR experiences of the first two tiers.

Figure 1. PPP Tiers of Research (Source: Dairy Australia 2003)

Personal Context

Throughout PPP I (the author) was the PhD student with PPP, and for Stage 2 of PPP was the project coordinator. Prior to joining PPP and the professional domain of extension, my background and training was in economics and econometrics – all quantitative analysis and research. As a newcomer to extension work I was asked “How would you like to do a PhD based on the social dynamics of the NSW dairy industry? I had no objection to this notion, but felt ill equipped to conduct such research, and was certainly not prepared to abandon my quantitative skills altogether. Two years later I had fully accepted the fact that extension research had nothing to do with classifying farmers and their farms to construct variables to be fed into statistical software packages. This realisation was a personal and professional disappointment at the time, but an even greater burden was trying to comprehend the world of extension that I had started to actively engage with.

Having previously authored economic research reports critiquing the Technology Transfer (TT) model of extension, I thought I knew at least the basics of contemporary extension. In economics and econometrics the language or jargon is strictly and narrowly defined, for example, inflation, the super-neutrality of money¹, or the Keynesian aggregate supply function respectively mean the exact same thing to all economists, while terms such as winsorisation, zero suppression, or homoscedasticity can each hold only one meaning to an econometrician. By joining PPP I encountered a language diaspora within extension and that was (arguably) worse within action research literature. Jennings (2003u) identified the confusion regarding definitions and terms within both action research and extension literature:

“ … a brief foray into AR literature revealed terms such as Practical Action Research, Technical Action Research, Emancipatory Action Research, Pragmatic Action Research, Industrial Action Research, Action Learning, Critical Action Research, Critical-Emancipatory Action Research, Action Science, Participatory Learning, Participatory Learning and Action Research, Social Learning, Systems Thinking, Soft Systems Thinking, Experiential Learning, Classroom Action Research, and Educational Action Research; which is to mention but a few (Kemmis and McTaggart (1988), Greenwood and Levin (1998), Denzin and Lincoln (2000).”

and:

“In terms of agricultural extension, the literature related to AR offered no relief with a similar myriad of definitions, including Farmer Participatory Research, Farmer-First, Participatory Technology Development, On-Farm Research, Systems Action Research, Farming Systems Research, Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems, Interactive Agricultural Science and Agricultural Systems Thinking (Carberry (2001), King (2001), Kelleher (1990), Röling (1995 and 1998)).”.

Without having a clear and consistent body of literature through which to comprehend the theory and application of action research and extension, my appreciation of both domains was borne in personal experience through observation and (later) practice of facilitation, with reference to literature sources and academic and professional advice. These experiences constitute the basis for reporting results and related discussion of issues cited in the following sections.

Results

The nuts and bolts of PPP

Over the life of PPP the project achieved the following tangible results:

• 26 reported farmer operated projects – although some of these include focus farms, which themselves generated many internal projects
• 3 NSW-wide dairy farmer conferences
• over 6 NSW-wide farmer teleconferences
• more than 55 farmer project meetings by Jess Jennings as PPP coordinator in Phase Two of the project (i.e. less than 18 months) including teleconferences and face to face etc
• 25 project management meetings in Phase 2 including teleconferences etc
• over 16 industry and academic publications and many with conference presentations
• PPP contributed to several national and international reviews on contemporary extension

Increasing farmer capacity to manage change through action networks

The PPP Final Report described the outcomes of the project in the following manner: “By increasing the role that farmers, and their families, played in local research, development and extension, the PPPLT delivered farmers a greater level of ownership and responsibility for the process of learning itself, and for the outputs and outcomes they co-generated with other stakeholders. Using a group-based AL/AR method encouraged farmers to build networks with new people, organisations and through farmer conferences, with other farmers. Each RDG has generated results worthy of dissemination to the wider dairying community, and through PPP facilitated networking, have done so in a range of forums. The regular practice of sharing knowledge, particularly after having co-generated it from local experience, increased farmer confidence to make decisions about technology adoption and whole farm management. By tapping into the social aspects of networking farmers to farmers the PPPLT helped farmers recognise themselves not just as part of their local dairying community but part of a state-wide industry network with a common future.” (Dairy Australia 2003).

Evaluation of results

The following responses to the question: ‘What do you value about PPP?’ were documented at the PPP Interactive Workshop in May 2003 (Figure 2). Amongst other evaluation processes, these farmer responses provide insight into PPP having delivered on its broad project commitments.

Figure 2. PPP Evaluation Results (Source: Dairy Australia 2003)

What do you value about PPP?

Farmer interaction with farmers Farmers being in control of funding Improved productivity Improved confidence through personal growth Improved education and knowledge Broken down barriers – farmer access to researchers, advisory staff etc Farmers are able to learn at their own pace Money for projects Utilising two universities Two-way learning between farmers and providers PPP money prompted research Broadening sources of information Farmer ownership of actions Linkage to the farmer network in DIDCO Effective spread of information around regions Gives farmers an avenue to drive research The learning process was useful, transferable and on-going on-farm Great opportunity for non-farmers to work with groups of farmers and be up to date with what is happening in the dairy industry Technical learning, e.g. pasture allocation, trials created an exchange of knowledge leading to on-farm change Flow-on of PPP activities to other farmers

The farmers that contributed these responses, with PPP facilitation and strategic support, created an alternative approach to the top-down agricultural education processes of technology transfer by joining the research process from its inception, rather than waiting for information to trickle down from research and extension agents and effectively being the last stakeholder to be informed about innovations designed to boost industry performance.

Discussion

Facilitation of learning and research processes

The need for sound facilitation within PPP was clear, as it probably is for most agricultural industries, although matching the style and level of facilitated intervention to the farming context is always a delicate and critical task. Similarly, knowing when to withdraw facilitated group guidance is equally important. One example of what my facilitation (as PPP coordinator) involved occurred when a particular farmer contacted a research agency to ask about the potential for trialing aquaculture in their effluent pond. Based on what they told me, this farmer did not get much past the switch board of the research organisation despite wanting to get as much aquaculture related information as possible, as well as suggest the option of the agency joining the on-farm research. Some days later, I rang the same agency and spoke to them in a standard, professional manner, asked to be put through to various different people, and within a short time had reached agreement (for them) to come out and see what was going on for the farm in question. This demonstrated to me the value of extensionists, by highlighting the skills of knowing how to ask the right questions, who to ask them of, and where and when to ask them. This example showed how essential it is for extensionists to communicate effectively in order to continuously broaden their networks, which in effect simultaneously creates greater opportunity for farmers, and other agricultural stakeholders, that extension workers provide service to.

The role of the extension agent in PPP (project coordinator) was similar to that of a mid-wife delivering a newborn child – you’re there to guide proceedings, take critical action if necessary, and ultimately bear responsibility when things go wrong, and alternatively, you are deemed an almost peripheral element when things turn out brilliantly! From my experience this is probably the right role for extensionists – unassuming, frequently holding a public presence, but ultimately accountable for the learning processes that produce outputs and outcomes.

Farmer ownership of learning and research processes

From my personal observation, few dairy farmers (relative to the approximate 12 000 Australian operators) directly determine the learning and research agenda that is funded and purported by industry, government and private sector RD&E programmes. Indirectly farmers may contribute to their industry’s agenda through farmer representatives on industry boards and (occasional) survey response, but in broad terms industry and government drive farmers RD&E agenda and get their signals increasingly from global markets and electoral results – both of which are relevant to farmers but are not constituted by farmer contributions. In this environment farmers are several steps removed from directly setting the agenda of industry and government initiatives. Jennings and Packham (2001) suggest the reasons for this lack of farmer presence may be explained, at least in part, by understanding the long-run history of extension and the creation of the domains of ‘on-’ and ‘off-farm’ that coincided with the advent of commercially printed material, the institutionalisation of agricultural development, the benefits of European Enlightenment, and, the proliferation of agricultural education in various forms up to the present day.

PPP attempted to bridge the gap between the on and off-farm domains of agriculture by offering farmers the opportunity to directly determine their agenda for industry research. This bridge took several forms, although a key one was financial. The policy of allocating PPP funds altered during the life of PPP with the intention of both challenging and developing farmers’ ability and propensity to seek industry and government funds for projects. The PPP funding structure was unique, with half of all funds being pledged to RDGs (run by farmers) at the start of the project. As is described in Dairy Australia (2003): “This demonstrated the genuine commitment [PPP] had to involving farmers directly and inducing them to take ownership and responsibility for local activities. Notably the RDGs received their funding from PPP without applying or stipulating what its exact intended use was (within reason). … In Phase 2 this policy was deliberately altered and required RDGs to apply to PPP for their funds, which could be spent on any farm management activity (not simply pastures) that influenced on-farm profitability and involved farmers. This was done to ensure RDGs were spending their money from Phase 1, and more importantly to:

• ‘wean’ the RDGs off the expectation of ‘free’ money,
• increase the intellectual and scientific rigor of projects where possible,
• familiarise RDGs with industry expectations of applying for funds,
• familiarise RDGs with meeting the industry obligations of transparency and accountability, and
• familiarise RDGs with conducting their own monitoring and evaluation processes and documentation that amounted to reflective action”.

Having greater financial influence within PPP meant farmers had a stronger voice (than they would otherwise have had) with which to express their ideas and concerns – to both PPP managers and other industry stakeholders. Increasing farmer confidence to express their voice meant genuinely sharing the PPP research agenda with farmers and their families, and for non-farmers to recognise the reality of the way in which farmers constructed their reality. Upon reflection of the PPP funding arrangements, it is clear that the sharing of power within a project, be it financial or other strategic support, is essential if farmers are to take on high levels of ownership and responsibility for project processes.

Action research as agricultural extension tool and NRM

PPP blended action research with contemporary extension in a manner that circumvented the methods of the traditional TT model. It did this by including all types of technology adopters (from laggards to innovators) and linking farmers directly to the research being conducted. The appropriateness of action research as a means of guiding extension practice is exemplified by the following quote: “A cornerstone of the action research movement is its criticism of traditional research for trying to initiate change through dissemination of research results, rather than through the involvement of more people in the process of research.” (Shumsky 1990). This statement resonates with the post-TT ethos present in much contemporary extension literature and its application, and marks a distinct rejection of the notion of farmers (or any participants) as ‘empty vessels’ that merely need to be filled with information in order to exercise the adoption of new technologies.

The agricultural agenda is increasingly being led by an environmental imperative, which brings with it a complex mix and expanded number of stakeholders to jointly determine appropriate natural resource management. Base on the NSW experiences of PPP, action research appears a highly effective tool for bringing low profile participants into mainstream industry dialogical processes, as well as foster collaboration amongst a wide range of stakeholders, even with diverging interests. Action research has the capacity to be applied to a greater extent across Australian agriculture to the benefit of the whole community, including farmers. In doing so, action research as a methodology and its related methods, could be pushed to greater limits by extensionists – with some potential examples including the formation of mutually beneficial alliances and partnerships between traditional political foes, such as farmers and green groups, green groups with major corporations, major corporations with governments, and industry/governments agendas that improve their consultative processes for listening and incorporating farmers.

“The key to PPP’s success, like Landcare, has been to get serious about involving the people on the ground. Farmers are managers of extremely complex systems that are commonly known as farms, and as such are critical success factors of any RD&E effort supported by an RDC, or, any environmental agenda. By allowing professional space within RDC funded projects, and the ever-increasing number of environmental programs, for farmers to contribute to the RD&E agenda like any other stakeholder (eg scientists, agronomists, government, etc) the potential for overcoming the future challenges are boundless.” (Innovate Australia 2003).

¹. Refers to the results (derived by Sargent and Wallace), showing that the systematic part of the money supply has no real effect on output even in the short run (Levacic and Rebmann 1990).

References

Levacic R and Rebmann A (1990) Macro-economics: An introduction to Keynesian-Neoclassical Controversies, Second Ed., Macmillan Press, London.

Jennings J (2003u) PhD Thesis manuscript, unpublished, University of Western Sydney, Richmond, Australia.

Dairy Australia (2003). Profitable Pastures Project (PPP) Final Report - Phase Two Project UWS11040, Melbourne.

Shumsky, A. (1990). Cooperation in action research: A rationale, in Journal of Educational Sociology, vol. 30, December 1956, pp. 180-5. The Action Research Reader. Melbourne, Australia, Deakin University.

Jennings J and Packham R (2001), Extension’s Big Bang: The Archaeology and Genealogy of Extension Paper to the Asia-Pacific Extension Network Conference, Queensland, October.

Innovate Australia (2003) Boundless Potential, published letter to the editor contributed by Jennings J as PPP Coordinator, 9th May, Vol. 1 - No.3, www.innovateaustralia.com , Canberra, Australia.