A framework for aligning social and technical orientations to farming systems research, development and extension – an Australasian experience

A.E. Crawford1, R.A. Nettle1, D.P. Armstrong2 and M.S. Paine1

1 Institute of Land and Food Resources, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.

2Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Kyabram, Victoria, Australia.

ABSTRACT

Recognition of the complexity of dairy production in Australia has led industry to a farming systems approach for dairy research, development and extension (RD&E). This frequently highlights tension that exists between those that emphasise a greater appreciation of human (soft) systems and those that believe such methods are unscientific. A general framework has been developed in an attempt to explore and align these different positions. This paper documents a framework for undertaking farming systems RD&E, and also contains a critique of the framework using two case study projects, and an agenda for future developments. Whilst useful in aligning soft and hard systems approaches across all aspects of farming systems projects, our critique identified the need for further revision of the framework to better address the human dimension, and result in improved integration of dairy sector capabilities.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Recognition of the complexity of dairy production has led industry to a farming systems approach for dairy RD&E involving farmers, researchers, extensionists and policy makers, acknowledging that farm management strategies can only be understood in the context of the whole farm system (van Willigen 1992). In Australia, a national approach to farming systems research, development and extension (FSRDE) has been justified by the need to increase return on investment in RD&E; the reduction and restructuring of government funding for extension; and an overall requirement to achieve triple bottom line outcomes. Traditionally dairy industry RD&E has been focused on productivity gains, given less consideration to environmental issues, and largely neglected the social dimension to FSRDE, but a more inclusive approach is now required.

There is a tension that exists between different approaches to FSRDE. One position argues for improving the way we appreciate human (soft) systems when using a FSRDE approach. Another position contends that regardless of this need, the methods and existing attempts are unscientific and therefore more constructive achievements are gained by focusing on biophysical system issues (Röling and Wagemakers 1998). We propose that this tension can be usefully explored using a general framework that can help align these different positions. Firstly, we will describe the framework and the process used to develop it. We then describe two contrasting dairy industry studies, one primarily technical, and the other primarily social. Using these case studies, we evaluate the effectiveness of the framework in terms of achieving its objective of more closely aligning the technical and social approaches. We will use this assessment to determine the contribution of the framework to bridging tensions. Finally, we suggest an agenda for future developments and recommend improvements to the framework to achieve greater integration of dairy sector capabilities.

The case study project leaders had no previous exposure to the framework. Having described their projects, the team used the framework to independently critique the design of each project. In turn, the learning from critiquing the projects was then used to critique the framework by considering how the framework assisted the project leaders. This was undertaken independently before combining the perspectives of each project leader to provide a collective assessment. Three key issues were identified in relation to how the framework assisted us as project leaders, and the process also identified future development issues to improve the applicability of the framework. This paper represents an outcome from a joint learning process.

DeVELOPING A Framework for farming systems RD&E

The move to FSRDE within the dairy sector has left investors, providers and users grappling with the different design, implementation and evaluation approaches required to ensure that the expectations of all involved are equally met. To overcome these challenges, it was identified that the development of a framework to guide FSRDE in Australasia would advance the national capacity to design, deliver and evaluate farming systems projects in a rigorous and efficient manner.

In order to bring stakeholders to a common understanding of FSRDE and develop a framework, a workshop was held in New Zealand in Nov. 2001. Participants from industry, research and extension were invited, and included Australians (26) and New Zealanders (23), representing 5 different grazing industries, 23 organisations and a variety of disciplines. In preparation, the project team had developed an initial framework that identified areas for further development in a workshop process. Independent facilitators were commissioned and briefed by the project team. The workshop included a combination of plenary and small group activities, based on participants’ actual experiences, to develop aspects of the framework and guidelines.

The preliminary framework was piloted using two case study exercises in the New Zealand hill country context, spanning technical and natural resource management applications. The process involved formal presentations by the project leaders followed by an inquiry session where participants questioned the project leaders as they tested out the framework. After this, each participant completed a matrix, assessing the example project’s strengths and weaknesses with respect to FSRDE. A facilitated session was then used to provide project leaders with a formal critique of their project based on the framework guidelines. Finally, the project leaders were given an opportunity to respond to this critique. This exercise contributed to the subsequent refinement of the framework.

The framework which underpins more comprehensive guidelines is presented here (Table 1). The most distinctive FSRDE issues were those associated with the human dimension of projects (eg project champions, stakeholder relationships, determining user needs etc) and these additional considerations must be given focus. These are incorporated into the matrix (Table 1), which can be used to assess the strengths and weaknesses of project planning, implementation and evaluation for FSRDE. For example, design and methodology can be viewed as a planning, implementation or evaluation activity, however, planning should not be considered as only happening at the start, rather should continue throughout the life of the project. It was also concluded that whilst there were similarities with standard principles of project management on a higher level of comparison, analysis of the specifics of a FSRDE approach demonstrates that there are significant differences at a level of detail.

Table 1: Farming Systems RD&E Project Framework

Planning / Implementation / Evaluation

Vision

/ To what extent have people agreed on the need for a different future? / What issues need to be resolved to have a shared vision? / What outcomes are jointly sought by stakeholders?
Stakeholder relationships / What types of organizations and people must be involved (be as specific as possible)? / How adequate are the knowledge and skills of each organization/ person in the project? / Are stakeholders satisfied they are receiving benefits commensurate with their inputs?
Design and methodology / What are the critical interactions to be handled and do participants have the necessary systems skills? / Are results being interpreted by the appropriate mix of team participants to maximise the use of different types of knowledge in the team? / Could the project be reduced in size and achieve the same outputs?
Resources, implementation & evaluation / Are contingency plans being developed when required? / Are monitoring and interpretation procedures taking sufficient consideration of the complexity and change associated with the issue? / Are the participants and other interested parties being adequately informed of progress?
User uptake / Are relevant links made between needs and sources of information? / Are we responding to any signals that indicate some participants or channels are being over or under used? / Is there evidence of changes to the farm system?

Undertaking the field-testing process increased participants’ understanding and confidence in the approach that had emerged during the workshop. The critique of the two case studies allowed participants to develop their thinking in terms of FSRDE, and elucidated the key elements that contributed to a comprehensive approach. The systematic analysis of the projects demonstrated that it was possible to provide validity, think beyond the traditional scientific process, and understand the importance of the human dimension within farming systems RD&E. Furthermore, it encouraged participants to critically reassess the approach undertaken within their own projects. The participatory approach to building the framework developed an appreciation amongst the participants for the benefits and importance of a multi-displinary approach to FSRDE. Participants also found that the framework challenged conventional scientific method;

“Normally a scientific process is not good for systems work. The challenge is to think differently and that maybe it won’t be science driving it.”

“The day (field exercise) has provided a real acid test to put the projects through a credible screen. At all stages of the project you can test if the research is credible and the results can be viewed with confidence.”

“We have come up with a framework that we can tick off projects to ensure validity is provided to a FSRDE project. Now it can be used as a valid science.”

(Workshop participants’ responses to the FSRDE framework).

How applicable is this framework in terms of other on-ground FSRDE projects conducted outside this approach? To address this question we turn to two contrasting case studies and assess the usefulness of the framework to improve FSRDE outcomes.

Case 1: Water resource decision making

In areas of southern Australia, efficient use of irrigation water is important to the future of the dairy industry. Changes in water policy, rising costs of the resource, and an increasing market demand for dairy farmers to demonstrate their farming systems are “environmentally friendly” has focussed attention on the production systems used on irrigated dairy farms. This has increased pressure to improve water use efficiency (WUE), with WUE being defined as the amount of milk produced from pasture per ML of water applied by irrigation plus effective rainfall.

There are a number of key questions that need to be addressed if farmers are to be encouraged to improve WUE. These include consideration of the potential for farms to substantially improve WUE, the factors associated with high WUE and whether individual farmers can increase the profitability of their farm and meet their personal objectives whilst investing in improving WUE. The methods used to address these questions included a survey of WUE on 170 irrigated dairy farms, and an economic evaluation of various development options for a case study farm.

Whilst an industry benchmarking survey can be very effective in developing a broad understanding of the industry issues (Burns 1966) and measuring the performance of the industry at a point in time, farm survey data provide little guidance to a farmer as to how they could improve performance on their farm, and whether investing in improved WUE would be economically sensible. The difficulties faced when trying to draw clear conclusions from industry benchmarking survey data include accounting for: (i) the impact of management, (ii) diversity between farms, (iii) interactions between variables (difficult to establish causal relationships), and (iv) the complexity of the farm management decision making process. The difficulty in drawing conclusions from survey data suggested that additional approaches needed to be considered.

While information from previous seasons can be useful, it is lagged evidence, and farm management is about deciding on the most effective use of the resources on the farm to achieve the objectives of the farm business in the future (Malcolm and Ferris 1999). Using an in-depth examination of a small number of businesses is often referred to as a case study approach and is a legitimate and appropriate method for analysing farm management issues. The case study farm analysis allowed a more multi-disciplined approach, which was important to develop an in depth understanding of the issue. Whilst focussing more on technical and economic issues, it draws out some human issues, however these were not addressed in any detail in this study.

Case 2: Employment relationships

A major component of the impact of larger dairy herd sizes in Australia has been the increasing need for farmers to manage people, rather than just pastures, cows and technical aspects of the farm. Little research has been available to inform and support farming practice in this area. A farming systems research approach to the study of farm employment transcends a disciplinary position and looks at the emergent[1] attributes, characteristics, interrelationships and outcomes of action in the farm employment “system”.

A research study on farm employment was conducted in southern Victoria, Australia. Three different modes of research were applied: five case studies of dairy farm employment relationships over time (involving owners and employees or sharefarmers over a 24 month period); action research with an employer group aimed at action learning through employment issues and to test an intervention strategy for improving employment relationships in real time; and an analysis of current needs for intervention and existing interventions in the industry.

The case studies allowed exploration of the processes, factors and outcomes involved for employers, employees and interveners in traversing employment relationships. Four "over-arching" processes were identified across the cases: employment relationship outcomes; core principles guiding employment for employer and employee; mediating processes in employment relationships; and processes of change (Nettle et al. 2001). These processes formed a conceptual model to explain employment relationship processes. This model was later refined using subsequent data from the action-learning group and follow-up interviews from the case studies whereby farmers and employees were able to evaluate the model for their own situation.

An emergent property, and critical finding from the research was the importance of employment issues being viewed as one of human relationships – rather than just “labour problems”. Employment issues can be seen as management of relationships. With this, third-party support roles need to be closely aligned with the needs of participants, rather than merely representing an employer or employee perspective. Supporting roles contribute to the outcomes and processes of relationships by impacting on the employer and employees’ core principles guiding employment.

The case study presented here focussed on the human element of the farming system in regards to farm employment and highlighted a methodology that allowed for new knowledge (dimensions of employment relationships) and change (farmers involved with improvement of their own farm employment situation) to occur simultaneously. This could be seen as an FSRDE approach to farm employment, with particular emphasis on the human (soft systems) element.

Testing the framework through the case study PROJECTS

Use of the FSRDE framework to develop an approach to improving WUE in the dairy industry may have been beneficial. Greater consideration of various discipline areas at the beginning of a project would seem to be more effective than incorporating additional disciplines when a weakness becomes evident during the life of a project. In hindsight, use of the framework provides an informed decision-making process and would have assisted in the definition of the boundaries to the research area. Defining the limits of inclusion as to who to involve would balance consultation with on-ground action and identify the multi-disciplinary team required for both research and implementation. The framework could also be viewed as a communication tool both within the project team and to the broader community by facilitating involvement of different stakeholder’s beliefs regarding improvement in WUE.

Turning to the farm employment case study, reflection on the use of the framework suggests three key areas for development of the research. Firstly, it forces the question in terms of project planning, to establish the extent that people agree on the need for a different future, e.g. a shift from viewing labour as an aspect of production to an aspect of human relationships is a major shift in thinking. The framework guidelines would suggest that establishing agreement on this approach is fundamental to moving forward in this area. Secondly, the framework provides a platform to support the next level for research and development, e.g. practical use of the farm employment relationship models or searching for new research questions. Thirdly, the level of the human dimension in research needs to be clarified. For this case study, the human dimension involved two levels: 1) that of on-farm human relationships and 2) the nature of the relationship between employers-employees and interveners in the employment “system”. In the framework, the emphasis appears to be more on stakeholder relationships in project planning, implementation and evaluation, which needs to be broadened to handle the human dimension more appropriately.

Across-case assessment of the FSRDE framework resulted in three key issues emerging:

1. Emergence

The framework downplays the search for cause-effect in problem areas and emphasises emergence – which can then lead to new action by stakeholders who gain a sense of power in acting differently. The question that arose from the cases was how useful the framework was in helping project teams deal with “emergent” project outcomes. Use of the framework appears to help identify and manage emergent project properties and outcomes through provision of a rigorous approach in the search for emergent properties and the use of those that are identified. For example, as a project is developing and unexpected findings or issues emerge, revisiting the framework (“Vision” x “Evaluation” in the framework matrix), would suggest that the stakeholders need to reconsider the outcomes that are jointly sought by their involvement.

2. Support for evaluating and learning at all stages of project development