Search

Purpose:Current developments in the Australian agricultural research, development and extension (RD&E) system exemplify the complex governance challenges arising from the international privatisation of agricultural extension. Presenting early challenges emerging from a multi-stakeholder project aimed at stimulating the role of the private advisory sector in the RD&E system, this paper contributes to understanding change dynamics in the RD&E system. Methodology:The project applies action research to assist reframing current RD&E governance arrangements towards an enhanced, pluralistic and collaborative system. This paper uses multi-level transition theory (MLP) to explore the dynamics of change by describing the ‘regime’ of the current Australian RD&E system, wherein the project is an emergent ‘niche-in-the- making’. Findings:The regime-based challenges arising from the unfolding Australian project collaboration allow critical assessment of the first moves of niche formation initiated by the project. Initial findings suggest a persisting instrumentalist conceptualisation of the private sector’s role in the RD&E system solely as extension providers. This is in tension with the project vision of supporting new roles for private sector advisers as key actors in the governance of co-innovation processes. Practical implications:In describing these challenges and considering how the project’s action research can facilitate participant responses, we contribute to understanding how niche formation can be supported in Australia and internationally. Theoretical implications:The paper contributes to a research agenda related to the governance of agricultural advisory services via an analysis of social practice elements that constitute internal niche processes. Originality:Enabling critical analysis of the incumbent regime of the current RD&E system, this framework provides insights into how niche responses aimed at the RD&E system change can be supported. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Research in innovation studies suggests that appropriate starting conditions are required if alignment of research to practice and policy is to be enabled. To achieve this alignment, a scoping exercise is required and must involve those people and institutions that have an interest in the research. This paper describes a consultation process to develop aBlueprint for Regional Water Productivityin Australia through a new research initiative at the University of Melbourne. This Blueprint was developed through a two-stage consultation project in which opportunities and constraints for system innovation in regional water productivity in Australia were identified and discussed with key stakeholders without pre-empting research or development questions. In this paper, we ask: Did this consultation process constitute a platform for innovation in research practices? In addressing this question, we describe this process and suggest that it constituted a fledgling platform for innovation in research practices characterised by new social arrangements, material exchanges and the discursive object of `innovation systems'. However, the potential for institutional change from this platform will depend on continued deliberation between water sector actors in new routines of research-development practice, and collective action through the formalisation of new partnerships between researchers, practitioners and policy-makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose:This article outlines the emergence of programme teams in the Australian dairy farm sector as a response to counter weaknesses in the institutional environment for agricultural innovation which favours technology adoption/diffusion approaches. Design/methodology/approach:The strengths, weaknesses and risks of different approaches to innovation in the Australian dairy sector RD&E system are analysed and key features of an emerging programme team approach defined. The programme team approach is compared and contrasted with the features of innovation capacity from international literature. An analysis of the relative investment in this innovation capacity in different topics or domains of dairy innovation is provided. Findings:The programme team approach to innovation involves groups of researchers, extension people, public and private organisations, farmers, community groups, and policy and service groups brought together to progress innovation and change in a topic area or domain. Leadership of the process is provided by an area expert or champion. The team takes responsibility for: (a) understanding the businesses of key players who have an influence in the innovation or domain; (b) deciding the nature of the desired change that all stakeholders can align to; (c) identifying features of the enabling environment to establish what capacity is needed; (d) designing a ‘route to change’ strategy (in contrast to traditional route-to-market thinking); and (e) piloting and refining the approach within the target populations. The group manages emerging risks and keeps on top of issues, as well as identifies any knowledge gaps for research that are preventing innovation and change. Conclusions/practical implications:The programme team approach provides a semi-formal governance mechanism for innovation to develop, despite an institutional environment that favours technology adoption. Further, the activities of programme teams consist of practices which integrate research-led and demand-pull approaches. Currently, investment in such innovation capacity is relatively low and highly variable across different topic domains. Added value:The article provides tangible activities that managers of agricultural RD&E programmes can invest in to progress systemic approaches to innovation and is a guide for agricultural education and extension practitioners to proceed in their innovation work. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Water issues are a feature of public debate in Australia. The increasing privatisation of water and changes to water allocation systems are resulting in change, often referred to as water 'wars' (de Villiers, 1999). The Australian dairy industry uses 25% of the surface irrigation water in Australia. How does a rural industry like dairying negotiate a future? What is the role of broker professions like extension in supporting change in this context? We focus on three critical issues to address these questions: farm-level adaptation; new technologies; and balancing environmental and productive water-use. Two case studies of farm decision-making and advisory practice suggest that managing complexity in water issues requires learning processes at three levels: farmer-advisor; advisors-policy; advisors-other disciplines-policy. We conclude there is a need for a framework to guide an ethical response to water policy, bringing farm adaptation and advisory practice to implement change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Managing the competing interests of productivity growth, environmental concerns, landscape change and societal expectations presents challenges for agricultural industries. Innovation projects supporting knowledge development to address these challenges often involve partnerships with commercial farms, a methodology which promises much but has inherent challenges as well. This paper will examine the requirements of learning partnerships between farmers, research and extension (as members of innovation projects) to address conditions of complexity. We review designs for the involvement of commercial farms in innovation projects and explore the conditions for effective learning partnerships using two case studies from the Australian dairy industry. Learning partnerships with commercial farms can contribute to addressing the conditions of complexity faced by agricultural industries. Our analysis suggests that the conditions for effective learning partnerships involve the active negotiation of learning roles between farmers, researchers and advisors. This requires a unique form of facilitation to support the learning environment and use of learning tools, assisting project teams to act on complex issues. As learning partners, commercial farms in innovation projects are an effective response to the challenges of complexity in agricultural innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]