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.

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. (Contains 3 tables and 2 figures.)

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. (Contains 1 figure.)

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. (Contains 1 figure.)

Context: Social aspects of livestock farming systems, including farm workforce and how work is organised, have received less research attention than the biophysical and technological aspects. This constrains understanding of social challenges to the sustainability of livestock systems, such as farm labour shortages, farmers' overwork, the undesirability of farming careers, workforce and skills changes linked to new technologies, and the connections of all these to farm performance and profitability. Aims: We introduce and test the applicability and utility in the Australian context of a method developed in France for assessing work organisation: The Work Assessment Method (WAM). The WAM goes beyond standard labour productivity metrics, such as total labour cost or livestock units per worker, to examine different types of work (routine, seasonal), who does the work (owner–managers, employees, contractors) and how these change seasonally. A measure of social sustainability ('calculated time available') is a key feature. Methods: We conducted the first Australian trial of the WAM on two Victorian dairy farms. Through facilitated discussions between participating farmers and the research team, we evaluated the utility of the method, and identified requirements to adapt it for larger, pasture-based dairy systems. Key results: The WAM was applied successfully on the pilot farms, despite differences in farm systems between France and Australia. The method characterised in detail the sources of overwork for each farm, enabling discussion of how the social sustainability and overall performance of the farms could be improved. The participating farmers reported that the method provided insights that were not available from current financial and physical analyses. Conclusions: The WAM shows potential for supporting farmers, advisors and researchers in work aimed at improving farm social sustainability and profitability, but requires adaptation to suit Australian conditions. A larger exploratory study applying the WAM on additional dairy farms, and on mixed farms, is suggested. Implications: This study provides a strong foundation for further research to develop the WAM as a useful research and advisory tool for Australian livestock production systems. Farmers, advisors and researchers need better methods for analysing farm work, to address challenges affecting the social sustainability and profitability of livestock farming. We report results from the first Australian trial of a method developed in France for assessing farm work organisation: The Work Assessment Method. Participating farmers reported that the Work Assessment Method provided insights not available from standard physical and financial analyses and the study provides a foundation for research to further develop the Work Assessment Method for Australian livestock production systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pluralistic agricultural advisory systems comprise diverse actors, including public and private research, development, and extension (RD&E) providers, and private sector agricultural advisors. Co-innovation, as a collaborative engagement involving the full range of actors, is regarded as useful when addressing issues arising from this complexity. However, what helps or hinders successful co-innovation with public and private actors in real-world situations is still under-described in the literature. A deeper understanding of the social interactions and practices of doing co-innovation in specific settings is required to achieve successful co-innovation outcomes. This paper asks: What key features of practice support co-innovation with public and private system actors? And: How can enhanced understanding of practice assist in strengthening co-innovation processes? We present findings from research funded by the Australian government from 2015 to 2018 to strengthen private sector extension roles and connections between the RD&E functions in Australia's pluralistic advisory system. Four action research pilots were co-designed with system actors to support co-innovation. These were: Involving agricultural supply chain actors in collaborative agricultural R&D; Increasing farm advisor capacity to engage with digital agricultural technologies; Improving career pathways for new entrants in the advisory and extension sector; and Improving knowledge flows in the advisory and extension system. We found that co-innovation requires potentially profound social change; a shaking up of expectations about roles, responsibilities, and institutionalised processes. The research also suggests that the requirement for social change is underacknowledged in current co-innovation practice, with implications for the success or failure of co-innovation partnerships. Applying a practice theory perspective, our research highlights features of practice that constrained and enabled co-innovation in the four pilots. In doing so, the research provides insights to assist in successful operationalisation of co-innovation involving the private sector in pluralistic agricultural advisory systems. • Co-innovation is complex but achievable in pluralistic agricultural advisory systems. • Social dynamics and practices matter when operationalising co-innovation processes. • Nuanced understanding of practices improves co-innovation design and implementation. • Co-innovation with public and private actors must accommodate commercial realities. • The practice perspective is relevant at the broader level of AIS scholarship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adaptive governance relies on the collaboration of a diverse set of stakeholders in multiple institutions and organizations at different times and places. In the context of unprecedented water policy and management reform in Australia over the past decade, we add to insights from resilience scholarship, which identifies adaptive governance as critical to improving complex social-ecological systems, such as water management. We present empirical research with agricultural industry stakeholders who are responding to a major change initiative to renew or modernize the largest irrigation system in Australia's Murray Darling Basin and who ask: "What can a resilience assessment intervention contribute to adaptive water governance in this context?" Using resilience approaches and connecting these with insights from science and technology studies (STS), we found that a particular resilience assessment intervention supported dairy industry stakeholders to manage the complexity, uncertainty, and diversity of an irrigation modernization governance challenge. It did so by explicitly accounting for, representing, and aligning different water governing practices through the use of resilience concepts, a particular resilience assessment tool, and a participatory process for engaging social actors. Possibilities for adaptive governance emerged from the intervention in the form of new joint strategic actions and new understandings, alliances, and roles between people and institutions for addressing irrigation modernization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

The concept of responsible innovation is gaining traction in the Smart Farming field to address emerging socio-ethical issues such as power asymmetries between farmers and technology development companies in farm data ownership, and animal welfare issues arising from the automation of livestock management. Responsible innovation involves the democratisation of science and decision making for societal control of innovations. The application of responsible innovation principles to the adoption phase of Smart Farming technologies is an under explored area in terms of defining what responsible adoption practices are for Smart Farming, and with what effect. This empirical research aims to provide insights into what responsible adoption practices might involve, based on application of a responsible innovation approach to designing a cross-industry adoption strategy for a virtual fencing technology in Australia. This case study also examines what responsible adoption practices mean for enacting responsible innovation of Smart Farming technologies more broadly. A participatory Technology Assessment (pTA) approach engaged a range of virtual fencing technology end-users (livestock producers) and stakeholders (agricultural advisers, natural resource managers, food retailers, a food processor, and state government department staff) (n = 80). The participants identified and considered the benefits and risks of implementing a specific virtual fencing product in various contexts. The engagement methods were 12 interactive workshops organized in peer/sector groups and one reflective and deliberative consultation process with 13 adoption specialists and practitioners to define an adoption pathway for virtual herding technology. The adoption of the virtual herding technology product requires multiple levels of support to ensure that the technology is used responsibly and generates private, industry and public goods. This prospective knowledge, built from the considerations of end-users and stakeholders, was integrated into a virtual herding adoption strategy, and accounted for animal welfare concerns, the empowerment of producers to lead their own adoption support network and the desire for some form of regulatory governance. The responsible adoption practices were limited by the lack of institutional pathways to mobilise the strategy beyond the life of the research project. The research indicates that there is value in further pursuing the notion of responsible adoption practices for Smart Farming technologies. These practices need to be designed for understanding the complexity of the adoption situation, testing the assumptions about what the 'right' adoption pathway should be, and inclusive participation in the ongoing governance of adoption pathways. [Display omitted] • Responsible innovation principles have not been extensively applied in the adoption phase of smart farming technologies. • A participatory Technology Assessment approach was used to the adoption of a virtual fencing technology in Australia. • Responsible adoption practices that engaged various stakeholders highlighted the complexities with adopting this technology. • Complexities were managed by integrating adoption values expressed by stakeholders into a 'responsible' adoption strategy. • More research into designing responsible adoption practices and ways to mobilize adoption strategies is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Amidst heightened policy interest in the future of agriculture, there is an emerging new focus on the topic of the farm workforce in Australia. Will agricultural industries have the people - both farm business owners and employees - that they need? While government and industry are focused on the sustainability of production, farm workforce dynamics also intersect with wider economic and social processes in rural communities, an issue of ongoing concern for rural studies scholars. Here we examine currently emerging policy and action on farm workforce issues from a governance perspective, using the dairy industry in the Australian state of Victoria as a case study. Drawing on both governmentality and political science approaches, we explore workforce governance through three overlapping studies: policy-making, farmers' lived experiences and industry-led collective action. Across the three studies we ask, first, what is revealed about neo-liberal agricultural industry governance and, second, what possibilities the new focus on workforce creates for rural communities concerned about social and economic sustainability. We argue that the farm workforce as a policy object crystallizes the tension between the strongly individualizing discourse of neo-liberalism and the pursuit of public policy objectives framed at the collective scale. If the neo-liberalizing project is understood as a work in progress, then the issue of the farm workforce can be seen as another dilemma to be worked through. In this the roles of collective agents and spaces in both agricultural industries and in communities are critical, making the farm workforce a terrain for innovation in which rural communities can negotiate their interests afresh. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Digitalization and the use of Smart Farming Technologies are considered a major opportunity for the future of agriculture. However, realisation of full benefits is constrained by: (1) farmers' interest in and use of big data to improve farm decision making; (2) issues of data sovereignty and trust between providers and users of data and technology; (3) institutional arrangements associated with the governance of data platforms. This paper examines the case of Australia's dairy herd milk recording system, arguably one of agriculture's first cases of 'big data' use, which collects, analyses and uses farm-level data (milk production, lactation and breeding records) to provide individual cow and herd performance information, used by individual farmers for farm management decisions. The aim of this study was to 1) examine the use of big data to add value to farm decision making; and 2) explore factors and processes, including institutional arrangements, which influence farmer engagement with and use of big data. This paper traces the Australian history of the organisation of dairy herd recording (established in 1912 and digitalized in late 1970s) and then uses findings from a longitudinal study of 7 case study dairy farms, which were incentivised to become involved in herd recording in 2015. Applying a conceptual framework linking path dependency in farm decision making and collaborative governance capacity, we find three new important dimensions of the farm user context influencing farmer demand for big data applications: 1) the transition to a new business stage; 2) the additionality farmers seek from data generated in one component of the farm system to other subsystems, and 3) the use of data in long term or strategic decision making. Further, we identified critical attributes of support services in addressing digital literacy, capacity and capability issues at farm level, including diversity in data presentation formats and facilitation of the on-farm transition process through intermediary herd test organisations. The role of farmers as governance actors, or citizens in the decisions of the trajectory of big data applications, adds to understanding of the nature of collaborative governance arrangements that support farm engagement. • Farmer interest in data relates to business stage and the decision's importance. • Cooperative governance structures facilitate farmer trust and use of big data. • Support services reduce the impact of low digital literacy, capacity and capability. • Inter-dependence occurs between existing data processes and optimising data use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]