Search

The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension (JAEE) has announced changes to its editorial team. Dr. Kristin Davis and Prof. Laurens Klerkx served as editors-in-chief, working to improve the quality and scope of the journal. They encouraged submissions on new topics such as digitalization and changes in advisory organizations. The journal has also transitioned to an online-only format to save resources and reduce emissions. Dr. Fernando Landini and Prof. Ruth Nettle will take over as the new editors-in-chief, ensuring continuity and bringing new directions to the journal. The JAEE has seen an increase in impact factor and is now a Q1 journal in the Web of Science Social Sciences Citation Index. The new editors-in-chief express their commitment to continuing the journal's growth and contributions to agricultural education and extension. [Extracted from the article]

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.

This paper presents results from a review of methods of agricultural extension, including the evidence for the effectiveness of methods in supporting farm practice change, how they affect the change process, and the critical success factors involved. Agricultural scientists face challenges in aligning their research outputs to the change process on farm. These challenges are exacerbated by the funding environment for research, development, and extension (RD&E), the complexity of the adoption process and the privatisation and commercialisation of advisory and extension services. To assist scientists in navigating these challenges, a structured literature review of extension methods was conducted, examining the following: group-learning/peer-topeer; technology development; training; information provision; one-on-one advice/coaching; e-extension; co-innovation; best management practice; and social marketing. In addition, two case studies outlining the application of combinations of extension methods in the context of feeding system challenges in the Australian dairy industry, and their effects, are described. While the evidence across the studies reviewed was strongest for the effect on adoption of small group-learning and one to one consulting, it was combinations of methods that resulted in larger effects (for example, in practice change or profitability), which was credited to how they addressed the human and social dimensions of the adoption process. Case studies of adoption in the dairy sector found that scientists influenced adoption by collaborating with the private sector, being directly involved with on-farm trials and demonstrations, and supporting grouplearning approaches to help the adoption of past research. This role for scientists in adoption was enabled by investment in programs of RD&E rather than discreet research experiments, and research designs and methods that incorporated the social dimensions of adoption. This synthesis demonstrates the need for scientists to be proactive in providing guidance for farmers on where to access and source information related to their work, engage with a broad range of advisor types associated with their research field, champion in-field trials and/or demonstrations and be active participants in collaborative approaches to RD&E. [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. (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]