Contesting targets as a measurement of success in agricultural extension: a case study of the Grain & Graze Change-on-farm strategy
R. J. Price A D , C. Nicholson B and N. McGuckian CA Grain & Graze National Coordinator, Kiri-ganai Research, GPO Box 103, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.
B Grain & Graze Regional Coordinator Corangamite Glenelg Hopkins, Southern Farming Systems, PO Box 8047, Newtown, Vic. 3220, Australia.
C Grain & Graze Social Research Project Leader, RMCG, Box 2410, Mail Centre, Bendigo, Vic. 3554, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: richard.price@kiri-ganai.com.au
Animal Production Science 49(10) 941-955 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN09034
Submitted: 2 March 2009 Accepted: 5 June 2009 Published: 16 September 2009
Abstract
Grain & Graze was a mixed-farming systems program conducted across nine regions of Australia over 2003–08. It had a goal of ensuring adoption of recommended practices on 6800 farms within the 5-year life of the program. This extension-based success target was further reflected in adoption targets set in contracts for each of the nine regions, and embedded into the program’s extension initiative, the Change-on-farm strategy. By 2008, the program had achieved adoption on 3200 farms. While less than half the target, this was considered by many a remarkable achievement, raising questions about the efficacy of adoption targets as a measurement of success. In a program based on devolution, regional delivery and local empowerment, the targets were contested between participants on other grounds. This paper explores how the targets were set, what Change-on-farm supported, what it achieved and how its success related to adoption targets. Using the Grain & Graze program as a case study, the paper concludes that the notion of targets as a motivator of success rather than as a measure of success is pertinent in complex systems-based research and development. The authors do not advocate avoiding targets, but suggest that both targets and the evaluation process by which success is measured be mutually negotiated in the true spirit of participatory process.
Allan CJ,
Mason WK,
Reeve IJ, Hooper S
(2003) Evaluation of the impact of SGS on livestock producers and their practices. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 43, 1031–1040.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[Verified 27 July 2009]
Dagenbach D,
Horst S, Carr TH
(1990) Adding new information to semantic memory: how much learning is enough to produce automatic priming? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 16(4), 581–591.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
CAS |
PubMed |
[Verified 27 July 2009]
Enshayan K,
Stinner D, Stinner B
(1992) Farmer to farmer. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 47(2), 127–130.
[Verified 27 July 2009]
Flyvbjerg B
(2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry 12(2), 219–245.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[Verified 27 July 2009]
Holling CS
(2001) Understanding the complexity of economic, social and ecological systems. Ecosystems (New York, N.Y.) 4, 390–405.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[Verified 27 July 2009]
Pannell DJ,
Marshall RM,
Barr N,
Curtis A,
Vanclay F, Wilkinson R
(2006) Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46(11), 1407–1424.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[Verified 27 July 2009]
van de Fliert E
(2003) Recognising a climate for sustainability: extension beyond transfer of technology. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 43(1), 29–36.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[Verified 27 July 2009]
Vanclay F
(1992) Barriers to adoption: a general overview of the issues. Rural Society 2(2), 10–12.
Vanclay F
(1994) A crisis in agricultural extension? Rural Society 4(1), 10–13.
Vanclay F
(2004) Social principles for agricultural extension to assist in the promotion of natural resource management. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 213–222.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Vanclay F, Lawrence G
(1994) Farmer rationality and the adoption of environmentally sound practices: a critique of the assumptions of traditional agricultural extension. European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 1, 50–90.
Vanclay F,
Howden P,
Mesiti L, Glyde S
(2006) The social and intellectual construction of farming styles: testing Dutch ideas in Australian agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis 46(1), 61–82.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wilder M, Lankao PR
(2006) Paradoxes of decentralization. Water Reform and Social Implications in Mexico World Development 34(11), 1977–1995.
Wortmann CS,
Christiansen AP,
Glewen KL,
Hejny TA,
Mulliken J,
Peterson JM,
Varner DL,
Wortmann S, Zoubek GL
(2005) Farmer research: conventional experiences and guidelines for alternative agriculture and multi-functional agro-ecosystems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 20, 243–251.
| Crossref |