Research management, institutional arrangements and the quest for integration in mixed-farming innovation: the emergence of point-of-practice integration
R. J. PriceGrain & Graze National Coordinator, Kiri-ganai Research, GPO Box 103, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia. Email: richard.price@kiri-ganai.com.au
Animal Production Science 49(10) 928-940 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN09047
Submitted: 16 March 2009 Accepted: 16 April 2009 Published: 16 September 2009
Abstract
Modern science and contemporary research and development programs are characterised by societal, managerial and political expectation that they be integrated. For some this means paying attention to the principles of the triple bottom line; for others it is about taking a holistic approach to finding solutions to complex problems; whereas for yet others it is about maximising co-investment, partnerships and collaboration and focusing these on the problems of the day. Each of these aspirations involves integration, although in very different ways. Grain & Graze attempted to deal with all these forms. With highly specified objectives and targets dealing with economic, environmental and social outcomes, 66 partners involving three scales of governance as well as science and community collaborators, and multidisciplinary research teams working across 50 or so research projects, integration was the catchcry of Grain & Graze. At its core the program dealt with cropping and grazing farming systems, adding yet another dimension of integration to the mix. This paper explores each of the forms of integration and the institutional arrangements in Grain & Graze that either supported or limited their success. It finds that frameworks for integration are highly challenged when these several forms of integration take place simultaneously, particularly when the expectations among diverse stakeholders about integration are unclear and when there is scant expertise and experience in operating within integrated frameworks. Under such situations, point-of-practice integration becomes a critical form of integration, a form which can and should be planned for at the commencement of complex research programs involving an on-ground adoption expectation.
Acknowledgements
This paper owes everything to the participants of the Grain & Graze program, with whom the author shared considerable learning and friendship. In particular, the insights of the social research by Nigel McGuckian and the systems research by Andrew Moore allowed for the concept of PoPI to emerge and become clearer in the author’s mind, and so their intellect and friendship is unavoidably woven into the composition of the paper. Feedback from the two anonymous reviewers and Dr Ron Hacker was critical to building the author’s confidence that PoPI should be added to the list of research findings on integration previously published jointly with Professor Steven Dovers.
Andrew MH,
Lodge GM,
Mason WK, Price RJ
(2003) The sustainable grazing systems national experiment. 2. Scientific outcomes and the effectiveness of the research and development process. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 43(7–8), 993–1014.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[Verified 27 July 2009]
Fazey I,
Fazey J,
Fisher J,
Sherren K,
Warren J,
Noss R, Dovers R
(2007) Adaptive capacity and learning to learn as leverage for social-ecological resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5, 375–380.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[Verified 27 July 2009]
Price RJ, Hacker RB
(2009) Grain & Graze: an innovative triple bottom line approach to collaborative and multidisciplinary mixed-farming systems research, development and extension. Animal Production Science 49, 729–735.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Price RJ,
Nicholson C, McGuckian N
(2009) Contesting targets as a measurement of success in agricultural extension: a case study of the Grain & Graze Change-on-farm strategy. Animal Production Science 49, 941–955.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rickards L, Price RJ
(2009) Cultural dimensions of a large-scale mixed-farming program: competing narratives of stakeholder actors. Animal Production Science 49, 956–965.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Scott JM, Lord CJ
(2003) SGS database: use of relational databases to enhance data management for multi-site experiments. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 43(7–8), 729–743.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Southerton D
(2002) Boundaries of ‘us’ and ‘them’: class, mobility and identification in a new town. Sociology 36(1), 171–193.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sprague RH
(1980) A framework for the development of decision support systems. Management Information Systems Quarterly 4(4), 1–26.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Walther P
(1987) Against idealistic beliefs in the problem solving capacities of integrated resource management. Environmental Management 11(4), 439–446.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
