Register      Login
Animal Production Science Animal Production Science Society
Food, fibre and pharmaceuticals from animals
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > AN > EA08302
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 49(10)

Cultural dimensions of a large-scale mixed-farming program: competing narratives of stakeholder actors

L. Rickards A C and R. J. Price B
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Associate Partner, RMCG Consulting, Suite 1, Level 1, 357 Camberwell Road, Camberwell, Vic. 3124, Australia.

B Grain & Graze National Coordinator, Kiri-ganai Research, GPO Box 103, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.

C Corresponding author. Email: laurenr@rmcg.com.au

Animal Production Science 49(10) 956-965 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA08302
Submitted: 15 December 2008  Accepted: 5 June 2009   Published: 16 September 2009

Abstract

Grain & Graze was an innovative, multi-scale, multi-organisational, inter-disciplinary and triple bottom line research, development and extension (RD&E) program conducted to investigate and improve mixed-farming systems in Australia from 2003 to 2008. This paper reports on a sociological evaluation of the program’s institutional arrangements that was undertaken as one of a small number of social research projects within the program. Based on discourse analysis and investigation of participant experiences, it found the program was characterised by two competing views of what the program was or ought to be. Weaving across the program’s formal and informal elements and national and regional scales of management, these ‘narratives’ reflect the program’s coexisting ‘revolutionary’ aspirations and ‘organisational’ aspirations. Attention to the coexistence of these narratives and the way they were expressed within the program provides insight into the values, complexity and challenges of agricultural RD&E programs. It points to the significance the broader philosophical and governance context has for contemporary agricultural RD&E programs and other public science and sustainable development initiatives.


References


Alexander H (1992) Lessons in Landcare: showing the world a way. National Bank Quarterly Summary (December), 14–16.

Allen J (1999) Spatial assemblages of power: from domination to empowerment. In ‘Human geography today’. (Eds D Massey, J Allen, P Sarre) pp. 194–218. (Polity Press: Cambridge)

Alston JM , Chan-Kang C , Marra MC , Pardey PG , Wyatt TJ (2000) A meta-analysis of rates of return on agricultural R&D. International Food Policy Research Institute Research Report 113. RFPRI, Washington.

Barnett MN, Finnemore M (1999) The politics, power and pathologies of international organizations. International Organization 53, 699–732.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Barton R (2003) Men of science: language, identity and professionalization in the mid-Victorian scientific community. History of Science xli, 73–119. open url image1

Brassley P (2005) The professionalization of English agriculture? Rural History 16, 235–251.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Bridle K, Fitzgerald M, Green D, Smith J, McQuillan P, Lefroy T (2009) Relationships between site characteristics, farming system and biodiversity on Australian mixed farms. Animal Production Science 49, 869–882. open url image1

Brown A (2005) Regional governance and regionalism in Australia. In ‘Participation and governance in regional development: global trends in an Australian context’. (Eds R Eversole, J Martin) pp. 17–42. (Ashgate Publishing: Aldershot, UK)

Campbell CA (1994) ‘Landcare: communities shaping the land and the future.’ (Allen & Unwin: Sydney)

Campbell CA (1997) Landcare: conceptual and practical realities. In ‘Critical landcare’. Key Paper Series No. 5. (Eds S Lockie, F Vanclay) pp. 143–152. (Centre for Rural Social Research: Wagga Wagga)

Collin A (1996) Organizations and the end of the individual? Journal of Managerial Psychology 11(7), 9–17.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Curtis A , De Lacy T (1997) Examining the assumptions underlying Landcare. In ‘Critical landcare’. Key Paper Series No. 5. (Eds S Lockie, F Vanclay) pp. 185–200. (Centre for Rural Social Research: Wagga Wagga)

Dart J (2006) ‘Monitoring and evaluation for NRM.’ (Natural Heritage Trust: Canberra)

Day P , Cribb J , Hannam R , Price P , Krause M , Wylie P , Burgi A , Riches D (2008) ‘Managing complex systems: preliminary findings from Grain & Graze.’ (Land & Water Australia: Canberra)

Dovers S (2001) ‘Institutions for sustainability.’ (Australian National University: Canberra)

Dovers S , Price RJ (2007) Research and the integration imperative. In ‘Integrated resource and environmental practice’. (Eds KS Hanna, DS Slocombe) pp. 36–55. (Oxford University Press: Toronto)

Eversole R , Martin J (2005) Introduction. In ‘Participation and governance in regional development: global trends in an Australian context’. (Eds R Eversole, J Martin) pp. 1–16. (Ashgate Publishing: Aldershot, UK)

Ewing S (1997) Small is beautiful: The place of the case study in Landcare evaluation. In ‘Critical landcare’. Key Paper Series No. 5. (Eds S Lockie, F Vanclay) pp. 175–184. (Centre for Rural Social Research: Wagga Wagga)

Frost FM (2000) Value orientations: impact and implications in the extension of complex systems. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 40, 511–517.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Gasson R (1973) Goals and values of farmers. Journal of Agricultural Economics 24, 521–542.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Gibbons M , Limoges C , Nowotny S , Schwartzma P , Scotland P , Trow M (1994) ‘The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies.’ (Sage: London)

Gieryn TF (1983) Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 48, 781–795.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Gieryn TF (1999) Boundaries of science. In ‘Handbook of science and technology studies’. (Eds S Jasanoff, G Markle, C Peterson, T Pinch) pp. 393–443. (Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA)

Glaser BG , Strauss A (1967) ‘The discovery of grounded theory.’ (Aldine: New York)

Grain & Graze (2003) ‘Grain & Graze business plan.’ (Land & Water Australia: Canberra)

Holloway L (2004) Showing and telling farming: agricultural shows and the re-imaging of British agriculture. Journal of Rural Studies 20, 319–330.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Joly P-B (2005) Resilient farming systems in a complex world – new issues for the governance of science and innovation. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 45, 617–626.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Lawrence G (2004) Promoting sustainable development: the question of governance. Plenary Address. In ‘The XI world congress of rural sociology, Trondheim, Norway, 25–30 July 2004’. pp. 145–174.

Lindgren L (2001) The non-profit sector meets the performance management movement. Evaluation 7(3), 285–303.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Lockie S (1997) Beyond a ‘good thing’: political interests and the meaning of Landcare. In ‘Critical landcare’. Key Paper Series No. 5. (Eds S Lockie, F Vanclay) pp. 29–44. (Centre for Rural Social Research: Wagga Wagga)

Lockie S , Vanclay F (1997) ‘Critical landcare.’ Key Paper Series No. 5. (Centre for Rural Social Research: Wagga Wagga)

Lyster R (2002) (De)regulating the rural environment. Environmental and Planning Law Journal 19, 34–57. open url image1

Martin P (1997) The constitution of power in Landcare: a poststructuralist perspective with modernist undertones. In ‘Critical landcare’. Key Paper Series No. 5. (Eds S Lockie, F Vanclay) pp. 45–57. (Centre for Rural Social Research: Wagga Wagga)

Mason WK, Lamb K, Russell B (2003) The Sustainable Grazing Systems Program: new solutions for livestock producers. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 43, 663–672.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

McGuckian N , Rickards L (2008) Final Report of the Grain & Graze National Social Research Project. Land & Water Australia, Canberra.

Mills S (2004) ‘Discourse.’ (Routledge: London)

Moore AD, Bell LW, Revell DK (2009) Feed gaps in mixed-farming systems: insights from the Grain & Graze program. Animal Production Science 49, 736–748. open url image1

Morrisey P , Lawrence G (1997) A critical assessment of Landcare in a region of Central Queensland. In ‘Critical landcare’. Key Paper Series No. 5. (Eds S Lockie, F Vanclay) pp. 217–226. (Centre for Rural Social Research: Wagga Wagga)

Nowotny H , Scott P , Gibbons M (2001) ‘Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty.’ (Polity Press: Cambridge)

Paine MS (1997) Doing it together: technology as practice in the New Zealand Dairy Industry. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University.

Petheram RJ, Clarke RA (1998) Farming systems research: relevance to Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 38, 101–115.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Price RJ (2003) Identifying social spaces in the Sustainable Grazing Systems Program. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 43, 1041–1059.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Price RJ (2008) Final Program Management Report of the Grain & Graze National Operations Coordinator. Land & Water Australia, Canberra.

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. open url image1

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. open url image1

Read V , Petersen L (2008) Program evaluation for Grain & Graze: Final Evaluation Report. Land & Water Australia, Canberra.

Rhodes R (1996) The new governance: governing without government. Political Studies 44, 652–667.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Rickards L , Tucker K (2009) Climate change: the challenges for Australian agriculture. In ‘Climate change: on for young and old’. (Ed. H Sykes) pp. 84–101. (Future Leaders: Melbourne)

Ridley A (2004) The role of applied science in helping farmers to make decisions about environmental sustainability. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 959–968.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Ridley A (2005) The role of farming systems group approaches in achieving sustainability in Australian agriculture. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 45, 603–615.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Robertson M, Bathgate A, Moore A, Lawes R, Julianne Lilley J (2009) Seeking simultaneous improvements in farm profit and natural resource indicators: a modelling analysis. Animal Production Science 49, 826–836. open url image1

Rose N (1999) ‘Powers of freedom: reframing political thought.’ (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge)

Sambodo LAAT (2007) The decision-making process of semi-commercial farmers: a case study of technology adoption in Indonesia. PhD Thesis, Lincoln University, Christchurch.

Schusler T, Decker D, Pfeffer M (2003) Social learning for collaborative research management. Society & Natural Resources 16, 309–326.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Snowden D (2002) Complex acts of knowing: paradox and descriptive self awareness. Journal of Knowledge Management 6(2), 100–111.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Somers M (1994) The narrative construction of identity: a relational and network approach. Theory and Society 23, 605–649.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Spradley JP (1979) ‘The ethnographic interview.’ (Wadsworth Thomson Learning: Belmont, CA)

Susilo A, Heales J, Rohde F (2007) Project management effectiveness: the choice – formal or informal controls. Australasian Journal of Information Systems 15(1), 153–167. open url image1

Tonts M (2000) The restructuring of Australia’s rural communities. In ‘Land of discontent: the dynamics of change in rural and regional Australia’. (Eds B Pritchard, P McManus) pp. 52–72. (University of New South Wales Press: Sydney)

Vanclay F (1997) The sociological context of environmental management in Australian agriculture. In ‘Critical landcare’. Key Paper Series No. 5. (Eds S Lockie, F Vanclay) pp. 9–28. (Centre for Rural Social Research: Wagga Wagga)

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 | open url image1

Vergunst P (2006) ‘Community cohesion: constructing boundaries between or within communities-of-place?’ Land Economy Working Paper Series No. 7. (Scottish Agricultural College: Edinburgh)

Vigoda E (2002) From responsiveness to collaboration: governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration. Public Administration Review 62(5), 527–540.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Warner K (2008) Agroecology as participatory science: emerging alternatives to technology transfer extension practice. Science, Technology & Human Values 33, 754–777.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Weber M (1947) ‘The theory of social and economic organization.’ (Free Press: New York)

Wenger E (2000) Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization 7, 225–246.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Wenger E, Snyder W (2000) Communities of practice: the organisational frontier. Harvard Business Review (Jan.–Feb.), 139–145.
| PubMed |
open url image1

Wilmot S (2001) Corporate moral responsibility: what can we infer from our understanding of organisations. Journal of Business Ethics 30(2), 161–169.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1









1 Mixed farmers were defined as those farmers who grew crops together producing beef, wool or sheep-meat (Grain & Graze 2003).

2 In a sense, Mode 2 science is not new but represents a partial return to the lay roots of science, before it was institutionalised within universities and other organisations that worked to isolate and professionalise its practices, and protect its status as a privileged form of knowledge (Gieryn 1983, 1999; Barton 2003).

3 ‘Communities of practice’ are loose groups of people brought together by a shared interest in, and often passion for, a particular topic. The ‘community’ they form is informal and non-hierarchical in structure, crossing traditional organisational and disciplinary boundaries to provide a forum for the open-ended cross-fertilisation of ideas. Driven by the voluntary commitment of their members and not restricted to predetermined outcomes, communities of practice are often highly productive centres of innovation and learning (Wenger 2000; Wenger and Snyder 2000).