|| Home || SEARCH|| Contact || Free Research Publications  ||  Eshop || Privacy Statement ||

RIRDC Completed Projects in 2003-2004 & Research in Progress as at June 2004

BACK TO INDEX

To Rice Research in Progress  

Human Capital, Communications & Information Systems COMPLETED PROJECTS

Information and Communications Systems:

PROJECT No	PROJECT TITLE	RESEARCHER	PHONE	ORGANISATION
ECU-11A	eWork in Regional Australia	Peter Standen & Jan Sinclair-Jones	(08) 6304 5283	Curtin University
KDI-25A	On-farm communication systems evaluation series	Ben White	(08) 9478 3343	Kondinin Group Inc

Extension, Education and Training

PROJECT No	PROJECT TITLE	RESEARCHER	PHONE	ORGANISATION
SMS-1A	Phase 1, Stage 1 of the SmartStart to Life Program	Robert de Castella	(02) 6260 5722	SmartStart (Australia) Pty Ltd


 
 
 

Rural Communities and Social Issues:

PROJECT No	PROJECT TITLE	RESEARCHER	PHONE	ORGANISATION
BRR-6A	Social profile of Australian dairy regions	Elizabeth Herreria et al	(02) 6272 3382	Bureau of Rural Sciences
BRR-6A	Social profile of people employed in the Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing industries	Elizabeth Herreia et al	(02) 6272 3382	Bureau of Rural Sciences


 

Farm Health and Safety:

PROJECT No	PROJECT TITLE	RESEARCHER	PHONE	ORGANISATION
CIE-20A	Incentives for the adoption of safe systems of work on farms	Dr Jenny Gordon	(02) 6248 6699	Centre for International Economics
CUT-7A	Reducing All-terrain vehicle injuries: A study of driver training	DrTony Lower	(08) 9956 0200	Curtin University of Technology


 

Cooperative Venture for Capacity Building

PROJECT No	PROJECT TITLE	RESEARCHER	PHONE	ORGANISATION
AIA-11A	National practitioner accreditation scheme for natural resources, agriculture and related sectors	Michael E.S. Young	(02) 6581 1141	Michael Young & Associates (Myfora Pty Ltd
DAN-210A	E-learning pilot program in farm management	Mr Cameron Archer	(02 )4939 8888	NSW Dept Primary Industries
RPM-2A	Fostering Involvement	Dr Jenny Andrew	(02) 6232 6956	Resource Policy & Management Pty Ltd
RRE-1A	National Extension/Education Review	Dr Jeff Coutts Dr Kate Roberts	(07) 4638 9119 (03) 9670 0745	Coutts J&R Roberts Research & Evaluation
RRE-2A	Mapping of rural industries service providers	Dr Kate Roberts	(03) 9670 0614	Roberts Research & Evaluation
RUE-2A	Growing the Capital of Rural Australia—the task of capacity building	R Macadam, J Drinan, N Inall, B McKenzie	(02) 4754 1620	Rural Enablers
UM-62A	Reconceptualising extension to deliver triple bottom line outcomes	Dr Ruth Beilin	(03) 8344 3314	University of Melbourne

Information and communication systems
 

Project Title:	eWork in Regional Australia
RIRDC Project No.:	ECU-11A
Researcher:	Peter Standen & Jan Sinclair-Jones
Organisation:	School of Management, Edith Cowan University & School of Social Sciences, Curtin University
Phone:	+61 8 6304 5283
Fax:	+61 8 6304 5840
Email:	p.standen@ecu.edu.au
Objectives	To assess the extent of eWork in regional and rural Australia, investigate the factors affecting managers’ decisions to use workforces in such areas, and consider the implications for communities, workers and governments.
Background	New Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) increasingly allow a wide range of business services to be delivered electronically from offices geographically distant from the users of those services, a practice known as eWork. International research has shown significant use of eWork to deliver work across state and national borders in Europe, and considerable shifting of work from Europe and North America to destinations in Asia (‘offshoring’). These developments have significant implications for employment in many parts of the globe, including regional Australia. eWork appears to offer new business and employment opportunities to regional areas traditionally seen as too remote from markets for business services. The potential for employment in eWork services in regional Australia is not well understood and deserves systematic study.
Research	The research involved a survey of literature in a number of related fields, analysis of survey data, case studies of eWork relocation having consequences for regional employment, and interviews with regional policy officers and managers.
Outcomes	The study concentrated on three forms of eWork: call centres, eOutsourcing and remote offices. We concluded that call centres remain viable options for employment growth in many regional areas, although policy makers need to closely monitor industry trends. In particular there may be room for growth amongst call centres operated by Small to Medium Enterprises (SMEs) as these are less likely to centralise eWork or send it offshore. eOutsourcing opportunities appear to exist in accounting and software services, the two services most represented in regional areas, and in creative and design services, a field currently under-represented in regional areas. Opportunities to develop workforce skills and new businesses in these areas are more likely to be found in larger regional centres. As well as stimulating growth of eService businesses, regional development authorities might stimulate the regional market through education and promotional campaigns aimed at metropolitan and regional service buyers. Remote offices appear to offer quite limited opportunities for regional employment. Home-based telework is viable in a growing number of regional communities but does not appear to offer opportunity for significant employment growth.
Implications	Overall, this study found that eWork may offer a range of future regional employment options beyond call centres. Policy makers should examine opportunities in higher-skilled services, particularly for the larger regional centres or those close to metropolitan cities. Developing a sufficient pool of skilled workers in fields such as accounting or software appears to be a significant challenge for other areas.
Publications	RIRDC Publication 04/045 "eWork in regional Australia"


 
 
 
 

Project Title:	On-farm communication systems evaluation series
RIRDC Project No.:	KDI-25A
Researcher:	Ben White
Organisation:	Kondinin Group Inc. PO Box 913 Cloverdale WA 6105
Phone:	08 9478 3343
Fax:	08 9478 3353
Email:	ben@kondinin.com.au
Objectives	· 1.To perform an independent review of CDMA mobile phones  · 2.To review recent and future advances in CDMA mobile telephony technology  · 3.To demonstrate maximisation of CDMA handset performance.
Background	While the latest developments in communications technology and the internet are continually promoted as being time saving, long range and versatile, many of these features are only relevant or available to 86% of the Australian population currently living in urban areas of Australia. Communication systems, particularly mobile phones in rural Australia are becoming increasingly necessary to instigate opportunity and sustain development.  An independent review of the prominent mobile telephony options available to rural Australia would assist rural customers considering the purchase of this equipment. Similarly, a review of the application of this equipment for rural operators with an investigation into opportunities created through imminent technological advances in the area may assist rural users to better understand what they can expect from future mobile telephony.
Research	A full review of all current models of CDMA handset was performed with tests of breadth of coverage sensitivity, ease of use, sound quality, battery life, durability, portability, features and accessory compatibility. Specifications of each model were also recorded and presented in a comparative style table.
Outcomes	A comparison of handsets revealed differences in performance in all areas of testing. User panel evaluations also indicated preferences for features including raised keypads.
Implications	This project has developed a buyer checklist for purchasers of CDMA mobile phone handsets. A guide to maximising the performance of CDMA handsets in rural areas has also been presented.
Publications	Pending: Kondinin Group, 2004, "CDMA Mobile phones – Research Report" Farming Ahead. April


 

Extension, Education and Training
 

Project Title:	Phase 1, Stage 1 of the SmartStart to Life Program
RIRDC Project No.:	SMS-1A, 2002/2003
Researcher:	Robert de Castella
Organisation:	SmartStart (Australia) Pty Ltd
Phone:	02 6260 5722
Fax:	02 6260 5799
Email:	deek@smartstart.com.au
Objectives	·1 To review research and literature with the view to determining appropriate methodologies and results interpretation parameters specific to children.
Background	The concept of SmartStart, to deliver a new, innovative and effective intervention to improve health and well being, was formulated in late 1995. SmartStart (Australia) Pty Ltd was incorporated on 20th February 1998 as the operating structure to develop and deliver this concept. SmartStart’s mission is to provide an ongoing health and well-being measurement and reporting services that encourages children, parents and the community to make positive lifestyle choices. The SmartStart program has for the last five years focused primarily measuring and reporting on the body composition and fitness of children. With a huge increase in the number of overweight and obese children, we would like to increase the nutritional component of the program. We are investigating the possibility of developing a nutritional screening ‘instrument’ so as to provide a complimentary message on food intake (quantity and quality) to work with our physical activity and fitness message.
Research	·2 Researched and determined the methodology for nutritional assessment of children; ·3 Determined the requirements for children and the interpretation of nutritional intake; and ·4 Sought feedback and reporting format and content.
Outcomes	·1 Impetus to proceed with research and development in Nutritional Analysis Tools. ·2 Determined the most appropriate and efficient methods of collecting and profiling nutritional information on an individual basis and also on large population samples. ·3 Determined that it is possible and practical to measure the nutritional intake of young children.
Implications	If, as an outcome, it is possible to develop an ‘instrument’ to measure the nutritional intake of young children at low cost, we will proceed to the next step of development of the ‘instrument’.
Publications	None produced as a direct result of this particular project. We have however, compiled a report following on from funds received from FRDC for the development of the Nutritional Analysis Tools.


 

Rural Communities and Social Issues
 

Project Title:	Social profile of Australian dairy regions
RIRDC Project No.:	BRR 6A
Researcher:	Elisabeth Herrería, Cynthia Magpantay and Heather Aslin
Organisation:	Social Sciences Program, Bureau of Rural Sciences GPO Box 858, Canberra ACT 2601
Phone:	02 6272 3382
Fax:	02 6272 3882
Email:	Elisabeth.Herreria@brs.gov.au; Cynthia.Magpantay@brs.gov.au; Heather.Aslin@brs.gov.au
Objectives	·1 To provide a social profile for each of Australia’s eight dairy regions. ·2 To enable the reader to make comparisons across the dairy regions and between the dairy regions and the Australian population as a whole.  ·3 To provide baseline and trend data that will inform discussion about the impact of changes in government policy or markets affecting the dairy industry.
Background	RIRDC commissioned the Bureau of Rural Sciences to produce, under the project title Profiling Rural Australia, five products: an updated edition of the BRS publication, Country Matters: A social atlas of rural and regional Australia; a report on rural ageing; a report on the population trends of small towns in Australia, 1991-2001; a social profile of people employed throughout rural and regional Australia in the industry sector of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (AFF); and a social profile of the population living within dairy farming regions across Australia.
Research	The eight major dairy regions that form the main analytical unit are DIDCO, Murray Dairy, GippsDairy, WestVic Dairy, SubTropical Dairy, DairySA, Western Dairy and DairyTas (see Map 1), corresponding with the major dairying production areas targeted by the former Dairy Research and Development Corporation (DRDC) under the Industry’s Eight Regional Development Programs (RDPs) in 2001.A suite of 26 indicators comprising a broad range of socio-economic topics was selected to provide a social profile. Data presented and analysed in this report are primarily drawn from the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ (ABS) 1996 and 2001 Censuses of Population and Housing, and the 2001 Agricultural Census. Data on personal annual income were sourced from taxation statistics collected by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). Data sources included in this profile are based on the 2001 Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC) developed by ABS, enabling comparisons among all data sources used for the analysis of the selected variables. The Statistical Local Area (SLA) was the preferred geography used in this report for mapping the eight dairy regions, and for calculating statistics for each of the dairy regions. Only SLAs with 10 or more dairy farms with an estimated value of agriculture operation greater than $22 500 were included in this report.
Outcomes	The overall social profile of the dairy industry regions as compared with Australia as a whole suggests that these regions, in 2001: include approximately 12.5% of the Australian population; the population is growing at the same annual rate as for the Australian population; have a slightly older population and a smaller percentage of young people; have a similar percentage of Indigenous people and considerably lower percentage of people born overseas; have a similar population mobility; have a slightly lower percentage of working age people; have a similar increase in working age population; have a slightly higher level of overall and youth unemployment; have a higher percentage of people employed in the AFF sector, with a slightly higher decrease in employment in this sector over the period 1996–2001; have decreasing employment in the dairy industry; have lower mean annual taxable and median weekly family incomes; are slightly socio-economically disadvantaged; have a lower percentage of people with university qualifications and a relatively higher percentage with Certificate II or Certificate III; and have a slightly lower proportion of couple families with children and one-parent families, but a higher representation of childless couples.
Implications	This social profile has shown that the dairy regions are faring well in comparison with much of the rest of rural and regional Australia. For instance, the 8 dairy regions have an overall score (988.1) on the Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage above that for non-metropolitan Australia (976.7). Notwithstanding the above, declines in levels of employment within the dairy industry were recorded across all the dairy regions, particularly in dairy regions experiencing substantial declines in the number of dairy farms (DIDCO, SubTropical Dairy, Western Dairy and DairyTas). The Victorian dairy regions experienced the lowest declines in both the level of employment in the dairy industry and in the number of dairy farms, suggesting Victorian dairy industry was performing above the national average.


 
 
 
 

Project Title:	Social profile of people employed in the Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing industries
RIRDC Project No.:	BRR 6A
Researcher:	Elisabeth Herrería, Alice Woodhead, Robyn Tottenham, Cynthia Magpantay
Organisation:	Social Sciences Program, Bureau of Rural Sciences GPO Box 858, Canberra ACT 2601
Phone:	02 6272 3382
Fax	02 6272 3882
Email:	Elisabeth.Herreria@brs.gov.au; Alice.Woodhead@brs.gov.au; Robyn.Tottenham@brs.gov.au;
Objectives	·4 To provide a social profile of people employed in the Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing industries across Metropolitan and Non-metropolitan Australia. ·5 To enable the reader to make comparisons across Metropolitan and Non-metropolitan regions and the Australian population as a whole.  ·6 To provide baseline and trend data that will inform discussion about the impact of changes in government policy or markets affecting the Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing industry.
Background	RIRDC commissioned the Bureau of Rural Sciences (BRS) to produce, under the project title Profiling Rural Australia, five products: an updated edition of the BRS publication, Country Matters: A social atlas of rural and regional Australia; a report on rural ageing; a report on the population trends of small towns in Australia, 1991-2001; a social profile of the population living within dairy farming regions across Australia; and a social profile of people employed throughout rural and regional Australia in the industry sector of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (AFF).
Research	The five major regions analysed in the report representing Metropolitan and Non-metropolitan Australia are: Metropolitan; Regional city; Populated coastal; Populated inland; and Remote. The Australian average in addition to regional averages is provided for each variable for people employed in AFF. A suite of 23 variables comprising a broad range of socio-economic topics was selected to social profile the AFF workforce. Data presented and analysed in this report are primarily drawn from the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ (ABS) 1996 and 2001 Censuses of Population and Housing.  Data sources included in this profile are based on the 2001 Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC) developed by ABS, enabling comparisons among all data sources used for the analysis of the selected variables. The Statistical Local Area (SLA) was the preferred geography used in this report for analysing each of the major regions. Statistical Local Areas were only included in the analysis where the population included one or more persons working in the Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing industry.
Outcomes	This social profile illustrates the similarities and differences between the population employed in the AFF sector across Australia and within Metropolitan and Non-metropolitan Australia. Analysis across these regions identified in 2001: that approximately 330 500 persons were employed in the AFF industry, approximately four per cent of all people employed across Australia; Across Non-metropolitan Australia, 10 per cent of people were employed in AFF; the population employed in AFF is growing annually by two per cent, slightly stronger in Non-metropolitan regions; Youth aged 15-24 years comprised 10 per cent of the workforce employed in AFF however this group experienced a decline in numbers between 1996 and 2001; Indigenous Australians accounted for a small portion of the workforce employed in AFF and were mainly working in the Remote region; people who spoke English not well or not at all employed in AFF were more likely to be working in Metropolitan areas; Non-metropolitan Australia had a higher proportion of people working in AFF living alone with this number of people increasing strongly from 1996; the number of people employed in AFF were more likely to obtain Certificate qualifications than a Bachelor degree or higher; and over a quarter of households where one or more persons were employed in AFF had high household incomes.
Implications	This project has provided a benchmark for social profiling industries’ workforce by comparing broad trends across Australia, Metropolitan, and Non-metropolitan regions. The Bureau of Rural Sciences considers the profile useful for industry and Government bodies to understand AFF employees across regions. This is particularly important considering the decline in the number of people aged 35 years or younger employed in AFF between 1996 and 2001. In 2001, the AFF industry sector was the 11th largest employer across the main industry sectors in Australia. However in Non-metropolitan Australia, the AFF sector ranked as the 3rd largest employer highlighting community’s dependency on the AFF industry across Non-metropolitan Australia.

Farm Health and Safety
 

Project Title:	Incentives for the adoption of safe systems of work on farms
RIRDC Project No.:	CIE-20A
Researcher:	Dr Jenny Gordon
Organisation:	Centre for International Economics GPO Box 2203 CANBERRA ACT 2601
Phone:	(02) 6248 6699
Fax:	(02) 6247 7484
Email:	jgordon@thecie.com.au
Objectives	The aim of the study was to explore options for improving the adoption of on-farm hazard management practices. In particular the objective of the study was to assess whether an accreditation scheme — certification as a Farmsafe Farm — was able to be supported by market incentives. Incentives examined ranged from the potential for accredited farm products to achieve premium prices, to discounts on input costs, notably workers’ compensation and public liability insurance. It also examined the potential for joint accreditation schemes and other options for reducing the costs associated with accreditation .
Background	Farm accidents impose economic and social costs on farm families, their communities and industries as well as on the broader community. There is evidence that participation in OHS training programs followed by on-farm sessions can reduce the number and severity of farm accidents. It is not clear that training alone can deliver significant improvements in OHS practices, and the evidence suggests that awareness raising is only effective for single source clearly identifiable hazards. Farmsafe Australia has been developing an accreditation scheme as a mechanism to ensure that farmers who undertook OHS training took the next step for practical implementation on farm.
Research	The study developed a set of options to encourage the adoption of accreditation as a Farmsafe Farm. These options were tested at a Round Table involving participants from government, industry and related researchers. The appropriateness of the Farmsafe interim criteria was also considered. As a result of discussions the only option considered to have potential was insurance discounts. Interviews were conducted with eight insurance companies and a survey of farmers to assess the potential for discounts to be offered and whether these would be sufficient to induce farmers to become accredited.
Outcomes	The study found that there was little potential for OHS accredited products to attract a premium or greater access to markets, given the high standard of Australian OHS legislation. And while there was some interest from other accreditation schemes, notably Freshcare, in including an OHS component, there were administrative issues to be considered. There remains a divide between the approach to and level of discounts most insurers are willing to provide, and what farmers need as an incentive to become accredited.
Implications	The study findings suggest that governments will need to consider more direct options to assist farmers with adoption of good OHS practices, as a market based solution is not currently viable.
Publications	RIRDC publication


 
 

Project Title:	Reducing All-terrain vehicle injuries: A study of driver training
RIRDC Project No.:	CUT-7A
Researcher:	Tony Lower, Nikki Egginton
Organisation:	Combined Universities Centre for Rural Health 167 Fitzgerald St. Geraldton WA 6530
Phone:	(08) 9956 0200
Fax:	(08) 9964 2096
Email:	iellis@cucrh.uwa.edu.au
Objectives	To determine the prevalence, nature and predictors of agricultural motorcycle injuries (2,3 & 4 wheels) in a high-risk cohort of Western Australian adolescents and to test the impact of a competency based rider-training program on subsequent injury rates.
Background	All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) commonly known as Ag bikes are a major cause of serious injury particularly amongst young men. Approximately 9000 Ag bikes are sold to the Agricultural sector each year; until recently there has been no recognised training program for Ag bikes. Honda have recently designed a competency based driver training program to meet an untapped need but the efficacy of competency based training in this field had not previously been tested.
Research	A randomised control study design involving six Agricultural Colleges in rural WA was employed. An initial cross-sectional survey of students (Year 11 and 12) was drawn from the six designated colleges. An existing survey instrument measuring riding exposure, vehicle type and maintenance, use of protective equipment, training and injury experience formed the basis of the questions. One-day competency based training programs were given in three of the colleges. 12 and 24 month follow-ups using a similar questionnaire were conducted with all students who completed the baseline. The study had a number of limitations, with the major issues being the relatively small sample and inability to track subjects once they had left the Agricultural Colleges, thereby negating the potential to assess the efficacy of the rider-training course in reducing injury.
Outcomes	At baseline about half the students had experienced an injury on an ag bike. Helmet use, being taught to drive an ag bike by an adult, and maximum reported speeds below 100 kms/hour were associated with lower injury rates.
Implications	Ag bike injuries are a significant public health concern with economic implications. Competency based training is one of a host of possible strategies to decrease the rate of ag bike injuries. These include incorporating ag bikes in farm risk assessment, engineering solutions to reduce speeds or restrict carrying passengers, and selling protective gear with new ag bikes.
Publications	Lower T., Egginton N. (2003) Agricultural motorbike injuries in WA adolescents. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 27(3):333-336.


 

Capacity Building for Innovation in Rural Industries Cooperative Venture
 

Project Title:	An evaluation of the demand for a National Accreditation Scheme in the natural resources, agriculture and related sectors
RIRDC Project No.:	AIA-11A
Researcher:	Michael E.S. Young
Organisation:	Michael Young & Associates (Myfora Pty Ltd) PO Box 1349, PORT MACQUARIE NSW 2444
Phone:	02 6581 1141
Fax:	02 6581 1754
Email:	my_assoc@yahoo.com
Objectives	To assess the demand for a National Accreditation Scheme for professionals (private and public sector consultants and advisers) in the natural resource management, agriculture and related sectors.
Background	An earlier RIRDC project No. AIA-10A (Towards Professional Accreditation for Consultants and Advisers in Agriculture, Natural Resource Management and Related Sectors) identified a need for accreditation of consultants and advisers to the rural and NRM sectors and proposed an implementation process with support from RIRDC and the Cooperative Venture for Capacity Building for Innovation in Rural Industries. The need was based on a desire for a higher level of professional competencies from advisers in an increasingly more complex environment. RIRDC and the Cooperative Venture requested the proponents to further quantify the demand for accreditation with a request to gain better data relating to natural resource management.
Research	A workshop was held with the Project Steering Committee to develop an accreditation ‘Product’ that could be the basis for discussion with wider stakeholders. A Literature Review, including a wide Internet search, was conducted to assess the current status of accreditation of professionals in Australia and internationally and what were the competencies required of the professionals in their respective industries. Extensive consultation was held with a wide group of individuals and organisations to further assess the demand. The consultation aimed to provide a range of key features that have enabled other professional accreditation/certification schemes to succeed. It was also aimed at identifying from where the demand for professional accreditation was being driven in Australia.
Outcomes	The accreditation model proposed distinguished between Core National Competencies that any advisor/consultant should have, regardless of the industry sector they are working in and the Industry-specific Competencies that may identify them as specialists in a particular field. Whilst there may be overlap between the two sets of competencies, the specific industry would be responsible for assessing the industry skills and a national body would be responsible for assessing the Core National Competencies, although the competencies would need to be credible, rigorous and industry owned. It was clear that there was no expressed demand from the farming sector for accreditation of their advisors, provided they continued to get good advice. The demand for accreditation or certification is being driven by the professionals themselves and their respective professional organisations as they see certification as a means for maintaining professional standards through on-going professional development. In addition, new legislation relating to land use and environmental management in Queensland and NSW in particular will require certified auditors to verify that land, water and environmental management meet legislative requirements. Two very significant groups of professional advisers are the Commercial (retail) Agronomists employed by large agribusiness companies and the large group of LandCare/NRM Facilitators/Coordinators. These two groups represent more than two thousand individuals who see certification as a means of providing credibility to their experience, employment mobility and recognition of their on-going professional development. Other groups, such as the Cotton and Seafood industries have developed rigorous, competency-based certification schemes for their consultants. The Rice industry is at a very early stage in developing professional development pathways for its advisers. The oilseed and pulse industries have developed professional development programs to enable advisers to be updated regularly on new technical developments. It was determined that the assessment of competencies should be evidence-based and include recognition of prior learning and current skills which are acceptable to both an independent national body and a specific industry.
Implications	The project has shown that accreditation is being driven by the industry professionals, themselves and is not on the agenda of farmer organisations. Within the professionals and their groups, there is a varying capacity to participate in a national accreditation program. Those that are capable of participating now include cotton, seafood, Rural Solutions SA and the commercial agronomist/consultants attached to large agribusiness companies. There is an interested group who need to yet define the detail of their specific sector competencies and include rice, grains (Topcrop), irrigation consultants, property resource management plan auditors and property management planners. There is then Landcare and related facilitators and Rural Financial Counsellors who have well defined competencies in existing National Training Packages but will require strong institutional and community support for them to participate and will have to establish the value of certification to their funding sources. It was recommended that three to four Pilot Studies be supported in the future by the Cooperative Venture to test the implementation of a National Accreditation Scheme with those industries/sectors most ready to participate or needing assistance.


 
 

Project Title:	E-learning pilot program in farm management
RIRDC Project No.:	DAN-210A
Researcher:	Darren Bayley and Julie White
Organisation:	CB Alexander Agricultural College Tocal PATERSON NSW 2421
Fax	02 4939 8888
Email:	02 4938 5549
Objectives	· to undertake a pilot e-learning program in farm management · to develop a distance education resource which would be available electronically to farmers, farm managers and others to enhance provision of distance education to these groups within the context of the National Training agenda and, in particular, competency standards within the National Training Packages.
Background	Distance learning opportunities for farmers and farm managers have primarily remained in the print medium despite the development of extensive internet services. Past pilots for e-learning for farmers have not always met expectations or have been extremely expensive to produce. It was therefore decided to undertake a pilot e-learning program in farm management to assess the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of producing electronic resources to enhance distance education opportunities for rural industry.
Research	After consultation with industry and training organisations it was decided to use Environmental Management Systems in agriculture as the subject for the pilot e-learning program in farm management because it filled a gap in current distance education provisions and related to national competency standards. A multi-media CD was developed in plain HTML and trialed with industry before finalisation.
Outcomes	This pilot program has produced a quality e-learning resource which will be available to farmers wishing to gain competencies relating to EMS, and to organisations who provide training in this area.
Implications	The pilot has demonstrated it is possible to produce a cost-effective, quality e-learning resource provided a common sense, low-tech approach is taken, and the technical expertise is readily available, both in the content area and in electronic resource development.
Publications	Bayley D & White J (2004). "A National Guide to Environmental Management Systems in Agriculture". NSW Agriculture, Paterson NSW.


 
 

Project Title:	Fostering Involvement
RIRDC Project No.:	RPM -2A
Researcher:	Dr Jennifer Andrew
Organisation:	Resource Policy & Management Pty Ltd  PO Box 4758 KINGSTON ACT 2604
Phone:	02 6232 6956
Fax:	02 6232 7727
Email:	Jenny@repol.net.au
Objectives	To improve understanding of non-participation in government and industry learning activities, and to increase the accessibility of learning activities and involvement of the farming community. The project is studying factors that inhibit farmer participation in learning activities to develop new processes to encourage participation, extension and learning.
Background	Considerable attention has been given to the term ‘participation’ by researchers. Commentary on this term is part of the literature of a number of different disciplines and fields. An overview of some of the theories of participation along with information gathered from a number of perspectives provides a basis for understanding factors that encourage or impede the involvement of members of farm management teams in the extension programs of government and industry bodies.
Research	The project approach involved the following key phases: compilation of an annotated bibliography; development of a framework of analysis; development and testing of the framework (through a questionnaire and informal interviews and discussions); case study and field work analysis; establishment of extension strategies and synthesis of findings.
Outcomes	The models and theories of participation broadly identify four key factors influencing participation in learning. These are consideration of: relationships between the learner and the learning ‘environment’; social and structural factors inhibiting participation; the learning and educational experience of the farmer; and situational, institutional and dispositional barriers to participation. Farmers tend to choose to participate or not participate according to their past experiences and those of the people they trust and value, and patterns of information seeking that they are accustomed to. This seems to be because they are acquainted with, and feel confident in participating or not participating in specific learning environments.
Implications	Delivery of many government and industry programs tends to focus on group-based participation, rather than one-on-one, and many learning opportunities are developed without an understanding of different local settings. This study suggests that in order to gain greater participation in learning activities, a more localised approach is required.
Publications	Andrew, J. 2003, ‘The Regional Producer Network as a Social Mechanism for Improvement through Learning, in Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, pp. 1015-29 Robottom, I. & Andrew, J. 2001, ‘Science and Ethics: Some Issues for Education’, in Science Education, vol. 85. no. 6, pp. 769-80, Wiley, New York Andrew, J. & Robottom, I. 2000, ‘Policy Background’, in Case Studies in Environmental Education: Policy and Practice, I. Robottom, K. Malone & R. Walker, Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria. Andrew, J. & Robottom, I. 1999, ‘The Role of Communicators/Educators in Museums and Science Centres’, in Workshop Internacional: a Comunicação da Ciência e a Educação Ambiental, Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Belem, Pará, Brazil. Andrew, J. & Robottom, I. 1998, ‘Public Participation and the Politics of Environmentalism’, in Southern African Journal of Environmental Education, no. 18, pp. 47-53. Andrew, J. 1997, ‘History and Environmental Education Research’, in Contemporary Approaches to Research in Mathematics, Science, Health and Environmental Education 1997, eds. S. Groves, B. Jane, I. Robottom & R. Tytler, Conference and Symposium Proceedings 4, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria. Andrew, J., Jickling, R. & Robottom, I. 1996, ‘Ethics, Education and Wildlife Issues’ in International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 31-44.


 
 
 
 

Project Title:	National Extension/Education Review
RIRDC Project No.:	RRE-1A
Researcher:	Dr Jeff Coutts and Dr Kate Roberts,
Organisation:	Coutts J&R: Level 2, 516 Ruthven St, Toowoomba, Qld 4350 Roberts Research and Evaluation: Suite 131, 343 Little Collins St, Melbourne VIC 3000
Phone:	Coutts J&R: 07 4638 9119 or 07 4630 1297 Roberts Research and Evaluation: 03 9670 0745
Fax:	Coutts J&R: 07 4638 9118 Roberts Research and Evaluation: 03 9670 0614
Email:	jeff@couttsjr.com.au, kroberts@robertsevaluation.com.au
Objectives	Promote and rethink rural extension/education arrangements of government, industry, and community groups so that they respond to new and changing environments and promote enhanced learning and practice.
Background	Many debates have gone on about the term, theory and role of extension. This report has chosen to ignore the history and the theory and determine how extension actually is currently being undertaken in Australia. It looks at extension’s role in capacity building and lessons that can be learnt. It answers the fundamental question of ‘what works and why?’. This report is a result of a flagship project funded by the Capacity Building for Innovation in Rural Industries Co-operative Joint Venture.
Research	This project sought out a range of extension and education projects directed primarily at the rural sector. Extensive on-line lists, networks and other means were used to gain as wide a coverage as possible. The report aimed to go across industry, issue, and community barriers as well as across different regions and states. A common framework was developed to guide data collection and analysis of the different projects and a typology of projects proposed earlier was tested to see if it was useful in collating and analysing projects. An overview of the Australian context was also sought that might have influenced the nature of projects and their funding and looked at the capacity building literature.
Outcomes	o Extension is a significant activity across rural and regional Australia in both the public and private sectors involving thousands of extension workers/facilitators and tens of thousands of landholders and community members.  o Extension/education projects can’t be considered in isolation of what other extension/education projects are occurring in a community, industry or issue context.  o Funders should take into account the whole capacity building ladder when they are considering their portfolio of extension/education projects.  o Generally, extension/education projects fit into one of the four models outlined in this report.  o There are underlying philosophies and practices that provide the rigour for projects under the different models – similar to the rigour of quantitative research work. For example, the Group facilitation/empowerment model projects require facilitation of participant driven processes within broad negotiated boundaries. The Programmed learning model projects require market research, testing and quality assurance procedures and should be linked into the Australian National Training Authority framework. The Technology development model projects require facilitation, benchmarking and on-ground trials and demonstrations. The Information access model projects require information to be available in a form that is useful to people, when they need it.
Implications	Extension is the process of capacity building. This report has shown that extension and education projects need to be considered at the over-view level to ensure that complementary approaches are in place. Likewise, to maximise the effectiveness at the project level, there are some clear guiding steps that can be put in place depending on the type of extension model the project falls into.
Publications	Coutts, J. & Roberts, K. 2003, Extension Models and Best Practice in Extension, invited paper, APEN Forum, Hobart, November.  Coutts, J. 2003, ‘Capacity Building through Extension and Education’, in RipRap – the River and Riparian Lands Management newsletter, Land & Water Australia, Canberra, pp 14-15. Coutts, J. 2003, ‘Human Capacity building through extension and education’, in RipRap – River and Riparian Lands Management newsletter, Edition 24 2003, Land & Water Australia, Canberra. Roberts, K & Coutts, J 2002, ‘Evaluation of the impact of the Building Regional Capacity Short Course’, Roberts Research and Evaluation Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Vic.


 
 
 
 

Project Title:	Mapping of rural industries service providers
RIRDC Project No.:	RRE-2A
Researcher:	Kate Roberts, Mark Paine,
Organisation:	Roberts Research and Evaluation Pty Ltd University of Melbourne
Phone:	03 96700745
Fax:	03 96700614,
Email:	kroberts@robertsevaluation.com.au
Objectives	The objectives of the research were to:  • Provide a report on the size and composition of service providers (people providing information, extension, education and training services) to land managers; • Undertake a needs analysis in terms of professional development for service providers; and • Recommend appropriate activities in which the CV or its members might invest to meet the needs of service providers .
Background
Research	In 2003, the Cooperative Venture for Capacity Building for Innovation in Rural Industries identified a lack of research into the background, qualifications, location and professional development needs of service providers in Australia. There was no comprehensive data on the existing level of skills and competencies and no information on what the providers themselves considered would help build their capacity.
Outcomes	The respondents were mapping according to where they worked and in what industry. With regard to their needs, the main finding was that the greatest inhibitor encountered by service providers in their professional development was the organisational and external environment. Within the scope of what they do there is a high level of job satisfaction, and broadly they believe they have enough skills to carry out the tasks required, but there is considerable frustration at the constancy of organisational change and a lack of leadership in managing that change. More specifically, the respondents find the high level of project work and the resultant loss of continuity of staff and expertise is a particular burden when trying to achieve change. In short, from the providers’ standpoint it is not so much the nature of the job or their skills that are as crucial as the external factors relating to security and support
Implications	The implications of the findings of this research is that while in the business of helping others to manage change, service provers did not have the skills to manage it when they were affected by it.
Publications


 
 
 
 

Project Title:	Growing the Capital of Rural Australia—the task of capacity building
RIRDC Project No.:	RUE-2A
Researcher:	R Macadam, J Drinan, N Inall, B McKenzie
Organisation:	Rural Enablers
Phone:	02 47541620
Fax:
Email:	r.macadam@uws.edu.au
Objectives	1. Through a review of social, economic, political and technological trends that are likely to have an impact on a future learning environment, summarize these trends and discuss how they will impact on rural learning in the next 10–20 years. 2. Related to objective 1, identify the current institutional arrangements supporting and constraining rural capacity building and learning, and possible improvements. 3. Related to objective 2, engage key stakeholders in dialogue about improved institutional arrangements to support rural capacity building and learning—including inter-organisational structures, inter-relationships, roles, responsibilities, and possible barriers for change in institutional arrangements and the desirability and feasibility of those changes. 4. Report the findings for ongoing debate among stakeholders.
Background	In 2002 the Cooperative Venture for Capacity Building for Innovation in Rural Industries commissioned a set of three projects under the label ‘Capacity Building for Innovation in Rural Industries’. The Cooperative Venture’s aim is ‘to provide, through a coordinated program, the R&D basis to ensure an effective rural industries extension, learning and education system’. This report deals with the third project, ‘Improving Institutional Support Arrangements for Rural Capacity Building’. It is a study in a field where traditional ideas related to extension and adult education are giving way to new ones and where there is uncertainty about the best way forward. The subject area is marked by complex and changing concepts and by terminology that needs resolution and clarification.
Research	The research for the project was carried out in three phases: · Phase 1, from January to July 2002, involved an exploration of the situation and the various aspects of the project. Three exploratory stakeholder workshops were held, in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. The output was a discussion paper entitled Rural Institutions, Organisations, Capacity Building and Learning: a rich picture. · Phase 2, from August 2002 to April 2003, involved a data analysis that led to definition of relevant themes, development of ‘what should be’ constructs related to them, and their comparison with ‘what is’ to identify needed improvements. The output was ‘The Way Ahead’, a draft project report distributed to the 14 members of the Reference Panel in March 2003. · In phase 3, in May and June 2003, the research team responded to the comments and contributions of Reference Panel members and developed practical recommendations for action. This report presents those recommendations and is the culmination of the work done to date.
Outcomes	The report provides an overview of the environment in which rural people and communities appear to be operating, and an analysis of the implications for capacity building. It develops an argument that highlights the reciprocal nature of capacity building and institutional arrangements. A set of five propositions is developed outlining the conditions for effective capacity building: 1. Effective capacity building maintains a focus on outcomes as improvements in the stock of capital sought by stakeholders. It strives for consistency between the outcomes sought and the nature, design and conduct of interventions. 2. Effective capacity building defines and engages the relevant communities of practice. In doing so, it encompasses a diversity of interests and world views and avoids the losses associated with marginalisation of potentially significant people. 3. Effective capacity building creates a common agenda and a willingness to collaborate among the members of the relevant communities of practice. 4. Effective capacity building depends on political and institutional commitment to the goal of capacity-building programs and the alignment with it of strategically important organisations. 5. Continuous enhancement of capacity building depends on the availability of skilled practitioners, on their reflective practice, and on research into all its aspects.
Implications	Recommendations for action are made to the Cooperative Venture on the basis of the five propositions outlined above.
Publications	Bob Macadam, John Drinan, Neil Inall and Bruce McKenzie "The inter-relationship between Capacity Building and Institutional Arrangements, and the implications for Extension and Adult Education" http://www.regional.org.au/au/apen/2003/papers/046macadamb.htm?


 
 
 
 

Project Title:	Reconceptualising extension to deliver triple bottom line outcomes
RIRDC Project No.:	UM62-A
Researcher:	Dr Ruth Beilin
Organisation:	University of Melbourne PARKVILLE VIC 3010
Phone:	(03) 8344 3314
Fax:	(03) 8344 5650
Email:	rbeilin@unimelb.edu.au
Objectives	To determine current definitions and applications of the ‘triple bottom line’; understand the production landscape context in which extension operates; identify an alternative theoretical framework and process for defining and evaluating more sustainable extension objectives and outcomes.
Background	In recent times, agricultural and natural resource management extension initiatives have tended to focus on delivering ‘triple bottom line’ (TBL) outcomes. However, the diversity of definitions surrounding the concept and its application has diminished its usefulness as a tool for promoting more sustainable extension practice (and subsequently, landscape) outcomes.
Research	The research explored the various perceptions and definitions of the TBL as they appear in extension theory and practice. Based on findings of a review of literature from agriculture, extension and related disciplines, a theoretical framework was developed to inform the process of extension and enhance its capacity to identify and evaluate TBL outcomes according to local (micro) and institutional (macro) economic, environmental and social contexts. The framework was then applied to an existing extension program (Grapecheque) in a case study location (the Goulburn Valley, Victoria). The ideas and processes represented by the theoretical framework were compared to those of the Grapecheque program, enabling the success of current extension approaches and possible opportunities for change to be identified.
Outcomes	Four critical factors were found to influence the capacity of extension initiatives and practitioners to affect triple bottom line outcomes: 1. Apart from being useful in the evaluation of practice, TBL can be used as a tool to recognise and define economic, environmental and social factors that shape everyday practice and ‘policy’ at the micro level. 2. Because these TBL factors remain implicit in extension policy and practice, the difference between local and institutional interpretations of what is sustainable or ‘best practice’ is exacerbated. 3. TBL extension outcomes are derived from a social and physical connection between the multiple stakeholders that enables multi-directional communication and collaboration (through discourse). 4. TBL outcomes depend on the ability of extension practitioners (who are also stakeholders in the landscape) to contribute as equal participants of this multi-disciplinary interaction, as well as facilitators of it.
Implications	TBL extension must consider economic, environmental and social aspects of issues simultaneously, during both planning and evaluation phases of policy and program development. This process of consideration must be multi-disciplinary and participative, facilitating genuine collaboration between stakeholders and enhancing their collective capacity to define and continuously evaluate TBL ‘best practice’ according to micro and macro contexts.
Publications	Beilin, R., Paine, M. and Pryor, R. (2003) 'Don't fence me in': Integrating Food Systems by Co-Constructing Landscapes’. Agri food Conference Akaroa New Zealand. April 21-24, 2003. Beilin, R., Pryor, R. and Paine, M. (2003) Social cohesion and civic space: underlining the social policy obligation in production landscapes. Monograph: The Social Dimensions of the Triple Bottom Line in Rural Australia of the Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra. Pryor, R., Beilin, R. and Paine, M. (2003) Re-examining an Extension Practice Case Study Using ‘Triple Bottom Line’ and ‘Farming Systems’ as Concepts of Sustainability. Australian Farming Systems Conference, Toowoomba, September 4-6.





Last updated: December 2004
Copyright © RIRDC
http://www.rirdc.gov.au/comp04/hcc1.html