Researchers have developed two methods to identify and compare the frames of reference—or "mental models"—of farmers, scientists and extension officers, knowledge of which could bridge an obvious communication gap between the groups on landcare issues.

Poor communication has resulted in farmers not adopting new technologies and some management recommendations.

For such varied groups to communicate effectively on caring for the land, they need to be able to understand each others ‘frames of reference’ so they can better interpret how the other groups construe a particular issue. Without an understanding of the frame of reference, the same words can mean different things to different people.

With a grant from the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), the research was carried out by Nick Abel and Paul Walker, from the CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Ecology, Helen Ross from the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at the University of Canberra; Ann Herbert, Michelle Manning and Helen Wheeler, from the Applied Ecology Research Group of the University of Canberra (AERG); and the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Freshwater Ecology.

The researchers hope their methods will now be used in case study work with farmers who are not adopting an apparently useful technology.

An example might be in an economically important farming area, such as the Riverina or wheat–sheep belt. The study could focus on facilitating the sharing of mental models among the various stakeholders involved, such as farmers, banks, research and development (R&D) corporations, landcare groups, researchers and government agencies.

They must—even if only briefly—understand each other’s mental models on a technology, and about the ecological, social and economic environment for its adoption. Shared understanding might lead to the technology being modified, proposals for varying the decision-making environment, or pilot-testing the technology.

The study

Twenty-four people were involved in the study which took place on two grazing properties near Canberra. There were eight graziers, eight extension staff, and eight researchers—with half going to each of the two properties.

The participants were assigned to the properties randomly but with a requirement that they had no previous knowledge of the place they visited. Interviews were held on each property on a selected hill slope, and four sites per slope.

Open-ended questions encouraged the participants to describe what they saw, with prompts used where people needed encouragement to begin talking about the site. Particular detail was paid to landscape water processes in the study.

The first series of questions was followed by more specific questions designed to make sure the person had covered everything relevant to that site, and to encourage deep thinking about aspects they might not have considered, such as the slope being less steep and trees being planted there four or five years before.

Kinds of questions asked in first series

Can you describe what is happening here?
 

Follow-up, specific questions
 

After walking over and discussing the four sites, the participants were asked two additional questions on what information they would need to manage the land properly and whether they considered what was happening on the land likely to affect other places. There were also a few additional questions about the people, their background and preferred sources of information.

Each of the 24 interviews was then transcribed.

When analysed, the transcriptions revealed that in general, the researchers tended to answer questions theoretically; the graziers adopted a more practical outlook—responding as if they owned and managed the land in question; while the extension staff showed both theoretical and practical lines of thinking.

Overall, there was great variation between individuals within each group and substantial overlap between groups in terminology and perceived environmental processes. The study did not suggest a person’s frame of reference can be accurately predicted simply by knowing which occupational group they came from.

The results

The interviews were analysed for content which referred to 10 main kinds of landscape or land management features. These were vegetation, soils, animals, topography, water, atmosphere, geology, people and their trade, economics, and management.

The extent to which the three groups used the different categories was compared, e.g. researchers mentioned water, soils and the topography (such as hill slope) more than the other groups. Graziers mentioned management, the weather and vegetation slightly more than the researchers. The extension staff usually were divided on the issues, but mentioned people more than the others did.

There were also some marked group differences regarding the details emphasised within various components and properties of the components. Researchers were more focused on soil properties than were graziers, while graziers went into more detail about the atmosphere and weather.

All groups used aspects of the landscape as indicators of the processes taking place, but used them in different ways. The researchers tended to start with a hypothesis, then to look around for indicators to confirm or deny it. The graziers took the opposite approach, noting an indicator first and then describing what it meant. Extension staff used both styles of thinking.

Aspects of the soils and vegetation were used by all groups as indicators, as were signs of management activity, water and erosion.

Other findings included the extent to which people referred to the other landcare roles apart from their own. Extension staff and some researchers said they would like to know the grazier’s goals, while graziers often said they would like to call in scientific expertise such as a soil or vegetation study.

The work revealed that most of the participants were aware of relationships between one part of the landscape and actions elsewhere—such as by upstream landowners—affecting landowners downstream through water processes.

Areas of comfort also were important with the participants moving to subjects that interested them or that they were familiar with and were comfortable talking about.

Geographical concepts varied, with graziers focusing on the local area while researchers viewed the property merely as one piece of a large-scale landscape, with references to the catchment and region.

Time scales proved different, with graziers referring to the shortest periods, such as seasons; extension officers focusing more on medium and short-term periods; and researchers mentioning historical and geological time periods and showing little interest in seasons.

Finally, the research attempted to diagrammatically portray the "mental models" the three groups used when reading the landscape. They used a software package, Influence —designed by researcher Paul Walker, together with the commercial package, Vensim, for analysing cause–effect relationships from the transcripts.

Figure 2:  Cause–effect influences on water quality

Research outcomes

The main outcome of the research was the establishment of two methods for eliciting and comparing mental models aided by the application of the new software. The research confirms that when an issue is as complex as landscape ecology, a method such as the one established, which gives powerful insight into other people’s frames of reference, is essential.

The work also shows that the approach of identifying mental models from detailed field interviews has potential for resolving conflicts and setting an agenda for action.

If the three groups participating in this study were to work together in negotiating and generating a composite frame of reference about landcare and land management, it could be the basis for a research program, a decision-support system, an action plan, or all of these. Generating a common frame of reference would confer ownership to all groups and might improve the chance of successful implementation.

While the study participants might not necessarily be typical of their colleagues elsewhere, the analysis is expected to provide pointers towards successful communication among the three kinds of land managers studied.

The research has not yet identified the overlaps and differences in the frames of reference of the three groups, but has clearly shown that extension staff are capable of entering the frames of both the other groups and of switching their style of language at will.

Graziers meanwhile, relied a great deal on learning from observation, which meant they were very familiar with the workings of their own properties and region, without necessarily being able to identify general principles of how environments behave.

By contrast, researchers used theory to integrate their observations, and were consequently better able to generalise and form principles.

The researchers’ experience when combined with talking to graziers, added constantly to their theoretical understanding, much as graziers also learned from researchers who visited their properties.

One of the most encouraging discoveries was the degree of respect each group had for one another’s insights, and interest in learning more from the other groups. There was a healthy attitude of learning which will help communication towards a shared understanding of the workings of the environment.