|| Home || Search || Contact || Publications Eshop || Privacy Statement ||
Download full report (426k - HINT: right click and save the file to your hard disk before opening)
or purchase the printed report online

Summary of full report

Growing the Capital of Rural Australia - The Task of Capacity Building 

By R. Macadam, J. Drinan, N. Inall, B. McKenzie

March 2004

RIRDC Publication No 04/034   RIRDC Project No RUE-2A

Executive Summary

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 carried out
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.

    Structure of the report
    Chapters 1 and 2 of the report discuss the project’s development and the methodology used. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the environment in which rural people and communities appear to be operating and an analysis of the implications of this for capacity building. Chapter 4 develops an argument that highlights the reciprocal nature of capacity building and institutional arrangements; five propositions are derived from consideration of the relationship between the situation described in Chapter 3 and the argument developed in Chapter 4.

    Chapters 5 to 9 each take up one of the propositions and expand on its practical relevance. This leads into an outline of an ‘ideal situation’ as a basis for reviewing the current situation and identifying avenues for improvement and recommendations for achieving this.

    Central concepts
    Rural Australians will continue to live and work in a complex and dynamic operating environment in which one of the few certainties is constant change.

    Capacity building is construed as externally or internally initiated processes designed to help individuals and groups associated with rural Australia to appreciate and manage their changing circumstances, with the objective of improving the stock of human, social, financial, physical and natural capital in an ethically defensible way. The stock of human and social capital is developed through learning, but learning is not the sole outcome of capacity building: all forms of capital can be enhanced.

    People whose practices and access to capital are integral to improving the problematic situation should be involved—that is, stakeholders in the relevant communities of practice, who, in turn, form a new community of practice for the purpose of capacity building. In this context, defining some communities of practice as providers and others as users is counterproductive: all are co-learners in the new communities of practice they form.

    Capacity building requires that action be taken. Anything that encourages or inhibits the taking of action, or influences what is done and how, is significant.

    Institutional arrangements and mind-sets are primary determinants of behaviour. Institutional arrangements are defined as the complex of laws, customs, markets, norms and associated organisations that channel our energy towards social goals and the ways we relate to others. Mind-sets reflect underlying values and beliefs and interact with institutional arrangements to influence behaviour. Capacity building has a reciprocal relationship with institutional arrangements and mindsets, whereby changes in one can lead to changes in the others.

    Extension, education and capacity building
    Extension and education programs are commonly equated with capacity building, but the concept of capacity building developed in this report calls this into question. It subsumes the concepts of extension and education. Some implications follow:

  • Extension and education programs per se are unlikely to stimulate action if they fail to complement existing action intentions.
  •  Action is more likely to be stimulated by expectations within a person’s communities of practice than by external ones—for example, for a farmer, those within his or her communities of practice, which are likely to differ from those a commercial or government agent belongs to.
  • Programs based on a provider–user perspective are inherently unequal in terms of power relations and are likely to distort mutual perceptions and expectations. ‘Providers’ are best seen as providing access to the resources needed to improve a problematic situation.
  • The initial goals of action taking to improve a problematic situation will vary among stakeholders—for example, an increase in financial capital for commercial agents, physical and financial capital for farmers, social capital for community groups, and human capital for educators.
  • Participation in capacity building is likely to be stimulated by incentives tailored to meet the initial goals of different stakeholders—for example, a tax incentive or access to infrastructure funds for those seeking an increase in physical or financial capital.
  • Participation with other stakeholders in a joint effort to resolve a problematic situation provides a context for generating shared increases in the stock of human, social, financial, physical and natural capital.
  • Leadership is the key to the initiation of joint efforts to resolve problematic situations and may come from within any one or more of the stakeholder groups.
  • Facilitative leadership is essential for building and maintaining a pattern of reflective practice among stakeholders in a joint effort to resolve a problematic situation and learn from the experience—about the situation, about how to handle it and similar ones, and about themselves.
    • Propositions arising and conclusions reached   Proposition 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.

    Conclusions
    Within a capacity-building program, the scope and purpose of an individual’s learning projects are not preordained by the educator or the educational training organisation.

    Programs based on a learning paradigm will use two complementary sets of methods to support capacity building: one set relates to learning facilitation, the other to learning support.

    Monitoring and evaluation should focus on the achievement of desired socio-economic and environmental outcomes (improvements in the stock of capital) and the emergence of the patterns of behaviour considered to be the stepping-stones to doing so.

    Evaluation based on a provider–user perspective is too often dominated by questions of accountability and a concern with inputs and participant satisfaction.

    Critiques of rural extension consistently highlight the continuing dominance of the technology transfer model in institutional arrangements related to RD&E.

    Many existing extension/education programs are potential complements to capacity building—given an overarching agreement on what constitutes capacity building and the use of a monitoring and evaluation system that stimulates it.

    Proposition 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.
     

    Conclusions   The basic requirements for successful capacity building by communities of practice are leadership, diversity and resources.

    There is institutional support for developing rural leadership potential, but it tends to focus on the development of executive rather than facilitative leadership. Facilitative leadership is more likely to be a product of effective capacity-building programs themselves than of conventional ‘leadership programs’.

    Rural Australia is rapidly diversifying, with a consequent increase in the available range of knowledge, skills, attitudes and world views.

    With the probable exception of long-term projects, substantial resources are potentially available to support capacity building. Effective deployment of those resources is, however, inhibited by lack of appreciation of the nature of capacity building and misalignment of resources with needs.

    Proposition 3. Effective capacity building creates a common agenda and a willingness to collaborate among the members of the relevant communities of practice.

    Conclusions   Research highlights the importance of involving participants in establishing project goals and design, involving a wide cross-section of the community, aligning institutional factors from outside the region with the aspirations and capabilities of individuals and institutions within it, giving freedom to project leaders, and ensuring that the duration of funding is sufficient to enable the project to proceed to its conclusion.

    The following are preliminary criteria to guide the design, conduct, monitoring and evaluation of capacity-building initiatives:

  • diverse and relevant communities of practice collaborating to create a shared agenda
  • a systemic approach to situation improvement—that is, interrelated strategies that encompass all aspects of capital improvement
  • stated assumptions that reflect a collaborative learning paradigm
  • scope for continuous improvement being offered by consistency among desired outcomes, methodology, and the monitoring and evaluation strategy
  • provision for and access to the full range of resources needed for success
  • improvements in the stock of physical, financial, natural, social and human capital generated through participation in situation-improving activities and related learning activities.
    • Programs that meet these criteria are becoming more common but are still the exception rather than the rule. Among the institutional reasons for this are structures and processes outside the region that are incompatible with holistic community-led processes at the regional level and state and federal government arrangements that are not aligned to capture and strengthen the benefits of improved capacity at the regional level.

    Proposition 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.

    Conclusions   Capacity building, as defined in this report, is not sustainable without the alignment of institutional arrangements to support it. There is a growing appreciation of this at the political level, within the complex of strategically important organisations, and at the community level.

    The alignment nexus depends to a large extent on the establishment at the regional level of coordinating and regulatory mechanisms that enable the formation of a partnership between community-based organisations and communities of practice on one hand and those within the complex of strategically important organisations on the other. Effective action by the partnership requires a reallocation of resources and authority away from the centre to the regions.

    The needed realignment is inhibited by institutional inertia in strategically important organisations, where closed organisational boundaries and a command-and-control management style based on a compartmentalised world view are perceived as holding sway.

    Support for leadership and expertise critical of the status quo will play a large part in achieving the alignments needed for capacity building.

    Proposition 5. Continuous enhancement of capacity building depends on the availability of skilled practitioners, on their reflective practice, and on research into all its aspects.

    Conclusions   The underpinnings of new fields of practice are provided through centres of research and education, usually in universities. At present there are a few small centres and a few widely dispersed researchers, and there is little support from funders and the universities themselves.

    The development of most capacity builders is probably going to occur mainly through adult education and as needs emerge. A variety of avenues offer potential as providers and facilitators, including adult and community education, TAFE, universities, and professional bodies such as the Australasia Pacific Extension Network and the Action Learning, Action Research and Process Management Association.

    This potential is under-exploited, and support does not always last for the duration of need.

    Reflective practice is little embraced or encouraged. Its use depends on modelling by educational institutions, self-discipline on the part of capacity builders, and encouragement from funding and employing organisations.

    There is a substantial body of research questions about aspects of capacity building. The Cooperative Venture offers potential to develop a research agenda and fund a network of researchers for the purpose of resolving those questions.

    Recommendations   Proposition 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.

    There is a growing appreciation of the shortcomings of extension and adult education programs based on a teaching paradigm and of monitoring and evaluation based on the achievement of preordained targets for accountability purposes. Bridging the gap between this approach and a capacity-building one will result in substantial marginal returns.

    The following is recommended:

  • A debate should be initiated within and between strategically important organisations (see Chapter 8) to arrive at an agreed capacity-building rationale based on the propositions developed in this report. The debate should focus on the need to subsume the terms extension, education and communication within the wider concept of capacity building, as developed in this report.
  • The debate should be complemented by a communication campaign to develop awareness of the matters at issue and interest in participating in the debate.
  • The evaluation and monitoring strategies used by Cooperative Venture members should be reviewed in order to ascertain the strategies’ effectiveness in facilitating and supporting the emergence of capacity building.
    • The Cooperative Venture is the logical candidate to initiate the debate, mount the communication campaign, and commission the review as a follow-up to this project.

    Proposition 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.

    Chapter 6 examines the proposition that capacity building depends on engagement of the relevant community of practice, which includes everyone who has a stake in the outcome, as well as others with relevant expertise and different perspectives. The preconditions for establishment of effective communities of practice are access to facilitative leadership; to diverse mind-sets, knowledge, skills and attitudes; and to other resources. Although these preconditions often appear to be adequate, there are conspicuous deficiencies.

    To improve this situation, the following is recommended:

  • Current leadership programs should be reviewed to assess whether their curricula are consistent with the aim of developing facilitative leadership and how they might be more closely connected with the experience and activities of people in their real world, in the places in which they live.
  • Expansion of diversity should be encouraged by:
  • ensuring full access for rural people to all layers of education
  • opening more public funding for rural support activities to private suppliers
  • promoting the involvement of women, young people, Indigenous Australians and people of culturally and linguistically diverse background
  • ensuring universal access to telecommunications of a quality that permits efficient e-networking and web access
  • promoting the use of e-networks and the web through, for example, sponsoring discussion groups, establishing common websites and compiling relevant databases
  • promoting capacity building within frameworks that require a holistic approach—for example, value chains, natural resource management systems, and community development
  • monitoring and building awareness of the effects of commercial restrictions on the sharing of information.
  • Capacity-building programs should be designed holistically, to ensure access to the full range of resources required for effectiveness.
    • Proposition 3. Effective capacity building creates a common agenda and a willingness to collaborate among the members of the relevant communities of practice.

    A sense of shared ownership of potential capacity-building programs by the relevant communities of practice is a prerequisite for the communities’ active participation in those programs. This is enhanced by institutional arrangements that facilitate alignment of communities and organisations within a region with relevant ones from outside it. Research that provides decision-making information to enable this is a sound investment. Ownership and participation will increase if the program is perceived as meeting the criteria for what constitutes a capacity-building program.

    To achieve this, the following is recommended:

    An element of the proposed project should be the review and identification of projects and programs that apparently meet these criteria or did so but have since been disbanded. The aim here is to identify more precisely the conditions that help or hinder the initiatives’ emergence and sustainability.
  • Funders of programs with capacity-building potential should ensure there is a sufficient allocation to enable the initiators to identify and engage the relevant communities of practice in the design process. This should include research that provides decision-making information on what might make people want to become involved.
    • Proposition 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.

    Capacity building, as defined in this report, is not sustainable without alignment of institutional arrangements to support it. There is growing appreciation of this at the political level, within the complex of strategically important organisations, and at the community level. The needed realignment is inhibited by institutional inertia, where closed organisational boundaries and a command-andcontrol approach based on a non-systemic, compartmentalised world view continue to hold sway.

    To support the necessary alignment, the following is recommended:

  • The Cooperative Venture should highlight within its mission its role in identifying needed changes in institutional arrangements to facilitate rural capacity building. It should place a high priority on research whose outcome is realignment of coordinating and regulatory mechanisms to enable partnerships between community-based organisations and communities of practice on one hand and those at the centre on the other.
  • The Cooperative Venture should use its influence within the complex of strategically important organisations at the centre to advocate the necessary reallocation of resources and authority away from the centre to the regions.
  • Monitoring and evaluation of programs with capacity-building potential should serve to highlight institutional constraints and opportunities to further the programs’ effectiveness and should focus energy on action to either remove or strengthen the programs (see also the recommendations related to Proposition 3).
  • In its advocacy of capacity building, the Cooperative Venture should highlight the need for staff development programs within and between relevant organisations to be designed and conducted as capacity-building programs whose outcomes are:   – improvements in human and social capital within the organisation, based on action to reposition the organisation in such a way as to increase the effectiveness of its contribution to rural capacity building   – identification of opportunities and constraints related to needed institutional alignment   – advocacy of and, where feasible, action to achieve needed alignments within and between organisations.
    • Proposition 5. Continuous enhancement of capacity building depends on the availability of skilled practitioners, on their reflective practice, and on research into all its aspects.

    It is recommended that the supply of reflective practitioners and researchers and the conduct of research into capacity building be enhanced through the following measures: