Summary of the report

Summary
This report presents findings of a research project on farmers’ participation in learning. It is one of six documents prepared for the Cooperative Venture for Capacity Building for Innovation in Rural Industries (CVCB) Project 2—Fostering Involvement. The other five documents (which appear as Volume II of this publication) present the results of case studies carried out in Bega Valley Shire, Greater Shepparton Shire, and Carrathool Shire; one desktop study of Indigenous land managers in the rangelands; and another examining extension associated with the sugar industry in Mackay, Queensland. The case study reports should be read in conjunction with this volume: they provide examples of what is happening in specific areas and industries and what people think about farmers’ participation in learning in a variety of different settings.

The work is targeted at those who fund rural research and development, service providers who wish to engage farmers in learning based in both government and non-government settings and others who have an interest in farmer learning and encouraging greater participation in learning activities.

Background
This project was commissioned by the CVCB as a result of a wide ranging review of extension and learning in rural industries (Fulton et al 2004). In that review the authors summarised the position regarding the understanding of farmers’ participation in learning as follows:

“Barriers to participation in learning or change opportunities may be factors related to an individual, their spouse, their family situation, and the characteristics of their farm, business, rural community or industry.

They may also be related to the content, accessibility or delivery of the learning or change opportunities presented to the farmer.

The research on barriers to participation is limited in its depth and breadth, particularly in terms of understanding who is participating, why and what can be done to address barriers to participation. Little data has been collected on actual farmer participation in learning and change opportunities. Little is therefore known about potential untapped opportunities or problems with current provisioning. Further work is required to increase the awareness of the need to collect participation data. Reasons for and against participation in all forms of learning opportunities need to be further explored. Only in doing this can appropriate education products be delivered in an effective manner.”

Aims and Objectives
The study aims to improve our understanding of extension in support of better processes for, and by, farmers and extension officers and providers. This means that the approach seeks to provide insights that will help people better understand and respond to aspects of production and natural resource management within a social context.

The project was designed to answer the following questions:
 

• What is participation, how can it be defined, and who does the defining?
• What are the factors that influence farmers’ participation and non-participation in learning?
• What prompts participation?
• In what ways do specific people want to participate in learning?
• What are possible roles and responsibilities for organisations and groups associated with rural  extension?
• Can we generalise about these and other aspects of participation in learning opportunities?

Method
The terms of reference for the project reflect an interest in why farmers choose not to participate in learning and how industry, government and other organisations can respond to this. As a result, the report does not emphasise current levels of participation in programs.

The project approach involved the following main steps:

• 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 fieldwork analysis
• establishment of extension strategies and synthesis of findings.

Although concentrating predominantly on formal, organised learning, the study is an attempt to respond to the importance of informal learning, although this is much more difficult to appraise than formal learning.

The study also recognises that people move in and out of formal and informal learning situations during their lifetime, according to their needs and interests. The research method considers those circumstances in which people decide to seek out learning, again recognising that the field is too broad to be dealt with in depth. In taking this approach, the study responds to Forrester and Payne’s (2000, p. 3) warning that models of participation that consider only formal learning through organised activities and events and manage to capture only a ‘snapshot’ of participation at specific points in a person’s life fail to take account of the complexity of adult learning.

Researchers have given much attention to the term ‘participation’. Commentary on the term is part of the literature of a number of different disciplines and fields—political science, developmental studies, economics, social psychology, rural extension, sociology, philosophy, health studies, recreation and leisure studies, education, consumer practices, time management and allocation, and interdisciplinary studies. An overview of some of the models and theories of participation is presented here in order to identify what they offer for improving our understanding of farmers’ participation in learning.

Key findings Broadly, the models and theories of participation identify four primary factors influencing participation:

• relationships between the learner and the learning ‘environment’
• social and structural factors inhibiting participation
• the learning and educational experience of the farmer
• situational, institutional and dispositional barriers to participation.

These points are supported by the case study evidence. Farmers tend to choose to participate or not participate according to their experiences, the experiences of people they trust and value, and the patterns of information seeking they are accustomed to. This seems to be because they are acquainted with and feel confident about participating or not participating in particular learning environments. This is especially relevant when considering that the delivery of many government and industry programs tends to focus on group-based participation, rather than one-on-one contact.

The farmers who demonstrated that they were least likely to participate in or seek out learning that did not produce direct on-farm production benefits tended to obtain information through links and services they knew well and could trust. The first source of information many of them mentioned is the family. For these people, confidence in individuals and information services was generated through historic links and positive and reliable relationships. This was most evident in the interview responses of sugar growers in the Mackay area. Such a finding is supported by the work of Kilpatrick et al. (1999, p. 33).

Implications
Bearing in mind the four primary factors influencing participation in learning, as just listed, the following paragraphs summarise the strategies which stakeholders might adopt for fostering involvement.

Expressing the benefits of learning in terms that have meaning for individual farmers
Farmers tended to participate in learning when direct on-farm benefits to their business were evident; this was evident from the Mackay, Shepparton, Carrathool and Indigenous landowners in the rangelands case studies. As a result, before learning events take place extension providers need to identify and describe the benefits of learning in terms that are relevant to the individual enterprise. An example of such an approach would be a value chain–oriented one, whereby production, environment and quality are all considered as central to developing learning that has meaning for individual farmers and is responsive to the demands of current farming practice.

Localised learning
Many of the available learning programs are organised in such a way as to respond to local needs and conditions. This does not just mean that learning is to be situated in local areas: it means localising in terms of issues, organisation (through local farming groups or other social groups) and responding to the community’s time and relevance demands. Local people should also be involved in the development of learning opportunities.

Intervention in group and individual learning settings
Intervention in more personal interactions—such as individual farm settings and families and use of stock and station agents and accountants as learning providers—is necessary if people who tend to not engage in group processes are to be involved in learning beyond their current systems. The cost of this level of intervention is high for the service provider, whether it is government or industry.

Time and costs as central factors
All farming enterprises have considerable demands associated with on-farm work, but account must also be taken of other demands that are part of farming—for example, travel time, family responsibilities, maintenance of farm equipment and infrastructure, holidays, changes in the weather, ‘staffing’, and office work. The value placed on the learning opportunity must be such that other demands are put aside in order to participate.

Two-way, open interaction
It is necessary to use differing learning opportunities to foster wider community discussion and identify areas in need of attention. There should be a two-way communication channel between farmers and government and industry. Identification of opportunities should come through an understanding of how different communities interact and communicate.

Extension officer training to support a greater understanding of social learning and the farmer context
There is a need to formalise extension officers’ training in social learning processes and participatory approaches. A number of extension officers noted this as a particular concern. Training could be through distance education, whereby course requirements are geared to the individual extension officer’s work setting.

Understanding the farmer context includes understanding what farmers want to know. It is clear from the case studies that farmers’ participation in learning is not determined by a lack of education, extension, information and training experiences and programs; rather, it is determined by the difficulty of being able to ‘match’ the available learning experiences with what the learners want. There is an important role here for a learning or knowledge broker.

Building relationships with individuals
For the extension officer, travelling to properties and getting involved through face-to-face communication with farmers can generate an understanding of the local context and the local people. These interactions can be built on over time and can help establish dialogue and a genuine understanding of how extension can help farmers in a particular area. Finding out what they want to know by listening and watching what they are doing is important. Relationship building comes at a high cost for both the service provider and the extension officer.

Following up
Following up on what is needed is fundamental to forming solid and beneficial relationships in local areas.

This is often a difficult thing for extension officers to do because it takes time and they need to move on to other work duties.

Monitoring and revising as change takes place in an area
It is important to take into consideration changes in production, natural resource management, threats to livelihood, and changes to family and social circumstances that might affect participation. An understanding of these circumstances can be reflected in learning opportunities.

Site map Contact us Feedback Links Disclaimer Privacy Statement

Last updated: July  2005
Copyright RIRDC
http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/HCC/05-105sum.html