Enrolling advisers in governing privatised agricultural extension in Australia: challenges and opportunities for the research, development and extension system

Paschen, Jana-Axinja; Reichelt, N; King, Barbara J.; Ayre, Margaret; Nettle, Ruth

doi:10.1080/1389224x.2017.1320642

Cited by 22 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These interactions are central in papers using the MLP. Such papers focus on how niche-innovations affect the conventional agriculture regime or a component of it e.g., agricultural knowledge system [84], agricultural research [79,102,104], agricultural extension [101]. As for empowerment strategies, niches can either 'fit-and-conform' (cf.…”

Section: Understanding Of Multi-level Interactions and Transition Patmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Audet et al [65] Montreal seasonal food markets Canada Belmin et al [98] Geographical Indications France Feyereisen et al [99] Fair trade milk Belgium Hauser and Lindtner [82] Organic agriculture Uganda Isgren and Ness [78] Agroecology Uganda Jacobs et al [64] Phosphorus use Multi-country/North America Loconto and Barbier [100] Agriculture sustainability standards Undefined Meynard et al [74] Agri-food sector Multi-country Paschen et al [101] Privatised agricultural extension Australia Seoane and Marín [83] Organic apiculture Argentina Vivero-Pol [92] Food Multi-country Vlahos et al [86] Integrated peach farming Greece…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Crivits and Paredis [68] Local food systems (food teams) Belgium Diaz et al [109] Algae blooms France Hargreaves et al [110] Organic agriculture UK Hassink et al [87] Care farming The Netherlands Immink et al [55] Livestock sector The Netherlands Li et al [111] Participatory maize breeding China Lutz and Schachinger [73] Local food networks Austria Marsden [91] Agri-food sector UK 2012 2 Bell and Cerulli [59] Urban agriculture (community gardens) United Kingdom Lawhon and Murphy [112] Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food production Undefined While the majority of papers using the MLP focus on relations between the elements of the heuristic framework (niche, regime, landscape) and how they affect the transition dynamics and processes in the agro-food sector, some articles analyse internal niche processes. For instance, Paschen et al [101] investigate social practice elements in the internal processes of the privatized agricultural extension, that is considered as a 'niche-in-the-making' in Australia. Apart from the fact that the analysis shows that one cannot only talk of a 'transition-in-the-making' but also of a 'niche-in-the-making', it also highlights the importance of considering internal niche processes (e.g., niche formation and development) in sustainability transitions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Multi-Level Perspective in Research on Sustainability Transitions in Agriculture and Food Systems: A Systematic Review

Bilali

2019

Agriculture

170

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The multi-level perspective (MLP) is a prominent transition framework. The MLP posits that transitions come about through interaction processes within and among three analytical levels: niches, socio-technical regimes and a socio-technical landscape. This systematic review provides an overview on the use of the MLP in research on agro-food sustainability transitions. In particular, it analyses the understanding, conceptualisation and operationalisation of niches, regimes and landscapes. Niches considered in the selected papers include agro-ecology, organic agriculture, permaculture, conservation agriculture, integrated farming, and alternative food networks. Regime refers to industrial, conventional agriculture. The researched regime is often not clearly described and its operationalisation is a matter of deliberation. Landscape level is generally overlooked; when it is considered it refers to international trends and developments. Many scholars highlight the inadequacy of transition pathways in the MLP for the agro-food sector. Moreover, transition impacts are rarely addressed and the research field generally overlooks the analysis of the sustainability of niches and, consequently, of transitions. Research on transitions in the agro-food sector borrows from the MLP its generalizability and poor empirical operationalisation of niche, regime and landscape concepts. Therefore, integrative conceptualisation and operationalisation of the MLP elements is required to accommodate the complexity of sustainability transition processes and the peculiarities of the agro-food system.

show abstract

Section: Understanding Of Multi-level Interactions and Transition Patmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Multi-Level Perspective in Research on Sustainability Transitions in Agriculture and Food Systems: A Systematic Review

Bilali

2019

Agriculture

170

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is increasing interest in how advisory system governance and advisory organisations are evolving to improve coordination and inclusion in pluralistic advisory systems (e.g. Eastwood, Klerkx, and Nettle 2017;Cerf et al 2017;Klerkx et al 2017;Nettle, Crawford, and Brightling 2018;Paschen et al 2017), including a Special Issue of this journal (Nettle et al 2017). However, how these changes to advisory governance are related to advisor understanding of their own individual roles in the advisory system remains an area of limited study (Nettle et al 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advisor understanding of their roles in the advisory system: a comparison of governance structures in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and New Zealand

Turner

Landini

Percy

et al. 2021

The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Explore advisor understanding of their roles in advisory systems characterised by differing mixes of public and private funding and delivery. Methodology: A systems perspective of advisory system governance is combined with an individual perspective of advisor roles. Data from a survey of 38 Australian, 19 New Zealand, 606 Argentine and 279 Brazilian respondents were analysed for statistical differences. Findings: In all contexts, advisor priorities reflect state or industry goals. Where there is more private funding and delivery, advisors also prioritise farmer commercial goals. Under public extension funding and delivery, group methods and capacity building are emphasised to reach many farmers and realise public goals. Practical implications: Advisors play a crucial role in reconciling competing national, industry and farmer goals at the farm-level. This emphasises participatory methods and intermediary positions in the advisory system to facilitate dialogue and support farmers to realise competing goals. A policy implication is public and industry funding is needed for advisors to engage with public and industry organisations to understand and contribute to policies and objectives they will be advising on. Theoretical implications: Combining a systems perspective of country-level advisory system governance with an individual perspective of advisor roles highlights that advisor understanding of their roles are related to the public governance context in which they operate. Originality/value: The advisor understanding of their roles in the advisory system is related to different governance of pluralistic advisory systems. This contributes to articulating advisory policies and practices to support coordination and inclusion in pluralistic advisory systems.

show abstract

“…However, RD&E is increasingly industry-driven because of reduced investment from the public sector. It emphasises involvement of multiple actors -public, private, farmers and other providers of extension services -which has created challenges in the governance of the RD&E system (Paschen et al 2017).…”

Section: Government-sector Extension Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of agricultural extension services and farmers' practices in meeting smallholder farmers' needs in China

Liao¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In China in 2016, 89% of farmers were cultivating less than two hectares of land. Of those, 78% were farming less than two-thirds of a hectare. Meeting smallholder farmers' farming needs is considered critical for the government to alleviate rural poverty and improve food security. The agricultural extension system is considered a major approach. Existing studies have shown that the top-down administrative mechanism of the extension system and its linear technology transfer model have led to mismatches between extension services and smallholder farmers' needs in China; however, limited studies have examined the alignment of extension services with smallholder farmers' needs. This study was designed to examine how well extension services align with smallholder farmers' farming needs in China, and how farmers meet their farming needs. This study employed the constructivism paradigm and the qualitative method as the research design. The snowball sampling technique was employed to guide the data collection process from provincial level to village level. To understand how the extension services operate, semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with agricultural and extension-related departments, organisations and stations at provincial, county and township levels. To understand farmers' perceptions of extension services and farming needs, semi-structured focus group discussions were conducted with smallholder rice farmers in 10 selected villages. Thematic analysis using both deductive and inductive logic and multiple staged coding were employed to guide the data analysis process. Findings showed that extension services sometimes met smallholder farmers' needs, and sometimes did not. From the extension services' perspective, non-tillage technology and direct seeding technology were rejected by most farmers because of its incompatibility with local conditions and existing practices. The pest and disease management service and soil testing technology had met many farmers' needs; however, farmers reported their limited accessibility. Findings also showed that extension officers at the local level had encountered challenges in providing satisfactory extension services to farmers; for example, non-extension works had occupied time that should have been spent on extension activities. Farmers' cooperatives had also failed to provide services to smallholder farmers because they were aimed at large-scale farming. From farmers' perspectives, to improve farming and solve farming problems, they employed sets of local knowledge and farming practices; for example, neutralising soil with limestone, removing rice leaffolder with brooms, and preventing apple snail with tea seed cake. The farmers identified their farming problems, outlined solutions and were in favour of informal small-scale trials. They saw agricultural input stores as reliable sources of extension advisory services because they were operated mainly by former extension officers.

show abstract

Enrolling advisers in governing privatised agricultural extension in Australia: challenges and opportunities for the research, development and extension system

Cited by 22 publications

References 25 publications

The Multi-Level Perspective in Research on Sustainability Transitions in Agriculture and Food Systems: A Systematic Review

The Multi-Level Perspective in Research on Sustainability Transitions in Agriculture and Food Systems: A Systematic Review

Advisor understanding of their roles in the advisory system: a comparison of governance structures in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and New Zealand

The role of agricultural extension services and farmers' practices in meeting smallholder farmers' needs in China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About