Adoption Pathways in the Department of Primary Industries Grains Program
Our Rural Landscapes Key Project 2 Sub-project 2.5 Future Farming Systems; Optimising Production and Environmental Outcomes
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The grains industry is one of Victoria’s major food industries. To ensure the continued prosperity, viability and sustainabilty of the grains industry, the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) and industry partners invest significant amounts in research, development and extension.
A significant risk to the investment in the grains industry is the failure to uptake the technology from the investment in science. In an attempt to partly address adoption issues, the DPI’s Our Rural Landscapes 2.5 initiative has invested in a social research study to investigate the current adoption pathways employed by research, development and extension staff in the Victorian grains industry.
Previous to the commencement of the study, anecdotal evidence suggested that the model for adoption of DPI science was primarily a linear adoption model. This linear adoption model could briefly be described as evolving from project development to research to extension to grower. This study found that the adoption pathways utilised by both research and extension scientists is less rigid and more complex than first thought. In particular, the transfer of knowledge is not necessarily through the DPI’s Catchment and Agricultural Services (CAS) extension arm. Likewise extension scientists are not necessarily extending the new knowledge ‘created’ by research scientists.
Both DPI research and extension scientists described the use of a variety of adoption pathways that they use interchangeably depending on the purpose. While the linkages and/or stakeholders in the adoption pathways, such as grower groups and agribusiness, were similar between the two streams, the strengths in the links both between and within the streams differed. For example, many extension scientists described strong links with farmer groups and that their extension activities were based primarily on farmer group needs. Both research and extension scientists stated that linkages within the internal DPI model needed to be improved. The perceived strengths and/or weaknesses in these links were attributed to a number of factors.
Linehan and Kaine (2003) state that the adoption of new technologies is strongly driven by end user needs. It can be argued then that the adoption pathway chosen by both research and extension scientists relies on meeting their individual needs. Therefore all adoption pathways must be seen as legitimate. One is not necessarily better than the other. It is not the pathway itself but rather the innovation or product and the need of the end user that will determine the most appropriate pathway to employ.
The next stage of this project will aim to determine the barriers to utilising precision agriculture technologies in the Grains industry. The findings from this project will inform the next stage. This project did not aim to:
- address the issue as to how effective and efficient the chosen adopted pathways process works or;
- aim to understand what criterion is used to select the appropriate adoption pathways to utilise. It is recommended that further research be conducted to understand and articulate these two points.
TABLE of CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION
2 BACKGROUND
3 METHODOLOGY
4 RESULTS
- 4.1 ADOPTION PATHWAYS USED BY RESEARCH SCIENTISTS
- 4.2 ADOPTION PATHWAYS USED BY EXTENSION SCIENTISTS
- 4.3 EXAMPLES OF EFFECTIVE DPI ADOPTION PATHWAY MODELS
- 4.4 IDENTIFIED BARRIERS TO DPI INTERNAL ADOPTION PATHWAYS
5 DISCUSSION
- 5.1 ADOPTION PATHWAYS
- 5.2 BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE DPI ADOPTION PATHWAY MODELS
6 FUTURE POSSIBLE SOCIAL RESEARCH
7 REFERENCES
APPENDIX BENNETT’S HIERARCHY
1 INTRODUCTION
The grains industry is one of Victoria’s major food industries. The Victorian grains industry accounts for nearly 15% of the gross value of the State’s agricultural production. In the year 2000 grain exports contributed $1.2billion towards Victoria’s economy. The gross value of production for Victoria is approximately $1billion per year and represents 8.2% of Australia’s total grain production (Department of Primary Industries, 2004). To ensure the continued prosperity, viability and sustainability of the grains industry, the DPI and industry partners invest significant amounts in research, development and extension. Our Rural Landscapes (ORL) is the current initiative created that highlights DPI commitment to investing in science to aid in creating viable primary industries in rural Victoria.
Simultaneously to the DPI setting its own high standards for return on investment in science, our communities are also becoming more knowledgeable and are requesting transparency and accountability in terms of achieving government outcomes (Cribb and Hartomo, 2002). Greater scrutiny is being placed on governments to deliver on government objectives (Cornish, 2003). Agricultural industry research and development corporations, such as the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC), are demanding greater accountability from those organisations in which they invest, and request that research and extension scientists deliver on ground practice change as an outcome of their investment.
Therefore, a significant risk to the investment of any government or industry funded project in research, development and extension is the failure of growers to utilise or uptake the technology that is developed from the investment. ORL project 2.5 Future Farming Systems - Optimising Production and Environmental Outcomes has invested in social science to aid in the development of an exit strategy as a measure to reduce the risk in its investment in science.
ORL project 2.5 Future Farming Systems - Optimising Production and Environmental has invested in 3 key Primary Industries namely dryland grains, irrigated dairy and irrigated horticulture. The aim of the social research over the 4-year funding period of ORL will be to determine the barriers and drivers for adoption of the scientific “products” developed by the ORL project.
The objective of this social research is to investigate the current adoption pathways the DPI use to ensure the uptake of its scientific products in research, development and extension in the Victorian grains industry. The report gives insight into the existing linkages and relationships between research and extension scientists.
The aims of this research are to:
- Document the adoption pathway currently used by DPI grains research scientists to transfer information and knowledge from ‘laboratory to field’
- Document the current links between extension scientists and research scientists and understand how these links aid the adoption of scientific products
- Document other adoption pathway links DPI staff have with agencies outside the DPI
2 BACKGROUND
Emphasis on practice change
Purchasers such as funding bodies and other government agencies appear to be placing greater emphasis on achieving outcomes from the outputs they purchase from science providers. There seems to be a number of reasons for this emphasis. Firstly, communities are seeking greater transparency and governments are becoming more accountable. Secondly, productivity improvements are a major source of economic growth for developed countries. Thirdly, and more importantly to the adoption pathway continuum, where research-extension linkages exist, the dynamic that occurs through the flow of information enriches the research process and the adoption of these findings to serve end-users (Webb, 1998).
The attainment of practice change in an adoption pathway process is the ultimate aim (Marsh et al 1996). Practice change is the capacity to influence long term behavioural change. For example, a water use efficiency project can be said to have delivered on practice change if irrigators actually implement sustainable irrigation practices. Practice change is not achieved if the project only educates and increases awareness of irrigators of the consequences for their continued current actions and possible improvements that may result from change. Practice changes based on project outcomes are the end result of the adoption pathway process. Outputs in terms of booklets and field days are a part of the adoption pathway continuum.
Bennett’s Hierarchy has been adopted as a key framework for the planning and evaluation of project outcomes for the DPI. The Hierarchy is useful in illustrating different levels of performance in the adoption process. The key point of Bennett’s Hierarchy is to understand that the higher the level of change at the farm level that is being attempted, the more difficult it is to achieve (Linehan, 2001). It should also be noted that the DPI encourages the use of two Bennett’s Hierarchy models; one for extension projects and one for research projects. The research model includes extra three sub-steps for research and development projects (underlined and highlighted in red in the Appendix). This is because it recognises that research and development projects require a longer period of time to undertake ‘research’ compared to extension projects to reach Level 6 (Evaluation Support Team, 2001).
A project delivering to Level 3 or 4 is not deemed as successful as a project that delivers at Level 6. This is because at a Level 6 level there is deemed to be a greater ‘return on investment’ than at a Level 3 or 4. Challenges might occur when funding body outcome requirements are not aligned to those of extension or research scientists. These researchers have traditionally delivered on outputs such as brochures, scientific papers, pamphlets, and field days etcetera.
Major grain industry stakeholders
Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC)
The GRDC is a legally recognised, highly respected and well-known organisation in the grains industry that invests in research and development, thereby creating wealth for its stakeholders. The GRDC receives its funding from a levy on grain growers (GRDC, 2004) with the Commonwealth Government providing matching funds. The GRDC provides a large proportion of the funding, in partnership with the State Government of Victoria, to the DPI Grains Research Program.
Farmer-driven Organisations
Farmer-driven organisations, such as the Birchip Cropping Group (BCG) and the Southern Farming Systems Limited (SFS) are major players in the grains industry. The aim of these groups is to improve the profitability and viability of grain production in their specific geographical areas through research, demonstration, and the exchange of ideas among farmers and industry groups (Birchip Cropping Group, 2004).
Department of Primary Industries (DPI)
Within the DPI, research scientists are organised under Primary Industry Research Victoria (PIRVic). Extension scientists are organised under Catchment and Agricultural Services (CAS). DPI currently employs 124 research and 39 extension scientists who service the grains industry. Both groups have staff located at the DPI, Horsham Centre on the outskirts of Horsham.
DPI Extension
DPI grains extension consists of a number of programs, with Topcrop being the key grain industry extension vehicle (Topcrop 2004). Topcrop provides the means for technology transfer and innovation amongst facilitated grain grower groups. Topcrop also coordinates on-farm testing to address agronomic issues at both a local and state level. According to the Topcrop web site there are in excess of 6000 grain growers involved in Topcrop, represented in 400 groups in all states across Australia (Topcrop, 2004). Topcrop’s main activities are the facilitation of their farmer groups and the coordination of on-farm trials conducted locally with these groups.
Other DPI extension activities are to be found in specialist industry roles or in a generalist industry role not necessarily related to the DPI Topcrop extension component.
DPI Research
Research within the DPI consists of agronomy, pathology, farming systems and breeding streams. The DPI is privatising parts of the breeding research program previously undertaken by the organisation as it moves towards ‘hard core’ research. The DPI research scientists work with private research agents, with some of these agents housed at the DPI, Horsham Centre.
For the purpose of this report the term ‘two streams’ refers to both the research and extension science disciplines and the scientists within them.
3 METHODOLOGY
The methodology in this study is based on that used by Murdoch et al (2004). This research used a desktop analysis and social research methods involving the collection of qualitative data through face-to-face interviews with stakeholders. The aim was to determine through interviews, the adoption pathways in the DPI Grains Program. No quantitative data was collected.
To achieve this aim, convergent interviewing and laddering techniques are employed. Convergent interviewing technique is basically unstructured in terms of the content of the interview (Dick 1998). The interviewer employs standard laddering techniques (Grunert and Grunert 1995) to systematically explore the reasoning underlying the decisions and actions of the interviewee.
The method relies on the interviewers obtaining a reliable description of the interviewees past and present behaviours and ensuring that future behaviour are consistent with past behaviours. If there are discrepancies, (both between individual perceptions and perceptions of the sample population) additional questions are asked in order to determine the factual base of the answers (More information on these techniques is available upon request from the Rural Resources Development Team, Department of Primary Industries, Tatura).
In Stage 1, interviews were conducted using the informal conversational interview approach (Patton 1990 and Dick 1998). Of the 17 interviews undertaken, 10 interviewees were research scientists who form part of PirVIC, with the remaining 7 interviewees’ extension scientists who sit within CAS. This approach gave an insight into adoption pathways used by the two streams, including the current and past linkages between research and extension scientists. Stage 2 included 5 follow up interviews for further clarification and to expand on some of the information obtained in Stage 1. Interviews were held at the DPI Horsham and Bendigo locations.
Interview responses were recorded manually by two interviewers, summarised, and analysed using cross cause analysis (Patton 1990), and then categorised using project objectives.
The method requires a sufficient number of interviews to be conducted to ensure that the themes and patterns that emerge are consistent. Predetermination of the numbers of interviews to be conducted is not possible. Rather the reliance on finding consistency in interview results guides the number of interviews to be undertaken. This was the case in this study, indicating that the sample size was adequate for the research.
4 RESULTS
4.1 Adoption Pathways used by Research Scientists
 |
| Figure 1. DPI research scientist’s adoption pathways operating in the Victorian Grains industry. |
The DPI research scientists interviewed use a variety of adoption pathways interchangeably and for different purposes (Figure 1). Research scientists stated that their primary role was conducting research with some extension responsibilities to meet GRDC project requirements. Researchers were confident that as they were in direct contact with growers in the region, they could adequately give and receive information.
The majority of researchers interviewed stated that they were the ones who primarily delivered on the extension component of their projects. Extension activities included addressing field days, the production of fliers and brochures, web site and newspaper articles, and presentations at GRDC grower updates and industry events. ‘Extension’ of their research results was also done directly through agribusinesses such as private agronomists and consultants (Figure 2). In these cases interviewees suggested that the adoption pathways are working well.
 |
| Figure 2. The DPI research and agribusiness adoption pathway model. |
Several researchers interviewed mentioned the increasing role of agribusiness in raising awareness and transferring knowledge in the grain industry. In line with this, some research scientists stated that their main contact was with private agronomists and consultants and not with DPI extension staff. Some researchers also stated that they had firm research project links with major farmer based organisations such as the BCG and SFS. The adoption pathways used by the research scientists are certainly varied and it is not primarily through CAS extension.
Interviewees in both streams described an adoption model for the DPI in which to operate. A summary of this model can be seen in Figure 3. Despite this, linkages between the two streams were essentially described as informal, issue based, relationships with few ongoing formal processes in place to support the longevity and stability of the linkages. Both research and extension scientists interviewed maintained that the personality of individual scientists was one of the greatest barriers and/or enablers in the engagement process between the two streams and this often had a bearing on the effectiveness of these informal relationships. More formal interaction between the two streams was common where researchers were invited to address extension-organised meetings.
 |
| Figure 3. Summary of the commonly suggested internal adoption pathway model in which the DPI may operate. |
4.2 Adoption Pathways used by Extension Scientists
 |
| Figure 4. Diagrams of the DPI extension scientist’s adoption pathways operating in the Victorian Grains industry |
DPI extension scientists interviewed, similar to research scientists, use a variety of adoption pathways interchangeably for different purposes (Figure 4). Extension scientists described strong links with their farmer groups and how their extension activities are based primarily on these farmer group needs. For example, it is through the DPI extension staff and other farmer groups that many trials are coordinated, developed and implemented. Interviewees suggested that a primary aim of government extension was to maintain the links with farmers and hence their communities because it was a method of keeping the rural communities viable.
A strong focus described by many extension scientists seemed to be related to their on-farm trials conducted with their groups and the transfer of information related to these trials. This adoption pathway seems to work well for this purpose. Some of the DPI extension scientists interviewed knew little of the content of projects the researchers were conducting and they suggested that they did not actively seek this information from researchers. Extension staff interviewees spoke about getting their information from a broad range of sources, such as GRDC updates, the Internet and agribusiness. The sources of information were influenced primarily by the needs of their farmer groups. Likewise, few researchers spoke of informing extension staff about current new knowledge and not many knew specifically what DPI extension was doing unless it involved them specifically or they had been invited to speak at a field day or meeting.
Several extension scientists interviewed also described the increasing extension role of private consultants within the grains industry. For example, one interviewee stated that in the 1970s there were probably two private consultants servicing the grains industry compared to hundreds currently operating. This is considered to have changed the role of the DPI extension scientists in some way because it was noted that when confronted with a challenge the first port of call for growers was usually not the DPI, but private consultants or other growers. The change in this situation has influenced the DPI adoption pathway continuum.
Extension scientists, like research scientists, stated that the linkages, in the internal DPI model (Figure 3), needed to be improved. Several extension scientists felt that their work was not respected or seen as valuable as research scientist’s work. Most extension scientists stated that the relationships were informal with few formal processes in place to develop and maintain the relationships. One statement made by an extension scientist was that when projects were accomplished, there was little recognition given to CAS for it’s input. In the majority of cases it was suggested that the physical location, in terms of (non-) proximity was a major barrier for collaboration between the two streams.
Similar to the research scientists, extension staff stated that improvements could be made to research-extension relationships. It was often stated that a solid way of doing so would be to get extension aligned with research projects. This would entail the extension component being factored into projects and extension scientists being involved during all the stages of the project’s life.
Extension scientists were convinced that in some way the DPI extension programs had contributed to some growth within the grains industry and they were confident that they were making a difference. However, one extension scientist also said that they were frustrated because they were unsure of the impact they were having. Some extension scientists interviewed described their role was to achieve a grower awareness or reaction (Level 3 or 4 of Bennett’s Hierarchy). Some extension scientists stated that they could not demonstrate that their work was reaching the practice change level (Level 6 or 7). A common theme described by both extension and research scientists was that practice change (Level 6, 7) is hard to measure and that it usually occurs over a longer period than the 1 or 3- 5 years of a project. Extension scientists interviewed could describe anecdotal evidence that farmers had improved skills due to the DPI but it was thought that this would be a little difficult to prove and evaluation is not currently conducted at this level.
4.3 Examples of effective DPI adoption pathway models
Barley Industry Development Officer (BIDO)
 |
| Figure 5. The DPI BIDO adoption pathways model. |
The BIDO adoption pathway model consists of the BIDO being a conduit between the DPI researchers, marketing boards, the malting and brewing industries, private consultants and growers. The BIDO’s has two key role; that of information conduit with all industry players and that of liasing with barley growers to conduct large scale trials to assist barley breeding (Figure 5).Most interviewees put forward the BIDO example as one that effectively delivered information between all barley industry players.
Commercialisation of new varieties
Some research scientists interviewed stated that the nature of their research did not lend itself to utilise DPI’s extension scientists. For example, a plant breeder’s role is that of developing new grain varieties with value added traits that end users (seed companies and growers) will likely adopt if they see a need or if they deem the new variety improving their business. Therefore, there is a ‘natural market progression’ for the uptake of a new variety. In these instances, the role of the extension scientists may not deliver the most effective adoption pathway. The transfer of information relating to the new varieties is accomplished through the research scientists themselves via written articles in the form of industry newsletters, fliers and attendance at field days, grower and industry updates and contact with agribusiness and seed companies. Researchers suggested this adoption pathway could relatively easily measure change through data available of royalties paid on new varieties, areas sown to the new variety, grain storage receivals and seed amounts sold.
The effective DPI adoption pathway models described here are observations, not recommendations. This report does not measure how effective these adoption pathways are. The report describes the effective adoption pathways stated by the interviewees.
4.4 Identified barriers to DPI internal adoption pathways
Overall interviewees suggested that the linkages in the DPI adoption pathway model process (Figure 3) between the two streams could be improved. The reasons for this response varied but included barriers such as:
- the non co-housing of the two streams
- lack of processes to develop formal relationships
- competing relationships and partnerships with other farming organisations such as the Birchip Cropping Group (BCG)
- agribusiness becoming ‘retailers of information’ with less reliance on extension scientists to deliver directly to growers
- the nature of grains breeding
- high staff turnover in extension
- limited resources
- the creation of DPI platforms
These above responses are valid if one solely depends on DPI internal adoption pathways depicted in Figure 3. However, as the results suggest both streams use a variety of adoption pathways for differing purposes.
5 DISCUSSION
Prior to this study, anecdotal evidence suggested that DPI used a linear model for researching and extending within the grains industry (Figure 3). This model depicts the movement of a project from the project development stage to completion in terms of awareness and or adoption of the newfound knowledge (Linehan, 2001). Within this model the arrows are going both ways, as it would seem that in the majority of cases informal communication occurs in terms of feedback and evaluation. One could expect that within the linear model certain links between the stages are stronger than others. This study has shown that the adoption pathways in the grain industry are more complex than the linear model suggests.
5.1 Adoption Pathways
There are a variety of adoption pathways used by the two streams. Overall, the two streams are in direct contact with farmers, agribusiness, and farmer-driven organisations, GRDC and DPI scientists (Figures 1 & 4). Both streams use all these channels interchangeably, at different times for different purposes, in their adoption pathway process. Therefore it could be deduced that the two streams are similar in their approach to the adoption pathway they select. However, it should be noted that there are differences in the strengths of the linkages in the adoption pathways. Some linkages in the pathways are stronger for DPI research scientists compared with DPI extension scientists and vice versa. This is usually because differing adoption pathway processes are utilised according to the best possible pathway for a particular purpose. It should be noted that the description of how effective the adoption process works falls outside the scope of this particular report
It should also be noted that there are differing expectations in terms of delivery for the two streams. Extension is usually expected to deliver at a 5 or 6 level in terms of Bennett’s Hierarchy whereas research is seen to be expected to deliver at a 3 or 4 level. This is usually despite the contracted outcomes of the project. Regardless of which level a project thinks it should deliver at to be successful, it is vitally important that project or program objectives are used in the construction of an adoption pathway.
In terms of the DPI’s internal adoption pathway process both streams in the majority of cases sought information from each other. However, researchers, felt that there was little feedback in terms of what the DPI extension groups needed and wanted. Others stated that they did not know what the researchers were up to in terms of research projects. The fact that some of the DPI extension officers stated that they did not know what research was being undertaken and that researchers were writing into projects submissions a CAS extension component would suggest that there is a gap in the DPI internal adoption pathway models (Figure 3). This gap might suggest that current research information is not necessarily being transferred by the DPI extension scientists because if they don’t know what is being researched how can they extend it? However, this does not imply that DPI extension is the most appropriate means for extending research.
Other extension scientists, such as the BIDO (Figure 5), are a conduit between researchers, industry players and farmers and in this industry this adoption pathway process seemed to work extremely well. However, before suggesting this as an ideal model to pursue it should be understood as to why this model is effective, rather than assumed.
Currently, agribusinesses are used heavily as extension agents by both streams due to their capacity to transfer information to a wider audience. The utilisation of agribusinesses as an ‘extension agent’ could be the appropriate adoption pathway to use in certain circumstances. However, a word of caution, as Marsh and Pannell (1997) state that
- ‘if governments pursue policies that encourage the privatisation of research [currently occurring in the DPI Breeding Program] and extension [via agribusiness] supply is placed in the hands of those whose objectives are of a prime commercial nature. This control of supply makes it harder for direct political intervention if required’.
The article goes on to say that this is already occurring in New Zealand where the Government has had to reintroduce (after the privatisation of extension services) facilitation programs for key Government programs.
This report has highlighted that there are a number of adoption pathways for both research and extension scientists. It does not suggest that one method is better than another and removing a method in favour of another will more likely than not lead to an improvement in the adoption pathway. However, there is scope and evidence to suggest that strengthening the links between all areas of the adoption process will lead to greater outcomes for the State.
5.2 Barriers to effective DPI adoption pathway models
Whilst identifying the barriers to more effective linkages in the DPI adoption pathway model is useful the removal or the overcoming of these barriers will not necessarily affect or improve the efficacy and efficiency the adoption pathway process.
In stating all of the below, it should be noted that ultimately the adoption of new technologies is strongly driven by farmer needs and wants. If what is being researched and extended is not what farmers are demanding then the adoption pathway process will more likely be slower and not as successful compared to pathways where the information or technology produced is demanded by consumer (farmer) needs (Linehan and Kaine, 2003). Linehan (2001) states that the key to adoption success is to investigate the reason people will use a product or change using market research. Market research allows one to identify the key ‘drivers’ for change practices in a particular group so that one is able to target these drivers.
Agribusiness Extension role
The increasing retailer role of agribusiness as a ‘disseminator of information’ may have had some impact on the relationships between research and extension scientists in the DPI. It was stated several times that farmers, in the first instance, get their information from their local consultants rather than DPI extension scientists. Research scientists also stated that in certain circumstances the utilisation of agribusinesses to convey new knowledge was a more effective and efficient way of doing so because agribusinesses are at the coalface, providing one on one information on a regular basis. One interviewee suggested that farmers value consultant’s advice more than government extension advice. This is because it is a service that they are willing to pay for.
The reliance on agribusiness as an extension provider is occurring more frequently and it seems to be working quite successfully in terms of information dissemination because of their ability to reach more farmers compared to the DPI.
Farmer groups
The formation of large farmer-driven groups such as the Birchip Cropping Group, as not only retailers of information but that of project agents, also warrants discussion. As well as undertaking research projects these groups also disseminate DPI information in some capacity and may have input into projects developed by the DPI. The interaction between DPI researchers and the farmer groups seemed often to be quite strong, but at times could become competitive in terms of sourcing funds to undertake projects.
The changing relationships with the private sector and farmer groups may impact on the internal linkages in the DPI adoption pathway model because existing extension delivery may not be requiring as much interaction between the two streams. There is currently no method used in the grains industry to choose the most appropriate adoption pathway. However, it should be recognised that many pathways exist and none are either more or less relevant than the others, provided they are able to achieve the desired outcomes. Additionally, no discrimination should be made to dismiss or favour one pathway over another without understanding why or why not a pathway will achieve project/program goals.
6 FUTURE POSSIBLE SOCIAL RESEARCH
The next stage of this ORL project 2.5 Future Farming Systems - Optimising Production and Environmental will aim to determine the barriers to utilising precision agriculture technologies in the Grains industry. The findings from this project will inform the next stage.
The scope of this project was limited to documenting the adoption pathway process used by the DPI research and extension scientists. This project did not aim to:
- address the issue as to how effective and efficient the chosen adopted pathways process works or;
- aim to understand what criterion is used to select the appropriate adoption pathways to utilise. It is recommended that further research be conducted to understand and articulate these two points.
7 REFERENCES
Birchip Cropping Group 2004. Who are we? [On line]. Available at www.bcg.org.au/whoarewe.php Accessed 7/06/04
Cornish J. 2003 The future for extension; a South Australian Government perspective. APEN Forum, 2003.
Cribb J. and Hartomo T.S, 2002. Sharing knowledge; a guide to effective science communication. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria. Australia.
Department of Primary Industries, 2004. Grains Industry [On line] Available at www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/. Accessed 7.06.04
Dick, B. 1998. Convergent interviewing a technique for qualitative data collection [On line]. Available at http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/iview.html. Accessed 16.02.04
Evaluation Support Team, 2001. Evaluation Course Notes, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria. Australia.
GRDC, 2004. About GRDC [On line] Available at www.grdc.com.au/about Accessed 7.06.04
Grunert, K. and Grunert S. 1995. Measuring subjective meaning structures by the laddering method: Theoretical considerations and methodological problems. International Journal of Research Marketing. 12:209-225
Linehan C. 2001. ‘Increasing the impact of research and extension in irrigated agriculture’. Milestone Report, Department of Primary Industries, Tatura. Victoria
Linehan C.J and Kaine G. 2003 The key to reducing the gap between research and application. Paper presented at the National Landcare Conference, Darwin, Northern Territory. Australia.
Marsh, S.P., Pannell, D.J. and Lindner, R.K. 1996. Does extension pay? A case study looking at the adoption of lupins in Western Australia. Paper presented at the 40th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Melbourne, Feb 12-14 1996.
Marsh, S.P. and Pannell, D.J. 1997. The changing relationship between private and public sector agricultural extension in Australia. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Gold Coast, Queensland, Jan 22-24 1997.
Murdoch, H., Linehan, C., Johnson, F. & Finger, L. 2004 ‘Potential impact of streamflow management plans in three catchments – Social research findings’. Department of Primary Industries, Tatura, Victoria. Australia.
Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods 2nd Ed Sage Publications: USA Topcrop, 2004. About Topcrop – Victoria. [On line] Available at www.topcrop.grdc.com.au/statesites/vic.htm. Accessed 7/06/04
Webb, B. 1998 A reality check. In: Ernstes, DP., Hicks D.M Increasing understanding of public problems and policies, 1997. Papers presented at the National Public Policy Education Conference.47th, Charleston, SC, September 21-24, 1997.
APPENDIX Bennett’s Hierarchy
Table 1. Bennett’s Hierarchy (adapted from ORL 2.5 Business Plan and Evaluation Support Team, 2001)
| Level | Anticipated or actual outcomes |
|---|---|
| 7 Social,Economical,&/or environmental benefit(net results) |
|
| 7a Results of intermediate users’ work |
|
| 6 Changes adopted |
|
| 5 KASA |
|
| 4 Reactions |
|
| 3 Intermediate users |
|
| 2b Dissemination activities |
|
| 1b Research findings |
|
| 2 Activities |
|
| 1 Resources/Inputs |
|
Acknowledgements
Firstly we would like to acknowledge all interviewees’ contribution to this report, their thoughts, views and perceptions has given the report insight into the adoption pathways process in the grains industry.
We would like to acknowledge Dr Mark Krstic (sub-project Leader, Our Rural Landscapes 2.5 - DPI, Irymple Centre) for his support and guidance during the project’s life and Janice Hyett (Communications Officer - DPI, Horsham Centre) for providing us with the front cover photo.
Finally we would also like to thank our team – Practice Change Research team (DPI, Tatura Centre) - who have contributed to this report by offering suggestions, feedback and critique.
Authors: Cinzia Ambrosio, Helen Murdoch and Chris Linehan
