Achieving on-farm practice change through facilitated group learning: Evaluating the effectiveness of monitor farms and discussion groups'

Katrin Prager*, Rachel Creaney

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Group extension promises to be more effective than conventional approaches, in particular when combined with participatory approaches, but little is known about how group extension approaches work as part of advisory programmes in a European context and the factors that influence their success. This paper investigates two examples of group extension for knowledge exchange and innovation among farmers: discussion groups within the Beef Technology Adoption Programme (BTAP) in Ireland and monitor farms in Scotland. An analytical framework is developed for the systematic analysis of group extension approaches as embedded in advisory programmes. Drawing on empirical data from qualitative interviews, participant observation and document analysis, we analyse how the design of an extension programme shapes its delivery, its outcomes and the measurability of outcomes. We distinguish levels of learning and adoption, and argue that in general these are higher for discussion groups than for the wider monitor farm participants, although the most substantial practice changes can be expected for the monitor farmer. We conclude that the more structured the group extension approach and the more detailed the programme targets, the more likely it is to achieve the expected (technology adoption) outcomes. However, such a prescriptive programme will struggle to simultaneously encourage farmer led processes. The more open and flexible the approach, the more potential options for experimenting and learning are created, but this requires farmers to adopt a mindset of being active knowledge creators rather than knowledge consumers, and outcomes are more difficult to measure. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-11
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Rural Studies
Volume56
Early online date12 Sep 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2017

Keywords

  • Agricultural extension
  • Farm advisory services
  • Monitor farms
  • Discussion groups
  • Evaluation
  • NATURAL-RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
  • AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION
  • ADVISORY SERVICES
  • IMPACT
  • ADOPTION
  • CHALLENGES
  • PROVISION
  • PROGRAMS
  • IRELAND

Cite this

@article{9247c3545e054f9d82a4d6abb3edd447,
title = "Achieving on-farm practice change through facilitated group learning: Evaluating the effectiveness of monitor farms and discussion groups'",
abstract = "Group extension promises to be more effective than conventional approaches, in particular when combined with participatory approaches, but little is known about how group extension approaches work as part of advisory programmes in a European context and the factors that influence their success. This paper investigates two examples of group extension for knowledge exchange and innovation among farmers: discussion groups within the Beef Technology Adoption Programme (BTAP) in Ireland and monitor farms in Scotland. An analytical framework is developed for the systematic analysis of group extension approaches as embedded in advisory programmes. Drawing on empirical data from qualitative interviews, participant observation and document analysis, we analyse how the design of an extension programme shapes its delivery, its outcomes and the measurability of outcomes. We distinguish levels of learning and adoption, and argue that in general these are higher for discussion groups than for the wider monitor farm participants, although the most substantial practice changes can be expected for the monitor farmer. We conclude that the more structured the group extension approach and the more detailed the programme targets, the more likely it is to achieve the expected (technology adoption) outcomes. However, such a prescriptive programme will struggle to simultaneously encourage farmer led processes. The more open and flexible the approach, the more potential options for experimenting and learning are created, but this requires farmers to adopt a mindset of being active knowledge creators rather than knowledge consumers, and outcomes are more difficult to measure. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.",
keywords = "Agricultural extension, Farm advisory services, Monitor farms, Discussion groups, Evaluation, NATURAL-RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION, ADVISORY SERVICES, IMPACT, ADOPTION, CHALLENGES, PROVISION, PROGRAMS, IRELAND",
author = "Katrin Prager and Rachel Creaney",
note = "Funding for this study was provided as part of PROAKIS, a European Commission 7th Framework Programme project, Grant agreement no: 311994 (Coordination & Support Action). Funding for writing the paper was received from the Scottish Governments Strategic Research Programme 2016–2021. We would like to thank all people who took the time to participate in an interview.",
year = "2017",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.09.002",
language = "English",
volume = "56",
pages = "1--11",
journal = "Journal of Rural Studies",
issn = "0743-0167",
publisher = "PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Achieving on-farm practice change through facilitated group learning

T2 - Evaluating the effectiveness of monitor farms and discussion groups'

AU - Prager, Katrin

AU - Creaney, Rachel

N1 - Funding for this study was provided as part of PROAKIS, a European Commission 7th Framework Programme project, Grant agreement no: 311994 (Coordination & Support Action). Funding for writing the paper was received from the Scottish Governments Strategic Research Programme 2016–2021. We would like to thank all people who took the time to participate in an interview.

PY - 2017/11

Y1 - 2017/11

N2 - Group extension promises to be more effective than conventional approaches, in particular when combined with participatory approaches, but little is known about how group extension approaches work as part of advisory programmes in a European context and the factors that influence their success. This paper investigates two examples of group extension for knowledge exchange and innovation among farmers: discussion groups within the Beef Technology Adoption Programme (BTAP) in Ireland and monitor farms in Scotland. An analytical framework is developed for the systematic analysis of group extension approaches as embedded in advisory programmes. Drawing on empirical data from qualitative interviews, participant observation and document analysis, we analyse how the design of an extension programme shapes its delivery, its outcomes and the measurability of outcomes. We distinguish levels of learning and adoption, and argue that in general these are higher for discussion groups than for the wider monitor farm participants, although the most substantial practice changes can be expected for the monitor farmer. We conclude that the more structured the group extension approach and the more detailed the programme targets, the more likely it is to achieve the expected (technology adoption) outcomes. However, such a prescriptive programme will struggle to simultaneously encourage farmer led processes. The more open and flexible the approach, the more potential options for experimenting and learning are created, but this requires farmers to adopt a mindset of being active knowledge creators rather than knowledge consumers, and outcomes are more difficult to measure. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

AB - Group extension promises to be more effective than conventional approaches, in particular when combined with participatory approaches, but little is known about how group extension approaches work as part of advisory programmes in a European context and the factors that influence their success. This paper investigates two examples of group extension for knowledge exchange and innovation among farmers: discussion groups within the Beef Technology Adoption Programme (BTAP) in Ireland and monitor farms in Scotland. An analytical framework is developed for the systematic analysis of group extension approaches as embedded in advisory programmes. Drawing on empirical data from qualitative interviews, participant observation and document analysis, we analyse how the design of an extension programme shapes its delivery, its outcomes and the measurability of outcomes. We distinguish levels of learning and adoption, and argue that in general these are higher for discussion groups than for the wider monitor farm participants, although the most substantial practice changes can be expected for the monitor farmer. We conclude that the more structured the group extension approach and the more detailed the programme targets, the more likely it is to achieve the expected (technology adoption) outcomes. However, such a prescriptive programme will struggle to simultaneously encourage farmer led processes. The more open and flexible the approach, the more potential options for experimenting and learning are created, but this requires farmers to adopt a mindset of being active knowledge creators rather than knowledge consumers, and outcomes are more difficult to measure. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

KW - Agricultural extension

KW - Farm advisory services

KW - Monitor farms

KW - Discussion groups

KW - Evaluation

KW - NATURAL-RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

KW - AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION

KW - ADVISORY SERVICES

KW - IMPACT

KW - ADOPTION

KW - CHALLENGES

KW - PROVISION

KW - PROGRAMS

KW - IRELAND

U2 - 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.09.002

DO - 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.09.002

M3 - Article

VL - 56

SP - 1

EP - 11

JO - Journal of Rural Studies

JF - Journal of Rural Studies

SN - 0743-0167

ER -