11 pages, via online journal, Purpose: Educational farms (EFs) serve a number of social and economic functions and are part of the debate about new learning environments, multifunctional agriculture and firm diversification. Through the analysis of a case study, this paper aims to identify strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) of EFs and key factors for setting a development strategy.
Design/Methodology/Approach: A direct survey to EFs in Molise region (IT) was implemented during April-May 2017 and results were assessed following a SWOT approach.
Findings: Strong motivation and connection with agritourism activities are strengths of EFs in the region; small size, unskilled staff, lack of structured educational pathways, and limited profitability are the main weaknesses. Farms opportunities come from a territory rich in rural landscapes, environmental resources, and typical food products, and from a growing demand for educational tourism. Obstacles are in the institutional sphere and due to the absence of regional networks. Based on SWOT findings, key factors for EFs development are discussed.
Practical implications: EFs development requires innovative educational and managerial tools, a more concerted and proactive role for multiple stakeholders, and the implementation of a network approach. Study findings solicit actions from public institutions and advisory services to improve farmers’ skills.
Theoretical implications: The paper contributes to the theoretical debate about the need for a multidisciplinary approach in dealing with the analysis of EFs.
Originality/Value: The analysis underlines the importance of internal and external drivers in stimulating farms and institutions to support diversification strategies, rural development and transformation processes in inner areas.
13 pages., via online journal., Drawing on the increasing body of literature on policy stakeholders and the ever-growing acknowledgement that communication policy is crafted by more than just parliamentarians and formal communication regulators this paper examines the role that another set of regulators plays in communication policy: agriculture regulators. Based on a study of the United States Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS), this paper explores alternative agents of communication policy. More specifically, through document analysis we examine the way in which the Rural Utilities Service has shaped rural broadband policy in the United States over the last three decades. The implications for this research are wide, as it brings another policy actor into the policy making melee, and pushes communication policy scholars to consider the role that non-traditional communication regulators play in the communication policy making process.
Gavitt, A.R., Jr. (author / University of Connecticut, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Department of Agricultural Publications) and University of Connecticut, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Department of Agricultural Publications
Format:
Conference paper
Publication Date:
unknown
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 27 Document Number: B02745
Notes:
AgComm Teaching, Mimeographed, [19- ]. 14 p. Paper presented at the 54th Annual Conference of the American Association of Agricultural College Editors; July 15; Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 196 Document Number: D08012
Notes:
John L. Woods Collection, Overhead visuals describing StratComm resources of Chemonics International, Inc., for development assistance projects. 15 overhead visuals.
21 Pages, Purpose: The article examines the implementation and effects of the model farmer-based approach of farmer-to-farmer extension delivery that is in use in Ethiopia.
Methodology: The study used mixed methods, combining focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and a household survey.
Findings: The model farmer approach has increased extension coverage, improved the possibility for information and technology dissemination, and enabled the inclusion of virtually all farming households in extension and advisory networks. Simultaneously, the approach has become a mechanism for the top-down control of farmers, for the identification and favouritism of better-off farmers, and those with political commitments.
Practical implications: The findings show that there is a need to critically reflect on who model farmers are, how they are selected, what their historical and current roles and impact have been, as well as follower farmers’ feedback on the approach in order to avoid perpetuating the misuse of the approach.
Theoretical implications: The article argues that the Ethiopian context that rewards rapid increase in production and productivity, modernisation of agriculture, competitive commercialisation, and a context that allows the continued entanglement of extension delivery with politics have enabled such misuse of the approach to proliferate. The article questions the extent of applicability of the core farmer-to-farmer extension principles that relate to social ties, reciprocity, collaboration, and minimal social hierarchies in such a context.
Originality/value: The study generates important insights about the effects of model farmer-based extension approach, its political dimensions, and the importance of context for successful farmer-to-farmer extension.
