21 pages, via online journal, Purpose: This article outlines the emergence of programme teams in the Australian dairy farm sector as a response to counter weaknesses in the institutional environment for agricultural innovation which favours technology adoption/diffusion approaches.
Design/methodology/approach: The strengths, weaknesses and risks of different approaches to innovation in the Australian dairy sector RD&E system are analysed and key features of an emerging programme team approach defined. The programme team approach is compared and contrasted with the features of innovation capacity from international literature. An analysis of the relative investment in this innovation capacity in different topics or domains of dairy innovation is provided.
Findings: The programme team approach to innovation involves groups of researchers, extension people, public and private organisations, farmers, community groups, and policy and service groups brought together to progress innovation and change in a topic area or domain. Leadership of the process is provided by an area expert or champion. The team takes responsibility for: (a) understanding the businesses of key players who have an influence in the innovation or domain; (b) deciding the nature of the desired change that all stakeholders can align to; (c) identifying features of the enabling environment to establish what capacity is needed; (d) designing a ‘route to change’ strategy (in contrast to traditional route-to-market thinking); and (e) piloting and refining the approach within the target populations. The group manages emerging risks and keeps on top of issues, as well as identifies any knowledge gaps for research that are preventing innovation and change.
Conclusions/practical implications: The programme team approach provides a semi-formal governance mechanism for innovation to develop, despite an institutional environment that favours technology adoption. Further, the activities of programme teams consist of practices which integrate research-led and demand-pull approaches. Currently, investment in such innovation capacity is relatively low and highly variable across different topic domains.
Added value: The article provides tangible activities that managers of agricultural RD&E programmes can invest in to progress systemic approaches to innovation and is a guide for agricultural education and extension practitioners to proceed in their innovation work.
20 pages, To explore young peoples’ motivation for engaging in agricultural education. Autonomous and controlled forms of extrinsic and intrinsic regulation are discussed regarding young peoples’ decision to pursue an agricultural education.
Suggests that market oriented arrangements (i.e., privatized extension and research, output-financing) are probably less suitable than other institutional arrangements when the aim is to support experiential learning and interactive design towards sustainable agriculture.
17 pages., Via online journal., Purpose: This paper presents economic and pedagogical motivations for adopting information and communications technology (ICT)-mediated learning networks in agricultural education and extension. It proposes a framework for networked learning in agricultural extension and contributes a theoretical and case-based rationale for adopting the networked learning paradigm.
Design/methodology/approach: A review of the literature highlights the economic and pedagogical need for adopting a networked learning approach. Two examples are described to instantiate the language for learning networks: a small community of farmers in India and large Twitter community of Australian farmers.
Findings: This paper reviews evidence that successful networked learning interventions are already occurring within agricultural extension. It provides a framework for describing these interventions and for helping future designers of learning networks in agricultural extension.
Practical implication: Facilitation of learning networks can serve to achieve efficient agricultural extension that connects farmers across distances for constructivist learning. To realize these benefits, designers of learning networks need to consider set design, social design and epistemic design.
Theoretical implication: This paper contributes a theoretical framework for designing, implementing and analysing learning networks in agriculture. It does this by integrating existing ideas from networked learning and applying them to the agricultural context through examples.
Originality/value: This paper contributes an understanding of the value of networked learning for extension in terms of economic and pedagogical benefits. It provides a language for talking about learning networks that is useful for future researchers and for practitioners.
19 pages, This special issue presents recent European Commission-funded research into on-farm demonstration, undertaken through the Horizon 2020 PLAID (Peer-to-peer learning: Accessing innovation through demonstration), AgriDemo-F2F (building an interactive agridemo-hub community: enhancing peer-to-peer learning), and NEFERTITI (Networking European Farms to Enhance Cross Fertilisation and Innovation Uptake through Demonstration) projects, jointly branded ‘FarmDemo’.
Retrieved January 28, 2007, Urges improvements in conflict resolution and negotiation processes. Emphasizes the need for changing the roles of women, development organizations and extension services n these processes.
