JAEE 2004 No 10/2old.worldagroforestry.org/downloads/Publications/PDFS/ja04131.pdf · Arjen E.J.Wals, Fabio Caporali, Paul Pace, Bill Slee, Nadarajah Sriskandarajah and 89 Martyn

The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 2004, vol. 10, no. 1 Contents

CONTENTS

Editorial Foreword II

Articles

Kristin Davis, Steven Franzel, Peter Hildebrand, Tracy Irani and Nick Place 53Extending Technologies Among Small-Scale Farmers in Meru, Kenya:Ingredients for Success in Farmer Groups

Cees Leeuwis Fields of Conflict and Castles in the Air. Some Thoughts and Observations 63on the Role of Communication in Public Sphere Innovation Processes

Richard T. Liles Core Competencies: A Systems Approach for Training and Organizational 77Development in Extension

Larry E. Miller Reconsidering Graduate Programs for Students from Developing Countries 83

Arjen E.J. Wals, Fabio Caporali, Paul Pace, Bill Slee, Nadarajah Sriskandarajah and 89Martyn Warren Education for Integrated Rural Development

The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 2004, vol. 10, no. 2

Editorial Foreword

text

Harm BiemansEditor-in-chief JAEE

II

Introduction

Lack of proper extension services is partially toblame for poverty, according to participatorypoverty assessments conducted in 10 districts inKenya in 2000 (Meru Central DistrictDevelopment Plan 2002; Republic of Kenya2001). This is due both to reductions ingovernment services in Kenya, and ineffectiveand inappropriate extension approaches (Eponou1996; Gautam 2000). These issues have led togaps in extension of technologies to small-scalefarmers, who play a major role in the Kenyaneconomy.

Technologies to address rural problems have

been developed by research, developmentorganizations, and farmers working together inKenya. A major issue then becomes how to scaleup these technologies to benefit more low-resource farmers, despite limited extensionresources. The extension system in Kenya todayis pluralistic, with the government, privatecompanies, and non-governmental organizations(NGOs) all providing extension. Recently,community-based extension mechanisms havecome to the fore, as a means of scaling up thesetechnologies to have a wider impact in ruraleconomies (Franzel, Cooper & Denning 2001;Misiko, 2000; Noordin, Niang, Jama & Nyasimi

2001). Farmer groups are an important vehiclefor such community-based extension.

June 2004

Extending Technologies Among Small-Scale Farmers in Meru, Kenya:Ingredients for Success in Farmer Groups

Kristin Davis1, Steven Franzel2, Peter Hildebrand3, Tracy Irani4, Nick Place5

The authors gratefully acknowledge assistance from Wim Buysse, Richard Coe and Christina Gladwin.

Agricultural extension is evolving worldwide, and there is much emphasis today on community-basedmechanisms of dissemination in order to bring sustainable change. The goal of this study was to examine thefactors that make farmer groups successful in dissemination of information and technologies. A mixed-methods, multiple-stage approach was used to obtain data, using participant observation, documentaryanalysis, semi-structured interviews, social mapping, and structured questionnaires. Dairy-goat farmergroups (n = 46) and individual farmers (n = 88) were interviewed. Factors that were associated with groupsuccess in dissemination included member participation, degree of jealousy within the group, homogeneityof members, group capacity, number of linkages and type of group (project-supported versus non-supported). Some interventions that may increase the success of groups in dissemination include capacity-building, increasing linkages with other extension stakeholders, providing an enabling environment forgroups to form, using established groups (as compared to forming new groups), and encouraging groups toform around common interests rather than for other reasons. KEYWORDS: Africa, Kenya, groups, farmers, extension, disseminationJ Agr Educ Ext (2004, 10, 2, pp 53-62)

53

1 Kristin Davis, Department of Agricultural Education and Communication, University of Florida, 310 Rolfs Hall, Box 110540,Gainesville, FL, 32611-0540, USA. Tel. (352) 392-0502; Fax 352-392-9585; [email protected]

2 Steven Franzel, Principal Agricultural Economist, World Agroforestry Centre, United Nations Ave. P.O. Box 30677-00100,Nairobi, Kenya. Tel. (650) 833-6645; Fax: 254-2-524001; [email protected]

3 Peter Hildebrand, Professor, Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA.Tel: 352-392-1854, ext. 436; [email protected]

4 Tracy Irani, Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Education and Communication, University of Florida, 219 RolfsHall, Box 110540, Gainesville, FL, 32611-0540, USA. Tel: 352-392-0502, ext. 225; Fax 352-392-9585; [email protected]

5 Nick Place, Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Education and |Communication, University of Florida, 219 RolfsHall, Box 110540, Gainesville, FL, 32611-0540, USA. Tel: 352-392-0502, ext. 227; Fax 352-392-9585; [email protected]

However, there is little research showing whatfactors, if any, make community-based groupseffective in disseminating technologies. Ifevidence could be found for which factors couldor do affect farmer group effectiveness, it wouldfacilitate technology dissemination to small-scalefarmers. This information would be useful fororganizations working with farmer groups, and tothe groups themselves, by providing a means tostrengthen and guide the groups. Finally, itwould provide valuable information to policy-makers and practitioners.

Background

The Kenyan government, NGOs andinternational research centers have all been usingfarmer groups in the technology generation anddissemination process. One project that focusedheavily on farmer groups was the Meru Dairy-Goat and Animal Healthcare Project in the Meruarea of Kenya. Meru Central District is an areaon the eastern side of Mount Kenya, ranging inaltitude from 300 to 5199 m at the peak of themountain. Farmers in Meru Central Districtpractice mixed cropping methods with maize(Zea mays) and beans (Phaseolus vulgarii) as thedominant farming system. Livestock such ascattle, goats, pigs, and chickens are also part ofthe system. Rainfall is bimodal, falling betweenMarch and June (short rains) and Octoberthrough December (long rains). Many of thefarmers in the project were living in the coffeeand marginal coffee zones of Meru CentralDistrict.

The dairy-goat project was collaborative betweenthe Government of Kenya’s Ministry ofLivestock Development and Fisheries and theNGO Food and Resource Management (FARM)-Africa. FARM-Africa, a British NGO, aims tohelp poor African farmers through sustainableprojects. In Meru, the poor were targeted forincome and nutrition improvement through adairy-goat project. Dairy goats were deemedappropriate due to the dry climate of the area andthe fact that they were more affordable topurchase and care for than improved cattle.

The dairy-goat project began working in theMeru area in 1996, targeting the poorest farmersin medium and low agricultural-potential zones,by working with over 80 self-help dairy-goatgroups. The purpose of the project was to

“improve the productivity of local goats throughbetter management and access to sustainablehealthcare and genetic improvement, and of localdairy cattle through better access to sustainablehealthcare systems” (Meru Dairy Goat andAnimal Health Care Phase II April 1999-March2002 Project Review, p. 8).

The organizers of the dairy-goat project chose towork with organized farmer groups to efficientlytarget communities. However, they did not useestablished groups, because the project targetedthe poorest people in the communities.Therefore, for the purpose of the project, most ofthese groups were formed during the project ofpoorer community members. In Meru CentralDistrict, one of the two project districts, about 46dairy-goat groups were created with assistancefrom the local communities, chiefs, andextension staff. Only the initial 20 groups wereofficially part of the project and composed of thearea’s poorest members, however, while theremaining groups formed on their own. One ofthe main mechanisms for improving animalproductivity was through the establishment ofpure Toggenburg buck stations located in thelocal communities for breeding with local goats.Genetic improvement of local goats was to occurthrough the breeding of local and F1 crosses tothe pure Toggenburg bucks. Each grouptherefore received or purchased a buck from thedairy-goat project with which to establish abreeding station.

Methods

A mixed-methods, multiple-stage approach wasused to obtain data for the study. Researchtechniques included participant observation,documentary analysis, semi-structuredinterviews, social mapping, group timelines, andstructured questionnaires. Dairy-goat farmergroups (n = 46) and individual farmers (n = 88;half were group members) from Meru CentralDistrict were interviewed during the study.Qualitative data provided baseline informationand helped in the formation of research questionsat the start of the study.

Results

Based upon a literature review and preliminarydata collection in Meru, the following factorswere considered for their effect upon success of


54

dairy-goat groups in dissemination: size of thegroup, amount of member participation,homogeneity of members, jealousyi within thegroup, group capacity, number of linkages, andtype of groupii. For the analysis, the dependentvariable, success in dissemination, was measuredusing various indicators. One such indicator wasthe number of buck services that took place ateach group’s buck station. Buck services refer tothe number of female goats brought to the groupfor breeding with the improved buck. An indexof success in dissemination was also created toexamine the effects of the various group factors.The “neighbor adoption index” was the dairy-goat groups’ ratings of number of neighborsusing dairy-goat technologies averaged togetherwith the three external raters’ scores on thenumbers of neighbors using dairy-goattechnologies. These scores could range from1 to 4, where 1 = none, 2 = some, 3 = many, and4 = all. Cronbach’s alpha for this index was 0.69.

The variables examined are discussed below,together with their binary associations withdependent variables. The variables with highassociations with the dependent variable“neighbor adoption index” are then put in amultiple linear regression model to portray theoverall effects of group factors on the success ofthe groups in dissemination. The enter methodwas used in order to see the effects of all of thevariables regardless of significance.

Group Size The size of the group has been shown to be bothpositively and negatively associated with thesuccess of farmer groups (Agrawal and Goyal,2001; Place et al., 2002). There was a range of10 to 50 members per dairy-goat group, withthe average being 23. The number of memberswas substantially and negatively correlated withthe number of neighbors planting fodder trees(r = -.520; p < .00; n = 38), showing that smallergroups were associated with greater success.No differences in success appeared betweensmaller-sized groups and the larger ones,however.

Member ParticipationGroups with high participation by members werethought by informants to be more successful indissemination. Member participation in thedairy-goat groups was determined through a five-point Likert-scale question where 1 = strongly

disagree and 5 = strongly agree with thestatement “Group members regularly participatein most group activities.” Member participationwas moderately correlated with the index foradoption (r = -.447; p < .00; n = 46), showingthat decreased participation in dairy-goat groupactivities was associated with an increase in thenumber of members adopting dairy-goattechnologies.

Homogeneity of MembersThe dairy-goat groups were homogeneous inmany ways. Homogeneity within the group wasexamined in terms of village, ethnic group, clan,gender, age, religion and/or church, occupationand economic level. Almost all group memberswere from the same ethnic group, called Meru.Nearly 100% of farmers interviewed consideredthemselves to be Christian. Amount ofhomogeneity within the dairy-goat groups didnot appear to have much effect on the dependentvariables “neighbor adoption index” and numberof buck services, when factored in with othervariables in regression models. However, thegroups with higher homogeneity had moreneighbors planting fodder than were groups withlow heterogeneity (t = -2.47; p < .02; df = 36).

JealousyJealousy is a factor that appears to make adifference in technology dissemination. Aconcurrent farmer-to-farmer extension studytaking place in Meru revealed an important rolefor jealousy in dissemination (Kaberia et al.2004). Jealousy might affect dissemination ofinformation by farmers and groups, becausegroups might not want to share information andtechnology in order to keep ahead of theirneighbors. Some informants even mentionedthat some groups had by-laws preventing thesharing of information, at least until the grouphad benefited. Many of the dairy-goat groupsthought that jealousy was simply something thatis a part of life, especially within groups, makingstatements such as, “If you put eggs in a bucket,they will knock each other.”

Jealousy was measured through Likert scalequestions, where the group was asked if theyagreed or disagreed regarding issues of jealousywithin the group, group conflict, unity,cooperation, and so forth. Degree of groupjealousy was positively and moderatelycorrelated with the neighbor adoption index

June 2004

55

(r = .329; p < .03; n = 46) (possible reasons forthis association are discussed in the conclusionsection).

Capacity Capacity refers to training, skills and capabilitiesof farmers and groups. Informants viewedtrainings as very important to success for dairy-goat groups in dissemination. Informants saidthat dairy-goat group members who receivedtraining were expected by the project to trainother farmers. The established dairy-goat groupstrained both newer dairy-goat groups and farmersfrom outside the district and from other projects.The number of trainings each dairy-goat groupreceived since the start of the project rangedfrom 0 to 15, with an average of 5.4.FARM-Africa, government extension staff or theMeru Goat Breeders’Association (an associationformed by the dairy-goat project) usuallyconducted the trainings. Individual members ofdairy-goat groups received significantly moretraining than individuals who were not in thedairy-goat groups (t = 3.07; p < .00; df = 86).Basic training for groups was on goat husbandry,animal health care, leadership, and groupdynamics. Groups with higher levels of traininghad higher average scores on the neighboradoption index.

LinkagesEvery dairy-goat group had linkages with otherplayers in the area, such as churches, the chief,extension staff, and markets. Linkages wereestablished through Venn or chapati diagrams,where the group illustrated its relationships withoutside entities through placing various-sizedcircles on a piece of flip chart paper, with theirgroup at the center. The most important linkagesfor the dairy-goat groups were governmentextension, FARM-Africa, and churches. Otherlinkages included local chief offices, the MeruGoat Breeders’Association, other farmers, andfarmer groups.

The number of linkages a group had appeared toaffect the amount of dissemination that tookplace within a group, with those having greaterlinkages disseminating more. Groups with loweramounts of linkages had significantly less buckservices. Low capacity groups had an average of10.30 (SD = 6.56) buck services in a one-monthperiod, and high capacity groups an average of17.26 (SD = 12.53).

Type of Group (FARM-Africa-Facilitated versusExtension-Facilitated)There were two types of groups within the dairy-goat project. At the start of the project, dairy-goat groups of the poorest community memberswere formed through the help of local chiefs andcommunity members, based on povertyindicators developed by stakeholders. Thesegroups were given a breeding buck and a trainingprogram as part of the project. Afterwards, otherself-initiated groups formed, who contacted thedairy-goat project to request a buck, which thenewer groups then paid for. The newer groups didnot receive the same level of training as theoriginal project groups. Within the project, theoriginal project groups were known as “FARM”groups and the newer groups as “extension”groups. This in part refers to the fact that FARMgroups were to be supported by the project, whilethe extension groups were to be assisted by thegovernment, through the formation of “commoninterest groups” that were being used as part ofthe Government of Kenya’s new extensionapproach. However, it appeared that all groupsin the project were working with both FARM-Africa and the government extension personnel;therefore, it is not necessarily an issue ofgovernment versus NGO. As with many of theseprojects, FARM provided support in terms ofvehicles, fuel and other expenses, while thegovernment contributed personnel.

According to study informants, the FARMgroups tended to be older, had received moretrainings and tours, and were comprised ofpoorer members (Table 1). The FARM groupswere helped to form with outside assistance, andwere given a buck for community-based breedimprovement during the start of the project. Theextension groups, on the other hand, were formedon their own initiative and criteria, and had topurchase their buck. The older dairy-goat groupsreceived more training as part of the dairy-goatproject. These older groups and extension stafftrained many of the new extension dairy-goatgroups; however, training was more sporadicthan with FARM groups. Furthermore, the levelof group formality was significantly different,with the FARM groups having higher levels offormality.

The extension groups were, for the most part,newer than the FARM groups, and therefore lesslikely to have a buck that was ready for breeding.


56

The FARM groups had been around longerthan most of the extension groups, and this mayhave been an important factor in the differencesof dissemination success between the twogroups. Also, some of the extension buckstations were very new so it was unlikely thattheir neighbors would have had a chance to adoptdairy-goat technologies. Even if neighbors hadbred their local goats, they may not haveobtained kids or have been able to sell them.Number of buck services in the past month forextension groups was 9.68, while FARM groupsprovided an average of 19.00 services in the pastmonth (t = -3.22; p < .00; df = 40). Because ofthese differences in the type of group, it would beuseful to conduct a similar study in a few years’time to see more clearly the differences betweenFARM and extension groups.

There were also perceived relational orsociological differences between the FARM andextension groups. As seen in Table 1, FARMgroups had higher levels of jealousy, lessparticipation by members, and less of aperception that their leadership was good,perhaps because these groups did not form on

their own.

There was a significant difference in the twotypes of group with regard to the number of buckservices provided, with FARM groups providingmore (Table 2). FARM groups also had asignificantly higher neighbor adoption indexscore (Table 2). Finally, type of group aloneaccounted for 47% of variation in the dependentvariable “neighbor adoption index,” whenregressing various group factors on the neighboradoption index.

Overall Effects of Factors for SuccessIn addition to type of group, several of the othervariables mentioned in this section haveimportant associations with the dependentvariable “neighbor adoption index,” an indicatorof group success in dissemination by the groupsto their neighbors. However, it is important tolook at the combined effect of the variables, andnot just examine binary relationships, becausegroup factors do not stand alone, but areinfluenced by other variables. Because this wasan exploratory study, a large number of variableswere examined for their relationship to the

June 2004

57

Table 1. Differences in FARM and extension-facilitated dairy-goat groups (n = 46)Response FARM Groups Extension Groups

n M SD n M SD df t pNo. of trainings 20 6.75 2.69 26 4.31 2.67 44 3.07 0.00***No. of tours 20 3.95 1.91 26 1.31 1.29 44 5.61 0.00***Formality indexa 20 3.75 0.44 26 3.35 0.85 44 -1.94 0.06*Jealousy in groupb 20 2.10 1.45 26 1.27 0.83 44 2.30 0.03**Leadership is goodb 20 4.30 0.92 26 4.81 0.63 44 -2.11 0.04**Member participationb 20 4.10 1.02 26 4.69 0.84 44 -2.16 0.04**

a On a scale of 0 – 4 with 0 = highly informal and 4 = highly formal. More formal groups are registeredwith the Department of Social Services, have a constitution and by-laws and a bank accountb Likert scale of 1 – 5 with 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree *Approaches significance; **significant; ***highly significant

Table 2. Effect of type of group on success indicators (n = 46)Success indicator FARM Extension

n M SD n M SD df t pNo. of buck services 17 19.00 7.53 25 9.68 10.19 40 3.22 0.00***Neighbor adoption indexa 20 2.97 0.14 26 2.51 0.31 44 6.82 0.00***a Mean based on a scale of 1 (low adoption) to 4 (high adoption)***Highly significant

dependent variables. Those possessing strongassociations with the neighbor adoption indexwere entered into a multiple linear regressionmodel (using the enter method) to more fullyexplain high adoption rates among groups’neighbors by dairy-goat farmers in Meru CentralDistrict of Kenya.

This regression model is detailed in Table 3. Itincludes the variables size of group, degree ofmember participation in groups, group jealousy,capacity and number of group linkages, and typeof group. Although some regression models usestepwise methods to add or remove variablesuntil the best possible explanation is reached, thismodel included all of the variables discussedabove in order to examine their combined effectson the dependent variable.

Table 3 thus shows the most important predictorsof dairy-goat group success. The r-squared valueof 0.58 means that the combination of thesevariables explained 58% of the variation in theneighbor adoption index, which was a measure ofsuccess of the group. The variables thatcontributed significantly include memberparticipation, group linkages, and type of group.The size of the group, degree of jealousy, andgroup capacity (number of tours and trainings)had almost no effect on the neighbor adoptionindex.

Number of linkages and type of group hadpositive coefficients, meaning that increases inthese variables lead to an increase in success ofthe group in dissemination. Those groups withgreater numbers of linkages were able to both

give and receive more information with a greaternumber of people. Because type of group wasbinary, it means that the variables that weredummy coded “1” (FARM) were contributing togroup success (“extension” was coded 0).Reasons for the differences in success by type ofgroup are discussed above.

A negative coefficient was observed forparticipation level of group members, indicatingthat the groups that perceived that participationin group activities was low were the groups thattended to be successful in dissemination. Groupswhere members were perceived as participatingless were providing more buck services and hadmore neighbors adopting dairy-goattechnologies. Perhaps this was because groupsthat had less participation had more members outvisiting others and sharing information andtechnologies with other farmers rather thanhoarding information within the group.

Conclusions

Although this study was exploratory, the resultshave allowed some of the factors that lead tosuccess in farmer groups in extendinginformation and technology to their neighbors tobe teased out. Indicators of success indissemination included the number of buck(breeding) services that groups provided, and anindex of adoption by neighbors called the“neighbor adoption index.” This study has addedto other researchers’ findings on effects of groupsize and capacity on group performance. It haspaved the way for possible future studies on theeffects of factors such as homogeneity of


58

Table 3. Linear regression analysis of variables for prediction of success in dissemination (neighboradoption index)

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized CoefficientsB Std. Error Beta t p

(Constant) 2.720 .226 12.03 0.00Size .000 .004 .006 .05 0.96Member participation -.119 .044 -.339 -2.74 0.01**Jealousy -.003 .036 -.011 -0.09 0.93Capacity .001 .011 .018 0.13 0.90Linkages .036 .020 .227 1.85 0.07**Type of groupa .396 .095 .589 4.18 0.00***a 0 = extension-facilitated group; 1 = FARM- facilitated group**Significant; ***highly significantNote. R2 = .58

members and jealousy on group success. Theresearch has shown an indication that memberparticipation in the group affects group success.Finally, this study has shown the importance oflinkages and type of outside support to farmergroups and to extension.

The size of farmer groups is a variable that hasbeen examined over the years for its effects ongroup success, with varying results (see, forexample, Olson 1965, in Agrawal & Goyal 2001;Agrawal & Goyal 2001). Morton et al. (2002)found both negative and positive effects fromgroup size. Stringfellow, Coulter, Lucey,McKone and Hussain (1997) found that smallgroups were more successful. Place et al. (2002)found that middle-sized groups were the best-performing groups. In the regression model inTable 3, group size has no significant effect onthe outcome of the dependent variable “neighboradoption index.” The only piece of data relatedto group size and success in this study was thesubstantial and negative correlation betweengroup size and the perception of number ofneighbors planting fodder. Perhaps in thesmaller groups members received more training,they were more likely to invite neighbors totrainings, and members worked more effectively.Further studies are necessary to show what, ifany, effect size has upon the success of groups.

Group capacity; that is, the number of tours andtrainings, was a factor that was expected topositively affect success in dissemination amonggroups. Morton et al. (2002) found that trainingled to greater success in self-help groups anddairy cooperatives in Kenya. Although capacitylevel did not significantly affect the dependentvariable in the regression analysis in Table 3,other data from this study give indications that itdoes have a positive effect on groups’ abilities toextend technologies. More training means moreexpertise; members will be more self-confidentto train others and others will be more likely tocome seeking advice. Furthermore, this studyshows that capacity can be built. The FARMgroups were below the extension groups in termsof capacity at the start of the project, but haveoutperformed extension groups thus far in termsof dissemination of information and technology.

Homogeneity and jealousy were expected toaffect the success of the group, but did not do sosignificantly. Homogeneity among members was

significantly related to just one success indicator,the perceived number of neighbors plantingfodder, with more homogeneous groupsassociated with higher rates of fodder planting.Stakeholders in the research study thought thatgroups with more homogeneity among theirmembers were better disseminators, because itwould increase understanding and unity, andmembers would have common interests,language, goals, history, culture, and objectives.This was true to a certain extent, in that the morehomogeneous groups were more successful indissemination.

Jealousy in this study was measured within thegroup itself, not between the group and outsidemembers. It is an important factor to consider indissemination studies, because people may notwant others to get ahead of them materially.They may even be afraid to get ahead of othersbecause of fear of jealousy by others. The degreeof jealousy did not significantly affect thesuccess indicator in the regression model.However, moderate, positive correlations werefound between the dependent variable “neighboradoption index” and perceived jealousy amongmembers. Perhaps the reason for this positivecorrelation is that in groups where people werejealous of each other, the members had moreoutside connections and thus disseminated more.Within the group, however, there may have beenarguments as to whether group members shouldshare their “exclusive” knowledge with others,and thus the groups perceived themselves ashaving a higher degree of jealousy. The exactway that jealousy affects dissemination is notknown, and should be a consideration for furtherresearch.

Degree of member participation, amount oflinkages that groups had, and type of group werethe three variables that significantly affected theneighbor adoption index, based on the results ofthe regression model shown in Table 3. Themeasurement of the variable for memberparticipation in groups is described in the resultssection. Informants in the study thought thatgroups with high participation would be moresuccessful in dissemination. However, this didnot happen, as decreased participation indairy-goat group activities was associated withan increase in the neighbor adoption index.This may be due to the fact that groups withhigh participation were inwardly focused, and

June 2004

59

did not reach out to or spend much time withnon-members and thus disseminate information.Perceptions on group member participationwere skewed (4.43 on a scale of 1 to 5, where1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree thatmembers participate). Therefore, further studiesare needed to more adequately determine the roleof group participation on success indissemination.

Linkages were also an important factor for groupsuccess (Table 3). Groups with more linkageshad higher rates of success in dissemination.Groups with many linkages are able to both giveand receive more information and technologies.

Finally, type of group was a variable that wasextremely significant in the study. Once again,the two types of groups were known in theproject as “FARM” groups and “extension”groups. The FARM groups were formallysupported by the dairy-goat project, while theextension groups formed on their own andpurchased a buck. The differences through typeof group points to the importance of outsidesupport when using groups to disseminateinformation and technologies.

The key issue here may not be whether groupswere NGO- or government-facilitated, but thatthe FARM groups were formally part of theproject and thus received higher levels oftraining, more tours, and other assistance. Onecould say that the FARM groups had greateroutside assistance. However, it should beemphasized here that the project assistance wasfocused on sustainability, and with a view thatthe groups would not continually receiveassistance, but would be trained and helped to thepoint where they could “go it on their own”eventually. Having such organized outsideassistance may be the key to building capacityamong groups, to enable them to effectivelydisseminate information and technologies.

Overall, this study does seem to indicate thatgroups are important players in dissemination ofinformation and technologies to small-scalefarmers. Farmers in the dairy-goat groups wouldtell people in their other groups (for instance,church or women’s groups) about the things theyhad learned through the project. Groups werealso an important source of information forindividual farmers interviewed during the study.

Implications and Recommendations

In summary, the variables that appeared to affectthe success of dairy-goat groups in disseminatinginformation and technologies included memberparticipation, linkages, and type of group. Thesize of the group, member homogeneity, degreeof jealousy, and group capacity seemed to havelittle or no effect on group success, at least whenfactored in with other variables in the regressionmodel. Further empirical studies with a largersample size may help to determine the role thatthese factors may play in farmer groups in theirsuccess in dissemination.

These results provide some useful implicationsfor policy-makers and development practitioners,and those who are involved in extension oftechnologies and information to small-scalefarmers. Recommendations can also be made tostrengthen groups for their role in technologydissemination.

One important issue that this study shows is thatonce groups receive adequate training, they areeffective at extending information andtechnologies to other farmers. Capacity buildingand increasing linkages are thus importantfactors for increasing the success of farmergroups in dissemination. Although capacity didnot show up in the regression model as animportant contributor to group success, it wasshown through other evidence to be an importantfactor in dissemination by farmer groups. This isan important finding for policy- makers, for itemphasizes the importance of building capacityfor rural development. Training farmers not onlyincreases their own capacities, but increases thelikelihood that they will transmit the informationto others.

Farmers in remote, rural areas are often cut offfrom the outside world in terms of roads,communications, marketing, and inputs. Thismakes farmer group linkages very important;they are often a connection to the rest of theworld, or at least to markets, information orinputs. It is often easier for projects, churches,and governments to connect with farmersthrough organized groups such as the dairy-goatgroups in this project. It is, therefore, importantto promote grass-roots organizations at thecommunity level not only in order to increase thecapacity of farmers and help with marketing, but


60

also to facilitate the dissemination of informationand technologies.

Groups do play an important role in extensionand should, therefore, be used to helpdisseminate information and technologies. Mostfarmers in the Meru area were involved in sometype of group or other. In addition to the varioustypes of farmer groups, there were also churchgroups, women’s groups, water groups, andsavings and loan groups. Groups are an efficientway to target rural people in areas where suchsocial capital is high.

One recommendation therefore is to use farmergroups for dissemination within the context of apluralistic extension model. Groups are not asilver bullet for extension; they are one actor thatcan play an important role. To do this, however,groups need to have linkages with other playersas well as training and support from governmentsand/or projects. The important linkages in thisstudy were the government extension, the NGOFARM-Africa, and the farmer association MeruGoat Breeders’Association. Mechanisms mustbe put in place to link such extension playerswith local community groups.

Not all parts of the world have such high socialcapital in the form of farmer groups as Kenyadoes. Even parts of Kenya do not traditionallyhave the rich variety of community associationssuch as those in Meru. In such areas, it isimportant to provide an enabling environment forgroups to form. This can be done throughworking with other actors. For instance, inKenya, the Ministry of Gender, Culture andSocial Services (which works with socialgroups), the local chiefs, and churches could beused to assist groups to form or to contactestablished groups.

Policy-makers should facilitate non-threateningways for farmers to register groups through thesevarious institutions in areas where illiteracy,physical distance and fear of government maykeep farmers from registering groups. Also, theestablishment of a clearinghouse and/or standardoperating procedure whereby groups can obtaindevelopment assistance, and development playerscan identify established groups to take part inprojects. Finally, mechanisms should be put inplace for coordination between developmentplayers and farmer groups that will prevent

duplication of efforts and alienation ofmarginalized farmers.

Based upon the results of this study, the authorstherefore make the following recommendationsto practitioners and policy makers: 1. Use farmer groups for dissemination purposes,

within the context of a pluralistic extensionenvironment.

2. Provide capacity building in the form oftraining, cross-visits, agricultural shows andother mechanisms to build the capacity offarmers and groups. At the same time, buildin sustainability and empower groups to “go iton their own” eventually.

3. Focus on key individuals within groups fortraining; in the case of the dairy-goat groups,the buck keepers, breeders, and communityanimal health workers.

4. Increase linkages of groups with outsideentities from whom they can learn and towhom they can disseminate information andtechnologies.

5. If established groups are not available, focuson common interests of group members whenforming groups.

6. Provide an enabling environment for groups toform by working with the various governmentdepartments, local officials, projects andchurches, to facilitate non-threatening ways forfarmers to register groups through theseinstitutions.

7. Establish a clearinghouse and/or standardoperating procedure whereby groups canobtain development assistance, anddevelopment players can identify establishedgroups to take part in projects.

AcknowledgementKristin Davis would like to thank the UnitedStates Agency for International Development(USAID) Scientific Liaison Office for fundingher research.

June 2004

61

References

Agrawal, A. & Goyal, S. 2001, ‘Group size and collective action: Third-party monitoring in common-poolresources,’ Comparative Political Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 63-93.

Eponou, T. 1996, ‘Partners in technology generation and transfer: Linkages between research and farmersorganizations in three selected African countries,’ ISNAR Research Report No. 9, The Hague, Netherlands.

Franzel, S., Cooper, P. & Denning, G. L. 2001, ‘Scaling up the benefits of agroforestry research: Lessonslearned and research challenges,’ Development in Practice, vol.11, no. 4, pp. 524-534.

Gautam, M. 2000, Agricultural extension: The Kenya experience. An impact evaluation, The World Bank,Washington, DC.

Kaberia, B., Garforth, C., Franzel, S., Musyoka, M, Murithi, D. & Nyang’au, I. 2003, ‘Results of questionnaireinterviews,’ Presentation at the farmer-to-farmer research meeting, 29-30 October 2003, Transit Hotel,Chogoria, Kenya.

Meru Central District Development Plan. 2002, Effective management for sustainable economic growth andpoverty reduction, 2002-2008, Republic of Kenya Ministry of Finance and Planning, Nairobi, Kenya.

Misiko, M. 2000, The potential of community institutions in dissemination and adoption of agriculturaltechnologies in Emuhaya, Western Kenya, Thesis draft, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.

Morton, J. Coulter, J., Miheso, V. Staal, S., Kenjanjui, M. & Tallontire, A. 2002, ‘Provision of agriculturalservices through co-operatives and self-help groups in the Kenyan dairy sub-sector,’ Draft Report to DFID(Research Project R6117). Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, UK.

Noordin, Q., Niang, A., Jama, B. and Nyasimi, M. 2001, ‘Scaling up adoption and impact of agroforestrytechnologies: Experiences from western Kenya,’ Development in Practice, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 509-523.

Place, F., Kariuki, G., Wangila, J., Kristjanson, P., Makauki, A. & Ndubi, J. 2002, February, ‘Assessing thefactors underlying differences in group performance: Methodological issues and empirical findings from thehighlands of central Kenya,’ Paper presented at the CAPRi workshop on Methodologies for StudyingCollective Action, Nyeri, Kenya.

Republic of Kenya. 2001, Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper for the Period 2001-2004. Volume 1, Ministry ofFinance and Planning, Nairobi, Kenya.

Stringfellow, R., Coulter, J., Lucey, T., McKone, C. & Hussain, A. 1997, ‘Improving the access of smallholdersto agricultural services in sub-Saharan Africa: Farmer cooperation and the role of the donor community,’Natural Resource Perspectives 20. Overseas Development Institute.

Notes

i In this study, jealousy (roritho in Kimeru) refers to the feelings of rivalry and envy between people or groups,and the state of being desirous of another’s advantages.

ii In the project, there were groups that were formally part of the project, called “FARM” groups, and those thatformed later on their own, called “extension” groups. Both FARM-Africa and government extension wereinvolved with both groups; the terms were simply used to distinguish the two.


62

1. Introduction.

The chairgroup Communication and InnovationStudies is successor to the department ofExtension Education set up in 1964 by professorAnne Van den Ban. The change of title indicatesa shift of focus from ‘advisory communication’to the role of communication in more generalterms during processes of change. At the root ofthis are all kinds of changes in conceptualthinking, some of which are linked to hugechanges in context. Starting with the latter, it isclear that -in the Netherlands and elsewhere- therole of agriculture in rural society has become anincreasingly controversial issue (Marsden, 1995).More and more interest groups have entered thedebates about the use of land and rural space.Where increasing productivity and income inagriculture were once the central concerns, wenow increasingly discuss matters likemultifunctional land use, ecological services,food safety and the management of productionchains. Difficult balances need to be struckconstantly between competing goals and valuesin society. Against this background -and also dueto developments within the discipline itself- ourthinking about the two main concepts alluded toin the title of the present group -communicationand innovation- has changed significantly.

Evolving thinking about communication

During the early years of Extension Educationwe had a rather mechanical and isolated idea ofcommunication processes. At the time wethought in terms of individual senders andreceivers who exchanged messages (i.e.transferred knowledge) through channels andmedia. If a message did not get across or was notunderstood, then ‘interference’ or ‘static’ wastaken to be the cause. It soon became clear,however, that things were more complicated thanthis. Especially the idea that a message had afixed meaning was found to be debatable. Thereceivers’ interpretation of a message was usuallyquite different from that of the sender. This wascaused not so much by ‘noise’ as by the fact thatthe sender and the receivers had very differentframes of reference and prior knowledge. If asender wanted to get a certain message across, itwas concluded, they had to enter into thelifeworld of the receiver and had to be preparedto listen as well as send (Van den Ban, 1974;Dervin, 1981; Röling & Engel, 1990). Althoughthis way of thinking was a big improvement,there were still some shortcomings. It frequentlyoccurred that senders were doing their very bestto anticipate the receivers’ lifeworld, only to seethem almost refuse to understand the message.

June 2004

Fields of Conflict and Castles in the Air*. Some Thoughts and Observations on the Role ofCommunication in Public Sphere Innovation Processes

Cees Leeuwis

Building on the tradition of agricultural extension, this article discusses several changes in thinkingregarding the relations between communication and innovation. Starting from the idea that network building,social learning and conflict management are key processes to be supported by communication professionals,the article makes critical observations regarding dominant forms of participatory practice, innovation policyand privatisation of research and extension. Subsequently, the paper discusses the implications of theproposed modes of thinking for the role of scientists in innovation processes. It is argued that a key role ofscientists is to explicate implicit assumptions, claims and knowledge gaps in social learning processes, and toengage in collaborative research with societal stakeholders on a coherent set of natural and social sciencequestions. The proposed conceptual models and observations eventually lead to the formulation of a researchagenda for the field of Communication and Innovation Studies.J Agr Educ Ext (2004, 10, 2, pp 63-76)

63

Cees Lewis

Despite all kinds of communicative efforts bygovernment and industry, for example, Dutchfarmers still have a rather negative perceptionabout policies aimed at, for example, reducingmineral application or stimulating naturedevelopment, while consumers are not verywilling to adapt their views regardingbiotechnology. In these cases, it is not so much aquestion of incomprehension or lack of effectivecommunication, but rather of an active and moreor less purposeful maintaining of a difference inperception. In light of these kinds of experienceswe now regard communication as a phenomenonin which those involved construct meanings(Leeuwis, 1993; Te Molder, 1995). Differences ininterpretation have to do not only with differentprior knowledge but also with other contextualissues such as the historically grown relationshipbetween the communicating parties,configurations of interests, and also the influenceof other actors not directly involved in theinteraction. In short, meanings come about -areactively constructed- in a complex context, andare not neutral. And communication is notsomething that necessarily brings people closertogether or aids in problem-solving, but it canalso add to incomprehension and the creation andup-keep of problems and conflicts (Aarts, 1998).So far some of the changes in thinking aboutcommunication.

Evolving thinking about innovation andchange.

Over the years, ideas about innovation andchange have also evolved considerably. Theoriginal hypothesis that innovations aredeveloped by scientists, disseminated throughextension and education and then put intopractice by farmers and the public is called thelinear innovation model, and has been refuted bymany (Kline & Rosenberg, 1986; Röling, 1994;Rip, 1995). When one analyses successfulinnovation processes in retrospect, it is apparentthat many ideas originate from practicalexperience and that the role of science is oftenlimited.

Not only have the ideas about the origin ofinnovation changed, but also the ideas about whatan innovation actually is are susceptible totransformation. During the early years ofExtension Education, an innovation was regardedas something simple: a new type of plough or a

new food product, for example. Moreover, theidea was that an innovation was either adopted orrejected by an individual, depending on all kindsof social conditions, among other things (Rogers,1962; Van den Ban, 1974). It was thought that anew crop variety, for instance, could only besuccessful on the condition that certain input andoutput markets were adequately organised.Nowadays, we look at innovation differently. Inthe first place we recognise that innovations -even when considered solely from a technicalperspective- are not one-dimensional, but mustbe viewed as large collections of partialinnovations. Secondly, we no longer regard thesocial and organisational conditions as externaland static, but rather as integral parts of anyinnovation. Innovations do not just consist of newtechnical arrangements, but also of new socialand organisational arrangements, such as newrules, perceptions, procedures, agreements andsocial relationships (see e.g Van Schoubroeck,1999). Thus, innovation depends almost alwayson multiple stakeholders, which implies that it isnot very useful to look at ‘adoption’ assomething that happens at an individual level (aswe thought in the past). What is important are theco-ordination and interdependencies betweenpeople. In line with Dirk Roep’s (2000)dissertation, therefore, I would like to defineinnovation as ‘a new pattern of co-ordinationbetween people, technical devices and naturalphenomena’ (see also Smits, 2000 for a similardefinition).

Finally, the thinking about innovation as aprocess has also changed dramatically over thepast decades. In former days there was a strongbelief in the possibility of planning andpredicting change and innovation. In contrast, wenow see that change is affected by complex inter-dependencies, fundamental uncertainties, chaos,unintended consequences, conflicts andunpredictable interactions that cannot beunderstood from a reductionistic perspective(Prigogine & Stengers, 1990, Holling, 1995). Inconnection with this, innovation processes arelooked at nowadays from an evolutionaryperspective. The idea is essentially that a varietyof innovations and innovation processes competein a dynamic selection environment in which the‘best fitting’ survives (Bijker et al., 1987;Rotmans et al., 2001).

Against the background of these conceptual


64

transformations there have, naturally, also beenradical changes in our ideas about the linksbetween communication and innovation. Thework of my predecessors Niels Röling and CeesVan Woerkum speaks volumes in this regard.The focus has shifted from using communicationas a means to transfer and effectuate knowledge,innovations and policies developed from the topdown, to the study and organisation ofcommunication and interaction in order toarrive at common starting-points, fitting andacceptable innovations and cogent policies.Thus, our ideas about the role of communicationhave undergone a 180-degree change indirection. Participation thus became an ever moreimportant subject in research and in practice(Röling, 1996; Röling & Wagemakers, 1998;Van Woerkum, 1997).

2. A closer look at processes of communicationand innovation.

If we understand innovation as ‘a new pattern ofco-ordination between people, technical devicesand natural phenomena’, how should weunderstand innovation processes and what roledoes communication therein? Broadly speaking,there are two ways of dealing with this question.The first is descriptive/analytical: what is theactual role of communication? The second is amore normative approach: what could or shouldthe role of communication be? Both startingpoints are of great interest to our discipline. Onecan only arrive at useful practical insights on thebasis of a solid analytical understanding. Startingfrom a more normative viewpoint, I would like tosuggest -building on the work of many membersof the chairgroup- that three (simultaneous)processes deserve particular attention andcommunicative support.

Network buildingThe first process is that of the building ofnetworks. Innovation requires co-ordinated actionwithin a network of people. Such a network doesnot just spring into existence; it needs to be‘constructed’. And because renewal andinnovation are at issue here, it will be evidentthat there is often a need for the forging of newrelationships, both in terms of the partiesinvolved and in terms of content (Engel, 1995),and for using these to expand windows ofopportunity. This may sound simple, but it oftenproves rather difficult.

Social learningAt the same time that the building of a network istaking place, something that can be described asa social learning process must also occur. Thismeans that the parties involved slowly developoverlapping -or at least complementary - goals,insights, interests and starting-points (Röling,2002), and also build mutual trust and feelings ofdependence and responsibility. This is not‘learning’ in the sense of ‘knowledge transfer’ or‘teaching’; rather it is about the development ofdifferent perspectives on reality throughinteraction with others. It is not just a question ofcognitions about the natural and physical worldbut also of perceptions regarding one’s ownaspirations, abilities, responsibilities and spacefor maneouvre, and of other people’s views ofreality (see Figure 1). Exploration of differentperspectives is vital in such a learning processbecause it is a very important route to‘reframing’ (Gray, 1997): learning to look at asituation and one’s role in it in a different way.

Figure 1: Different areas of perception(reflecting simultaneously reasons for action)that may be subject to ‘learning’ i.e.perceptual change (adapted and expandedfrom Röling, 2002).

NegotiationA third process is that of negotiation and conflictmanagement. Innovation implies changes in thestatus quo, which is always accompanied byfriction and tension, especially in the case ofinnovations that go further than just optimisationwithin established frameworks and goals. Suchinnovations, which are characterised by theletting-go of existing starting points, goals andassumptions are also known as ‘systeminnovations’ or ‘transitions’ (Rotmans et al.,2001; Geels, 2002). This kind of innovation andchange brings with it, by definition, conflicts ofinterest between the parties involved and also

June 2004

65

with the established social and technologicalsystem or ‘regime’ that in many ways needs to be‘conquered’ (Rip, 1995). In order to deal withsuch tensions, and in order to make newagreements and social arrangements, negotiationis essential. Preferably integrative negotiationbased on a social learning process (Aarts, 1998).

In view of the above, these three processesshould guide and direct communicativeintervention aimed at supporting innovation. Thismeans that communications experts must lendtheir support to a large number of tasks that canbe derived from theories about network building,social learning and negotiation. Tasks that are ofgreat importance from the point of view of sociallearning might be: making the invisible visible,organising comparisons between differentcontexts, setting up experiments and facilitatingexploration. A variety of communicative methodsexist to support all this, ranging from dialogueand discussion techniques to model-basedexplorations (see Leeuwis with Van den Ban,2004). In addition, negotiation literatureemphasises tasks such as the making and keepingprocedural agreements, joint research anduncertainty reduction, guiding the give-and-takeprocess, communication with constituencies andmonitoring the observance of any agreementsreached (Van Meegeren & Leeuwis, 1999).

It is interesting to note that, based on theoriesabout networks building, social learning andnegotiation, one can deduce a number ofconditions and circumstances which affect theprobability of achieving a productive innovationprocess. Learning, for example, costs time andenergy and often fosters uncertainty (Aarts &Van Woerkum, 2002). It is, therefore, somethingthat people only tend to do under certaincircumstances. In order to engage in learning,people need to experience a serious problem, forexample, preferably one that is urgent andvisible. It is also important that people areconfident that their learning will bear fruit, andthat their social environment welcomes and givesspace to a different perspective (Martijn &Koelen, 1999; Leeuwis, 2002). Negotiationliterature also provides important pre-conditions,such as the insight that productive negotiation isonly possible between parties who feel dependenton one another for solving a problematicsituation (Aarts, 1998), which implies that,among other things, a certain balance of power

exists. In other words, it is not possible to simplystart or create an interactive innovation processfrom any situation.

3. Some observations regarding currentpractice

When we look at the day-to-day practice ofinnovation and communication from the aboveformulated perspective, what do we see? What ismost striking? The following observations arelimited mainly to communication and innovationin so far as they concern publicly formulatedgoals, such as sustainability, development,management of natural resources, healthpromotion, etcetera.

The need to reflect on pre-conditions

As has been touched upon in the precedingsection, the stimulation of interactive innovationprocesses is not always useful or likely to besuccesful, as certain pre-conditions may not bemet. In practice we see that there is not muchheed being paid to this, however. At times onegets the impression that everything nowadaysmust happen in as participatory and interactive afashion as possible. Regardles of any pre-conditions, we see that every effort is made tobring all the different stakeholders togetheraround the table or ‘under the tree’ in order forthem to undergo a learning process together. Insome cases participative trajectories have evenbecome a fixed part of a bureaucratic formula. InAfrica, for example, almost every rural projectmust begin with a standard selection ofprocedures, such as doing a ‘transect walk’,drawing up a ‘seasonal calendar’, and engagingin various ‘ranking’ exercises. Project workers doit because it has to be done and the communitieshave become used to it, often having resultsready more or less off the shelf. In short, allkinds of rituals lacking any real content,influence or critical dialogue are frequentlyadhered to (Eyben & Ladbury, 1995; Graig &Porter, 1997; Pijnenburg, 2004). But even whenthe intentions of the intervening parties are morecarefully considered, we can see that the qualityof social learning and negotiation processes oftenleaves much to be desired. We frequentlywitness, for example, that in-depth exploration isoften a non-starter, that conflicts and issues ofpower are not brought to light, that results end upin the metaphorical ‘bottom drawer’, or that


66

unattractive psuedo-compromises are reachedwhich are then ignored by those involved(Leeuwis, 2000). All this is caused not only by alack of ability on the part of the processfacilitators but also by the fact that vital pre-conditions have not been met. There is often alack of real institutional and politicalmanoeuvring space, certain crucial stakeholdersdo not experience a problem, or the differentstakeholders do not feel dependent on oneanother (Aarts, 1998). Under such conditions, thetime is not (yet) ripe for an interactive innovationprocess and it would be much more useful -fromthe point of view of intervention- to try to createbetter conditions for such a process with the aidof more traditional (policy)instruments (VanWoerkum, 1990).With the aid of rule-making,political pressure, financial incentives andpersuasive campaigns, for example, a feeling ofinterdependence can be fostered among thestakeholders in a river-basin, creating thereby abasis for a serious discussion about waterdistribution and utilisation. All this implies that itis time to move on from the idea that ‘top-down’intervention and an interactive approach aremutually exclusive routes towards change andinnovation; a concept which has becomedominant in professional practice. Before, duringand after an interactive innovation trajectories,strategic interventions can be extremely useful,while leadership and the taking on ofresponsibility are indispensable.

Knowledge policy or innovation policy?

Even though the ideas about innovation and therole of knowledge therein have changeddramatically, many researchers and advisors allover the world are still working according to anoutdated task model. Attention is mostly focusedon the technical side of the equation, that is, thedeveloping and transferring of technicalknowledge and devices. Issues such as processmanagement and the creation of coherencebetween social and technological arrangementsreceive relatively little attention. In manycountries, the emphasis is still on knowledgetransfer and knowledge policy rather than oninnovation policy. In the Netherlands we witnessa rather remarkable situation in this respect. TheMinistry of Agriculture, Nature Conservationand Fisheries produced a document oninnovation policy in 2001, containing manyvaluable ideas about innovation and change

(Ministerie van LNV, 2001), but everydaypolicy practice within important policy domainsseems to have little relation with this. On thesubject of mineral management policy, forexample, we can see that policy and projectdocuments are full to bursting with ‘knowledgedevelopment’, ‘knowledge transfer’ and‘knowledge dissemination’, while lack oftechnical expertise is actually of secondaryimportance in the case of this particular issue.It is much more a question of troubled relations,lack of agreement and a lack of coherence andco-ordination in the social network of whichfarmers are a part. These matters, however, donot really receive any explicit attention, partlybecause it does not fit into the mandate or roleconception of the extension organisations andresearch institutes involved in the policyimplementation. In all, there seems to be a lackof congruence between innovation policy andknowledge policy.

Paradoxes of the ‘knowledge market’

Despite the fact that role conceptions have notchanged very much, there is visible movement inother areas of the knowledge infrastructure. Allover the globe there are experiments beingcarried out with the privatisation of agriculturaladvisory services and with making researchorganisations independent from the state (Rivera& Zijp, 2002). One could say that a ‘knowledgemarket’ is being created. Its exact features differfrom country to country. In most casesgovernment agencies remain an important playeron the market; thankfully governments still fundresearch and extension services on behalf ofpublic issues. But an important change from thepast is that research and extension organisationsnow have to compete in order to get access tothese funds. The main intention in all this is thata ‘knowledge market’ will lead to a betterbalance between the ‘supply’ of and ‘demand’for knowledge (Rivera & Gustafson, 1991; Umali& Schwarz, 1994). The term ‘demand-drivenservice provision’ has become a magic phrase.Looking at the effects of this situation, it isevident that there is a shift towards the servicingof well-funded customers and questions,especially in areas regarded by government as‘private’ (Kidd et al., 2000; Hanson & Just, 2001;Katz, 2002). When it comes to public issues, therole of governments -as financiers- in definingrelevant questions is often quite large, which is

June 2004

67

somewhat strange in light of all the rhetoricabout demand-orientation.

What interests me most in view of the issue ofinnovation is the question of how new forms offunding influence the dynamics of innovationprocesses in the public interest. That is, processesof network building, learning and negotiation inprecisely those situations where accepted solutionsand ready-made knowledge products do not yetexist. If, for example, we examine the Dutch‘knowledge market’ in the area of agriculture andrural resource management from this perspective,a number of remarkable features come to the fore:

Restrictions in knowledge exchangeDespite the fact that innovation processes benefitin theory from openness and the exchange ofknowledge between the different parties, wehave seen that co-operation between thoseinvolved in the knowledge network has becomeless self-evident. In the agricultural sector, theapplied research and extension organisationshave grown apart because of competitionbetween them. There are also clear signs thatfarmers and horticulturists have become lessopen when taking part in study groups, partlybecause they have to pay more and more forknowledge (Oerlemans et al., 1997). Lastly, theco-operation and exchange between the variouspublicly-funded projects – which are carried outby competing agencies – are often far fromoptimal. It should also be noted that theseprojects often have a limited life-span and havedifferent starting and completion dates, making itdifficult to link one to another. There is not muchleft of the famous -though by no means perfect-Dutch triptych of agricultural research, extensionand education.

A lack of space for innovation A second paradox is that -in order to be able touse a tendering system- the government mustdefine (or have others define) fairly preciselywhat it wants in return for the money it providesfor extension and research in the public interest.Concrete ‘outputs’ must be put down on paper.This provides a lot of clarity to projectimplementers with regard to the number ofworking days available and the activities to becarried out, but can be very limiting ininnovation processes. One essential characteristicof learning and negotiation processes inmultiple-stakeholder situations is that it is

impossible to predict beforehand what the resultswill be and which directions for searching forsolutions will be agreed upon. Room tomanoeuvre and flexibility are needed -not least interms of the application of funds- but it hasbecome apparent that this is not so easy to realisein the case of output-oriented financing. Definingoutputs beforehand can also lead easily to acertain level of inertia in areas for which outputshave not yet been defined. To put it bluntly,activities that are commonly understood as beingrelevant are left undone because nobody canjustify and allocate the necessary man-hours interms of the contracts available.

Some nuances and reservations need to beexpressed here. In their classic article‘Demythologising planned intervention’, Long &Van der Ploeg (1989) already pointed out thathuge differerences often exist between projectdocuments and everyday practice. Should weconclude, then, that there is no real problemsince everyday practice is less controllable thanis portrayed, and/or because more degrees offreedom exist than is suggested by formaldocuments, contracts, and the like? I think thatthis would be an erroneous conclusion. The factthat things happen differently in practice to whatis planned beforehand does not necessarily meanthat what is put down on paper has no influenceon what happens. This is especially apparentwhen one studies the communicative interactionsbetween people in the context of projects andactivities with output-oriented funding. In suchinteractions people refer constantly to what is onpaper, especially when arguments for or againstthe taking of certain courses of action are sought.Substantive issues and challenges to innovationare not taken up, for example, under the pretextthat they fall outside the mandate or the timespecifications of the contract, or that they donot fit with the previously agreed budgetdivisions. In project communications to outsiderswe see that – in view of efforts to secure futurefunding – mostly positive experiences aredescribed and expanded on, while problems andfailures are not mentioned, even though manyvaluable lessons can be learned from these(Argyris & Schön, 1996; Dörner, 1996). We alsosee that monitoring and evaluation systems areoften aimed at gathering information on formalgoals and results, while a treasure trove ofexperience and information about processes andinformal goals remain untapped.


68

In all we see that, with reference to what hasbeen put down on paper, all sorts of selectionsare made and legitimised that lead to thereduction of the capacity to learn, and that alsocontribute to a situation where commissionersdevelop and retain a completely skewed image ofwhat occurs in actual practice (Wagemans,1998). Apart from this, managing all kinds ofdiscrepancies requires enormous energy, not leastfrom the people who find themselves betweenthose who supply the funding and those carryingout the work (including, for example, processfacilitators and university professors).

Transaction costsIn line with the above, a third interesting fact isthat the stimulation of innovation processesthrough a ‘knowledge market’ and ‘output-oriented funding’ is often accompanied by large -sometimes vast- transaction costs. It is certainlynot an easy task, and especially so for farmersand citizens, to get funding for a good innovativeidea. One must ensure that the idea is definedsomewhere as an output and then do everythingin one’s power in order to get an opportunity totender for one’s own idea. Millions of eurosworth of man-hours are committed to presentingso-called ‘business plans’ to the Dutchgovernment’s innovation programmes and tothose of the European Union. Project offices andconsultants -referred to by farmers as the ‘suit-and-tie culture’ (Aarnink, pers. comm.)- aredoing well out of it, but it has proven to beextremely difficult to link the course of thesekinds of programmes (characterised by a longslow preamble, a few years in which everythingmust be completed, and then a return toinactivity) to the dynamics of already existinginnovation initiatives in society. The realisationthat innovation processes are really all about newforms of co-ordination between different societalagents must lead us to conclude that innovationtakes place primarily within society itself and notwithin the artificial boundaries of a project orprogramme. These boundaries can be very usefulbut must not be given a central role, though thisis all too often what happens.

ConclusionThe preceding observations lead to the questionof whether innovation in the public arena shouldreally be supported in the form of a ‘market’. Thecurrent arrangements are, in any case, attendedby risks in the areas of co-operation, coherence,

learning ability and pro-activeness. In my view,the problem starts already with the very idea of a‘supply’ of and ‘demand’ for knowledge. Theseterms suggest immediately that there issomebody seeking knowledge and somebodysupplying it, with the former having to pay thelatter. This may perhaps work in the case ofalready tested and available advice andinnovations, but not in a situation where newsocio-technical innovations have to bedeveloped1. In the latter contexts importantquestions tend to be unclear at the outset, whilemuch of the relevant knowledge is still implicit,even if it is certain that many stakeholders haverelevant knowledge to contribute. In other words,it is impossible to say who should pay whom andfor what. In short, the idea of a ‘knowledgemarket’ is based on an overly simplistic andexplicit conceptualisation of knowledge and alsoon a much too one-dimensional view: the‘market’ is mainly oriented to substantiveknowledge and not to other forms of perceptionand cognition that are important in an innovationcontext.

In the following section, I will set aside thepractical obstacles signalled above and focusattention on the possible roles of scientists ininnovation processes.

4. Knowledge and the role of the scientist ininnovation

In innovation processes we are essentially facedwith the challenge of linking all kinds of forms,domains, sources, and bearers of bothknowledge and ignorance to one another. Inconnection with this it would be overly simplisticto consider ‘knowledge’ as being only a mentalcapacity. Knowledge and action are two sides ofthe same coin; a lot of knowledge seems to be‘stored’ in our bodies and in the things around us,and is expressed through our actions, without oureven consciously or actively reflecting on it(Giddens, 1984; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995;Scott, 1998). Knowledge is therefore oftenimplicit; a large part of what we think, know, feeland are able to do is difficult to put into words.And even when we are able to articulate incommunication with others- we are usually moreor less strategically selective in the words we use.Knowledge is, in short, an extremely elusivephenomenon. In light of this, how should wedefine the possible role of science? And what

June 2004

69

about the relationship between the natural andthe social sciences?

Before addressing these questions, it is perhapsimportant to establish what we understand by theterm ‘science’. I would characterise scientificresearch as a subculture in which muchimportance is given to the development oforiginal, valid and credible conclusions aboutreality. Within the scientific community all kindsof epistemological subdivisions exist, becauselarge differences also exist between variousgroups of scientists regarding the way in whichthey arrive at their conclusions and the kinds ofpronouncements that they make (Knorr-Cetina,1992). For this reason I prefer to use the phrase‘scientists’ knowledge’ rather than ‘scientificknowledge’.

Role perception from an innovationperspective

Scientists in the domain of agriculture andnatural-resource management often have to dealwith complex connections between technical,ecological, economic and social systems. Thereis much unpredictability and uncertainty andthere are divergent values and interests at issue.This is precisely the kind of situation in whichthe philosophers Funtowicz & Ravetz (1993)argue for a post-normal approach to science,instead of a strategy in which science is onlyapplied for the ‘solving of puzzles’ or the givingof situation-specific advice. With post-normalscience, the scientists themselves are intenselyinvolved in societal processes, discussions andinnovation. In other words, in processes ofnetwork building, social learning andnegotiation.

In such contexts, the reaching of an agreementbetween the parties is often hampered by a lackof insight into certain issues or because there is ahigh level of uncertainty in technical and/orsocial areas. It is also possible that the availableinsights are not sufficiently explicit. All kinds ofimplicit claims to knowledge, assumptions andknowledge gaps are concealed in anycommunication between the parties. It can beimportant to make these explicit and open todiscussion in order to assist the advance of aninnovation process. This is not at all an easy taskand will never be completely successful. Notonly process facilitators but also scientists from

various disciplines can play an important role inthis respect. One may expect scientists to have acertain sensitivity regarding implicitassumptions, claims and knowledge gaps in theirown areas of expertise. A serious dialoguebetween scientists and societal stakeholders, inwhich the different parties have the opportunityto ask each other difficult questions, cancontribute to making explicit previously implicitissues. If knowledge gaps also arise during thisdialogue then the presence of researchers willnaturally be helpful in developing answers withthe aid of research. From the point of view ofnegotiation, conducting joint research is mostrelevant. That is; research in which variousstakeholders are involved closely in therefinement of research questions, the choice ofmethods and the fixing of the research location (alaboratory, an experimental station, a computermodel or a field situation). It is important notonly to generate answers, but also to assure thatthe parties involved have confidence in theresults. In addition, collaboration in carrying outresearch can contribute to an improvement in therelationship between the stakeholders involved(Van Meegeren & Leeuwis, 1999).

This does not imply, however, that nothingremains of the individual responsibility andautonomy of the researcher. Here it is relevant tonote that a crucial trigger for social learning isfeedback (Kolb, 1984; Heymann, 1999). Ininnovation processes, therefore, both natural andsocial scientists can stimulate learning processesby providing -more or less confrontational-feedback at their own discretion. They canprovide not only insights based on research withreference to a specific situation but also thosegleaned elsewhere, or they can make projectionsabout the future or point to radically differenttechnological or social solutions.

The status of knowledge contributed byscientists

Some natural (and also social) scientists mayhave winced when reading the above. Not somuch because I attribute a somewhat modest roleto scientific researchers in innovation processes -many natural scientists are far more modestabout their role than at times portrayed by socialscientists- but because I have given very littleattention to the role of scientists as ‘referees’ insituations where conflicting views on reality are


70

at issue. Is it not the task of science to bringthe truth to light? In my experience, manynatural scientists feel threatened by the ideathat reality is something that is constructed.It could, after all, lead to a situation where thescientist’s perspective is pushed aside as beingjust one of the many equally valid views onreality! This is not what I am advocating.It seems to me that it remains possible andimportant to differentiate between sense andnonsense, and between more and less well-founded views on reality. In my opinion, theessence of constructivism is not so much thatevery truth is relative but rather that every truthhas its limits and also that in everyday lifeneutral truths do not exist.

When, for example, a laboratory experimentshows a link between the presence of the nitrogenfixating bacteria Rhizobium and crop growth,this can lead to a conclusion that is valid withinthe context of the experiment. That is to say:given a particular type of soil, particularclimatological conditions, a particular labourinput, a particular form of crop protection, aparticular planting date, etcetera. In other words,the conclusions drawn from the experiment areonly valid within the limits of its context. Manyof the conditions outside the laboratory and/orexperimental station will most probably be quitedifferent. When knowledge that is valid within acertain local context (the laboratory orexperimental station in this example) istransplanted directly into a different local context(an agricultural region, for example) there arebound to be problems. Scientific knowledge toois a form of local knowledge.

One important aspect of such local specificity isconnected with my second point; namely, the factthat neutral truths do not exist. This has to dowith the fact that a particular research initiative isusually brought about by a particular issue. Thequestion of whether there is a link between thepresence of Rhizobium and crop growth is not atall a neutral one, but arises from a certainproblem perception and is therefore linked tosocial aims. It is not a question that is likely to bebrought up by the fertilizer industry but it islikely to be asked by organic farmers anddevelopment organisations. And if questions arenot neutral, then the answers will not be either.Answers are used by people as ‘weapons’ in a‘struggle’ with other interests; so it matters which

questions scientists try to formulate answers to,and for which ones they do not.

In a nutshell, scientists have to realise that theirknowledge has a local character and is notneutral. In connection with this Alroe &Kristensen (2002) argue for a ‘reflexivelyobjective science’ in which scientists not onlyrealise this but make it explicit and transparent.In other words, scientists should be expected toopen up the hidden dimensions of their ownresearch questions and knowledge to discussion.Such transparency does not mean that scientistswill become politicians. The opposite is true, infact. When scientists are clear about underlyingsocial values and goals it can only become moreobvious that coflicts of interest cannot be settledby scientists and that it is up to societalstakeholders, authorities and politicians to judgethe value of the different view points and to makedecisions.

Working across disciplinary boundaries

The foregoing is also connected with the mannerin which co-operation between social and naturalscientists can take shape. The essential point herein my opinion, is that natural and social scientistsinfluence and refine one another’s assumptions,research questions and action plans. In otherwords, it is about putting the most relevantnon-neutral questions on the agenda. These canalso be very ‘fundamental’ questions. Oneexample of such mutual influencing can be takenfrom the ‘Convergence of Sciences’ project inwhich nine doctoral students are being guidedby both natural and social scientists fromWageningen University and universities in Ghanaand Benin.

In an initial investigative stage of this project, theresearchers in Ghana came across a complexcrop-rotation system in which farmers attributedsoil-fertility enhancing properties to a certainvariety of cassava. This was interesting, becauseit ran directly counter to the accepted theory thatcassava actually exhausts the soil. Doctoralstudent Samuel Adjei Nsiah set out to examinethis system in greater depth and, where possible,improve it. Spurred on by his interest in thesocial aspects of this innovation, he eventuallydiscovered that the rotation system is mainlyapplied by the native population of the area andnot by the migrants who come from the north of

June 2004

71

Ghana. The latter are aware of the system butusually cannot apply it because they own no landand the locals will only agree to short-termleasing contracts. The latter, then, is associatedwith specific attitudes to money, inflation, theland tenure system, mutual distrust and with therole played by the local authorities (Adjei Nsiahet al., forthcoming). This example illustratesonce again that diversity within communities isan important subject (Van der Ploeg, 1994;Hebinck & Ruben, 1998). We can also see that -from the point of view of the migrants- there islittle advantage to be gained if the naturalscientists concentrate solely on the furtherdevelopment of the multi-year rotation system, atleast as long as nothing changes regarding theissue of contracts between landowners andtenants. It would, perhaps, be more useful tosearch together with the migrants for single-yearintercropping systems that would have animmediate effect on soil fertility. Furthermore,based on the insights gained, social scientificresearch could be directed towards bringingabout a better understanding of the dilemmasfaced by the native population and the migrantswith reference to land use and leasing contracts,and towards identifying and mobilising, bringingtogether actors and institutions that could helpbreak the deadlock.

Such fine-tuning of natural and social scienceresearch questions is far from standard practice.For a broader application, new organisationalforms, methods and tools for ‘beta/gammascience’ (Röling, 2000) are essential. There isstill scope for immense progress in this area.

5. By means of conclusion: issues for researchand education

What is the significance of the foregoing tofuture research and education in Communicationand Innovation Studies?

Research themesOver the coming years, socio-technicalinnovation processes and the role ofcommunication therein will be a prominenttheme in our research group. It is a researchorientation that is useful not only in the area ofrural development and sustainability but also inthat of, for example, health promotion andagricultural chain management. Five inter-connected research topics stand out:

(1) The construction of (in)coherence: We haveseen that innovation is about the achieving ofeffective co-ordination in a network of people,technical devices and natural phenomena. All thisin the form of a coherent whole of new technicaland social-organisational arrangements. In orderto arrive at this kind of co-ordination andcoherence, it is essential that different forms,kinds and sources of cognition be connectedtogether in a social learning and negotiationprocess. It is important for our field that we beginto better understand how such connections comeinto existence, or do not, and what the role ofcommunication is in all this. One approach toresearching this is to zoom in on the moments ininnovation processes at which certain break-throughs, changes in direction and selectionsoccur, respectively on the moments at which theprocess stagnates. Looking back on episodes inwhich -in retrospect- things ‘went awry’ is also ofinterest. On the basis of a better understanding ofthese kinds of situations, new focus points forprocess facilitation can be formulated as well.

Within this theme the value and influence ofdifferent communicative tools can be studied inconnection with the ways in which they are used.Interesting tools here include, for example,methods for explicating knowledge, methods fordemand articulation, and explorative techniques,including also model-based explorations(Rossing et al., 1999).

(2) Beta/gamma interaction: A second theme,which can be viewed as a special subject withinthe first, is the interaction between natural andsocial scientists, and also the relationshipbetween beta and gamma knowledge. We mustnot only practise beta/gamma co-operation but,as a university department, we must also study it!How do processes of beta/gamma interaction andcommunication evolve in an innovation context,and why do things happen in this way? To whateffect? What is the value of specificcommunicative techniques? This dual interestcan be somewhat of a dilemma. On the one hand,we are often expected to contribute to theshaping of beta/gamma interaction andinteractive processes, and even to play an activefacilitating role. On the other hand, our desire toengage in critical reflection, analysis and theoryformulation regarding such processes,necessitates not only active involvement but alsoa certain amount of critical distance. In my


72

opinion, we should certainly contribute to designof processes, but should leave the actualfacilitation to others, for example, thedepartment’s graduates.

(3) The influence of the ‘knowledge market’ andother institutions. One of the main themes of thisarticle has been that communication on behalf ofinnovation is influenced not only by thebackgrounds of the societal stakeholdersinvolved but also by the manner in whichintervention is integrated into organisational,administrative and/or financial structures. Suchinstitutional influences, therefore, form a thirdresearch theme, within which I would like toemphasise the manner in which the rise of a‘knowledge market’ influences the course ofinnovation processes in the public domain.Comparisons with similar innovation processesin different institutional contexts could be aninteresting research approach in this area.

(4) Alternation between ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ A fourth research theme concerns thealternation between ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’moments and interventions in socio-technicaltransformation processes. How do these to kindsof strategies affect one another in practice? Howdoes this influence different kinds of innovationprocesses in a positive or negative way? Andwhat patterns of alternation are more and lessuseful? This theme is also closely linked to thequestion of the ways in which the processes ofnetwork building, social learning and negotiatonare (or can be) interwoven. Here too the issue ofmore and less productive forms of interaction isof interest.

(5) A methodology for process monitoring.Within the framework of methodologydevelopment, I would like to propose processmonitoring as the fifth research topic. When weassume that processes are impossible to pre-planin any useful manner, then this implies, amongother things, that participants and processfacilitators need to keep a constant eye on howprocesses evolve, and need to be able to respondto emergent developments. But because much ofwhat is happening occurs, by definition, behindthe scenes, the question of how processfacilitators and participants can get a clearerinsight into it is important. The development of afeasible approach and methodology formonitoring the course of learning and negotiation

processes is, therefore, of interest.

For the study of the subjects mentioned above, itis important to develop approaches to researchthrough which innovation processes -that is tosay, processes of network building, sociallearning and negotiation- can be followed anddocumented over time and compared with oneanother.

Developing a new kind of professional

In view of the developments in our thinkingabout communication, innovation and therelations between these phenomena, it is clearthat we need to move beyond the classical‘extension professional’, whose work was mainlyin the area of knowledge transfer, persuasion,providing individual advice and supportinghorizontal knowledge exchange. Although suchareas of activity can still be relevant for purposesof stimulating innovation, they need to becomplemented by the provision of other keycommunicative services which are nottraditionally associated with ‘extension’. Suchservices include the facilitation of networkbuilding, multi-stakeholder learning and conflictmanagement which constitute key processes forarriving at new (and coherent) technical andsocial-organisational arrangements. Thus, weneed to train people to build bridges, people whocan mobilise and link the expertise of naturalscientists, social scientists and societalstakeholders, and who can communicativelysupport complex multi-actor processes in orderto enhance opportunities for arriving at newpatterns of coordinated action. Clearly, thisrequires analytical and practical competenciesthat deviate considerably from those with whomclassical ‘extensionists’ were equipped. AtWageningen University, the MSc programme‘Management of Agro-ecological Knowledge andSocial Change’ (MAKS) is especially tailored todevelop such competencies.

June 2004

73

References

Aarts, M.N.C. (1998) Een kwestie van natuur; een studie naar de aard en het verloop van communicatie overnatuur en natuurbeleid. Dissertation. Landbouwuniversiteit Wageningen, Wageningen.

Aarts, M.N.C. & C.M.J. Van Woerkum (2002) Dealing with Uncertainty in Solving ComplexPproblems. In:Leeuwis, C. & R. Pyburn (Eds) (2002), pp. 421-435.

Adjei Nsiah, S., C. Leeuwis, K. Giller, O. Sakyi-Dawson, J. Cobbina, T. Kuyper, K. Abekoe & W. Van der Werf(forthcoming), Explaining the Differential Uptake of Indigenous Soil Fertility Management Innovations inWenchi, Ghana. Article submitted to the Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science.

Alrøe, H.& E.S. Kristensen (2002), Towards a Systemic Research Methodology in Agriculture: Rethinking theRole of Values in Science. Agriculture and Human Values, 19, 3-23.

Argyris, C. & D.A. Schön (1996) Organizational Learning II. Theory, Method and Practice. Addison-WesleyPublishing, Reading.

Bijker, W., T. Hughes & T. Pinch (Eds) (1987), The Social Construction of Technological Systems. Newdirections in the sociology and history of technology. MIT-Press, Cambridge MA.

Craig, D. & D. Porter (1997) Framing Participation: Development Projects, Professionals and Organisations.Development in Practice, 7, 229-236.

De Grip, K., C. Leeuwis & L.W.A. Klerkx (2003), Ervaringen met het Steunpunt Mineralen concept. Lessenover vraagsturing. Agro Management Tools, Wageningen.

Dervin, B. (1981) Mass Communication: Changing Conceptions of the Audience. In: R.E. Rice & W.J. Paisley(Eds) (1981) Public Communication Campaigns. pp. 71-88. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.

Dörner, D. (1996), The Logic of Failure. Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations. PersuesBooks, Reading MA.

Engel, P.G.H. (1995) Facilitating Innovation. An action-oriented and participatory methodology to improveinnovative social practice in agriculture. Doctoral dissertation. Wageningen Agricultural University,Wageningen.

Eyben, R & S. Ladbury (1995) Popular Participation in Aid-assisted Projects: Why More in Theory than inPractice. In: N. Nelson & S. Wright (1995), Power and Participatory Development. Theory and Practice. pp.192-200. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.

Funtowicz, S.O. & J.R. Ravetz (1993), Science for the Post-Normal Age. Futures, 25, 739-755.Geels, F. (2002) Understanding the Dynamics of Technological Transitions. A co-evolutionary and socio-

technical analysis. Twente University Press, Enschede.Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Polity Press,

Cambridge.Gray, B (1997) Framing and Re-Framing of Intractable Environmental Disputes. Prentice Hall, London.Hanson, J.C. & R.E. Just (2001) The potential for transition to paid extension: Some guiding economic

principles. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83, 777-784.Hebinck, P. & R. Ruben (1998) Rural households and livelihood strategies: straddling farm and nonfarm

activities. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Farming Systems Research and Extension‘Going Beyond the Farm Boundary’, Pretoria, 29 November - 4 December 1998. pp. 876-885.

Heymann, F. (1999) Interpersoonlijke Communicatie. In: C.M.J. Van Woerkum & R.C.F. Van Meegeren (Eds)(1999), pp. 174-194.

Holling, C.S. (1995) What barriers? What bridges? In: Gunderson, L.H., C.S. Holling & S.S. Light (Eds).Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. pp. 3-37. Colombia Press, New York.

Katz, E. (with contributions by A. Barandun) (2002) Innovative Approaches to Financing Extension forAgricultural and Natural Resource Management – Conceptual Considerations and Analysis of Experience.LBL, Swiss Center for Agricultural Extension, Lindau.

Kidd, A.D., J.P.A. Lamers, P.P. Ficarelli & V. Hoffmann (2000) Privatising agricultural extension: CaveatEmptor. Journal of Rural Studies, 16, 95-102.

Kline, S.J. & N. Rosenberg (1986) An overview of innovation. In: R. Landau & N. Rosenberg (Eds) (1986) ThePositive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth. pp. 275-305. National Academic Press,Washington.

Knorr-Cetina, K.D. (1992) The couch, the cathedral, and the laboratory: On the relationship betweenexperiment and laboratory in science. In: A. Pickering (Ed) (1992) Science as Practice and Culture. pp. 113-


74

138. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-

Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Leeuwis, C. (1993) Of Computers, Myths and Modelling: The Social Construction of Diversity, Knowledge,

Information and Communication Technologies in Dutch Horticulture and Agricultural Extension.Wageningen Studies in Sociology, Nr. 36. Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen.

Leeuwis, C. (Ed) (1999). Integral Design: Innovation in Agriculture and Resource Management. 123-143.Mansholt Institute / Backhuys Publishers, Wageningen / Leiden.

Leeuwis, C. (2000) Re-conceptualizing participation for sustainable rural development. Towards a negotiationapproach. Development and Change, 31, 931-959.

Leeuwis, C. & R. Pyburn (Eds) (2002) Wheelbarrows Full of Frogs. Social Learning in Rural ResourceManagement. Royal Van Gorcum, Assen

Leeuwis, C. (2002) Making Explicit the Social Dimensions of Cognition. In: Leeuwis, C. & R. Pyburn (Eds)(2002), pp. 391-406.

Leeuwis, C. with A. Van den Ban (2004, in preparation) Communication for Rural innovation. RethinkingAgricultural Extension. Blackwell Science, Oxford.

Long, N., & J.D. Van der Ploeg (1989) Demythologising planned intervention. Sociologia Ruralis, 29, 226-249.Marsden, T.K. (1995) Beyond agriculture: regulating the new rural spaces. Journal of Rural Studies, 14, 285-

297.Martijn, C. & M.A. Koelen (1999) Persuasieve Communicatie. In: C.M.J. Van Woerkum & R.C.F. Van

Meegeren (Eds) (1999), pp. 78-104. Ministerie van LNV (2001) Innovatie: sleutel tot verandering. LNV innovatiebeleid voor Voedsel en Groen.

Ministerie van LNV, Den Haag.Nonaka I. & H. Takeuchi (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the

Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York / Oxford.Oerlemans, N., J. Proost & J. Rauwhorst (1997) Farmers’ study groups in the Netherlands. In: L. Veldhuizen, A.

Waters-Bayer & R. Ramirez (Eds) (1997) Farmers’ Research in Practice. Lessons from the field. pp. 263-277.Intermediate Technology Publications, London.

Prigogine, I. & I. Stengers (1990), Orde uit chaos: een nieuwe dialoog tussen de mens en de natuur. UitgeverijBert Bakker, Amsterdam.

Pijnenburg, B. (2004, in preparation) Keeping it vague. Discourses and Practices of Participation in RuralMozambique. Draft for doctoral dissertation. Wageningen University, Wageningen.

Rip, A. (1995) Introduction of new technology: making use of recent insights from sociology and economics oftechnology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 7, 417-431.

Rivera, W.M. & D.J. Gustafson (Eds) (1991) Agricultural Extension: Worldwide Institutional Evolution &Forces for Change. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam.

Rivera, W.M. & W. Zijp (Eds) (2002) Contracting for Agricultural Extension. International Case Studies andEmerging Practices. CABI Publishing, Wallingford.

Roep, D (2000) Vernieuwend werken. Sporen van vermogen en onvermogen. Dissertation. WageningenUniversiteit, Wageningen.

Rogers, E.M. (1962) Diffusion of Innovations, 1st edition. Free Press, New York.Röling, N.G. & P.G.H. Engel (1990) IT from a knowledge systems perspective: Concepts and issues.

Knowledge in Society: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer, 3, 6-18.Röling, N.G. (1994) Voorlichting en innovatie. In: Röling, N.G., Kuiper, D. & Janmaat, R. (Eds), Basisboek

voorlichtingskunde. pp. 275-294. Boom, Amsterdam / Meppel. Röling, N.G. (1996) Towards an interactive agricultural science. European Journal of Agricultural Education

and Extension, 2, 35-48.Röling & M.A.E. Wagemakers (Eds) (1998) Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture. Participatory learning and

adaptive management in times of environmental uncertainty. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Röling, N.G. (2000) Gateway to the Global Garden: Beta/Gamma Science for Dealing with Ecological

Rationality. Eight Annual Hopper Lecture, October 24, 2000. University of Guelph, Guelph.Röling, N.G. (2002) Beyond the Aggregation of Individual Preferences. Moving from Multiple to Distributed

Cognition in Resource Dilemmas. In: Leeuwis, C. & R. Pyburn (Eds) (2002), pp. 25-47.Rossing, W.H.A., M.K. Van Ittersum, H.F.M. Ten Berge & C. Leeuwis (1999) Designing Land Use Options and

June 2004

75

Policies. Fostering Co-operation between Kasparov and Deep Blue? In: Leeuwis, C. (Ed) (1999), pp. 49-72. Rotmans, J., R. Kemp & M.B.A. Van Asselt (2001) More evolution than revolution: transition management in

public policy. Foresight, 3, 15-31.Scott, J.C. (1998) Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition have Failed. Yale

University Press, New Haven / London.Smits, R. (2000), Innovatie in de universiteit. Acceptance speech. Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht.Te Molder, H. (1995) Discourse of Dilemmas: An Analysis of Government Communicators’Talk. Doctoral

dissertation. Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen.Umali, D.L. & L. Schwarz (1994) Public and Private Agricultural Extension: Beyond Traditional Boundaries.

World Bank Discussion Paper. World Bank, Washington.Van den Ban, A.W. (1974) Inleiding tot de voorlichtingskunde. Boom, Meppel / Amsterdam.Van der Ploeg, J.D. (1994) Styles of farming: an introductory note on concepts and methodology. In: J.D. Van

der Ploeg & A. Long (Eds) (1994) Born from Within: Practices and Perspectives of EndogenousDevelopment. pp. 7-30. Royal Van Gorcum, Assen.

Van Meegeren, R.C.F. & C. Leeuwis (1999) Towards an Interactive Design Methodology: Guidelines forCommunication. In: C. Leeuwis (Ed) (1999), pp. 205-217.

Van Schoubroeck, F.H.J. (1999) Learning to Fight a Fly: Developing Citrus IPM in Bhutan. Doctoraldissertation. Wageningen University, Wageningen.

Van Woerkum, C.M.J. (1990) Het instrumentele nut van voorlichting in beleidsprocessen. Massacommunicatie,18, 263-278.

Van Woerkum, C.M. J. (1997) Communicatie en interactieve beleidsvorming. Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum,Houten / Diegem.

Van Woerkum, C.M.J. & R.C.F. Van Meegeren (Eds) (1999) Basisboek communicatie en verandering. Boom,Amsterdam / Meppel.

Wagemans, M.C.H. (1998) Geregeld mis. Gedachten over zingeving en reductie binnen het publieke domein.Eburon, Delft.

Note

* This article is a slightly modified and shortened version of the inaugural lecture given by the author on the 24th

of April 2003 on the occasion of his accession to the post of professor of Communication and InnovationStudies at Wageningen University. The author wishes to thank Dr. Noelle Aarts for her invaluable commentson earlier versions of this speech.

1 Neither does it work in the case of advice given in connection with restrictive policies, which are quitecommon in the public arena. For example, with regard to the mineral management policy, there is a lack ofactive demand for knowledge on the part of farmers, which forms a serious obstacle to the achievement of a‘demand-oriented’ market (Katz, 2002; De Grip et al., 2003).


76

Introduction

In order to function successfully in the context ofa multi-functional agriculture, extensioneducators must be technically competent in thevarious disciplines related to agriculture andhighly competent as educational practitioners. Astrong system for training and organizationaldevelopment is essential to ensure that extensioneducators develop programs that are technicallysound, conveniently delivered, economicallyvaluable and customer focused. By developing aset of core competencies for extension educatorsand incorporating those competencies into atraining and organizational development system,the capacity of an extension organization tobetter serve its customers can be enhanced andsustained. The process for developing corecompetencies must be highly participatory. Itmust enable extension employees and volunteersto continuously identify and validate theknowledge, skills, and observable behaviors thatare needed to achieve professional excellence.Competency-based models and the process usedto continuously update and validate such models

must foster an organizational environment ofcontinuous growth and improvement. Extensionemployees can assume responsibility for theirown professional development and becomelifelong, self-directed learners. In such a systemthe organization must provide support forlearning and offer incentives and rewards forexcellence in the workplace.

Purpose and Objectives

In this paper the authors present a rationale fordeveloping core competencies and a systemsapproach for training and organizationaldevelopment in extension. They propose a ten-step model for identifying, validating anddeveloping core competencies for an extensiontraining and organizational development system.They define the seven core competenciesdeveloped by North Carolina CooperativeExtension using the ten-step model. In addition,they provide case examples of how the model hasbeen used in North Carolina along withqualitative examples of positive impact.

June 2004

Core Competencies: A Systems Approach for Training and Organizational Development inExtension

Richard T. Liles

The authors present a rationale for developing core competencies for training and organizationaldevelopment in extension. Core competencies are defined as “ the basic knowledge, attitudes, skills, andobservable behaviors that lead to excellence in the workplace.” Competency-based models can be used tocreate an infrastructure that promotes innovation and continuous learning in every dimension of an extensionorganization. Competency models are designed around the skills individuals and groups need to be effectivenow and in the future. Competencies must be tied directly to the mission and strategic issues of theorganization. A ten-step model is offered for identifying, validating and developing core competencies for anextension training and organizational development system. The seven core competencies developed byNorth Carolina Cooperative Extension using this process are defined. These competencies are being used oradapted by several states in the Southern Extension Region of the United States, and extension organizationsthroughout the United States are beginning to develop competency-based models for training anddevelopment. Illustrations of the application of the core competencies in North Carolina are provided alongwith preliminary qualitative evidence of the impact of this approach.J Agr Educ Ext (2004, 10, 2, pp 77-82)

77

Richard T. Liles, Director, Personal and Organizational Development, 314 Ricks Hall, Box 7569, North Carolina State University,Raleigh, NC 27695-7569, 919-513-1242 (fax), [email protected]

Theoretical Base

Malcolm S. Knowles (1980), long recognized asa leading authority in adult education in theUnited States, offers a rationale for using acompetency-based approach in designinglearning experiences. Dr. Knowles argues thatthe learner and the teacher should collaborate indetermining what should be taught. Researchconducted by Knowles within a span of over 40years concludes that when learners are activelyinvolved in identifying the competencies to betaught, the learners feel a strong ownership forthe content; and consequently, the learners aremotivated to participate actively in the learningprocess. Such learning tends to be self-directedwith the learners taking responsibility for theirown learning and ultimately becoming lifelonglearners. After the competencies have beenidentified, Knowles indicates that the learnersshould be involved actively in diagnosing theirskill or knowledge level for each competency.The idea here is that learners need individualizedlearning plans especially designed for theirunique situations; in other words, “one size doesnot fit all.” If a learner is determined to be at asatisfactory level of competence on a corecompetency, no immediate training or learningexperience is required. After learners assess theirlevel of competency on each core competency,they develop learning plans to achieve thedesired level of expertise. In summary, Knowlesconcludes that the involvement of the learner inthe identification of the learning content orcompetencies and the immersion of the learner inthe teaching and learning process results in ahighly motivated and self-directed learner.Gagné and Medsker (1996) build a strong casefor using a systems approach in training anddevelopment. They propose that the content orcompetencies that serve as the basis of thetraining should be directly related to a real worldentity such as an occupation or life task. Thus ina systems model, the competencies or content isderived directly from a thorough analysis ofperformance on the job. These two experts stressthat emphasis on actual performance and thecritical core competencies needed to achieve ahigh level of on-the-job performance make itpossible for training resources to be focused onthose competencies that will offer the greatestreturn on training investment.

Renowned educator, author and researcher Ralph

Tyler (1971) suggested three sources of contentfor educational programs. The first source ofcontent is the felt needs of the learner. Theassumption here is that learners have knowledgeof what they need to know or be able to do inorder to be successful. The second source ofcontent is derived from studies of the currentsituation. This may include studies ofcontemporary society, the culture, theorganization, or the social system in which thelearner must operate. The third source of contentis from research and experts in the field ofpractice. In summary, the three questions to beasked in determining what is to be learned or thecore competencies are (1) what competencies dolearners think are critical?, (2) whatcompetencies do research studies indicate arecritical?, and (3) what competencies do expertsthink are critical? All of these sources arelegitimate and should be used in thedetermination of core competencies. Klemp(1999) urges educators to be selective in anumber of competencies that compose aneducational training curriculum. He indicatesthat the number of core competencies should beten or fewer. This author suggests thatcompetencies should be revised and reviewedperiodically to reflect changes in organizationalpriorities, changes in the environment, andchanges in the expertise needed for success in thefuture.

Based on her studies of a variety oforganizations, including three Fortune 500companies, Hodge (1999) reports that corecompetencies must be strategically derived andstrategically aligned with the mission and goalsof the organization in order to yield positiveresults in the workplace. Silvera (1999) definescompetencies as “the skills, knowledge, andbehaviors that describe successful performance.”He reports that competencies provide amechanism for concentrating on developing inemployees the skills, knowledge, and behaviorsthat will have the greatest positive impact onachieving individual and organizational success.A review of the literature indicates that thecorporate sector has used competency-basedapproaches for training and development for overtwo generations. With a proven record of successin the corporate sector, it is logical that corecompetency approaches will be equallysuccessful in nonprofit and governmentalorganizations.


78

Methods/Procedures and Data Sources

A training and organizational system includingthe core competencies determined to be criticalto success in North Carolina CooperativeExtension was developed in 1999 by the BlueRibbon Commission (BRC) for training anddevelopment. The North Carolina system iscalled the Personal and OrganizationalDevelopment System (PODS). It is beingdeveloped and implemented in spite of severebudget constraints since January 2000. The BRCconsisted of 21 members representing all jobgroups in North Carolina Cooperative Extension(NCCE). Over 800 employees of NCCEprovided relevant input data and feedback.Members of the State Advisory Council (SAC)representing thousands of volunteers, customers,and other NCCE stakeholders were also involvedin the process.

The BRC used a variety of quantitative andqualitative methods to analyze data; theseincluded surveys, interviews, and focus groups.Peer institutions selected for study andcollaboration were Iowa State University, TexasA&M University and Ohio State University.Experts from the two latter universities served asconsultants to the BRC.

Training and development systems in thecorporate sector were also examined. Theseincluded the Westinghouse Savannah RiverCompany; AT&T; How Medica, Inc.; FirstHeritage of Canada; TransAmerica LifeCompany; Toyota Sales; Xerox Limited; AmocoCorporation; Scherring-Plough Corporation; andPartners Healthcare System, Inc.

Planning Process Steps

A ten-step visionary planning process was usedfor identifying, validating, and developing corecompetencies for extension educators; and forbuilding a training and organizationaldevelopment system based on thosecompetencies. The model for identifying thecompetencies includes the following steps:

1. Conducting an environmental scan andexamining internal and external forcesimpacting extension. The questions askedwere: “What is working well within yourextension organization?”; “What is working

less well within your extension organization?”;and “What are current forces, both positiveand negative, impacting your extensionorganization; and what are trends and forces,both positive and negative, that you think willimpact your extension organization in thefuture?”

2. Collecting data on stakeholder/customerexpectations and identifying the expertise(competencies) needed by extension educatorsfor excellence in conducting extensionprograms. The questions asked at this stepwere: “What do you need and expect fromextension workers?”; and “What knowledge,skills, or areas of expertise are essential forextension educators to provide for you theeducational programs that you need?”

3. Establishing benchmarks for excellence andtraining and development systems byanalyzing state-of-the-art training anddevelopment systems in exemplarygovernmental organizations and the corporatesector. At this stage members of the BRCselected a variety of universities, governmentorganizations, and corporations, mentionedabove, and studied and analyzed their trainingand development systems. In addition, severalmembers of the BRC attended an internationalconference on competency-based learning andattended presentations delivered by experts oncompetency-based learning systems fromaround the world.

4. Identifying (with extension educators) corecompetencies which are the broad areas ofknowledge, attitudes, and demonstrable skillsfor achieving excellence in planning,delivering, evaluating, and accounting forextension education programs. In this step theBRC used data collected from six job groupsin extension. The question asked was, “Whatdo you need to know or be able to do in orderto achieve excellence in your job?” Ananalysis of these data revealed seven corecompetencies. An unexpected result was thatall job groups identified the same sevencompetencies as essential core competencies.

5. Validating and refining core competencies bythe six groups within extension by usingexternal consultants and by studying the corecompetencies of peer institutions. At this

June 2004

79

stage approximately 50 adjunct members ofthe BRC were identified, again representingsix job groups. These adjunct membersvalidated the core competencies and refinedthe definitions for each of the corecompetencies. It was found that many of thepeer institutions, specifically Texas A&MUniversity, had similar core competencies asNorth Carolina Cooperative Extension.

6. Developing subcompetencies with three levelsof proficiency for each job group within theorganization. At this stage the BRC adjunctmembers identified approximately three toseven subcompetencies, which more clearlydefined the competencies for each of the sevenidentified. In addition, three levels ofproficiency for each subcompetency weredeveloped for each job group within theorganization. This process continues withsolicitation of input from over 800 members ofthe organization. Professional organizationswithin NCCE have also played a key role indeveloping the subcompetencies for thevarious job groups. At this time thesubcompetencies and proficiencies for countyextension directors is the most thoroughlydeveloped framework.

7. Setting goals and developing action plans forintegrating the core competencies into asustainable training and development system.The BRC developed a long-range plan forintroducing and implementing the corecompetency system into North CarolinaCooperative Extension. Although budgetconstraints have made it necessary to alter thetimeline, the process continues.

8. Using a systems approach to implementorganizational structures and a process forsustaining a competency-based training anddevelopment system. A special unit wasestablished within NCCE for giving leadershipto the implementation of the system. Thisunit, Personal and OrganizationalDevelopment (POD), consists of four full-timetraining and organizational developmentprofessionals and two part-time professionalswho are charged to give leadership to thesystem.

9. Developing and delivering a curriculum fortraining employees and volunteers in the core

competencies, subcompetencies andproficiencies. At this time, diagnosticassessment tools for determining the level ofproficiency in each competency have beendeveloped for county extension directors. Inaddition a curriculum for training new andaspiring county extension directors has beendeveloped and tested within a variety ofdelivery systems. The 2003 State ExtensionConference was organized around thecompetency-based approach. Work iscurrently being done on developing acurriculum for extension agents, programassistants, specialists, secretaries, andvolunteers.

10.Obtaining feedback on the effectiveness of acompetency-based system, adjusting andrefining the system as needed. Members ofPOD continue to collect data, both quantitativeand qualitative, on the effectiveness of thesystem. Data from the six job groups on thesuccess of the competency-based systemsapproach to training and development arecontinually being collected, analyzed, and usedas a basis for adjusting the system.

Goals of the system are as follows:

1. To enable the recruiting, hiring, training,evaluating, and supporting of creative,motivated, and innovative cadre of faculty,staff and volunteers.

2. To provide learning opportunities that areresponsive, accessible, applicable, andcompetency-based.

3. To encourage collaborative learning.

4. To empower individuals to pursue their owncareer goals and professional growth.

5. To enhance customer focus and organizationaleffectiveness.

6. To build individual and group accountability.

7. To build organizational commitment for asustained learning system.

8. To continuously assess, monitor, validate, andrefine competencies needed for individual andorganizational excellence.


80

Results/Findings

The seven core competencies were identified bythe BRC, validated by the adjunct members ofthe BRC, and are being continuously validatedand refined throughout the organization. Thesewere identified as critical to successfulperformance of all NCCE employees andvolunteers:

1. Knowledge of the organization—anunderstanding of the history, philosophy, andcontemporary nature of NCCE.

2. Technical subject-matter expertise—themastery of a scientific discipline, a researchbody of knowledge or a technical proficiencythat enhances individual and organizationaleffectiveness.

3. Programming—the ability to plan, design,implement, evaluate, and account forsignificant extension education programs thatimprove the quality of life for NCCEcustomers.

4. Professionalism—the demonstration ofbehaviors that reflect high levels ofperformance, a strong work ethic, acommitment to continuing education and tothe mission and goals of NCCE.

5. Communications—the ability to effectivelytransfer and receive information.

6. Human Relations—the ability to successfullyinteract with diverse individuals and groupscreating effective partnerships, networks, anddynamic human systems.

7. Leadership—the ability to positively influencea wide range of diverse individuals andgroups.

Core Competencies

These seven core competencies were determinedto be applicable to all job groups in NCCE.These job groups were: agents, specialists,administrators, support staff, programassistants/associates/technicians, and volunteers.The seven core competencies are consistent foreach of the six job groups. However,subcompetencies and proficiencies vary; and it

has been necessary to develop three levels ofperformance or proficiency for eachsubcompetency, which may be unique in somecases to a job group. Part of this work waspresented as the initial phase of a continuingdevelopmental process resulting in a set of corecompetencies, subcompetencies, andproficiencies for each of the major job groupswithin NCCE. Input from county extensionfaculty, state-level faculty, support staff, andvolunteers throughout the organization has beenongoing. The content of the competency-basedmodel is always presented as evolving; however,the current content represents the best availableinformation on the knowledge, skills, anddemonstrable behaviors essential to excellentperformance on the job within extensionorganizations.

Conclusions/ImplicationsRecommendations/Educational Importance

The ten-step model for developing corecompetencies does not force change, but ratherinvolves extension employees in the process ofcontinuous and focused professionalimprovement. Employees are involved in everystage of the process and remain involved in anorganizational system that fosters an atmosphereof individual growth and renewal.

Individual “buy-in” or ownership forcompetencies, subcompetencies and proficienciesis a product of continuous involvement. Thisinvolvement results in ownership of the content,the training program, and its outcomes. Thebasic premise of this participatory process can besummarized by what the authors call the“Principle of IOU.” The Principle of IOU is thatInvolvement Results in Ownership andUnderstanding. When the IOU Principle isapplied, the results are a commitment to theoutcomes and products of the process. This isproving to be true as the competency-basedsystem is being introduced within NCCE. Sometypical quotations from a recent training programfor new and aspiring extension directors includethe following:

“This was one of the most beneficial trainingexperiences that I have ever attended. The coursewas well designed to meet the needs of anyoneinterested in learning the specific tasks andcompetencies necessary for an individual

June 2004

81

considering this job. I highly recommend it as aprerequisite for anyone wishing to become acounty extension director.” Another participantwrote, “This course should be a prerequisite foranyone wishing to become a county extensiondirector. It will help them be more successfuland avoid problems for them and for theorganization.” Finally, a third participant wrote,“The time I spent with you and the rest of theparticipants in the past twelve months has beensome of the most valuable experience that I havehad in my twenty-year career withextension…the knowledge that I have gainedfrom this program will serve me well in allaspects of my professional life.”

Competencies developed using this model arebeing used or adapted by states throughout the

Southern Extension Region. A recent leadershipprogram developed by Arkansas CooperativeExtension is a good example of the practical useof a competency-based system. There are clearimplications for the application of thiscompetency-based and systems approach tointernational extension organizations. Towardthat end the authors recommend that research beconducted to answer a number of criticalquestions. Among these are: (1) Arecompetency-based systems approaches already inplace in other international extensionorganizations? (2) Are core competenciesuniversal for extension workers around theworld? (3) Can technology allow web-basedtraining systems to be used and shared byextension organizations on a global basis?


82

References

Boone, E. J. (1992). Developing Programs in Adult Education. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Gagné, R. M. & Medsker, K. L. (1996). The Conditions of Learning: Training Applications. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Hodge, L. (1999). Competencies As a Common Language for Change. Conference Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference and Exposition on Using Competency Based Tools and

Applications to Drive Organizational Performance. Lexington, Maine: Linkage, Inc.

Klemp, G. O. Jr. (1999). Forging the Links Among Leadership Competencies, Strategy And Organizational Culture. Conference Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference and Exposition on

Using Competency Based Tools and Applications to Drive Organizational Performance. Lexington, Maine:Linkage, Inc.

Knowles, M. (1980). Growth and Development of Adult Education. In J. M. Peters and Associates (Eds.), Building an Effective Adult Education Enterprise. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Liles, R. T. (Ed.) (1999). Blue Ribbon Commission on Staff Development and Training: Strategic Analysis and Recommendations. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension.

Silvera, T. (1999). Competency Based Pay: Coventry Healthcare’s Story. Conference Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference and Exposition on Using Competency Based Tools and

Applications to Drive Organizational Performance. Lexington, Maine: Linkage, Inc.

Tyler, R. W. (1971). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Introduction

How well are universities in developed nationsproviding graduate education for students fromdeveloping nations? Some of the issues to beaddressed in this article include examining theappropriateness of the graduate preparationmodel for the student from a developing country,the match between degree program content andthe career expectations of graduates, theappropriateness of the research methods andstatistical analysis preparation, the selection ofresearch topics, and the time-to-degreeexpectations. The content of the paper is drivenby issues which the discipline needs to address.

Purpose

The purpose of this article will be to presentviewpoints on these issues and challengeinstitutions with graduate degree programs toconsider the unique needs of the student fromdeveloping countries by addressing somepertinent questions. What will be the likelycareer path of graduates upon their return to theirhome country? How can a student best beprepared for these likely career paths and stillassure the “high quality” program desired by thehigher education institution? How caninstitutions best prepare flexible, well-rounded,learned individuals who are ready to adapt to theunique demands of their universities or agencies

in developing countries? Many writers wouldnote that future graduates must be lifelonglearners, and be capable of higher order cognitiveprocesses, decision-making, critical-thinking,and/or problem-solving. How relevant for thestudents’ dissertation/thesis research are theresearch problems adapted from adviser’sprogrammatic research programs? Are theconcepts and methods learned from the researchapplicable in assisting the graduate to undertakea programmatic research agenda of their own attheir home institutions/agencies? To what extentis the pressure applied to professors to procuregrants and contracts forming the basis ofresearch problems investigated by students?Should advisers encourage students to pursuetheir own research problems or expect students topursue problems related to the professor’sresearch program? Do different levels of qualityexist for the programs for domestic versusinternational students? Do international studentshave the same opportunities as domestic studentsto benefit from the informal learning andprofessional socialization that ought to beoccurring in developing teaching experience andexpertise though mentoring and reflection, doingoutreach, writing grant proposals, establishingnetworks, attending professional meetings,supervising interns, or gaining practicalexperience — in the public schools, Extensionoffices, or related agencies? To what extent doesthe research problems investigated contribute to

June 2004

Reconsidering Graduate Programs for Students from Developing Countries

Larry E. Miller

This article examines issues related to graduate programs in agricultural and extension education for studentsfrom developing nations who are studying in developed countries. Implications are drawn for developinggraduate programs that prepare individuals for their most likely career pathsl. Such programs may not becongruent given the current graduate programs in universities particularly with the present financial andpolitical pressures on departments and faculty. How can professional associations enter into dialogue toassist in creating more relevant programs of study?J Agr Educ Ext (2004, 10, 2, pp 83-88)

83

Larry E. Miller, Professor, Department of Human and Community Resource Development, 204 Agricultural AdministrationBuilding, 2120 Fyffe Road, The Ohio State University, Columbus OH 43210-1067, Phone: (614) 292-0450, Fax: (614) 292-7007, Email: [email protected]

the knowledge base for the country/region ofstudent origin? To what extent should they?What are reasonable expectations for time-to-degree?

Theoretical Base

These issues and questions form the basis forattempting to stimulate professional discussionof how to best design relevant and rigorousgraduate programs of high quality. The “datasource” is over 30 years of experience indirecting graduate study and interacting withthose that do, and serving on numerousdepartment, university and professionalcommittees related to graduate education.Particular concerns exist about the quality of theresearch studies and the nature of the researchquestions investigated by international graduatestudents as observed in professional conferencesand journals. Experience as editor of twojournals in the profession, serving as apaper/article referee, and/or paper discussant atprofessional meetings has provided the authorwith insights into research that has and has notbeen published.

Conclusions and Implications

The agricultural and Extension educationprofessorate need to address how relevant,appropriate, rigorous and transferable are theskills and abilities taught in graduate programs tothe situations in which graduating students willfind themselves in developing countries.Universities/agencies where graduates may findemployment after graduation often have adifferent focus than those of the US Land-grantor European models. For those graduates whotake jobs in universities, teaching is often theprimary focus. Research, while expected of thepersons in these positions, finds few resourcesavailable and limited financial support internal orexternal to the universities/agencies. Serviceactivities, likewise, are often defined differently.Internal (department, college or university)service is expected but service as outreach toaudiences external to the university/agency oftenhas limited emphasis.

One approach to improving graduate programsfor international students from developingcountries might be to assure a broadened set ofcourses or learning experiences in the graduate

programs to help prepare graduates for futureroles. Such a strategy may necessitate takingcourses outside the home department, beyond thetypical minors or cognate areas, but this is oftenin conflict with the way departments now receivetheir funding for instruction because it isbeneficial to the department if students takecourses from their home department. Therefore,departments often try to keep their coursesections full, enrollments high, and benefit fromhigher instructional subsidies rather than advisestudents to take courses from other departmentsthat might be particularly beneficial to theirfuture careers. Such funding strategies inuniversities do not encourage innovation instudent program planning to broaden the learningexperiences.

International students who wish to pursueadvanced degrees in technical agriculturedisciplines often find similar dilemmas. Theiradviser may be involved in basic research, suchas creating GMO’s, using a laboratory costingmillions of dollars and a high daily operatingbudget. The adviser desires that all graduatestudents contribute to his/her programmaticresearch program, after all, they are underpressure to publish and many “milk” the graduatestudents for as many papers and articles as theycan. Graduate students from developingcountries may find that the expertise learned inthe aforementioned laboratory, during thecompletion of a dissertation, has littleapplicability to the research program they canconduct in their home country where such costlylaboratories or research programs are not feasibleto develop or maintain. The student finds littlesupport in suggesting that a research problemthat is more nearly applicable to his of her homecountry would be suitable for athesis/dissertation. Advisers argue that anythingless than “cutting-edge-inquiry” constitutes a“watered-down” degree program for the student.Is there a common ground that can accommodatethe needs of the graduate student (Miller & Ng,1994)? A similar analogy might also be drawnfor some research in agricultural and Extensioneducation.

Several universities have conducted internalfollow-up (tracking) studies of graduates toexamine their professional career paths followinggraduation. They have often found that many ofthem are in administrative and supervisory roles


84

soon after they graduate. However, course workin administration, supervision and leadership areseldom a part of their degree programs. Wouldfurther investigations, across graduateinstitutions, accumulate evidence that mightpermit all in the profession to develop moreappropriate degree programs to prepare futureleaders in administration and supervision?

Similarly, most graduates who enter positions inhigher education upon graduation will findthemselves in teaching roles. How many of thesegraduates have had the experience of teaching inhigher education during their degree programs?How many are given mentoring experiences tolearn now to teach with “master teachers” atuniversity level so that they are exceptionallyeffective teachers when they return to their homecountries? As newly employedinstructors/professors, they are often laden withthe heaviest teaching loads in a department.Often, the courses assigned to them to teach maybe the courses no other professor desires toteach. Further, the enrollment in these coursesmay be very large. How many graduates havehad preparation in “teaching difficult courses” orin “effectively teaching large enrollmentcourses?” How many have actually been taughthow to teach?

Graduate Teaching Associate (GTA) support hastypically been limited for the internationalgraduate students who do not have Extension orexperience in teaching agricultural education atsecondary level in the U.S. Some are fortunateenough to obtain a Graduate ResearchAssociateship (GRA). However, with increases instudent stipends and tuition fee waivers, facultywith funded projects can now hire a full-timeresearch scientist cheaper than a GRA in manyU.S. universities. At my institution rising costsof tuition waivers and escalating health care costsare expected to elevate GTA/GRA costs another15% for the next academic year. Eventually, thiswill mean that few GRA positions will beavailable to either domestic or internationalstudents. Further, in the U.S., many universitiesoffering agriculture are publicly state supporteduniversities and the tax-payers are often vocalabout providing support to students from theirown state and not those from other countries oreven other states. The GTA/GRA member whois an international student and who returns to hisor her home country after receiving thousands of

dollars of support provided by the tax-payers ofthe state is viewed as not contributing to the stateeconomy to the same extent as someoneremaining in the state would.

The content of what is taught in agriculturecolleges in developing countries is also changing.One report from, Africa, for example, indicatedthat BS graduates should have characteristicsincluding initiative, creativity, integrity,adaptability, flexibility, commitment, teamwork,good listeners, self-confidence, self-motivation,independence, be effective communicators, theability to make decisions and the ability to besocially and environmentally aware. To whatextent are graduate programs preparingprofessionals capable of instilling thesecharacteristics in their students?

The issues about how to prepare graduates to doresearch is not merely a paradigm debate(paradigm war), as some might purport.Quantitative and qualitative research both havecontributions to make. What drives goodresearch are important questions and not method!The most important question in assessingresearch may be “So what?” Or, does theresearch ask important questions that provideuseful answers. Preparing graduates capable ofconducting more applied, pragmatic research, ascontrasted with theoretical research, may beimportant. Using Habermas’ InterestConstitution Theory (1972), researchersinvestigate interactions of (1) man-nature:positivism, empiricism, functionalists, (2) man-man: communicative interaction, practicalunderstanding, interpretive science,hermeneutics, or (3) man-self: emancipatory,authority, power, freedom, radical/critical science[sic]. Agricultural and Extension educatorsconduct few studies to try to understand naturebut are almost evangelistic about research incommunicative interaction or the emancipationof people (Miller, 2003). How well are wepreparing our graduates for inquiry in the lattertwo areas? Most of the professorate, includingmyself, were prepared in quantitative methodsand have had little preparation in interpretive orcritical science. I advocate, for current andfuture graduate students, a balanced preparationprogram in research with each graduate well-versed in quantitative method and possessingfamiliarity with other ways of knowing; that is,competence in interpretive or critical science. If

June 2004

85

breadth and depth cannot be achieved withineach individual, then using departments as theunit of analysis might be appropriate; that is,assuring that a balance of research expertiseexists within the faculty of a department.However, this may be particularly difficult toachieve by departments in developing countrieswhere the hiring decisions are often driven bysubject-matter teaching needs, more thanresearch-expertise-needs, and even politics ornepotism often comes into play — not what youknow, but who you know can determine who isemployed.

Further, preparing graduates capable ofinterdisciplinary research will be essential in thedecades ahead. Practical, field-based problemsdo not nicely fit disciplines or universityacademic departments. Successful researchers ofthe future will need to be able to navigate thecompetitive waters of procuring funding wherethe agencies desire investigation of complexproblems requiring interdisciplinary/multi-disciplinary/inter-institutional/inter-agencyand/or multiple-method lenses (Miller, 1991).

The extent to which the love of conducting andsharing research can be developed in graduateswill, to a large extent, define their future pursuitof research, often under difficult conditions, byour graduates from developing countries. Ifgraduates see research as laborious and despisedoing it, then they are not likely to conductresearch or add to the knowledge of thediscipline. The experience of thirty years in thisprofession has often led to frustrations with thefaculty who teach research methods and statisticsand who seem to purposefully want to make theircontent appear confusing so they can maintainthe illusion that they have the corner on somebody of knowledge that is inaccessible to the restof us, that only they can really understand thecontent, and that there is some magicalperspectives they possess that the students cannotgrasp. Too many students see the study ofresearch methods (no matter what the paradigm)as the most onerous part of their degree program.Exit interviews with graduate students have oftenindicated that “research” was just something they“suffered through” in order to obtain their degreeand is highly despised. Research is creating newknowledge. Creating new knowledge to improvethe quality of individuals’ lives can be anexciting, invigorating and satisfying dimension

of one’s lifelong professional contribution.While I have never had problems spelling“higher education” as “hire education”, that is tosay , there is a vocational dimension to doctoralstudy; many rewards await those who can walkthe profession “down the road to knowing.” Letus purposefully make the conduct of research funand encourage students to love the creation ofnew knowledge. Research is not conducted justto have papers to present at research conferencesor to generate journal articles for promotion andtenure, but for a deeper motive. At the end oftheir career, will they be able to say “I made adifference?”

I suggest that institutions, that have graduateprograms, have an ethical responsibility toprepare individuals who are capable ofsucceeding in universities or agencies indeveloping countries where the political,economic and social milieu may be greatly atvariance with the model in which they studied.Current graduate programs do not necessarilyfulfill this expectation. I call for the professionto conduct further research on the needs of thesestudents and develop strategies to better preparegraduates. Professional associations can chargespecial task forces or committees to investigatethese issues or conduct national or internationalseminars on these topics. The time is right toexamine the existing paradigm of graduateeducation. The profession must prepare futurescholars (Miller & Sandmann, 1998) and not justresearchers.

What is the average time-to-degree for a Ph Dstudent in your program who enters with an MSin the discipline? While degree expectationsvary, I was shocked to learn the data for myinstitution. Ethical questions may emerge aboutwhether or not students are being delayed so theycan add to the list of publications of the adviserand/or whether students are being delayed togenerate credit hours.

Contributions to knowledge resulting fromthesis/dissertations might best serve the studentsif the studies were conducted about problemsfrom their home country. For example, if anadviser has a doctoral student from Malaysia,studying for a Ph D with support from Malaysia;would it not seem to be ethically appropriate forthe problem identified for research to haverelevance for Malaysia, perhaps with data


86

collected in Malaysia, and have practicalimplications for adding to knowledge orimproving practice in Malaysia? When thatstudent returns home to Malaysia, takes a job in auniversity or other agency, and begins a researchprogram, the dissertation can be the beginning ofmaking a professional programmatic researchprogram and reputation for the student andprovide a basis for further funding or research.

Implications

The implications of an improved graduateeducation program are many. While theexamples have explicitly been drawn from the

U.S., colleagues in universities in other graduateinstitutions from Europe or Asia and othernations should also take heed. With improvedprograms of study, graduates could be betterteachers and scholars. Graduates could be betterresearchers, asking more important questions,ready to address questions with new lenses, andready to work with interdisciplinary teams.Graduates will be better able to be of service totheir agency, or department, college, university,profession, country and the world. They can bescholars and not just researchers, and they can becontributors to the professional knowledge base… they can “make a difference.”

June 2004

87

References Cited

Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and Human interest. London: Heinemann.Miller, L. E. (2003). A new paradigm for agricultural education research. Presentation made to the National

Agricultural Education Research Conference, December 10, Orlando, FL.Miller, L. E. (1991). A systems approach to research and development in agricultural education and extension.

Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Association for International Agricultural and ExtensionEducation, March 29, St. Louis, MO.

Miller, L.E., & Ng D. (1994). Educational needs of international graduate students as perceived by graduatefaculty. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Association for International Agricultural andExtension Education, March 25, Arlington, VA.

Miller, L.E., & Sandmann, L. (1998). Redefining scholarship: Implications for agricultural education.Proceedings of the Annual Central Region Agricultural Education Research Conference, March 6, St. Louis,MO.


88

Introduction

As land-use claims increase in not only Europebut elsewhere in the world as well, whilst at thesame time the amount of rural space available ison the decline, the need for a more integratedapproach to agricultural production and thedevelopment of rural areas becomes moreapparent than ever. Integrated RuralDevelopment (IRD), is an emerging concept ortheme in agricultural reform in theory, policy andpractice. The objective of IRD is to raise the levelof economic performance in all sectors of therural economy, to promote the shaping of viablerural communities, to maintain indigenouscultures, to protect the environment and toconserve the natural features and appearance ofthe landscape (Wals, et. al, 2004). The EU hasbeen developing its policy for rural developmentlaying stress on an integrated approach,simplification and sustainability. Thesedevelopments present exciting challenges andobligations for agricultural and forestryeducation sectors which have a mission to helprural society grow and develop, and to providethe new skills, competencies and knowledgeconducive to such development. A key questionaddressed in this article is: How does theincreased pressure for expertise in IRD translateitself into the demand for educational servicesand the design of appropriate curricula on a

European-wide basis? This article examinesthese issues and generates a number of steppingstones for the development of Education andTraining for Integrated Rural Development(ETIRD) in tertiary education, based on a two-year inter-institutional curriculum developmentproject carried out under the umbrella of theAFANet.

Research objectives

The overall aim of the ETIRD research projectwas to explore, outline and developcommunication, education & training strategieswhich are sensitive to and build upon bothuniversal (i.e. European) and contextual (i.e.local or regional) conceptions of IRD. Theproject team was composed of six experts ineither rural development or curriculumdevelopment or both and represented highereducation institutions in four European countries(Denmark, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, and theUnited Kingdom). The objectives of the project,as identified by these experts, were:1. to make an inventory of current curriculum

responses to changes in rural land use withinEuropean Institutions for Higher AgriculturalEducation,

2. to investigate Communication, Education andTraining (CE&T) programmes that are suitablefor developing notions of IRD among students,

June 2004

Education for Integrated Rural Development

Arjen E.J. Wals, Fabio Caporali, Paul Pace, Bill Slee, Nadarajah Sriskandarajah and Martyn Warren*

Abstract?

J Agr Educ Ext (2004, 10, 2, pp 89-100)

89

* SeeAbout the autors, page 100

that is, problem-based learning, (soft) systemsthinking, interdisciplinary learning, sociallearning,

3. to describe four case studies of CE&Tprogrammes for IRD in Europe (focusing onlearning goals, learning and instructionmethods, contents and learning outcomes),

4. to share and reflect on the experiencesparticipants in the network have had so farwith alternative learning and instructionmethods for teaching and learning for IRD,and

5. to generate general guidelines for thedevelopment of CE&T programmes for IRD inEurope, complemented with examples of thecontextual application of these guidelines.

In this article we will briefly touch upon the firstfour objectives and will then elaborate on theresults related to objective five.

Research method

In order to realise the objectives listed above, aresearch cycle was designed that contained fivekey elements, which will be discussed briefly(Figure 1). The first phase of the research consisted of anopen exploration of different conceptualisationsof IRD and curricular responses to IRD inEurope by the members of the AFANet Team,followed by an inventory of existing ETIRDcourses and programmes. This inventory wasconducted using an on-line survey and theAFANet database of institutions active in higheragricultural education. The second and thirdphases consisted of the development andcomparison of four case studies of institutionsthat were selected as being of potential interest toothers due to their innovative approach toETIRD. The cases were selected on the basis ofthe outcomes of phase one. Phase four consistedof the generation of, so-called, stepping-stonesfor conceptualising IRD and appropriatecurricular responses. In phase five the originalconceptualisations of ETIRD were revisited inorder to understand how they changed as a resultof the research. The research itself can be viewedas a learning cycle.

Figure 1: The ETIRD research cycle

Inventory of current practice

In the first phase (inventory phase) of theresearch a link to an on-line survey of ruraldevelopment education and training programswas sent to just over 200 people working atagricultural universities or colleges in areasrelated to rural development. The main purposeof the survey was to explore, outline and developcommunication, education and training strategieswhich are sensitive to and build upon universal(i.e. European) and contextual (i.e. local orregional) conceptions of rural development. Thecomplete survey can be found on www.afanet.info

In the end eighty-two people participated in thesurvey of which 78 represented institutions basedin Europe, two institutions based in Africa andtwo institutions based in North America. Here isa summary of the main results of the survey:– All respondents considered rural development

education as an interdisciplinary field;– More than 2/3 of the institutions represented by

the respondents created web-sites providingmore information about their institution and thespecific programmes taught;

– Most [participants in the survey were highlyranked within their institutions;

– About 1/3 of the institutions involved taughtrural development as a separate course ormodule;

– Many (2/3) respondents expressed theirwillingness to participate actively in thedevelopment of case studies of exemplaryETIRD in the next phases of the research.

The sometimes elaborate answers to the open-ended questions, formed the basis for discussionabout the goals, content and process of ETIRDand the basis for selecting the four cases thatwould be developed in the second phase (in-depth investigation phase) of the research. Basedon the respondents’ input to each question,institutions represented by those who answeredmost or all questions were identified as potentialcase-study institutions. In order to narrow downthe total number of potential case studiesselection criteria were used. Inputs were chosenif they provided:– a clear and detailed description of their

learning goals,– a clear and detailed description of their

teaching approach,– an in-depth description of their perspective on


90

rural development, and– evidence of the respondent’s willingness to

become part of the research group as a casestudy key-informant.

Based on these criteria, 28 short institutional

profiles were generated. These profiles helped theteam decide what institutions to select for morein-depth investigation. Box 1 contains anexample of such a short institutional profile.More short profiles can be found in Wals et al.,2004.

June 2004

91

Institution: Agriculture University of AthensCountry: GreeceCourse name: Agricultural and Rural Development

Learning GoalsStudents have to acquire a broad spectrum of issues related to rural development. Therefore after the firstthree years (6 semesters) of subjects relating to various disciplinary aspects of agriculture (including: PoliticalEconomy, Microeconomics, Introduction to Agricultural Economics, Rural Sociology, Macroeconomics,Applied Economic Statistics, Agricultural Production Economics, and Mathematics of Finance), a wide rangeof more interdisciplinary courses is provided, such as: Agricultural Policy, Farm Management, ComparativeAgriculture, Quantitative Methods in Economic Analysis, Agricultural Marketing, Analysis of the Pricing ofAgricultural Products, Agricultural Credit and Finance, Agricultural Education, Agricultural Extension,Agricultural and Rural Development: Theory and Policy, Methods in Agricultural Economics and SocialResearch, Cooperative Economics, Agro-environmental Policies, Economics of European Integration,Assessment of Agricultural Investments etc. Furthermore, students have to submit a thesis (10th semester).Therefore, students are provided with knowledge relating to the economic, social and environmentaldimensions of rural development along with solid knowledge concerning technical aspects of agronomiceducation and training. The overall aim of the Department concerns the provision of knowledge which, inturn, will allow the students to become capable professionals in the field of sustainable development in ruralareas while taking into account the broader framework, i.e. European Integration as well as the world-widedevelopments concerning the agro-industrial and market conditions.

Teaching approachIn brief, a process-oriented curriculum is needed. The approach has to be systemic/ holistic globally-oriented,and interdisciplinary, involving elements such as learning through action, team work in small groups,learning for an open mind and careful facilitation. Thus, education has to involve elements of creativeeducation like inquiry, discussion, planning, co-operation and appropriate action. Group-work is necessary asit advances communication skills, reinforces the importance of citizen participation, creates meaningfullearning situations for students, utilises the interests, creativity, and curiosity of students as it does withcontroversy which is thus turned to a source of conceptual change. This way, learning is the continuousprocess of conceptual change and central to this is helping students to advance their learning strategies.Within such a context teachers are to be viewed as facilitators and co-learners. They facilitate learning byproviding learning experiences that induce change through debate and dialogue. Teachers have to have thequalities of ‘transformative intellectuals’.

Understanding of Rural DevelopmentIt means a new paradigm for rural development taking into account the socio-cultural, economic andenvironmental aspects. The overall aim has to be the close examination of the dynamic balance among manyfactors such as political, technological, economic, ethical, cultural and environmental. Nowadays, ruraldevelopment represents a ‘way out’ of the limitations and lack of prospects intrinsic to the modernisationparadigm and the accelerated scale-enlargement and industrialisation it entails. This new paradigm is of amulti-level, multi-actor and multi-facetted nature. In this context the farming/rural systems approaches haveto be utilised in order to understand the multiple dimensions and possible synergies (as well as the negativefeedback). Within the framework of rural development new forms and mechanisms for co-ordination andconflict management must be developed; methodologies have to be of a participatory nature.

Box 1: Sample institutional profile based on the on-line survey

The results of the inventory show a number ofcommon patterns. In terms of the descriptions ofthe learning goals, most respondents emphasisethe promotion of a systemic or broad view, andthe ability to act and think out of ‘thedisciplinary box’ in a more holistic or integratedway. Furthermore, many stress the importance ofcommunication skills and the ability to putoneself in the position of others in anunderstanding and empathic way. Anotherlearning goal that runs through many of theresponses, is that of critical thinking and theability to critically follow trends in policy-making, society (shifting consumer needs) andfarming. Finally, a number of additionalcompetencies are mentioned, including, projectmanagement, creative thinking and working in(interdisciplinary) teams.

When looking at the teaching approaches that arefavoured by the respondents we again see moresimilarities than differences. Most stressinteractive forms of teaching and learning suchas: action learning, workshop-based learning,process-based learning, and hands-on,experiential learning, all referring to learningthat supports the creation of a meaningfulsynthesis between theory and practice and therelevant disciplines.

As far as the respondents’ understanding of IRDa common pattern of triple P (Planet, People,Profit) and triple E (Equity, Environment,Efficiency) oriented views of rural developmentemerges. All seem to call for a more systemicview of rural development involving multipletime scales, multiple stakeholders and sectorsand multiple values.

All respondents are involved in very concreteteaching and learning activities – some by meansof a special course or module, some by means ofa special degree and some by means of regularcourses that seek to include some of the aspectslisted above. The case-study component of thisresearch was designed to explore good practicein-depth and, in a way, to worthwhile to checkhow these lofty intentions manifest themselves inpractice. In the next section we will highlight thefour cases that were selected for further in-depthanalysis.

In-depth case studies

According to Yin (1988, p82) case studies allowa researcher to ‘reveal the multiplicity of factors[which] have interacted to produce the uniquecharacter of the entity that is the subject ofstudy’. It is a method of learning about acomplex instance through description andcontextual analysis. The result is a descriptionand theorizing about why the instance occurredas it did, and what may be important to explore insimilar situations. A case study:

investigates a contemporary phenomenonwithin its real-life context; when theboundaries between the phenomenon andcontext are not clearly evident; and in whichmultiple sources of evidence are used. (Yin,1989, p 23)

Case-study methodology, therefore, is anappropriate research tool to the incorporation ofIRD in agricultural education. The case-studyapproach allows the researcher to experiencephenomena in their context, to learn what worksand what does not. An important feature of case-study research is its flexible and adaptive nature.

The members of the ETIRD research group tooka closer look at the 28 institutions which not onlyprovided sufficient information for generating aninstitutional profile (box 1), but also expressedwillingness to participate in the in-depthinvestigation phase of the research. They did soby studying submitted documents and the web-links they provided. Each of the core-groupmembers got an opportunity to express hispreference for certain institutes for furtherexploration and analysis. It was decided that agood geographical distribution was important toallow for possible regional differences to emerge.As a result, the team looked for one institutionfrom the South of Europe, one from the North ofEurope, one from Eastern-central Europe andone from Western Europe. Using the criteriafrom the on-line survey results, in combinationwith the personal knowledge of the individualcore-group members of the various institutions,the following cases were selected: • University College Dublin (Ireland), • University della Tuscia-Viterbo (Italy), • University of Córdoba (Spain), and • the Czech University of Agriculture Prague

(Czech Republic).


92

These four institutions were visited by one of theworking-group members for a two-day periodduring which a number of people wereinterviewed about the program (instructors,students and administrators). The site visitsresulted in four cases, which were validated bythose who were interviewed.

A list of guiding questions for case-studydevelopment was generated that were divided in

six categories based on work carried out onsustainability in higher education (Corcoran et al.2004): ideology, programme drivers,responsiveness, institutional linkages, access andpedagogy. The categories and their questionshave been listed in Table 1. ‘Programme’ hererefers to a combination of courses and ormodules that, depending on the situation, may ormay not constitute a degree.

June 2004

93

A. Ideology (values/ethics)Is the programme’s ideology explicit or not?Is the programme needs based?What is the balance between cognitive and affective objectives?Are sustainability issues coupled with issues about responsibility?

B. Programme driversWhat is the programme’s ideology?Who/what are the programme’s drivers (market, client, beneficiaries)?From where do funds for the programme come from?What is the policy of the programme?How does the programme address the needs of the individual/people?What RD needs are addressed by the programme?

C. ResponsivenessDoes the programme respond to learners’ needs?Does the programme respond to employers’ needs?Does the programme respond to the needs of those interacting with the learners?Is peer opinion about the programme sought and valued?Does the programme give space for critical reflection?How is quality assurance carried out?Is programme evaluation formative or summative?

D. Institutional linkagesIs the programme linked to other learning initiatives?Is learning driven by links to networks and/or NGOs?Did curriculum development involve any partners?Is there evidence of any networking activity on an academic level? on a local level? on a global level?How does the programme fit in within the overall institution’s educational framework?

E. AccessIs the programme flexible to respond to different learning styles?Does the programme have flexible entry/exit points?Does the programme offer distance-learning opportunities?Does the programme offer opportunities for part-time learning?Does the programme cater prepare learners for lifelong learning?

F. PedagogyDoes the programme promote active learning?Does the programme address equity/ethical issues?Are the learning experiences presented problem based/experiential? Is the approach adopted systemic/holistic, hence promoting system thinking and system practice?

The research team decided that the case studiesdid not need to be structured identically and thatit would be unlikely that all of the questionsraised above would be tackled but that, to allowfor some kind of analysis and comparison, theyshould at least touch upon the following: – Personal history of the programme co-

ordinator/developer;– History of the development of the programme

(how it evolved, barriers encountered, how thebarriers were resolved, any partnerships);

– The ethos of the programme (what is specialabout the programme, is there any competitionwith other programmes);

– The target audience (a brief bio of a typicallearner) and the number of learners attendingthe programme;

– Level of education and entry requirements;– Aims and objectives of course, module and/or

degree (depending on the situation);– Curriculum plan: main areas addressed,

assessment methods adopted, interface withoutside organisations/institutions);

– Learner evaluation of the programme;– Programme evaluation by the programme co-

ordinator;– Plans for future development of the

programme.

For the purpose of this article we have distilledthe main conclusions of the analysis of the fourcase studies (for full-fledged descriptions of thefour case studies see: Wals et al., 2004). What ispresented here can be viewed as a meta-analysisof the four case studies.

Results

One of the key observations the four cases seemto share is that highly motivated and dedicatedpeople are the main driving force in curriculumchange. They are engaged in such change for anumber of reasons, but a key one is the desire toeducate graduates who can work in the new,more sustainable, post-productivist ruraleconomies. There are important differences of apersonal nature (epistemological vantage point,personal values, personal experiences and socialnetworks), and of more contextual nature (ruralhistory of the region, rural policy, local economicoutlook and trends, links or lack thereof betweentertiary education and the rural communities),that lead to different institutional responses to thechallenge of designing education for IRD.

There are also differences in the way ‘change’ isconceptualised by the various actors involved incurriculum response to a changing world. Somelean towards a radical transformation of ideologyof teaching and learning and equate ‘integration’with the inclusion of systemic thinking, holismand transformative learning. Others, perhapsmore pragmatically, opt for a more adaptive andconservative approach and prefer to renewexisting course, improve links with thecommunity and integrate emerging concepts,while discarding old ones that have becomefruitless. In the four cases, but also in theresponses to the on-line survey, a whole range ofapproaches to teaching and learning can befound, often closely related to a particular view


94

Is the distinction between theory and practice blurred or highlighted?Do learning experiences presented foster lifelong learning?What are the learning outcomes of the programme?What are the competences developed through the programme?Does the programme develop conflict resolution skills?Does the programme help learners to adequately explore sustainability issues? Does the programme present concepts (e.g. sustainability) as fixed or negotiable concepts?Does the programme encourage multiple perspectives? Does the programme give adequate attention to the development of values?Is espoused theory matched with the theory in use in the programme?How is knowledge acquired during the programme? Is it discipline-driven?Is IRD learning clearly sequenced?What are the assessment approaches adopted by the programme?

Table 1: Guidelines for generating ETIRD case studies (free after Corcoran et al., 2004)

of what constitutes ‘knowledge’, ‘research’ and‘curriculum’. Some stress the importance ofpreparing students to be competent and skilfulworkers with a healthy work ethic (tendencytowards a vocational/neo-classic orientation).Again, others stress the importance of equippingstudents with the competences and skills thathelp them succeed in a competitive, globalisingmarket-oriented world (tendency towards aliberal/progressive orientation of curriculumdevelopment). There are also those who stress theimportance of engaging students in criticalthinking, action taking and helping them copewith uncertain futures and ever changing realities(a tendency towards a socially criticalorientation of curriculum development). Table 2shows three different perspectives on teaching,learning and research that in reality might not beas clear cut as presented here.

The epistemological paradigm shift towards asystems perspective is a strong influence in somecases, but certainly not in all cases. Manyinvolved in curriculum development have simplysought vocational sensitivity which has requirednew courses, without advocating a paradigmshift. The courses and degree programmes thatwe examined are a manifestation of this practicalresponse as well as of new thinking. In practicewe see a mixture of giant leaps and small steps.Such changes, big and small, are often a functionof changing values, interests, perceptions andexperiences of people active in further and highereducation.

A number of the barriers of adopting anintegrated approach to curriculum developmentwere identified. These barriers include the deeplyentrenched patterns of reductionist anddisciplinary thinking that characterise so manyinstitutions of ‘higher’ education. A systemsframework is offered by some of the institutionsas a way out of these, what they see as,unproductive, ultimately, irreversible anddestructive processes.

A systems perspective on curriculum change as ameans for accommodating more integrativeapproaches to teaching and learning (process)and rural development (content), perhaps doesnot fully reflect the gradual, messy, stutteringprocess that more accurately reflects how, in mostcases, progress in curriculum design in IRDmoves forward. In some cases there aresignificant key events that may triggercurriculum change, for instance, when newpowerful or inspiring (or both) personalitiesengage in curriculum development, or when anew European Policy on Higher Educationbecomes effective (for instance the introductionof a European Bachelor-Master structure and theEuropean wide introduction of the ECTS-system), or when a decline in student numbersrequire a major overhaul of existing programmes.Hence, the turn to a systems approach and theneed for an alternative ontology/epistemologythat emerges out of the four case studies shouldnot be seen as a prescription but rather as acritical consideration that might be considered

June 2004

95

Table 2. Some distinctions between different traditions of knowledge and knowing (Adapted from:Bawden and Macadam, 1991, p. 4)

FocuLearKnoExpeStruCrafTeacTeacPracDemRese(DevReseWorkActiBasiUtiliFocuWha

along with others. One of those, present in allfour cases covered, is a very pragmatic onedriven by the current socio-cultural andeconomic reality that many rural area’s in Europeare currently facing. It can be argued that ineconomic, social and cultural terms the ‘oldrural,’ made up by the occupational communityof those working the land, has been supplantedby a ‘new rural’ with businesses not necessarilyconnected directly to the land (i.e. tourism andother services, which are part of ruraldevelopment and need to be integrated into a newconsumption-oriented approach to RD). In someareas, this trend is enhanced by a growing newrural population alongside a declining farmpopulation. It should be no surprise that manyhigher agricultural education institutions respondto these trends by creating new courses andprogrammes that address these changes withoutnecessarily re-thinking their educationalphilosophy. It is with this in mind that weintroduce a systems perspective as one of thestepping stones for curriculum development.A systems perspective for IRD curricula.Rethinking the curriculum means discussing thechanges in teaching, learning and instruction thatare needed to better link the academic world totoday’s global realities. According to a survey ofthe agriculture teaching programmes of relateduniversities in Europe (Phillips, 1999), mostgraduates felt that their exposure to relevantpractical experience was lacking, as was theirtraining experiences in the environmental aspectsof agriculture. To overcome the growingmismatch between the requirements of thecurriculum and the realities of life, it is necessaryto develop new epistemological, ontological andmethodological tools in order to give a morecoherent view of knowledge and more authenticand meaningful view of life. These newintellectual and organisational tools will help inthe challenge to better understand reality.

One of the most powerful examples of anintegrative approach is the systems paradigm,which calls for a change from a discipline to asystems focus. To explain the structure of reality,the processes involved, and the role ofhumankind in these structures and processes, theuse of a holistic type of instrument called“systems thinking” has been suggested(Boulding, 1956; Checkland, 1981). The systemsfield is predicated upon the belief that reality is aunified whole. Historically, the term and the

philosophy of holism was originally developedby Smut (1927) and scientifically elaborated byTansley (1935) who used the concept ofecosystem of which people and their activitiesare fully part. Dating back to the firstformulations of this concept (Tansley, 1935),human activity finds its space in ecology as anextremely powerful biotic factor which tends toincreasingly disturb the balance of pre-existingecosystems and in the end destroy them. Thesystems paradigm spotlights the deeper patternsthat connect all phenomena and proposes thatdiverse aspects of reality – physical, biological,social and technological- can be betterunderstood and handled when treated as systemsof interdependent parts that interact with theirenvironments.

Curricula based on a systems paradigm offer aneducational process more appropriate for an eraof limits. The interpretation of our planet as theultimate global ecosystem requires an acceptanceof natural limits to human activities and serves toinstil a context culture, where a sense ofbelonging and responsibility for sustainabledevelopment are promoted. Curricula designed tofoster social and environmental interdependencehave more chances to offer students multipleopportunities to experience learning within thecontext of their neighbourhoods so that theacquisition of important skills and knowledge isnot de-contextualised but embedded in a processof shared existence. Knowledge of local culturaltraditions and sense of affinity with the regionalenvironment help prepare students to take anactive role in the care and governance of theircommunities once they have graduated (Smith,1993).

Global problems are systemic (Malone, 1990).Education for global problems demands anunderstanding of the underlying ethical attitudeof our activities. One of the most criticalchallenges in restructuring natural sciencedominated curricula is incorporating ethical andaesthetical dimensions of learning. The centralityof values (like sustainability) emerges in acurriculum based on a systems approach. Valuesare not a separate category of the mind, but ariseout of a comprehensive understanding of reality,our worldview (Clark and Wawrytko, 1990). Thesense of good and the sense of beauty are part ofour human dimension. The ontologicalassumptions derived from the ecosystem concept


96

that all life forms are inextricably connected(religion of connectedness) in a finite andbeautiful planet calls for the urgent need toprotect the ecosystem of which we are part, byassuring sustainability of our human activitysystems. Universities and schools have aresponsibility in re-examining currentperceptions of nature, of the world and of humansociety in the light of the reality of resourcedepletion (see also Corcoran & Wals, 2004).They have a responsibility to (re)developcurricula and structures to help students dealwith a world of limits rather than a world ofexpansion and growth (Smith, 1993).

Methodological tools Traditional methodologies inspired by amonodisciplinary curriculum structure tend tofoster in learners a fragmented view of realitybecause their main focus is success (e.g. passingan exam or getting a proficiency certificate) inseparate fields of learning. Learners find it verydifficult to integrate uncontextualised andunrelated knowledge and skills to resolve real-life issues. Methodological tools inspired by thesystems paradigm can be helpful in improvingconnections between a curriculum as a whole, itsexternal context, and within the curriculumcomponents themselves (internal tools). Externalmethodological tools help to introduce a broadconcept of teaching and action-based learning.Integrating the expertise of farmers, businessowners, government specialists, and non-profitgroups can enrich the educational process byoffering different perspectives and ways ofknowing (Francis et al., 2001). Moving studentsinto the discovery made through case studiesengages their multiple senses when they becomeimmersed in the real-world context in whichlearning takes place. Case studies, interview andsurvey techniques, time-series measurements,and activity calendars can be taught and appliedto answer questions about integration within thewhole agro-ecosystem hierarchy (croppingsystems – farming systems – regional systems –global systems). These approaches requireseveral changes in attitude and organisation. Newsources of funding and revised systems ofadministering research funds will be required topromote this approach successfully (Stark, 1995).

Tools are also needed in order to give moreinternal coherence to a curriculum. This requiresmore integration of the disciplines. Thus, all

levels of approaches to integration(multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity andtransdisciplinarity) are probably needed.Multidisciplinarity generally means bringingseparate theories, skills, data and idea to bear ona common problem, while interdisciplinarityinvolves bringing together people and ideas fromdifferent disciplines, to jointly frame a problem,agree on a methodological approach, and analysethe data (Golde and Gallagher, 1999; Hammerand Soderqvist, 2001) Finally, transdisciplinarityimplies full interaction between disciplines froman issue-based perspective. According toHammer and Soderqvist (2001), integrativeapproaches could be addressed in courseprogrammes in several ways, including:1. inviting external lecturers from other

disciplines;2. having seminar exercises and discussions with

invited lectures from other disciplines;3. mixing students from ongoing disciplinary

courses for joint exercises;4. offering full transdisciplinary courses and

programmes.

The efforts in this list range from the most basic(1) to the most completely integrative (4).Although the latter type of effort is desirable inmany respects, it is likely to require relativelywell-developed and integration-orientedorganisational structures, such as interfacultydegree courses or courses/modules.

More internal coherence also requires moreintegration between teachers and students, whoare the basic components of a curriculum-basedlearning system such as a curriculum. Creating atruly integrated curriculum entails that the twogroups become reciprocal members of a shared,self-critical learning community. This can beachieved through:– creating a community (amongst learners and/or

teacher - learners) that generates conversation(i.e. including such techniques as havingmembers talk in turn to create knowledgethrough a process of continual negotiation andtransformation);

– creating a team-teaching context. Team-teaching is an excellent way to move away fromthe individualistic and disciplinary mode ofscholarship and research. Members of teamscomposed of faculty from different disciplines,often find their intellectual life more enriched(Manley and Ware, 1990). A team-taught

June 2004

97

course can be a vastly rewarding experience forboth students and instructors; and

– implementing intensive programmes or coursesthat are not longer than two weeks (6 ECTS) inorder to create more flexible didacticarrangements for approaching differentcontextual experiences.

Conclusions

The past disciplinary “successes” in productionagriculture involved high levels of abstractionresulting in deductive conclusions, which weregeneralised to the real world with little awarenessof the dangerous consequences of doing so. Thiskind of organisation of knowledge and itsimplications were anticipated early in the pastcentury by Alfred North Whitehead who labelledthe outcome of the whole process: “the fallacy ofmisplaced concreteness”. Signs of this fallacy areshown in the economic paradigm whichdominates our current unsustainabledevelopment. For instance, the stronglycultivated appeal of “material externalities”occurs at the expense of other more internallydriven experiences. This points at the problem ofmisplaced concreteness in economic theory. Thefallacy of misplaced concreteness culminates in“money fetishism,” which consists in taking thecharacteristics of the abstract symbol or measureof exchange value, money, and applying them tothe concrete use value, the commodity itself.With the advent of a money economy, the mosttragic human paradox has been accomplished:virtual wealth can be indefinitely accumulated inthe form of money, whereas real wealth in theform of bio-physical, non-material, richness andearth habitability can be increasingly destroyed.The characteristics of the abstract symbol (non-spoilage) comes to dominate the characteristics(spoilage) of the concrete reality beingsymbolised (Daly and Cobb, 1994).

A resilient barrier to integration in curriculumdevelopment is provided by the universityresearch structures, which contribute to re-enforce disciplinary-oriented learning.Departments are designed to foster knowledgewithin their discipline, and their reputation andresources flow from recognition within theirfield. Most research is conducted within theestablished boundaries of a given discipline.Traditional doctoral programmes, which openaccess to academic careers, have evolved in a

way that strongly encourage specialisation(Golde and Gallagher, 1999) and are at timesopenly hostile to interdisciplinary initiatives thatare regarded as attempts to ‘water down’ therigour of the discipline’s research track. As aconsequence, the classical organisation ofuniversity research into discrete and specialiseddepartments provides neither the perspectives northe tools to deal with reality, let alone to(re)design and improve it (Francis et al., 2001).

Among the human activity systems, agricultureand forestry are perhaps the most integratedones, since they combine in organised systems orfarms bio-physical and socio-economiccomponents from both natural and anthropogenicsources. A sustainable integration is demanded intoday’s rural land using activities at anyhierarchical level, from the local to the regionaland global level. The concept of IRD has beencreated to revitalise the rural environment andeconomy without compromising the Earth’s lifesupport systems. University has an importantrole to play in society by educating professionalsin agriculture to help them meet the currentexpectations and demands. New epistemological,ontological and methodological tools based on asystems paradigm could help universities addressthe challenge of establishing new curricula forsustainable rural development. At the same time,society as a whole must find the right way ofsupporting universities in this task so that it canplay its role in a learning society.

In our cases we found diversity in innovation. Inaddition to the epistemological “Gestalt switch”towards a systems orientation, we also found akind of Darwinian adaptation process asinstitutions, and more importantly individuals,sought to survive and adapt what they had doneto attune it more closely to contemporarydemands. The resistance of the old guard iswidespread. It was evident in many of the cases,as is the tendency for mono-disciplinaryscientists to look down their noses at the effortsto build interdisciplinarity.

There are some profound and unresolvedparadoxes, not least the growing tension betweeninstitutional research excellence and relevance tothe wider needs of rural society. This pushesinterdisciplinarity and new courses to themargins and makes their establishment andfinancing difficult in many cases. However, new


98

universities tend to be more closely connected totheir client base and less ivory-towered than theold Ivy League type establishments.

It might help to have a systems perspective – ashas been outlined here - but it is still possible todevelop an IRD-oriented curriculum without it.Nonetheless, the cases and the on-line surveyresults do show a strong drift towards a systems-type approach as programmes are evolving.Sometimes this systems perspective is explicitand sometimes it is not.

Generally speaking, introducing IRD in thecurriculum has been a struggle and will remainso as long as universities are judged on theirtraditional outputs in terms of narrowdisciplinary research excellence. It is alsoparadoxical that agricultural institutions designedto be vocationally sensitive have been so criticaland resistant to what is clearly led by thedemands for change on the ground and the actualchanges that have swept through rural Europe,albeit in different ways and at different paces indifferent places. This can be explained by theattempts of those with power and resources, inboth industry and education, not wishing to givethese up to new activities and to deny thelegitimacy of softer process-oriented approachesto education and change management. A generalattitude of ‘better a subsidy in the bank than alearning process to help manage change andcomplexity’ seems to have prevailed!

Despite all this, progress has been made and willcontinue to be made by the actions of a fewindividuals motivated by their subject andcapable of sparking that interest not only in theirstudents, but also in their teaching colleagues andadministrators. Their efforts greatly benefit fromthe vocational relevance-demands ofpractitioners who face the need and urgency of amore integrated approach to rural developmenton a daily basis in everyday practice.

Finally, reflection on the relationship and level ofcongruency between one’s outlook on IRD andone’s view on teaching, learning and curriculumdevelopment is crucial. What we see emergingfrom the cases is a need to understand better theconnection between biophysical and humansystems. This is becoming a central task forhigher education propelled, in part, by themultiple market failures and externalities that arefound in the rural arena. Even though educationfor IRD can go down a number of routes, fromsoft-systems based learning to a modified or amore pragmatic positivism to a socio-criticaltransformative learning, it appears crucial toreflect on the relationships between one’sconceptualisation of IRD and one’sconceptualisation of teaching and learning. Whensuch reflection and reflexivity becomes anintegral part of curriculum development, ETIRDwill provide for a stronger, more meaningful andtransformative learning experience that is likelyto sustain itself beyond the time students spendin college.

June 2004

99

References

Bawden, R. and R. Macadam (1991). Action Researching Systems: Extension Reconstructed. Paper prepared forthe workshop ‘Agricultural Knowledge Systems and the Role of Extension’ held at the University ofHohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany. 21-25 May, 1991.

Boulding, K.E. (1956). General systems theory: The skeleton of science. Management Science, 3 (2), 197-208.Checkland, P.B. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Clark, M.E. and Wawrytko, S.A. (Eds.) (1990). Rethinking the Curriculum: Toward an Integrated,

Interdisciplinary College Education, New York: Greenwood Press.Walker, K., Corcoran, P.B. and Wals, A.E.J. (2004). Case Studies, Make-Your-Case Studies, and Case Stories: A

Critique of Case Study Methodology in Sustainability in Higher Education. Environmental EducationResearch, 10(1), 7-21.

Corcoran, P.B. and Wals, A.E.J (Eds.)(2004). Higher Education and the Challenge of Sustainability:Problematics, Promise, and Practice. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Press.

Daly, H.E. and Cobb, B.Jr.(1994). For the Common Good, Boston: Beacon Press.Francis, C.A., Lieblein, G., Helenius, J, Salomonsson, L. Olse, H. and Porte, J. (2001). Challenges in designing

ecological agriculture education: a Nordic perspective on change. American Journal of AlternativeAgriculture, 16 (2), 89-95.

Golde, C.M. and Gallagher, H.A. (1999). The challenges of conducting interdisciplinary research in traditionaldoctoral programs. Ecosystems, 2, 281-285.

Hammer, M. and Soderqvist, T. (2001). Enhancing transdisciplinary dialogue in curricula development.Ecological Economics, 38, 1-5.

Malone, R.W. (1990). The need for global education. In: Clark, M.E. and Wawrytko, S.A. (Eds.) Rethinking theCurriculum: Toward an Integrated, Interdisciplinary College Education. New York: Greenwood Press.

Manley, J.C. and Ware, N. (1990). How do we know what we have done? Assessment and Faculty Developmentwithin a Learning Community. In: Clark, M.E. and Wawrytko, S.A. (Eds.) (1990). Rethinking theCurriculum: Toward an Integrated, Interdisciplinary College Education, New York: Greenwood Press.

Phillips, C. (1999). The role of the universities in agriculture teaching and research in the twenty-first century.Outlook on Agriculture, 28 (4), 253-256.

Smith, G.A. (1993). Schooling in an era of limits. Holistic Education Review, 6(2), 45-59.Smut, J.C. (1927). Holism and Evolution. London: MacmillanStark, C.R. (1995). Adopting multidisciplinary approaches to sustainable agriculture research: potentials and

pitfalls. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 10(4), 180-183.Tansley, A. G. (1935). The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms, Ecology, 16, 284-307.Wals, A.E.J., Caporali, F., Pace, P., Slee, Sriskandarajah, N. & Warren, M. (2004). Education and Training for

Integrated Rural Development: Stepping stones for curriculum development. The Hague: Elsevier - ReedBusiness Information.

Yin, R. K. (1989). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

About the authors

Arjen Wals is an Associate Professor within the Education & Competence Studies Group of the Department ofSocial Sciences of the Wageningen University in the Netherlands (http://www.wur.nl). He specialises in theareas of environmental education and participation, and social learning in the context of sustainable living.Email: [email protected]

Fabio Caporali is a Professor of Agricultural Ecology at the University of Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy, within theDepartment of Crop Production. He has more than twenty years of experience in teaching both Ecology andAgroecology and has published extensively in this area. His current main scientific interest is in designing,performing and evaluating sustainable cropping systems using a participatory research strategy. Email:[email protected]

Paul Pace works for the Department of Mathematics, Science & Technical Education of the University ofMalta. Dr. Paul Pace lectures and conducts research in Environmental Education and Science Education. Heworks actively with teachers in the implementation of environmental education school policies. Email:[email protected]

Bill Slee is Professor of Rural Economy at the Countryside and Community Research Unit of the University ofGloucestershire. His principal research interest is the restructuring of the rural economy, both in relation tothe primary sector and its diversification and the aggregate shift towards more consumption-based demandson rural space. Throughout his career he has been engaged in curriculum development in relation tocountryside management and rural development. Email: [email protected]

Nadarajah (Sri) Sriskandarajah is Associate Professor at the Unit for Learning and Interdisciplinary Methods,Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark. Formerly, he was with the Universityof Western Sydney, Hawkesbury in Australia, as an active member of the group which led many innovationsin agricultural education. His main interests have been in systemic and learning approaches to education andresearch within agriculture and rural development. Email: [email protected]


100

June 2004

101


102

June 2004

103

Documents

JAEE 2004 No 10/2old.worldagroforestry.org/downloads/Publications/PDFS/ja04131.pdf · Arjen E.J.Wals, Fabio Caporali, Paul Pace, Bill Slee, Nadarajah Sriskandarajah and 89 Martyn