Lessons learnt about effectively applying participatory ... - CiteSeerX

CSIRO PUBLISHING

Animal Production Science, 2009, 49, 1007–1014

www.publish.csiro.au/journals/an

Lessons learnt about effectively applying participatory action research: a case study from the New South Wales dairy industry M. A. Friend A,D, A. M. DunnB and J. Jennings C A

EH Graham Centre for Agricultural Innovation (Industry & Investment NSW and Charles Sturt University), Locked Bag 588, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia. B School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Charles Sturt University, PO Box 588, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia. C School of Natural Sciences, University of Western Sydney – Hawkesbury, Richmond, NSW 2753, Australia. D Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Abstract. A participatory action research (PAR) project was implemented in the New South Wales dairy industry. Six regional dairy groups were given funding to investigate issues relating to management of the feedbase. Facilitated meetings in the regions identified limitations to local systems and how these limitations could be addressed. Local groups then implemented research of relevance to their systems. Activities varied but groups were guided by the principles of PAR. Regional groups consisted of farmers, government extension and/or research staff, processors and other stakeholders. A leadership team, consisting of representatives from each of the regional groups and other stakeholders, was formed to administer the project and assist groups in using the PAR approach. Evaluation of the project indicated high levels of participation in all regions and a strong sense of ownership of the project and/or project work. The most commonly mentioned outcome in the groups was what they learned as a result of involvement. The project and its evaluation are discussed in relation to PAR principles, the outcomes from the approach, and lessons learnt for improving the success of PAR.

Introduction Participatory action research (PAR) approaches are often advocated as an effective means of enhancing farmer learning and instigating change. Claimed advantages of PAR include the recognition of the importance of local knowledge, enhancement of local capabilities, accommodation of diversity and complexity, adherence to the ethical principle that stakeholders should be involved in research that is likely to have social and financial impacts on them, utilisation of group approaches, and encouraging producer ownership of the problems and solutions (review: Black 2000). In contrast, ‘top-down’ extension approaches have been criticised by many authors across a range of disciplines because they do not value the knowledge and skills of the people receiving the message (Chambers 1983; Leeuwis and van den Ban 2004; Vanclay 2004; Savin-Baden and Wimpenny 2007), reinforce the belief that research is the exclusive domain of professional researchers, and do not involve farmers in setting the research agenda (Russell et al. 1989). Leeuwis and van den Ban (2004) also argue that top-down approaches often fail to have the desired effect because those receiving the information have existing values and attitudes which influence whether they accept the messages or not. Helmfrid et al. (2008) acknowledge the top-down model works in some situations; however, for example when the message is in agreement with prevailing paradigms, when the new action/ behaviour is not expected to change activities significantly in the long term and when the change requires little behavioural change (e.g. sowing a new cultivar). Furthermore, PAR should Ó CSIRO 2009

not be viewed as an alternative to research conducted by research professionals, but as a tool to facilitate learning for participants in the process. However, the effectiveness of participatory approaches, in terms of learning and facilitating change, is often not evaluated for farmer groups (Tyson 1998). This is reflected in the literature being scant with evaluations of such approaches. The terms ‘action research’ and ‘action learning’ are often used interchangeably, and as discussed by Jennings (2005) the literature describes several forms of action learning and research, and provides varied definitions for these. In this paper, we consider action learning to be the use of existing knowledge in the context of a group to build skills (e.g. learning how to use a pasture meter), whereas action research is defined as undertaking an investigation in the context of a group which contributes to new knowledge for the group (e.g. evaluating different pastures on-farm). PAR is differentiated from action research by participants being involved in setting the agenda of the enquiry, participants being involved in data collection and analysis, and participants being in control of the outcomes and overall process (McTaggart 1991, 1997; Dickens and Watkins 1999; Breu and Hemingway 2005). A project within the New South Wales (NSW) dairy industry, called the Profitable Pastures Project (PPP), was developed on the premise that a PAR approach would lead to greater practice change in the industry. This project and its implementation has been described previously (e.g. Jennings et al. 2000b, 2001), and while it is not the purpose of this paper to discuss the operation

10.1071/EA08168

1836-0939/09/111007

1008

Animal Production Science

and outcomes of that project, a brief background on the project is necessary for contextualising this paper. During 1997, several regional development groups (RDG) within the NSW dairy industry submitted project applications to the Dairy Industry Development Co. (DIDCO) in the area of feedbase management. RDG are region-specific organisations comprised of farmers, extension staff, milk factory representatives, and in some cases local researchers and other stakeholders. DIDCO convened a meeting of representatives from the RDG (including collaborators from the NSW Department of Primary Industries, University of Western Sydney – Hawkesbury, and Charles Sturt University) in order to develop a single project. PPP was the resulting project, and a leadership team was formed consisting of stakeholders from each of these groups and DIDCO. A project coordinator was employed to provide a link between the leadership team and the groups, and to manage the administration and implementation of the project, but was not involved in the operation of projects at the RDG level. The leadership team was responsible for overseeing the direction of the project, evaluation of progress, allocation of funds to the RDG and reporting to DIDCO and Dairy Australia (who ultimately fund DIDCO). While PPP sought to address the immediate issue of feedbase management, the central aim of the project was to improve farmers’ confidence in their ability to learn, manage and enact change. An annual budget allocation of A$10 000 per RDG was provided to resource groups to plan and implement local research activities. Initially, no application for these funds was required, an approach the leadership team recognised was a risk, but believed was consistent with the aim of providing early ownership of local activities and ensuring participants were originators of an agreed agenda (Chein et al. 1948), especially given the RDG had previously submitted project proposals in the area of feedbase management. The PAR methodology adopted enabled the leadership team to monitor group activity as they progressed through a fourstage learning cycle adapted from the action research cycle described by Greenwood and Levin (1998). For details see Jennings et al. (2000b). The project coordinator facilitated stage 1 (‘ask’) meetings in each region to identify what local feedbase issues were limiting production and what – if anything – could be done to address these. For some regions, two meetings were conducted as the region was geographically large, and the RDG recommended separate sessions. Meetings were open to any interested members of the RDG (and thus by default all dairy farmers in the region) and typically comprised 10–15 participants. ABARE (1999) regional data was presented initially at these meetings to prompt discussion by asking participants whether the data was realistic and representative for their region. Results of these meetings were collated and given back to the groups and a second session facilitated to start the process of deciding what could be done to address the identified limitations. For some groups, they concluded more information was required, so they implemented on-farm monitoring to better define their research questions (stage 2, ‘watch and measure’), while for others they had already collected this data. Groups then moved into on-farm research stage 3 (‘investigate’) and then were provided with the opportunity to change practice in response to results and

M. A. Friend et al.

communicate results to other farmers informally and also formally at two project conferences (stage 4, ‘act’). Given the impetus for the development of the project was triggered by the RDG submitting project applications for funding, the PAR approach was deemed appropriate by the leadership team in order to maintain individual RDG ownership of their research while enabling the opportunity for the leadership team to reflect on the success of the approach. PPP commenced in mid 1998 and was externally evaluated in mid 2001. This paper presents the results of this evaluation, addresses questions of whether the PAR approach resulted in ownership of and involvement in projects by group members, whether the approach was valued by the varied participants, and finally discusses lessons learnt from the approach. Materials and methods General Full details on the history, governance and operation of the project is provided by Jennings (2005: Chapter 4). The leadership team decided not to overtly promote the PAR process to the groups during the initial stages of the project. It was felt that the groups’ cohesion and ownership of projects was more important, and that attempting to define PAR may result in groups feeling a process was being imposed on them. However, the project coordinator worked with the groups, through regular visits and telephone contact to encourage a process of planning, action, observation and reflection. The approach of allowing groups to develop without external interference is consistent with the literature on ‘communities of practice’ (Breu and Hemingway 2005), which require time to evolve, develop internal leadership and create an environment in which participation is encouraged and learning valued, all of which is best achieved without external interference or an attempt to manage them, especially in the ‘incubation’ phase. While we acknowledge many of the RDG were well established, they had not been involved in a PAR approach before, so time was required for communities of practice to develop. Furthermore, in some of the larger RDG, the RDG was not the primary vehicle for the PAR process – this occurred in smaller communities of practice that often developed around ‘focus farms’ established to conduct on-farm investigation or research. Evaluation An external evaluation of the project was conducted in mid 2001 (Roberts 2001) to determine whether the aims and objectives of PPP were still relevant to the NSW dairy industry, to evaluate the PAR approach and to identify limitations in the approach or how it was implemented. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the PAR process was via structured interviews (Kemmis and McTaggart 1988) in order to gain data on the level of participation in the project (and therefore whether the process could be classed as PAR) and outcomes. Furthermore, while it was envisaged groups would move through a PAR process, the leadership team acknowledged that we were also in a PAR process – planning the process, enacting and observing the process, and reflecting on the process. Evaluation of the project was thus a critical component of our PAR process, and important so our ideas

Participatory action research in the NSW dairy industry

and assumptions could be tested by the collection of data from the evaluation (McTaggart 1991). The independent evaluator gathered initial data on the level of estimated involvement in PPP across the various regions, as estimated by farmers (two from each participating regional group) at a PPP conference held during 2001. More comprehensive data was collected via telephone interviews with group members over the following months. The leadership team provided the evaluator with a list of names of people in the industry who had at some stage provided their details to the leadership team. The questionnaire for the telephone interview targeted members of four categories (number of each in parentheses), namely: (1) Category A (9) – farmers from one RDG who were closely involved with the project, (2) Category B (10) – farmers from the same RDG who were peripherally involved, (3) Category C (26) – farmers from the five other RDG, and (4) Category D (17) – members from organisations such as the NSW Department of Primary Industries, processors, and universities. Respondents were asked about the project and their involvement in it. Of those contacted (67), three stated that they were not involved and were not interviewed. Two more had only just begun working on the project and declined to comment beyond the second question. Therefore, useable data was contributed by 62 participants. All data are presented as a percentage of this total, with questions asked listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Questions asked in the telephone interviews Q1. How long have you been involved in the project? Q2. Why did you become involved with the project? Q3. How are you involved in activities? (Select as many as needed) Setting topic and direction of research Planning Managing Data collection Data analysis Passing on results to other farmers Other Q4. What did you get out of the project? (Participants also asked to comment) Became skilled at research Became skilled at using the pasture meter Learnt how to use the pasture management package Shared information with other farmers Learnt something new Q5. Describe the types of people in your group Q6. How was the management of the project by the leadership team? (Scale of strongly agree to strongly disagree) Access to funds was well organised Information was forthcoming when needed Access to leadership team members was easy The project should continue Q7. Are you aware the project was guided by a participatory action learning/research approach? Q8. What could be improved? Q9. Final comments

Animal Production Science

1009

Results Conference data on participation The estimated direct involvement in PPP across the participating regions was 58%, while an estimated 85% of all farmers in the participating regions were aware of PPP (Table 2). Survey results Length of involvement Sixty-eight percent of respondents indicated an involvement in the project for at least 18 months. In the case of category A and B respondents, all but one respondent indicated they had been involved since PPP started, which was about 2 years. With category C respondents, 24% had been involved less than a year, 20% had been involved between 12 and 18 months and 56% longer than 18 months. For category D, 24% had been involved less than 12 months, 17% between 12 and 18 months and 59% for longer than 18 months. Reasons for involvement The main reasons why respondents became involved was because they were interested in the on-farm trials and they wanted to learn from their involvement (39%), because it was their job or part of their current activities (32%), and because it was seen as valuable to farmers (21%). The remainder mentioned the social value, the stimulation of visiting Victoria (one RDG visited focus farms in northern Victoria as a guide to setting up their own focus farm), funding or made no comment. The interest in on-farm trials was moderate among the farmers (categories A, B and C) at 51%. Category A respondents became involved mainly because they wanted to improve feedbase management and profits and learn something new (78%). Sixty percent of category B respondents stated they wanted to learn from involvement while 20% stated they wanted to help others. Category C respondents became involved because it was part of several ongoing projects (35%), because they wanted to investigate on-farm issues (54%) and for networking and social reasons (11%). 53% of category D respondents indicated that they were involved because it was part of their responsibility to the dairy industry or part of their job, while 29% became involved because it was of value to farmers, 12% because there was funding Table 2. Farmer-estimated involvement in and awareness of Profitable Pastures Project (PPP) in the participating dairy regions (%)

Wauchope South Coast and Highlands Wagga Wagga Forbes Tumut Camden Bega Taree Dungog/Gloucester Average

Directly

Aware of PPP

50 60 70 55 100 100 40 25 25 58

70 100 100 70 100 100 100 75 50 85

1010

Animal Production Science

M. A. Friend et al.

available and 24% had only just started with the project and found it difficult to make a comment. Type of involvement There was a high level of involvement in setting the direction and planning, but in all categories (except C) there was a reduced activity in project management. Farmer respondents (categories A–C) perceived less of a role for themselves in data collection, whereas category D perceived a greater role in data collection. Category B and D respondents perceived greater roles in extension (Table 3). Benefits of involvement Respondents mentioned the greatest benefit from involvement came from new learning (81%) and sharing information (72%). Other positive responses were also mentioned. For example, 40% mentioned becoming skilled at carrying out research, while experience with the pasture meter and the pasture management program was noted by 32%. However, these results were not uniform across categories (Table 4). Nature of groups Of the types of people that respondents mentioned as being part of their groups, farmers were always mentioned as being part of a group, while agronomists and dairy officers were the next most frequently mentioned. Most respondents recollected that a variety of people formed their groups (Table 5), indicating that they did not just see the project as only involving farmers and agronomists. Project management by the leadership team About 70% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that funds were well organised, 82% that information was Table 3. Percentage of respondents in each interview group indicating a role in project activities Group A Group B Group C Group D Average Set direction Planning Project management Data collection Data analysis Extension Other

67 44 22 22 22 33 78

70 70 20 60 60 70 70

73 73 69 50 50 42 27

59 53 35 71 53 77 59

67 60 37 51 46 56 59

Table 4. Percentage of respondents in each interview group indicating benefits of involvement in the Profitable Pastures Project

forthcoming when needed, 82% that access to the leadership team was easy and 82% that the project should continue (Table 6). Responses from category D were generally less favourable (Table 6). Awareness of PAR methodology About 69% were aware that a PAR process guided the project. Respondents from category A (directly involved) were more aware (67%) than respondents from category B (indirectly involved) (30%). Category C respondents (69%) were similar to category A, while category D respondents were the most aware (94%). Comments about the implementation of the PAR process, however, indicated a lack of certainty about what it was, although there was agreement that it was about on-farm research. Areas for improvement Suggestions for improvement were different for each of the categories. For example, category A and B respondents wanted to improve their focus farms and better support the farmers involved, including funding for the farmer who owned the focus farm. Several comments by category B respondents centred around motivating farmers to attend activities. The concerns of category C were mainly about communication and the need to share more information on administrative as well as project matters, while several comments on farmer motivation were made. The concerns of category D were shared among funding and the need for better leadership and briefing by the Table 5. Interview group composition (by occupation types) mentioned by interviewees Groups A and B

Group C

Group D

Farmers Agronomists Dairy officers Seed merchants Guest speakers Accountants Farm services

Farmers Agronomists Dairy officers Factory representatives Feed suppliers Bankers Produce store owners

Focus farm coordinator Merchandisers

Guest speakers Coordinators Water resource department Seed merchants

Farmers Dairy officers Agronomists Nutritionists Researchers Processors Commercial interests (seed and fertilisers) Bank managers Accountants Veterinarians

Table 6. Respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing with statements, as a percentage of total respondents in each group Group A Group B Group C Group D Average

Group A Group B Group C Group D Average Research skills Using pasture meter Using pasture management program Shared information Learnt something new

56 44 11

30 40 50

50 27 8

24 18 59

40 32 32

100 100

80 90

31 58

77 77

72 81

Access to funds well organised Information forthcoming when needed Access to leadership team members was easy Project should continue

78

100

65

35

70

100

100

73

53

82

89

100

81

59

82

78

90

85

76

82

Participatory action research in the NSW dairy industry

Animal Production Science

project leadership team, and that funding needed to be greater or better targeted. There were also comments about the need for more communication, about the need for attention to local issues and about the need to make the action learning cycle obvious.

analysis, and participants were in control of the outcomes and overall process. The estimate of direct farmer participation in the project in the regions (58%) exceeded the average participation rate for courses in the NSW dairy industry at a similar time by ~30% (ABARE 1999). Due to the relatively small and purposely chosen sample of farmers used to obtain this estimate, it is likely this figure may be an overestimation. In participation projects such as this, it is common that the more progressive farmers choose to be involved, being more proactive in identifying and addressing their learning needs. Cloonan and Woog (1997) estimated that only 10–15% of producers are keen to enrol in courses and activities, and Trompf and Sale (2001) demonstrated that participants in the voluntary paired paddock program employed more productive practices than non-participants before involvement. Despite the potentially inflated estimate of participation, it is clear the level of participation in PPP was relatively high. We attribute this to how participants viewed the project. Participants viewed PPP differently to other projects because the actions of each group were decided by the group, and this gave farmers control. There was also a perception that because the results were local they would be more applicable, which was reflected in the interest in on-farm trials. Because most interviewees had been involved with the project for more than 18 months, this suggests that the group approach contributed to farmer ownership of the project, while the range of group participants noted by interviewees indicated the project was inclusive and collaborative. Clearly, the evaluation demonstrates the PAR approach was effective in achieving high levels of participation across the various stages of the project and a high level of ownership of results by participants.

Final comments Thirty-eight respondents chose to make a final comment, 21 comments could be classed as reinforcing the value of the project while 22 comments could be classed as criticisms or suggestions for improvement (Table 7). Discussion Ownership, roles and participation Survey data showed that PPP was a highly relevant project for the NSW dairy industry, with 82% of interviewees agreeing or strongly agreeing the project should continue (Table 5). This may be attributed to ownership, with the majority of farmer respondents (categories A, B and C) indicating a role in setting the direction of PPP activities (Table 2). It is interesting that farmers in category A perceived a lesser role in project planning than farmers in categories B and C. Category A farmers may have perceived a more ‘hands-off’ role in the project, which is consistent with their low level of involvement in the day to day running of projects (management, data collection and analysis). While category D respondents indicated involvement in project planning, they indicated a lesser involvement in management, yet a greater involvement in data collection and analysis, implying they were not required to run the project(s), but rather involved themselves as needed. While the majority of category D respondents perceived a role in extension (as would be expected), it is encouraging given the aims of the project that many farmers (especially those in category B) also perceived a role in extension. Given the results, we conclude the project can be classed as PAR, based on the definition of McTaggart (1997), that participants were involved in setting the agenda of the enquiry, participants were involved in data collection and

Outcomes New learning was seen as the greatest benefit arising from involvement (Table 3), and this was strongest among farmers directly involved, which is consistent with the aims of PPP. While farmers did not greatly value the acquisition of technical skills, a large proportion of category D respondents

Table 7. Final comments, with number of comments in each theme within respondent category Theme Positive General (e.g. ‘good project’) Provided networks/community Assisted learning Improved farm performance Allowed flexibility/different approaches Criticism or area for improvement More focus farms/time needed More money needed Difficult to keep interest high More feedback/communication needed More guidelines/coordination/support from leadership team More agribusiness involvement Other

1011

Categories A and B

Category C

Category D

3 2 1 1 1

2 1 1 1 2

3 – – – 3

4 1 2 1

1 2

– – – – 3

– More input needed from non-focus farms

1 State-wide pasture competition needed

3

1 Action learning not appropriate for all

1012

Animal Production Science

valued several technical tools that were made available through PPP, suggesting these tools may be more useful to advisers. It is interesting that over 45% of farmers indicated they became skilled at doing research, and in future it could be expected that farmers will have more confidence to apply outcomes from research on-farm as a result of their improved skills in research. Not surprisingly, category D respondents did not perceive as great a benefit in this respect, given they were likely to already possess research skills. All groups, except category C, perceived a great benefit from sharing information. Category A and B respondents were from a region which started PPP activities earlier than other regions, so the lower perceived benefit in category C may simply reflect that they had generated less information at the time of the interview. Nonetheless, most respondents from this category perceived a benefit from learning something new. Encouragingly, non-farmers perceived they learnt something new. This implies the PAR process enabled technical experts to learn from working with practitioners. It is not surprising that learning was the most highly valued outcome from the project. Adult learning literature (e.g. Knowles 1990; Malouf 1994; Foley 1995; Stanfield 1997) reinforces the importance of learners participating in the process; learning relating to the needs of the group and building on and using local knowledge and experience; learners setting their own learning goals; learners feeling a need to learn; the role of learning from each other and learning requiring planning, action and reflection in a continuous cycle. All these principles are embodied in the PAR approach taken by PPP. Farmers identified areas in which they wished to improve or learn (stage 1), then planned and acted to design strategies to investigate or learn about these areas (stages 2 and 3). There was a need to learn, group members identified and planned how to meet learning needs, and utilised local knowledge and experience to do so. Lessons learnt While the individual groups were progressing through a PAR cycle, motivated by a desire to improve on-farm practice, the leadership team was also moving through a PAR process, motivated by the desire to see learning and change within the groups. It is therefore appropriate to reflect on the PAR process and discuss the lessons learnt as a leadership team. Farmers’ responses were generally very positive in their views on access to funds and information from the leadership team, and access to leadership team members (Table 6). Non-farmers (category D) were far less positive. Final comments (Table 7) such as: ‘preferred more guidelines, support from outside for farmers; more coordination’ by category D respondents imply some frustration by this group in the lack of prescriptive information from the leadership team. Category D respondents may have found the project was different in its operation to what they were familiar with, which may have contributed to their less than favourable responses. Nevertheless, despite these concerns, most category D respondents agreed the project should continue, and many final comments indicated positive views on the project. In conducting PAR projects, potential resistance to the approach by technical experts should be acknowledged. Effective facilitation is critical to ensure the process is not

M. A. Friend et al.

hampered by such resistance. For groups where individuals feel threatened by the PAR approach (most likely existing researchers), it is important to create an environment where all participants perceive the opportunity to learn and gain benefit (Boog 2003). The evaluation suggests that technical experts, while they may not initially be comfortable with the approach, as a result of participation will begin to see the benefits of the approach, both in terms of outcomes for the group and their individual learning. While the evaluation indicates the PAR approach was highly successful in achieving the project aims, in two of the regional groups the PAR approach did not work as effectively as planned. The project leadership team assumed that as all RDG had submitted proposals for research they would be receptive to the approach. It soon became clear that in two regions this would not happen. Jennings and Packham (2000) discussed issues surrounding this, and concluded issues of power and the role of local support staff were important factors in explaining the slowness of these groups to embrace a participatory approach. In one group it was observed that the project threatened existing activities and roles, and attempts by members of the leadership team to introduce new activities were rejected by local leaders. The RDG concerned also appeared preoccupied with political issues surrounding deregulation of the national milk market, and while PPP was seen as a useful project it would not address the higher order issue of reduced milk price after deregulation. To this group the cost of participation was perceived as greater than the cost of non-participation. This effectively prevented PPP activities from commencing in the region until the RDG structure changed. For the other group it was clear that while enthusiasm for the project existed, this did not translate into action. Jennings et al. (2000a) attributed this to the part-time project coordinator also being the Department of Primary Industries dairy officer in the region. It is suggested the group had an unstated expectation that the project coordinator would initiate and implement projects at the local level. While the leadership team provided facilitation support for initial meetings within the RDG, it was a mistake to not ensure the groups had facilitation support throughout the project. In the groups where the PAR approach was embraced, these groups had effective facilitation skills within the group, such that ownership of the process of setting the research agenda and process was possible. In the two groups where the PAR process did not work, it appears they were working within a top-down research and extension paradigm, which at least in part was due to strong personalities within the group having a vested interest in this paradigm continuing. Effective facilitation could have assisted in addressing the power imbalance in these groups, although it must be acknowledged that the progress of such groups through a PAR process is likely to be slower, at least initially. Ridley et al. (2003) comment on the importance of effective facilitation, especially in groups where participants may not have previously known each other, in which case they note it took up to 12 months for the group to function cohesively and trust one another. While the majority of participants were aware the project was guided by PAR/action learning, comments showed a lack of certainty about what PAR/action learning was, except that it involved on-farm research. Not surprisingly, category D members were the most aware and familiar with PAR/action

Participatory action research in the NSW dairy industry

learning. The lack of clarity about PAR/action learning is not surprising given the leadership team’s decision to not make the process overt in the initial stages of the project. It is our view, based on the evaluation results (namely the inclusive nature of participation), that the decision to not clearly define PAR at the commencement of the project did not affect the effectiveness of the approach. The process of moving through an action research cycle, while structuring activities in attempt to ensure participation, resulted in the PAR process working without participants being required to understand the theoretical definition of PAR. The greatest challenge to continuing a PAR approach, based on the data, appears to be maintaining enthusiasm in the groups and resourcing the groups appropriately. Several comments (Table 7) were made on the difficulty of keeping interest in the project high, having more focus farms (or having data available on more farms), the need for more time, and the need for more funds to keep projects going or instigate new projects. While the evaluation has shown the benefits of a PAR approach in terms of participation and learning, it has also highlighted that unless there is a strong motivation to learn (in this case prompted by a desire to improve feedbase management to reduce cost of production), and adequate resourcing of groups (in this case providing funds to groups, which in many cases may have been insufficient), the continuation of such an approach is jeopardised. Conclusion A PAR approach was effective in gaining farmer ownership of on-farm research; however, group structures affected the final outcomes for each group. PAR is a methodology that enables ownership of learning and research activities, which in turn can result in significant learning outcomes. Given the approach is suitable in a multi-stakeholder context, correctly implemented it should be useful in addressing current issues confronting agricultural industries. Acknowledgements Funding for PPP was provided by Dairy Australia through the NSW Dairy Industry Development Co. The participation of NSW dairy farmers and other industry stakeholders is gratefully acknowledged.

References Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (1999) ‘Technology and farm management practices in the Australian dairy industry.’ (ABARE: Canberra) Black AW (2000) Extension theory and practice: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 40, 493–502. doi: 10.1071/EA99083 Boog BWM (2003) The emancipatory character of action research, its history and present state of the art. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 13, 426–438. doi: 10.1002/casp.748 Breu K, Hemingway C (2005) Researcher–practitioner partnering in industryfunded participatory action research. Systemic Practice and Action Research 18, 437–455. doi: 10.1007/s11213-005-8482-6 Chambers R (1983) ‘Rural development: putting the last first.’ (Longman: London) Chein I, Cook SW, Harding J (1948) The field of action research. American Psychologist 3, 43–50.

Animal Production Science

1013

Cloonan D, Woog R (1997) How do we do it? Waddling toward a new theoretically informed practice of extension. In ‘Proceedings of the 2nd Australasia-Pacific extension network conference. Vol. 1’. pp. 433–439. Dickens L, Watkins K (1999) Action research: rethinking Lewin. Management Learning 30, 127–140. doi: 10.1177/1350507699302002 Foley G (1995) Teaching adults. In ‘Understanding adult education and training’. (Ed. G Foley) pp. 31–53. (Allen and Unwin: St Leonards, NSW) Greenwood DJ, Levin M (1998) ‘Introduction to action research.’ (SAGE Publications: London) Helmfrid H, Haden A, Ljung M (2008) The role of action research (AR) in environmental research: learning from a local organic food and farming research project. Systemic Practice and Action Research 21, 105–131. doi: 10.1007/s11213-007-9088-y Jennings JR (2005) On the effectiveness of participatory research in agriculture. PhD Thesis, University of Western Sydney. Jennings J, Packham RG (2000) Action research and issues of participation in the NSW dairy industry. In ‘The world congress: 5th on action learning, action research and process management and 9th on participatory action research’. (University of Ballarat: Ballarat, Vic.) Jennings J, Andrews A, Ison M, Sriskandarajah N, Friend M (2000a) On-farm action research and learning: progress of the profitable pastures project in New South Wales. In ‘Achieving change through improved knowledge systems, Palmerston North, New Zealand’. pp. 259–264. Jennings J, Ison M, Friend M, Sriskandarajah N, Andrews A (2000b) Farmer perspectives on profitable pasture production for dairying in New South Wales. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 13(Suppl. A), 42–45. Jennings J, Andrews A, Friend M, Ison M, Sriskandarajah N (2001) Taking the reins: farmer-driven learning, innovation and extension for profitable dairy pasture production in New South Wales. In ‘Proceedings of the 10th Australian Agronomy Society conference, Hobart, Tasmania’. (Regional Institute: Hobart) Available at http://www.regional.org.au/au/asa/2001/4/b/jennings.htm#TopOFPage [Verified 23 September 2009] Kemmis S, McTaggart R (1988) ‘The action research planner.’ (Deakin University: Waurn Ponds, Vic.) Knowles MS (1990) ‘The adult learner: a neglected species.’ (Gulf Publishing Company: Houston, TX) Leeuwis C, van den Ban A (2004) ‘Communication for rural innovation: rethinking agricultural extension.’ (Blackwell: London) Malouf D (1994) ‘How to teach adults in a fun and exciting way.’ (Business and Professional Publishing: Chatswood, NSW) McTaggart R (1991) Principles for participatory action research. Adult Education Quarterly 41, 168–187. doi: 10.1177/000184819 1041003003 McTaggart R (1997) Guiding principles for participatory action research. In ‘Participatory action research: international contexts and consequences’. (Ed. R McTaggart) pp. 25–44. (State University of New York Press: Albany) Ridley AM, Paramore TR, Beverly CR, Dunin FX, Froelich VMC (2003) Developing environmental monitoring tools from sustainability indicators in the southern Riverina. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 43, 271–284. doi: 10.1071/EA00171 Roberts K (2001) Review of the learning process in the Profitable Pastures Project. Final report. Roberts Research and Evaluation, University of Western Sydney, Sydney. Russell DB, Ison RL, Gamble DR, Williams RK (1989) ‘A critical review of rural extension theory and practice.’ (Faculty of Agriculture and Rural Development, University of Western Sydney – Hawkesbury: Richmond) Savin-Baden M, Wimpenny K (2007) Exploring and implementing participatory action research. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 31, 331–343. doi: 10.1080/03098260601065136

1014

Animal Production Science

M. A. Friend et al.

Stanfield D (1997) Training – if you grab them by their learning principles the rest will follow. In ‘Australasian Pacific Extension Conference: managing change, building knowledge and skills. Vol. 1’. pp. 391–400. (Conference Design: Sandy Bay, Tas.) Trompf JP, Sale PWG (2001) Differences in management practices and attitudes between the Triple P Program entrants and other pastoral producers in the region. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 41, 773–779. doi: 10.1071/EA00193

Tyson T (1998) ‘Working with groups.’ 2nd edn. (McMillan: South Melbourne) Vanclay F (2004) Social principles for agricultural extension to assist in the promotion of natural resource management. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 213–222. doi: 10.1071/EA02139

Manuscript received 19 May 2008, accepted 26 June 2009

http://www.publish.csiro.au/journals/an