This article was downloaded by: [University of Tasmania]On: 13 May 2014, At: 17:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Agricultural Education and ExtensionPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raee20

Information vs training: Issues in farmer learningS. Kilpatrick & T. Rosenblatt aa Centre for Research and Learning in Regional Australia , University of Tasmania , POBox 1214, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia , 7250Published online: 30 Jul 2007.

To cite this article: S. Kilpatrick & T. Rosenblatt (1998) Information vs training: Issues in farmer learning, The Journal ofAgricultural Education and Extension, 5:1, 39-51, DOI: 10.1080/13892249885300151

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13892249885300151

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Kitpatrick and Rosenblatt

Information vs Training: Issues in Farmer Learning

S. Kilpatrick and T. Rosenblatt"

A b ~ r a ~

We have observed that seeking information is universally regarded as acceptable behaviour in the Australian farming community, but training is often regarded with suspicion. Those who train are more likely to make successful changes to their farm management practices. We draw on data gathered for a number of studies of farmer education and training to suggest five reasons why farmers might prefer to learn by seeking information rather than training. These are: a preference for independence, familiarity with a highly contextual learning mode, lack of eordidenee in working in training settings, a preference for information from known sources, and a fear of being exposed to new knowledge and skills. We recommend that farmers be in control of their training and be encouraged to learn within a wider learning community which facilitates participative research and joint enquiry. This approach is consistent with the ways farmers prefer to learn. JAgr Educ Ext (1998, 5. 1, pp 39-52)

Information and training

Training is a difficult thing in farming. I think it's more of an access to information rather than training. (Farmer)

As we talk to farmers and those working with farmers we observe a perception in the Australian farming community that seeking information is acceptable behaviour, but training is far less acceptable. For large numbers of farmers, seeking information is much preferred to training. Further, seeking information is not necessarily thought of as learning. The word learning has negative connotations for some. While trialing an interview questionnaire recently, we found that some farmers became visibly uncomfortable when we suggested they might be learning about things when, to them, they were just finding out.

At first this difference in attitudes towards seeking information as opposed to learning

and training came as a surprise - after all, isn't training all about information? Doesn't training introduce information and explain how to find, interpret and use this information? Aren't we learning when we apply and use information?

Some definitions The broad issue of interest here is the ways in which farmers learn, that is the ways they acquire new knowledge and skills, including skills in locating, understanding, processing and applying knowledge to their farm businesses. Seeking information and training are two activities which can be part of a learning process. Not all farmers, or all adults, prefer to learn in the same way (Knowles, 1990). Our earlier reports (Kilpatrick, 1996a; 1997b) recommended that education and training be delivered in a variety of ways in order to accommodate farmers' diverse learning styles.

* Centre for Research and Learning in Regional Australia, University of Tasmania, PO Box 1214 Launceston, Tasmania Australia 7250

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

17:

25 1

3 M

ay 2

014

The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 1998, vol. 5, no. 1

Before we proceed we must clarify what we mean by information and training. Our use of the term training aligns with Tuijnman's (1996) definition of formal education as "the deliberated and systematic transmission of knowledge, skills, and attitudes.., within an explicit, defined, and structured format" (p. 22). Participation in training always requires a deliberate action, for example, enrolling in a training programme or turning up to a venue at a set time. The training participant expects to be exposed to new information, in the form of knowledge and/or skills.

For the purposes of this paper we define information to encompass Tuijnman's (1996) definitions of nonformal and informal education. He defines nonformal education as "like formal education in the deliberate and systematic transmission of knowledge, attitudes and skills.., it avoids the technology of formal schooling" (pp. 22-23). He defines informal education as "the incidental transmission of attitudes, knowledge, and skills" (p. 22). Information is knowledge, skills and/or attitudes which are obtained from a source (a person or print or electronic media), either deliberately or incidentally. The receiver can choose to either accept or reject the information, or put it aside for possible later use.

Whilst it is possible to reject the knowledge and/or skills encountered through Waining, the participant, and the wider community in the case of publicly subsidised training, expect acceptance and use of at least some of the knowledge and/or skills encountered during training. In contrast to information seeking, the participant and the wider community expect some change to behaviour as a result of training.

Structure o f the paper

This paper sets out to explore farmers' perceived difference between seeking information and training by examining aspects of farmer learning and referring back to data gathered in interviews for previous research projects. We start by reviewing what we know about farmers' information seeking and

training behaviour, and then suggest some reasons for the perceived difference between seeking information and training. Finally, we discuss how training can be structured to more closely resemble the seeking of information, while retaining features of effective training.

Information seeking and training patterns

Seeking information is a part of almost every learning project which results in some changes to farm business management. Most changes to practice are influenced by interaction with, and information from, a number of sources, including print and electronic media, peers, experts and training activities (KilpaWick, 1996a). Most of the beef producers interviewed for Falk, Kilpatrick and Morgan (1997) who had attended a quality assurance training day mentioned the rural press as their main way of keeping up with what was happening in the industry. Kilpatrick's study of farmer participation in education and training found that only 3% of farm businesses had someone participate in formal education in a year, 76% had someone attend field days and 38% had someone attend seminars or workshops, such as a quality assurance training day or a computer workshop.

In Australia, rural participation in formal post- compulsory education and training is lower than urban participation (National Centre for Vocational Education Research, 1997; National Board for Employment, Education and Training, 1994). The agricultural work force attends less training activities of all sorts (formal, nonformal, on-the-job, and off-the- job) than the work force in other industries (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1994), and is less well educated than the agricultural work forces of its international competitor countries (Cameron & Chamala, 1993). Those farmers who participate in education and Waining activities recognise that others who do not attend these activities would benefit from participation, as the following quote illustrates.

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

17:

25 1

3 M

ay 2

014

Whilst we had a small group in our Farm Best Practice Program, there was a bigger group outside of it who hadn't bothered to involve themselves with it, and they are the people we probably need to be talking to. (Farmer participant interviewed for the study reported in Kilpatrick, 1997b)

In a national study using fmancial and educational and training data collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Kilpalrick (1997a; 1996a) established that farmers who have attended formal or nonformal education and training operate farm businesses more profitably. Education and training improves farmers' willingness and ability to make successful changes to their farm management practices by:

• making them aware of a greater number of possible new practices;

• enhancing their ability to select changes that will be successful; and

developing a positive attitude to new practices and increasing confidence to make changes.

Bamberry et al (1997) also found that farmers used a range of information sources and learning processes in managing their farm businesses, and the sources and processes varied from farmer to farmer and according to the purpose of the learning. However, there was considerable variation in ability to assess their own competence in their information seeking and learning processes. Multiple sources of influence on farmers before they make a change is consistent with the decision- making models of Rogers (1995), Klausmeier (1985), Argyris and Schon (1974), and Havelock (1971). These models identify a number of stages in the process, during which the decision maker seeks and obtains information or confirmation from a variety of sources. As well, Phillips's (1985) model of the stages that precede action by farmers describes the roles played by others in the learning process of farmers, where each layer of social distance fulfils a vital component of

Kilpatrick and Rosenblatt

the learning strategy. In a typical learning process, intimates help confirm attitudes toward new practices, acquaintances are used to sound out how new practices could be implemented, while more distant experts provide technical knowledge and skills.

How can learning about process orientated practices be made relevant to farmers? There is a push by industry leaders for business/risk management lraining, quality assurance training, sustainable agriculture and change from "way-of-life' to "business farming' (Kilpatrick, 1996b, National Farmers Federation, 1993). Research has indicated that farmers are less likely to lrain or plan to train in marketing, land management and risk management areas than in agricultural, technical skill areas (Kilpalrick, 1996a). Business and risk management, quality assurance, sustainable agriculture and marketing are examples of complex sets of practices. They all rely on processes, and processes are more difficult to observe than concrete things such as new crop varieties or artificial insemination of livestock.

As well as being complex sets of practices, the above are somewhat abstract concepts which have no obvious net benefit to individual farm businesses. They have no direct returns or no immediate direct returns, involve change of life-style and may in fact incur immediate cost. For example, Falk, Kilpatrick and Morgan (1997) found that the implementation of quality assurance required an immediate monetary outlay for all those surveyed, while the timing of returns was uncertain and depended on a substantial proportion of all farmers implementing quality assurance. Farmers are urged to: do it for the good of the industry (for example, quality assurance); do it for the good of the community (for example, Landeare; sustainable agriculture); do it for the good of the nation (for example, exports); and do it for their own good (for example, efficient business buys desired lifestyle). However, many cannot see why they should change the way they manage their farm business, or how they could change. The following passage, from an interview with a

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

17:

25 1

3 M

ay 2

014

The Journal o f Agricultural Education and Extension, 1998, vol. 5, no. 1

non-participating farmer in the target group for a vegetable farm management programme, shows that even though training and change are linked in the farmer's mind, the perception that changing to "best' practice is out of his reach, prevents him from even considering attending training activities.

Interviewer: are there any other programmes that you would like to see offered for farmers that you might go to? Farmer: I haven't really thought about it because the trouble is to make any alterations or any changes, it takes time and money. And on my farm and my father's farm there are things you do that you know are not right, or not best, but you can only do to what you can afford. I have never really given it [training programmes] any thought. (Interview from for the study reported in Kilpatrick, 1997b)

Kilpa~ck's (1996a) research showed that over a three year period, only 11% of Australian farms made a change to their marketing practices, 14% changed their financial management practices and 25% made a change in land management. Land- management changes included things such as changing irrigation or fencing, changes to soft management, planting trees for land management and developing whole farm plans. This research was conducted four years into the Australian Decade of Landcare during which there was a major education and training campaign about land management aimed at the agricultural sector. Kilpatrick (1996a) found that those who participated in training activities were more likely to have made both process-based and technical changes. Training activities were defined broadly to include field (or demonstration) days as well as formal education activities in Kilpatrick's research.

The provision of education and training which encourages flexibility and the development of lifelong learning skills in agriculture is paramount according to Candy (1995). McColl et al (1997) propose a major policy

initiative to provide and promote farm business management education and training for Australian farmers as a way of speeding changes to farm-management practices, including fmancial management and marketing changes.

Present patterns of information seeking and training, it seems, are not sufficient to facilitate widespread change in more abstract, process-based practices, such as fmancial management and marketing. Participation in training about process-based practices must increase if farmers are to benefit from the knowledge and skills which can be gained through training. It is important that we understand not only how farmers actually learn, but also how they perceive that they acquire new information and skills (or learn) if we are to design training programmes that are not only effective, but will also entice farmers to participate.

There is a body of research which has found that farmers' attitudes are at least as important as economic factors in influencing actions, for example, in conservation behaviour (Battershill & Gilg, 1997; Vanclay & Lawrence, 1995; Gould, Saupe & Klemme, 1989; Napier, Cameron & Camboni, 1988). We suggest that activities aimed to deliver information and/or upskill farmers that are packaged and sold as "training' or even 'learning' activities will not attract their target audience if there are negative attitudes to learning and training. A similar activity packaged and sold as "delivering information' wiU attract a larger attendance because of more favourable attitudes towards information seeking. An example of this is the widespread participation in field days in Australia, with over three-quarters of farm business being represented at field days every year (Kilpalrick, 1996a). We suggest that the popularity of field days is because they are perceived as delivering information, not as training activities.

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

17:

25 1

3 M

ay 2

014

Kilpatrick and Rosenblatt

Why might farmers choose information over training?

Learning patterns Learning patterns vary from farm business to farm business and from learning project to learning project within a farm business. This farmer described a range of learning sources and strategies used by her farm business:

[Husband] is on just about every committee going and .... we even went to an Angus Society course on recording a while back because there had been a few hiccups in the recording system.., we do subscribe to the Weekly Times and the Stock and Land and ... the Becflmprovers ... plus all the information coming through from the Angus Society and Breed Plan... (Farmer)

This farmer is one of the few interviewed as part of a project on Quality Assurance training (Fal l Kilpatrick & Morgan, 1997) who mentioned previous farm-related learning in a formal training setting or course. Most mentioned the rural press as their main way of keeping up with what was happening in the industry. In another study, a group of farmers reported using a range of information sources and training activities when learning about a change to their farm business practice (Kilpatrick, 1996a). The most frequently cited sources were other farmers, experts such as extension officers or consultants, training activities and the media. Most farmers in that study used three or more sources before making technical or process-based changes. Other studies including those by Bamberry et al (1997), Ashton (1995), Thomas et al (1990), Phillips (1985) and Underwood (1984) have also found that farmers consult a range of information sources in decision-making.

While it is clear that farmers do use a range of sources for their learning, some do not use training activities. Of those who do train, the vast majority chose field days and nonformal Waining such as seminars and workshops over COurSeS.

We outline five reasons why farmers might prefer to learn by seeking information rather than training: a preference for independence; familiarity with a highly contextual learning mode; lack of confidence in working in training settings; a preference for information from known sources; and a fear of being exposed to new knowledge and skills.

1. Valuing independence

Farmers value their independence - they take pride in doing things for themselves and making their own decisions. Seeking information fits well with such notions of independence, self-sufficiency and control over one's life and business (Ices & Reeve, 1991).

Farmers' independent information-seeking behaviour conforms with the andragogical model of adult learning. This model assumes that: adults must know why they need to learn something before undertaking to learn it; that they want to make their own decisions - not have them imposed; and that they will learn things they believe are directly applicable to their own situation (Knowles, 1990). A recent study of farmer learning (Bamberry et al, 1997) found that triggers for learning focused on problem-solving and opportunities, that is on things specific to a farmer's circumstances at a particular time.

The farmers from the study by Kilpatrick (1997b) who are quoted below go out looking for information. They were interviewed as part of a sample who had attended training programmes:

You do anything and you've got a query about it, you either call up someone who you thought might know the answer, or look it up somewhere. (Farmer)

I don't wait for it [new knowledge] to find me, I go looking for it. (Farmer)

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

17:

25 1

3 M

ay 2

014

The Journal of A~ricultural Education and Extension, 1998, vol. 5. no. 1

2. Contextual learning

Managing a farm business involves spending much time in day-to-day on-farm activities, and relationships with a network of people including rural suppliers; product purchasers; extension workers; consultants; contractors; accountants; solicitors and bankers - as well as (more intimately) neighbours, friends and family. Writing about the learning environment of small business managers, Gibb (1997) says:

The predominant contextual learning mode in this environment is that of: dealing with a wide (holistic) task structure; learning from peers; learning by doing; learning by feedback from customers and suppliers; learning by copying; learning by experiment; learning by problem solving and opportunity taking; and learning from making mistakes...

The learning environment described above is continually creating "subjective' contextual knowledge; this contrasts sharply with the "objective', largely decontextualised (from the specific problems/priorities of the firm) learning environment frequently provided by the teacher or trainer. (Gibb, 1997, p. 19)

Finger (1994) develops a life-world approach framework to understand learning.

...behaviour is related to and derives from significant life-experiences, and that learning is less contributing to a developmental process than it constitutes a means of giving meaning to experiences. (Finger, 1994, p. 144)

This is consistent with Gibb's view of the contextual learning which occurs in small businesses and with the adult-learning theory mentioned in the previous section.

Farmers prefer to obtain information and learn from people. They perceive that to be a cost- effective way of gaining relevant information (Bamberry et al, 1997). Private consultants, who provide information tailored to a particular farm business, are a popular information source. They were ranked as a

very important source of information by 80% of gram farmers in one study (Meyers Strategy Group, 1993). The farmer quoted below, interviewed for the study Falk, Kilpatrick and Morgan (1997), lives on a remote grazing property and uses professional visits by experts such as veterinary surgeons to gain information and eustomise it to her own situation:

...they always come and have a meal so we usually pick up quite a few bits and pieces up there.., and its quite interesting, talk about animal nutrition or whatever's going on, and what's the latest. We usually pick things up. We actually would prefer to talk quietly about something with someone, because when they realise what level we're at, we find we gain more information. (Cattle farmer)

Extended courses are oRen perceived as offering a considerable amount of generic information, and so are not necessarily relevant to the context of a specific farming enterprise (Grarmall, 1995). Many farmers are reluctant to waste time in sifting through knowledge and skills that they may not be able to use, or choose not to use, as the following quotes illustrate.

There's a Crisis on Soils Conference coming up fairly soon... There's a little bit of it that I would very much like to see.., and the rest is probably irrelevant... I'm not sure if I'I1 get to that one. I probably won't. (Farmer interviewed for the study reported in Kilpatriek, 1997b)

You've got to spend a lot of hours to pick a few things up. Training programmes have been on, and there has been a lot of talk, but not a lot of fact that is actually of benefit, that you can pick up and use. (Farmer interviewed for the study reported in Falk, Kilpatrick & Morgan, 1997)

3. Lack of confidence in training settings

Those who have been away from education and study for some time frequently feel

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

17:

25 1

3 M

ay 2

014

threatened by a formal training environment. Grannall (1995) found this to be the case for many New South Wales farmers, and the finding was confirmed by Johnson, Bone and Knight's (1996) study of farmer training. Kilpatrick (1996a) found that a low level of education in the farm business management team inhibited participation in formal and nonformal training.

A second factor involves a lack of confidence in the providers of the training. This has often been cited (Kilpatrick, 1997b; Butler & Lawrence 1996; Rodwell et al, 1996; Grannall, 1995) as a reason why farmers and other small business operators do not participate in formal training programmes. This lack of confidence in those outside of the realm of practice was also revealed during the recent discussions over the introduction of a quality assurance programme in Queensland. One of the factors in the rejection of the scheme was that farmers were not prepared to have those with no knowledge of their individual management system coming on to their properties and telling them what to do.

I'll stay away from quality assurance as long as I can .... You've got to get an auditor to

come and audit and look round and if he's satisfied you join up, but he's got to come along again in another six months to make sure you have followed it up and then every 12 months .... I don't really go for having people come along and telling me what to do. We're used to doing things our own way and we believe we are doing things up to standard... (Queensland farmer interviewed for the study reported in Falk, Kilpatrick & Morgan, 1997)

4. Preference for information from known sources

Small business operators prefer to seek information from sources who they know will share their values, and who will have notions which are more closely aligned to their own (Gibb, 1997). New knowledge and skills may not be compatible with farmers pre-existing

Kilpatrick and Rosenblatt

life-world experiences. They are a threat to the knowledge and skills which farmers are comfortable with, and which often have served the farmers well in the past. Knowledge from homogenous sources (Rogers, 1995) is more readily assimilated into existing knowledge systems. As Vanclay (1992) says, the farming "subculture also means that ideas that are different to the ideas currently held in the subculture are likely to be rejected" (p. 457).

Information from neighbours is more likely to be compatible with existing life-world experiences. Many studies have found that those who seek most of their information from peers tend to have lower socio-economic status and smaller farms (Butt¢I, Larson & GiUespie, 1990; Thomas, Ladewig & McIntosh, 1990). The following quote from an interview survey on change, training and farm profitability, reported in Kilpatrick (1996a), illustrates a preference for local information s o u r c e s :

We have got a lot of local knowledge here, so you can get it from the locals. (Farmer)

We suggest that sources of information which arrive unsolicited and appear frequently, such as newsletters and visiting representatives of rural merchants, become familiar. Unsolicited information can be rejected without any loss. There is no investment of time or effort lost if the information is rejected. As well, people who interact with a farmer regularly are expected to understand the farmer's particular context. This is illustrated by the following quote from the interview survey reported in Kilpatrick (1996a):

We don't have to go and learn, it is given to us by the chemical companies.., it is put there in front of us. (Farmer)

Trainers, in contrast, are rarely known. There is no guarantee that they will prove to be valuable sources of information. The farmers interviewed by Grannall (1995) expressed concern about the credibility of many rural training providers. The lack of credibility of

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

17:

25 1

3 M

ay 2

014

The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 1998, vol. 5, no. 1

training providers was often linked to their failure to recognise that farmers already know a lot about farming. The farmer quoted below (interviewed as part of the study reported in Kilpatrick, 1997b) cited trainers' lack of credibility as a reason for not participating in a potato discussion group:

I have heard some farmers who have been to those things [discussion group sessions], and they have felt these people who do not farm, who probably couldn't grow a potato if they tried, are telling people what to do from theory. (Non-participating farmer)

5. Fear of new knowledge and skills

Farmer T wants information, he goes out looking for it where as a lot of farmers aren't looking for it. They are scared of the threat of new information... (Farmer M, interviewed as part of the study reported in Kilpatrick, 1997b)

'For some farmers, any new information or skills are seen as unnecessary, their current skills and knowledge are sufficient:

This place just rattles on whether you know everything or whether you know nothing, it makes no difference as far as I can see. (Farmer, interviewed as part of the interview survey reported in Kilpatriek, 1996)

We should remember that farmers, in general, consider that what they have chosen to do is the best way to go, and what they do is perfectly rational for them within their existing knowledge system (Frank, 1993). Training asks them to change from a system that they believe is best for their situation (or at least believed was best at some point) to a system that someone outside of their sub- culture is proposing as being better for their situation. Often, to make matters worse, implementing change costs them money. It should not surprise us to learn that farmers in general are not rushing to attend courses which involve this sort of questioning of their

own rationality and an acceptance of someone else's!

Training, in contrast to seeking information, is perceived by some farmers as a demand to relinquish control. Taking courses is inconsistent with the notion of the farmer as independent, self-sufficient and in control of the farm business, as discussed in the first point above. For people, who are reluctant to relinquish control, training can be threatening. It is seen as non-negotiable, dictated, even coercive.

The following quote provides an example of a farmer who felt that training was dictated, with no opportunity for influence:

They just send you out a letter, but there was no way putting ideas forward that I could find. You took what you were given and that was it. (Farmer, interviewed as part of the study reported in Kilpatrick, 1997b)

Those with a lower level of formal education are over-represented in the group of farmers who do not go to training; they are more likely to perceive training as threatening. People who have participated in training tend to continue to participate in more training, and plan to go on training (Kilpatrick & Williamson, 1996). This group is comfortable with training.

Contrasting attributes of "seeking information' and "training'

From our discussion, we distil the following contrasting attributes of 'seeking information' and "training'. The attributes in the seeking information list are preferred to those in the training list.

Training is effective in bringing about change when farmers participate in analysing the situation and identifying needs and alternatives (Kilpatrick, 1996a; 1997b). Underwood (1985) maintains that training works most effectively to bring about changes to practice if agricultural knowledge is

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

17:

25 1

3 M

ay 2

014

Kilpatrick and Rosenblatt

Seeking information Training

• It two-way process, working from own base knowledge; both parties 'know'

can withdraw at any stage

can accept or reject; no chance of failure

transferred from those who know to those who don't

locked in to set lraining process

is risky - there is a chance o f failure

• adapt to own needs • locked in to content

regarded as a pool to which both farmer and extension officer (or expert "trainer') contn'bute and from which both obtain information. This view results in training which is designed as a two-way process between farmer and trainer. Farmers must be encouraged to learn within a wider learning community which facilitates participative research and joint enquiry. Training which is designed to allow farmers to analyse their own situation and identify needs and alternatives, and where farmers and expert Irainers are assumed to have knowledge and skills to contribute looks like independent information seeking. Training designed with these features will be more successful in altering behaviour.

Is training that has more o f the attributes of information seeking more attractive? Kilpatrick (1997b) identifies ten features of effective education and training which also encourage participation in the training. Four of these features are particularly relevant to the current discussion:

Features of effective training 1. Interactive training, with opportunities for

discussion and interaction with both fellow participants and 'experts';

2. Relevant topics, applicable to target group's situation;

3. Credible facilitors/instruetors and materials;

4. Programmes that can be taken in manageable chunks.

These features for effective training are consistent with farmer preferences for format and delivery o f agricultural education and training courses identified by Johnson et al

(1996), Grannall (1995) and Napier and Scott (1994). It is possible to make training more like independent information seeking by incorporating these features. In the following paragraphs we explain how each of the features of effective training relates to the characteristics of information seeking listed above (information seeking is a two-way process, working from a farmer's own base knowledge where both parties "know'; a farmer can withdraw at any stage; a farmer can accept or reject the information; there is no chance of failure; information can be adapted to farmer's own needs).

. Interactive Iraining, with opportunities for discussion and interaction with both fellow participants and experts encourages a two-way learning process, with each working from their own base knowledge all parties "know'. Interaction discourages a delivery style which transfers from those who know to those who do not and encourages participatory learning. In the following quote, a course facilitator interviewed for the study reported in Kilpatrick (1997b) describes his delivery style. This course, and the delivery style, was very well received by the course participants.

The style of it was we basically sat around and talked, and I think that them sharing their ideas, bouncing their experiences off each other is always really well received. I don't think it matters where you go, people seem to get a lot out of that. (Course facilitator)

Interaction allows participants and experts to get to know each other, and become known

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

17:

25 1

3 M

ay 2

014

The Journal of A~ricultural Education and Extension, 1998, voL 5, no. I

sources of reformation which can continue to be used beyond the end of the training programme. The following quote, from a farmer who was part of the training course participant sample interviewed for Kilpatrick (1996a), illustrates this:

Since I've been doing these courses, I've got to know them [government extension officers] a bit better. If you are thinking about doing something you earl ring them up fwst. (Farmer)

. Negotiation of relevant topics, applicable to target group's situation, is a way of adapting content to the farmers' own needs, and reduces the risk of training being locked in to content. The farmer quoted below talks about arranging for a course to be delivered to farmers in specific locations so that local conditions can be incorporated into the training.

It's up to each farmer in an area to try to get ten or a dozen who are interested in this grazing course.., that's how it will work in our valley and that's the way it will work throughout the state. (Farmer interviewed for the study reported in Kilpatrick, 1997b)

. Credible facilitators/instructors and materials reduce the risks in training. Credibility increases the chances that the training will be valuable to the farmer, and increases the chance that they will continue with a training programme, once started. The two farmers quoted below felt they knew more than the facilitators, and so discontinued with the programme.

We were getting information at each sitting that was three, four years old... Really they were going onto a lot of things that people already knew. (Former participants interviewed for the study reported in Kilpatrick, 1997b)

. Programmes that can be taken in manageable chunks increase the opportunities to withdraw and rejoin. Negotiation of time and programme

length allows the consideration of the time farmers are prepared to commit to a programme. Negotiation and programmes offered in manageable chunks reduce the impression that farmers are locked into a set training process. After consultation with the client group, the course for women dairy farmers run by the provider quoted below, was structured into two sections, one either side of the calving season.

As a women's program the benefit was that we met the needs of the client group, and that we took it [the programme] to them, in the time frame and the place that was available to them. Had it not been held then, in the way that it was held, they would not have been able to participate. (Dairy management course provider interviewed for the study reported in Kilpatrick, 1997b)

Conclusion

It is essential that farmers increase their skills in the more abstract, process-oriented aspects of farm management, as well as increasing skills in efficient and effective information seeking if they are to be adaptable and responsive to changes in the world around them. Farmers will be motivated to learn about risk management, marketing and other process skills if they are made relevant to their particular situation.

Farmers are comfortable seeking information, especially from familiar sources. However, data on participation in formal and nonformal education and ~mining show that many Australian farmers are reluctant to participate in education and training. There is evidence that farmers use a range of information sources and learning processes in managing their farm businesses, depending on the individual farmer and the purpose. They are used to having control over their learning. Compared to information seeking, farmers have much less control over the content and quality of training. The loss of control, or fear of loss of control, is a threat to their

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

17:

25 1

3 M

ay 2

014

Kilpatrick and Rosenblatt

independence, and a barrier to participation for many farmers. We identify five reasons why farmers might choose information seeking over training: independence is valued highly; familiarity with contextual learning; a lack of confidence in training settings; a preference for information from known sources; and fear of new knowledge and skills.

If more farmers are to participate in education and training and derive benefits from enhanced ability and willingness to make changes to their farm-management practices, then farmers must be in control of their education and training. They must be partners in negotiations over the content and style of learning programmes. Farmer involvement in the choice of content and delivery style of training is akin to the choice farmers regularly exercise when they select information sources for solving their own problems on an individual basis. Negotiation acknowledges that farmers are independent, allows training to take place on familiar territory with some control over delivery style, and reduces the risk of exposure to any new knowledge and skills which may be threatening.

We suggest that farmers be encouraged to learn within a wider learning community which facilitates participative research and joint enquiry. This approach is consistent with the ways farmers prefer to learn, and their perceptions of how they bring information and ideas from the outside world into their farming and farm-management practice. They prefer to learn for their own situation with experts and fellow farmers, that is by talking with those who they know understand their situation, and who have knowledge and/or skills which can be applied to that situation. A participative approach to education and training means that information sources (fellow learners, trainers and facilitators) soon become known sources of information. A process of joint enquiry values farmers' contributions, including their knowledge of the contexts in which the new knowledge and skills could be applied, thus, facilitating the eontextualised learning that farmers prefer. The features of effective training delivery, especially interactive training formats, (Kilpatrick, 1997b) can be used to design effective, attractive training with farmers, for farmers.

References

Argyris, C. and D. Schon (1974). Theory in Practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Ashton, D. (1995). Crop monitoring groups. Farm Surveys Report 1995. Australian Bureau of Resource Economics. Canberra, pp. 86-88.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (1994). Employer Training Expenditure, Australia, July-September 1993, Cat. No. 6353.0. Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service.

Bamberry, G., T. Duma and A. Lamont (1997). A Pilot Study of the Relationship Between Farmer Education and Good Farm Management. Canberra, Rural Industries Research and Development Corpemtion.

Battershill, M. and A. Gilg (1997). Socio-economic consWaints and environmentally friendly fanning in the southwest of England. Journal of Rural Studies, 13, 2, pp. 213-228.

Butler, E. and K. Lawrence (1996). Access and Equity within Vocational Education and Training for People in Rural and Remote Australia. Adelaide, University of Adelaide.

But'tel, F., O. Larson and G. Gillespie (1990). The Sociology of Agriculture. New York, Greenwood Press. Cameron, D. and S. Charnala (1993). Farmers and formal education. Will it help them stay on the farm?

In: Australia Pacific Extension Conference Proceedings, Surfers Paradise October 12-14. Brisbane, Queensland Department of Primary Industries. pp. 329-335.

Candy, P. (1995). The place of universities in developing lifelong learners, paper presented to the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science Conference, Bright Stars for New Horizons, Melbourne, 13- 14 February.

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

17:

25 1

3 M

ay 2

014

The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 1998, vol. 5, no. 1

Falk, I., S. Kilpatriek, and H. Morgan (1997). Quality Assurance in Agriculture: Promoting Access for Producers. Launceston, Centre for Research and Learning in Regional Australia, University of Tasmania.

Finger, M. (1994). From knowledge to action? Exploring the relationships between environmental experiences, learning, and behaviour. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 3, pp. 141-160.

Frank, B. (1993). Adoption process of cattlemen in north Queensland. In: Australia Pacific Extension Conference Proceedings Surfers Paradise October 12-14. Brisbane, Queensland Department of Primary Industries. pp. 286-290.

Gibb, A. (1997). Small firms' training and competitiveness. Building upon small business as a learning organisation, International Small Business Journal, 15,3, pp. 13-29.

Gould, B., W. Saupe and 1L Klemme (1989). Conservation tillage: The role of farm and operator characteristics and the perception of soil erosion. Laud Economics. 65, 2, pp. 167-182.

Grannall, D. (1995). Rural Participation in Vocational Education and Training. Sydney, Rural Training Council of NSW Ltd.

Havelock, R. (1973). A Change Agent's Guide to Innovation in Education. Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey, Educational Technology Publications.

Johnson, B., Z. Bone and C. Knight (1996). Farmers and Learning: Attitudes to learning, tertiary education and recognition of prior learning. Orange, Orange Agricultural College, The University of Sydney.

Kilpatrick, S. (1997a). Education and training: Impacts on profitability in agriculture. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Vocational Education Research, 5,2, pp. 11-36.

Kilpatrick, S. (1997b). The Effectiveness of Delivery Methodologies for Education and Training to Rural Australia. Launceston, Centre for Research and Learning in Regional Australia, University of Tasmania.

Kilpatrick, S. (1996a). Change, Training and Farm Profitability. Canberra, National Farmers Federation. Kilpatrick, S. (1996b). Rural Training Programs: Effectiveness and Profitability. Launceston, University of

Tasmania. Kilpatrick, S. and Williamson, J. (1996). Farmer participation in training. Rural Society, 6, 4, pp. 3-12. Klausmeier, H. (1985). Educational Psychology, 5th edition. New York, Harper and Row. Knowles, M. (1990). The Adult Learner: a neglected species. Texas, Gulf Publishing. Lees, J. and I. Reeve (1991). Competencies for Farming: a compendium of profiles. Arm/dale, New South

Wales, Rural Development CeriSe, University of New England. McColl, J., R. Donald and C. Shearer (1997). Rural Adjustment: Managing change. Canberra,

Commonwealth of Australia. Meyers Strategy Group (1993). Technology Transfer in the Victorian Grains Industry. Willoughby, New

South Wales, GoC.aain/Farm Community Action Workshop. Napier, tL and M. Scott (1994). Recognition of Experience and Prior Learning in Rural Industry. Orange,

New South Wales, Orange Agricultural College, University of Sydney. Napier, T., S. Cameron and S. Camboni (1988). Willingness of land operators to participate in

government-sponsored soil erosion control pmgrammes. Journal of Rural Studies. 4, 4, pp. 339-347. National Board for Employment Education and Training (1994). Cultivating the Human Factor:

Employment and skills in Australia's rural industries. Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service.

National Centre for Vocational Education Research (1997). Australian Vocational and Training Statistics 1996. Adelaide, National Centre for Vocational Education Research.

National Farmers' Federation (1993). New Horizons: A strategy for Australia's agrifood industries. Canberra, National Farmers' Federation.

Phillips, T. (1985). Development of Methodologies for the Determination and Facilitation of Learning for Dairy Farmers. Melbourne, University of Melbourne.

Rodwell, D., Gillanders, L, Novelly, A., Lowe, J. and Reilly, D. (1996). Best Practice Projects 1996: Best practice principles for effective delivery of vocational education and training in remote areas, Brisbane, Australian National Training Authority.

Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edition. New York, The Free Press.

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

17:

25 1

3 M

ay 2

014

Kilpatrick and Rosenblatt

Thomas, J., H. Ladewig and W. McIntosh (1990). The adoption of integrated pest management among Texas cotton growers. Rural Sociology, 55, 3, pp. 395 - 410.

Tuijnman, A. (1996). Intemationai Encyclopedia of Adult Education and Training, 2rid edition. Oxford, Elsevier Science.

Underwood, C. (1984). The Learning Strategies of Queensland Dairy Farmers: Implications for Extension, Brisbane, Queensland Department of Primary Industries.

Underwood, C. (1985). Identifying Farmers' Information Sources - Questions on Methodology. The Quest for Information Volume II. Brisbane, Queensland Department of Primary Industries.

Vanclay, F. (1992). The social context of farmers' adoption of environmentally sound fanning practices. In: G. Lawrence, F. Vanclay and B. Furze, Agriculture, Environment and Society, Melbourne, Macmillan, pp. 94 - 121.

Vanclay, F. and G. Lawrence (1995). The Environmental Imperative: Eco-social concerns for Australian agriculture. Rockharnpton, Central Queensland University Press.

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

17:

25 1

3 M

ay 2

014