T HE CHANGING ‘INTERMEDIATION’ ROLES & COMPETENCIES OF AGRICULTURAL ADVISORS

1. THE CHANGING ‘INTERMEDIATION’ ROLES & COMPETENCIES OF AGRICULTURAL ADVISORS Dr Alex KoutsourisAssoc. Professor AUAkoutsouris@aua.gr

2. Intermediaries in agriculture • Agricultural literature & practice is rather familiar with the topic of ‘intermediaries’ -> state/public funded bodies aiming at bridging the gap between agronomy-science and farming practice, i.e. ‘conventional’ extension (ToT model) • FSR/E participatory turn + turn to sustainability => multi-stakeholder processes (MSPs) thinking => Extension for SARD implies a (social) mechanism for facilitating SocialLearning [the collective action and reflection that occurs among stakeholders as they work towards mutually acceptable solution to a problem pertaining to the management of human and environmental interrelationships] • Turn from ‘conventional’ extension (top-down/ ToT/ ‘exploitation’) towards a ‘new’ extension model (sharing and synthesising -> the creation of new knowledge/ ‘exploration’) => Roles: facilitators and brokers

3. ‘Conventional’ Extension: basic concepts • An innovation is an idea, method, or object which is regarded as new by an individual, but which is not always the result of recent research. • Adoption: decision to continue full use of an innovation • Diffusion [social and geographical]: the process by which the innovation spreads

4. innovativeness • Innovativeness is defined as the degree to which an individual is relatively earlier in adopting new ideas than other members of his/her social system • Adopters’ characteristics • Personal (education, age, cosmopoliteness, information sources, risk-taking, openness) • Farm (size, specialisation, mechanisation) • Financial (income & capital)

5. Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers) Cumulativepercentage of adopters Time

6. Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers) • An extensionist will not be able to work closely with all farmers in his district, so he can increase his impact by cooperating with the opinion leaders. • “Progressive farmer” strategy • “Trickle-down”

7. Progressive farmers/ Opinion leaders Fulfil several of the following functions with regard to innovations: • Pass on information • Interpret information on the basis of own opinions and experience • Set an example for others to follow • ‘Legitimise’ or reject changes (gives his approval or disapproval) Opinion leaders: • Adopt many innovations, but usually are not the first to adopt them • Are well educated and enjoy sound financial positions in their communities • Lead an active social life and have many contacts outside their immediate surroundings • Have a special interest in their subject.

8. Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers) Cumulativepercentage of adopters Time

9. Communication: the process RECEIVER SOURCE/SENDER Receipt De-codifi- cation SOME IDEA CHANNEL IDEA Codifi- cation Transm- ission NOISE FEEDBACK

10. EXTENSION COMMUNICATION (I) INDIVIDUAL • Farm and home visit • Office calls and inquiries • Informal contacts

11. EXTENSION COMMUNICATION (II) GROUP • Demonstration Method demonstration Result demonstration • Contests • Field trip • Lecture • Seminar • Clinic/ workshop • Group meetings (discussion groups) • Role-playing

12. EXTENSION COMMUNICATION (III) MASS • Printed media • Newspapers • Wall newspapers • Newsletters • Leaflets, pamphlets, etc. • Audio-visual media • Radio • Television • ICTs

13. The good communicator • Knows his/her audience, its wants and needs; knows his/her message, its content and how to present it; knows effective channels of communication to reach his/her audience with his/her message; and knows his abilities and limitations • Is interested in his/her audience and its welfare, and how his/her messages can help; is interested in improving his/her skills in communication • Prepares the message carefully, using appropriate materials and devices to elicit interest and insure a successful reception of the message • Uses messages (language, graphics, etc.) the people will understand • Realizes that mutual understanding between sender and receiver is mostly his/her responsibility • Is aware of the limits in time; does not try to unload the whole burden of any topic at one time; chooses only those parts most appropriate for the particular situation; does not keep people too log at one time (boredom sets in sooner than you think).

14. ROGER’S MODEL CRITIQUES • Widening gap between rich and poor farmers (adopters vs. non-adopters); innovations not adopted • Populations are not homogeneous (norms; characteristics & resources; horizontal dissemination of information; distortion of information) • Communication methods (sock-it-to-them and trickle-down) • Pro-innovation bias (adoption is rational; learning = adoption) • Research: Ideal customer (progressive farmer) • Self-reinforcing process (windfall profits)

15. Scientist- Farmer Relationship (OFR) • Conventional (no farmer participation): scientists make the decisions alone. (2) Consultative (functional participation): scientists make the decisions alone, but with organized communication with farmers (one-way communication). -------------------------------------------------------------------------- (3) Collaborative (empowering participation): decision making is shared and involves organized communication among them (two-way communication.; joint decision-making). (4) Farmer experimentation (no researcher participation).

16. FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH Agroecological Zones Access to Resources • 1. Land.Size; type of tenure: owner/family operated • 2. Water.Irrigated/non-irrigated • 3. Labour. Family, hired (cost and availability) • 4. Inputs. Availability of improved seeds, agricultural chemicals, fertilizers • 5. Markets. Location, availability of storage and transport • 6. Capital.Sources and cost of credit, ease of obtaining credit • 7. Information. Availability of extension service, appropriateness of technology • 8. Influence.Ability to affect technology development, transfer to be appropriate to user needs such as user control, claim-making capacity Gender - Age

17. FS: Appropriate Technology Development

18. FARMING SYSTEMS (I) • FSR/E: a set of methodologies to better understand and apply technical interventions. • Its basic principle is that the process of technology generation and adaptation should be responsive to the characteristics of the targeted farming systems, farmers’ objectives, and the conditions under which specific populations practice agriculture.

20. FARMING SYSTEMS (II) • Through FSR/E vast experience has been accumulated in terms of understanding farmers and developing appropriate tools and methods. • FSR/E helped to create awareness about the need for new ways to conduct research and extension, taking into account context and relations.

21. THE PARTICIPATORY TURN Nature of process RRA <-> PRA Mode Extractive <-> Sharing- empowering Outsider’s role Investigator <-> Facilitator Information owned, analysed and used by Outsiders <-> Local people Methods used RRA <-> PRA

22. From NARS/ToT to AKIS (II) AKIS aimed at integrating farmers, education, research and extension; it has been depicted as a triangular arrangement (knowledge triangle) with the farmer being placed at the centre/heart of this arrangement.

23. (the emergence of) INTERACTIVE APPROACHES • Systemic learning (systems of inquiry and interaction + about systems) • Multiple perspectives (Multi-Stakeholder) • Group learning processes • Context specific • Facilitating experts • Leading to sustained action

24. Facilitators “to assist (individuals or groups) through the process of implementing a change in practice” “support the work of different types of teams in solving mostly complex problems and in developing decision solutions” “a facilitator tries to create an ideal speech situation and through the appropriate intervention strategies helps the participants to engage in a communicative dialogue that results in consensual decision-making”

25. Characteristics of a Good Facilitator • Ability to listen • Confidence to deal with conflict • Ability to communicate • Ability to deal with complex issues • Ability to hear differing point of views • Good arbitration and mediation skills • Ability to create a comfortable and safe environment

26. ‘CROSS’-DISCIPLINARITY (a) takes into account the complexity of an issue - meaning the complex system of factors that together explain the issue's current state and its dynamic, (b) addresses both science's and society's diverse perceptions of an issue (c) sets aside the idealised context of science in order to produce practically relevant knowledge. (d) deals with the issues and possible improvements of the status quo that are involved in balancing the diverse interests and inputs of individual stakeholders and disciplines.

27. SYSTEMS OF INNOVATIONS (I) • Popular folklore notwithstanding, the innovation journey is a collective achievement that requires key roles from numerous entrepreneurs in both the public and the private sectors • Systems are – as networks – a set of activities (or actors) that are interlinked and this leads to a focus on the working of the linkages of the system • The nature of the system will facilitate certain patterns of reaction and constraint others (lock-in) • If in a dynamic system one critical, complementary component is lacking, fails to develop or progress, this may block or slow down the growth of the entire system

28. NETWORKS

29. NETWORKS • Networks can facilitate innovation. Nevertheless, the construction of networks is a demanding task. • The role of the network manager/ alignment actor/ intermediary/ facilitator/ broker is extremely important in disseminating information, extending the network and setting up projects. This actor will have to manage the whole process, provide a space secure enough for partners to voice their expectations, identify the frame of thinking that drives actors as well as to orchestrate the participation of outsiders whose participation may have both advantages and pitfalls.

30. SYSTEMS OF INNOVATIONS • Contemporary ‘interactive’ approaches emphasise the iterative, adaptive nature of innovation. The systems of innovations (SoI) approach emphasises the multiplicity of determinants which influence the innovations’ development, diffusion, and use. Moreover, innovations do not concern only new technological arrangements but new social and organisational arrangements as well.

31. AIS-AKIS The AIS/AKIS (I = Innovation) approach embraces the totality and interaction of actors involved in innovation, i.e. greater and more explicit focus on the influence of institutions (i.e. organisations like companies, public research institutes and governmental entities) and infrastructures on learning and innovation; focus: to include all relevant organizations beyond agricultural research and extension systems

32. AIS-AKIS

33. Intermediaries • ‘Intermediaries’ are involved, taking an independent systemic role, in process facilitation rather than in the production (i.e., source) or dissemination (i.e., carrier) of innovation Or • ‘Intermediaries’ are involved in ‘indirect’ innovation processes (i.e. in enabling individuals and enterprises) rather than in direct ones (i.e. on actual innovation projects).

34. Innovation Brokers An ‘innovation broker’ is defined as “an organization acting as a member of a network … that is focused neither on the organization nor the implementation of innovations, but on enabling other organizations to innovate”

35. BROKERS - ROLES a) DEMAND ARTICULATION: quick system diagnosis to identify promising entry points, supportive policy, and constraining factors to be overcome b) NETWORK FORMATION: Facilitate linkages among relevant actors—specifically, by scanning, scoping, filtering, and matchmaking possible partners that have complementary resources such as knowledge, technology, and funding and c) INNOVATION PROCESS MANAGEMENT: coalition building requires continuous “translation” between actors, the building of trust, establishing working procedures, fostering learning, motivating, and managing conflict.

36. THE PROCESS OF INNOVATION BROKERING • (1) context analysis; • (2) initial network composition; • (3) participatory needs and opportunity assessment, including network recomposition when necessary; • (4) action planning; • (5) network facilitation/coordination, problem solving, and conflict resolution; and • (6) exit strategy.

37. BROKERS - FUNCTIONS • Facilitation: stimulating and assisting the process between stakeholders improving the quality of interaction. • Linking and strategic networking: linking to resource persons; mobilizing resources. • Technical backstopping: provision of technical advice. • Mediation: mediation or other strategies to address conflicts may be needed. • Advocacy: Buy-in and support. • Capacity building: capacity-building on process-oriented issues. • Documenting learning: stimulating reflection on the experiences which, in some cases, includes documentation of the lessons learned.

38. BROKERS - SKILLS • Negotiation • Facilitation • Synthesizing information & record keeping • Communication & presentation • Coaching & capacity building • Institution building • Reviewing & revising

39. Obstacles The field of ‘intermediation’ is still theoretically fragmented, not well-grounded and largely practice oriented “there is no such thing as a neutral, detached, value-free facilitator/broker” “strategic” nature of facilitation/brokerage “a facilitator/broker should have both facilitation skills and appropriate technical background” “facilitation/brokerage sustainability” “top-down” vs. “bottom-up”

40. Needs Intermediation (facilitation and brokerage) has yet to be thoroughly described, operationally defined, or well-evaluated A need for conceptual clarity. Explicit attention has to be given to theoretical developments; without nuanced a understanding of the concepts, terminology, and controversies, study findings will be difficult to interpret and guidance to practice change may become untenable Despite inherent difficulties, there is a need to become able to measure the added value of intermediaries -> their contribution will become explicit and thus recognised in the knowledge infrastructure

41. APPENDIX LOCAL EXPERIMENTAL PROJECTS

42. LOCAL EXPERIMENTAL PROJECTS (I) • selection of the most promising candidate technology • identification of the most appropriate experiment, and • set up/ implementation of the project

43. LOCAL EXPERIMENTAL PROJECTS (IIa) • Experiments should start simple and add complexity in later stages; there has to be a change agent championing the innovation; the new technology must be broad enough so that different options are kept open. • Following, the experiment has to be chosen so that it constitutes a challenge for stakeholders but which is achievable within a reasonable time frame.

44. LOCAL EXPERIMENTAL PROJECTS (IIb) • The third step basically concerns high-quality learning and network building. These require that the project is set up in terms of documentation (goals, aims, expectations, methodology, rules etc.); existing stakeholders’ strengths (knowledge and skills, networks, assets etc.) are utilized within a reflexive experimentation framework; project partners are actively involved and have a sense of ownership over the project; opportunities for interaction of an effective constellation of stakeholders with external actors are provided by a manager who will be able to manage dynamically the network and keep the momentum going.

45. LOCAL EXPERIMENTAL PROJECTS (III) Three interrelated sub-processes: • matching innovation’s promises and stakeholders’ expectations, expectations are a means to facilitate the construction of a shared agenda, guide the process and attract resources. The initial voicing of expectations is followed by the shaping of specific and coherent expectations (or visions); the shaping of robust expectations takes place concurrently with the formation of a network. • development of experimentation-based learning, and • creation of cooperating actor network.

46. EXPERIMENTAL PROJECTS (IV) • LEARNING rests in the heart of the innovation processes and should be an explicit goal of the exercise. While there is a range of strategies for learning which can be utilised in local experiments, the critical issue concerns the distinction between first- and second-order learning. • First-order (single-loop) learning refers to instrumental issues within a given frame of thinking while second-order (double-loop) learning is reflexive thus leading to changes in the frames of thinking of actors. Most learning processes are single-loop thus oriented at maximising the potential of technology; double-loop learning occurs within heterogeneous networks (bottom-up partnerships) that aim at changing the system