The main question the group addressed during the discussion was: how can extension be a tool for research. However, all members of the group agreed that the right choice of extension service for organic farming was very important and needed more detailed discussion at the beginning. This included a discussion about the control of knowledge and it was acknowledged that organic farmers are in a slightly better position than conventional farmers because more of the needed knowledge e.g. about good husbandry and ecosystems, is in the public domain. In the dimension from basic to adaptive research, the most useful role of extension was considered to be in applied and adaptive research. Despite a lot of discussions, not many organic farming research projects appear to be based on participatory research methods. Two reasons were identified for this. Difficulties in participatory research with farmers were mainly identified as related to farmers not respecting the research protocol. This might give an indication that the research question is not directly relevant to the farm and the experiment therefore not truly participatory. The farmers do not feel ownership and/or are overwhelmed with the research demand. Secondly, participatory methods might not be regarded as scientific and are therefore not mentioned in such publications.
Various ways of involving farmers and advisers in research were identified and their advantages and disadvantages discussed (see table). These include various methods in working with farmers and advisers (listed at the top of the table) and three more structural ways in involving farmers and advisors in the organizations of research (bottom of the table).
Farmers providing data were considered a very important and lowest tool in research work, even though some problems with data quality can arise, particularly if the farmers' judgement is the only data source. Nearly as important were farm optimization studies, or so called action research. Examples for this type of work include various conversion studies and work with developing prototype farms. The method was considered to be relevant to farmers, although time-consuming. There was some discussion whether replicability must always be a necessary criterion of research work. In addition this type of research work might lead to conflicts with advisory organizations. Including advisers in case studies or farm optimization studies might avoid such conflicts, would further increase the relevance of the projects (because advisers generally have a good overview) and would facilitate the wider dissemination. However, the process would be even more time consuming and the method was therefore considered by the Group to be less important.
Involvement |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
Farmers provide data |
Cheap, data easy available |
Data quality |
Action research, farm optimization |
Relevant to farmers |
Not representative and replicable |
Advisers in farm optimization and case studies |
High relevance |
Bias/adviser manipulates |
On farm trials |
Acceptance high |
Question of representativeness |
Survey of advisers |
Cheap |
Subjective opinion |
Research priorities set by farmers |
Farmers' involvement |
Deeper understanding needed |
Farmers and/or advisers on steering groups for projects |
Relevance |
Risk of conflicts |
Co-financing of research by farmers and extension service |
More control of farmers |
Knowledge privatization |
It was agreed that on-farm trials and demonstration projects are important and highly accepted, but there was some discussion on their representativeness. It was also pointed out that the well known danger of demonstration projects in traditional extension work, to increase the knowledge gap between farmers, remains valid, even if demonstration projects are concerned with organic farming. For more structural elements it was considered important to include farmers in the process of setting research priorities as this will increase the farmers' involvement in the research process and/or the likely use of research results. However, farmers are not the only users of research results. In addition, farmers sometimes might not understand the cause of some of their problems and would therefore not see the immediate relevance of some research, for example of work concerning ecological principles and a deeper analysis of the farming systems might be needed. In any research aiming to develop the farming activity it is highly relevant to analyse and take into consideration the farmers' orientation, their management style and farming objectives. Including farmers and/or advisers in project steering committees was also considered to be quite important to assure the quality of the project and maintain relevance for the developments in farming. However, this can increase this risk of conflicts on the committee and over a period of time the advisers/farmer members may loose touch with the group they were supposed to represent.
Involving members of extension organizations, farmers and advisers alike, in research corresponds well with participatory methods and the holistic nature of organic farming system. The involvement can take place in various ways and is overall likely to increase the relevance of the research work, but problems with data quality and the representativeness of individual farm studies were identified. However, researchers, farmers and advisers should jointly develop a strong link with the aim to expand and improve organic farming in the future.
-> OFR is a very useful, helpful approach but is in need of further development
