| Popis: |
Different methods of communication between farmers and scientists provide different outcomes. Farmer-scientist focus sessions represent a means of facilitating a process of collaborative learning and problem solving. All participants are encouraged to exchange information and ideas. Focus sessions can be an important tool in providing ideas for action, identifying researchable topics, and enhancing longterm farmer-scientist team work. Three examples are described that illustrate the types of issues treated, the format, and the outcomes achieved. P sector research and extension professionals, referred to in the remainder of this article as scientists, employ a variety of methods for communicating with fanners. In general, these methods seek to fulfill one of two purposes. When scientists seek to transmit information to farmers, they depend on lectures, publications, and demonstrations. The information provided is intended to increase farmer knowledge and potentially influence their actions. When scientists seek to gather information from farmers, they employ methods such as surveys and advisory meetings. Recently some agricultural scientists have begun to make use of \hzfocus group approach long used by marketing firms to assess, in a group setting, clientele views and preferences (Krueger, 1988). Scientists gather information through these techniques to either answer a current question or direct future research. Farmer-scientist focus sessions (FSFS), along with other interactive activities such as jointly managed on-farm experiments, represent a third and different purpose for communication between farmers and scientists. Focus sessions take advantage of the synergism that occurs when farmers and scientists listen carefully to each other, learn as a team, and work toward creating new knowledge. By facilitating a process of collaborative L.S. Lev, Dep. of Agric. and Resource Economics, Ballard Extension Hall 213, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis OR 97331-3601; D. McGrath, Marion County Extension, Salem, OR 97301; H. Murray, Dep. of Crop and Soil Science, Oregon State Univ.; and R.D. William, Dep. of Horticulture, Oregon State Univ. Contribution from Oregon State Agric. Exp. Stn. as Tech. Paper 10 026. Received 13 Oct. 1992. "Corresponding author. Published in J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ. 22:148-152 (1993). 148 • J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 22, no. 2, 1993 learning and problem solving, the FSFS provides all participants with the potential of influencing the thinking and action of others and discovering promising new approaches for themselves. This distinguishes the FSFS from the traditional focus group, because only the organizer is intended to learn from a focus group. The philosophy and techniques described in this article can be applied to processes that range in length from a single session to several years. In what follows, we describe how to use FSFS to address the following types of issues: 1. To design experiments that evaluate treatments on both a plot-scale and field-scale [Example 1: controlling weeds in snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) without Dinoseb (2-sec-butyl-4,6-dinotrophenol); see Table 1]. 2. To investigate complex cropping or livestock systems issues that require interdisciplinary examination [Example 2: economic disposal of cull onion (Allium cepa L.); see Table 2]. 3. To investigate complex issues that involve diverse views, values, and beliefs (Example 3: food safety concerns; see Table 3). The motivating force for the organization of FSFS is the recognition that researchers, extension personnel, industry representatives, and farmers all have valuable but different skills and knowledge to contribute to the process of technology development and adoption. Our experience suggests that focus sessions provide another powerful tool for educators. Our greatest challenge in learning how to use this new tool effectively has been developing the ability to listen. Although there are no hard-and-fast rules, we have found that FSFSs work best when more than half of the participants are farmers and the total number of participants is between 8 and 20. It is useful to invite a diverse group of farmers who can contribute insights based on their individual production conditions and management strategies. Similarly, scientists who participate should be chosen based on the skills and perspectives that they bring to an issue. Depending on the issue(s) treated, it may be important to have the participation of Abbreviations: FSFS, farmer-scientist focus sessions; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Table 1. Example l--Controlling Weeds in Snap Bean without Dinoseb. In 1987, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) suddenly withdrew the registration for the use of Dinoseb, a key herbicide in snap bean production. Scientist-managed, small-plot trials evaluated the effectiveness of the remaining registered herbicides and found that two herbicides could replace Dinoseb if they could be activated with water in the field. Although water activation was practical on a small scale, it was impractical at a farm scale because of labor shortages and unpredictable weather in the early spring. Evening farmer-scientist focus sessions were held in three farming communities. Between 15 and 20 producers and four university scientists participated in the individual sessions, each of which lasted between 2 and 3 h. Session notes were simultaneously recorded in linear and discussion-map formats. Each of the university representatives was briefed prior to the meetings that they were not there to lecture. Several needed to be reminded of their role during one of the sessions. Farmers and weed control specialists suggested and debated alternative methods for activating the herbicides with and without water. The best ideas that emerged from the meetings included various schemes for shallow incorporation of the herbicide after planting the snap bean plants. These ideas were summarized in a newsletter and sent to 600 snap bean farmers. The newsletter provided the community of farmers with a range of practical alternatives just before the planting season. These sessions were unique and exciting because farmers and scientists, working together in a collaborative learning environment, synthesized farm-scale management considerations and specialized information about herbicide chemistry. By operating as a team, the scientists and farmers were able to increase the efficiency and productivity of the technology development and transfer process. industry, consumer, special interest, and other representa |
Plný text