Improving knowledge exchange in arable farming

Sean Ryan, Defra’s lead on the Agri-Tech Strategy reflects on a recent workshop exploring knowledge exchange in the arable sector and how it brought new insights to his work

What’s the difference between knowledge transfer and knowledge exchange? Knowledge transfer is one way – someone has a bright idea which then needs to find its way into practice. Knowledge exchange assumes that everybody in the supply chain – farmers, researchers, agronomists, suppliers - has valuable knowledge and experience; the flow of knowledge is much more multi-track than the idea of knowledge transfer would allow.  It sounds much more appealing, doesn’t it, particularly in the world of agriculture where practical expertise is so important.

A well-run workshop is a great way to understand the current debates and concerns in a sector and knowledge exchange certainly comes into that category.  So I was delighted, to receive an invitation from the Agricultural Industries Confederation to a workshop in Peterborough on knowledge exchange in arable farming on 23^rd September.

I work in Defra on the Agri-Tech Strategy (http://www.agritechuk.org/) which is about promoting technology and innovation to make farming more productive and sustainable. The workshop brought some new perspectives about how our work relates to other activities that are already encouraging innovation in the sector.

We got off to a good start by working in groups on mapping knowledge/information flows. This provoked a lively discussion in the group I joined which had agronomists, academics and other experts. In fact this was so absorbing that our facilitator forgot to write anything down so we had a bit of a scramble at the end of the session.  After some scene setting presentations, there was further discussion about possible ways of improving knowledge exchange, helped by an illustrious panel from Newcastle University, Innovate UK, Rothamsted, HL Hutchinsons, Syngenta and AICC.

One theme that came up several times was that the link between commercial research and the farmer worked satisfactorily because there are commercial and/or contractual  reasons for that to happen. However, there were issues with public sector research. Some people thought that that the gap between farmers and researchers had got wider in recent years. Others thought that there were some signs of improvement. There were already positive changes in the way that research councils and institutes were already trying to engage with farmers. The Agri-Tech Strategy is about joining up academics and farming businesses. Some people thought that the Centres for Agricultural Innovation that are being set up under the Strategy should have knowledge exchange built into how they operate.

We also talked about involving farmers in commissioning research and the role of levy boards both in terms of their efforts to ensure the research they support is relevant and in involving them in prioritising research.

For me the main benefit of the workshop was that it helped me understand better the contributions that different types of organisations make to knowledge exchange and the challenges that each faces in doing so.

Plugging the gaps in the knowledge exchange system

Dr Paul Neve, Senior Research Scientist at Rothamsted Research reflects on the growing significance of knowledge exchange in his research

 

As a researcher working in the area of herbicide resistance and weed management, I worked for a number of years in Australia and I have collaborated with researchers at US Land Grant Universities. When I was part of a University research group (the Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative) in Perth, Western Australia, knowledge exchange (extension, communication, outreach ….. call it what you will) was an integral part of the group’s work. Amongst a group of about 12 researchers, two full-time staff members worked full time on knowledge exchange. These important members of the team coordinated a KE strategy for the research group, organising farmer events, press releases, research bulletins etc. Importantly, they worked closely with researchers on a day-to-day basis, digesting latest results and distilling these into practical management advice for farmers. Groups of farmers and agronomists regularly visited the university to learn about latest research and provide feedback to researchers – were we asking the right questions? During visits to the US, it has become clear to me that many agricultural researchers have a ‘direct line’ to farmers and ‘extension’ is a key, and clearly recognised aspect of their role as an academic.

 

But it has been obvious for some time that the agricultural research community in the UK has become fragmented. Much excellent research is conducted in universities and institutes, but lines of communication have become a little fuzzy, often resulting in poor translation of ‘pure’ research into applied outcomes.  So I was very pleased to attend the recent Landbridge organised event ‘Building on a solid foundation: improving knowledge exchange in arable farming’ at the Marriott Hotel, Peterborough.  It is encouraging to see that groups such as Landbridge, AHDB and AICC are addressing this important issue and identifying ways to improve knowledge exchange in the arable sector.  This workshop clearly established that independent agronomists and distributors form a key link in the chain between research, interpretation and implementation. I hope that the workshop organisers can synthesise suggestions and ideas that delegates were putting forward into some actions and recommendations that will help to remedy the situation. The signs are promising. Increasingly researchers at Universities and research institutes such as Rothamsted are being encouraged to demonstrate the impact of their research. Fundamental knowledge published in high impact scientific journals is important (very important!) and a clear indication of the scientific strength of individuals, institutes and countries. However, it is clear that the job is only half-done if these scientific breakthroughs do not result in the ‘on the ground’ impacts.

 

Finally, by way of a shameless plug, the BBSRC-HGCA funded black-grass resistance initiative (www.bgri.info) , kicked into life this year. More details can be found at the web site. As part of this project we have established a stakeholder group, consisting of groups such as Landbridge, the HGCA and distributors. We will also set up farmer focus groups for two way exchange of information about herbicide resistant black-grass. Through these channels we hope to ensure effective knowledge exchange and a two way flow of information. We look forward to working with Landbridge and other members of our stakeholder group in the future and learning important lessons about effective KE along the way!

Why farmers need agronomists – but which kind?

Agronomist and Chair of the Association of Independent Crop Consultants, Patrick Stephenson, reflects on the roles of independent and distributor agronomists in knowledge exchange 

 

Who advises farmers?   I took part in a group session tasked with finding the current method of delivering KT to farmers and growers at the Knowledge Transfer meeting in September. The discussion revealed a complex and varied number of organisations/groups/individuals who delivered advice either directly or indirectly to the farmer. The strongest delivery system highlighted by all five groups was the agronomist. It became apparent that any future successful system must involve this trusted on farm relationship.   The delivery of KT at the farm gate, in most cases requires the cooperation of the agronomist to ensure that uptake is good and effective.

But are agronomists a single homogenous group? I was attending on behalf of (AICC) the Association of Independent Crop Consultants. This body represents individuals and groups who deliver on farm advice with no sales related returns. The farmer buys the advice at face value usually in a payment per hectare or per visit. This accounts for approximately 40% of the arable area and consists of 244 advisors, a small proportion of farmers are self advised, the remaining area is covered by a wide group of distributor agronomists.

Distributor agronomists receive a proportion of their individual income from the amount of product they sell.   So there is a big difference between the delivery of an independent agronomist and a distributor agronomist. Non independent agronomists spend the majority of their face to face farmer contact time on sales related discussion how much where and when. The independent agronomists divide their time between a wide sweep of agronomic issues, cultivation, rotation environmental, farm management and planning.

The major distribution companies have invested heavily in near market research primarily geared on product efficacy and added value sales. AICC members have invested heavily in both near market research (product comparisons) and transitional research. The commercial KT is self funding as new products or ideas, in theory, have an added economic value which gives the grower an immediate return. This is not always the case for transitional research or environmental improvements. These messages are much harder to deliver and usual contain some negative economic effects for the grower at least in the short term. But this advice is often the most important and relating it to sales often dilutes or negates the overall message.

 

Thinking afresh about impact and how it's achieved

School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development Director of Research Jeremy Phillipson reflects on the constant requirement for "impact" - both from the research funders and from that person who wants to chat to you on the train.

 

We hear so much about “impact” from research now that it threatens to become part of the wallpaper for academics.  But there are occasional situations that really bring it home.  Many of my colleagues will, I’m sure, have faced that situation of sitting on a train when someone asks you what you do and you admit you’re a scientist at a research institution.  And you just know that this will lead to a series of tricky questions, which in all probability will include a rant about taxes paying for researchers and their value and relevance. Of course, we respond by pointing to impacts of research, and how we aim to achieve these by engaging with the people who can benefit.  Research has to justify itself but being put on the spot can be uncomfortable.  It’s true that we can tell the person on the train that things are changing. Success in getting a research grant increasingly depends on producing a convincing Pathways to Impact Plan, setting out how the research will engage industry, professionals, policy makers and others, and how they will benefit. But, like anything else that is prescribed by research funders it’s very easy to make producing those kinds of documents an automatic part of the process.  There’s a danger that writing the plan becomes an end in itself, rather than a means of achieving that all important “impact”.

 

So I have been trying to think anew about ways of achieving real impact in the past few days, prompted by a presentation I would be giving at a workshop in Peterborough.  The event was being organised by Landbridge, the knowledge exchange network that we have launched here in AFRD, and for this particular workshop we were working in association with the Agricultural Industries Confederation, the Association of Independent Crop Consultants and the Home Grown Cereals Authority.  Landbridge aims to bring together farm and land advisers – including veterinarians, agronomists and crop advisers, ecologists, land agents and many others – with researchers for mutually beneficial knowledge exchange. This is a particularly timely endeavor as the Government’s strategy for agricultural technologies and plans for new Centres for Agricultural Innovation rely heavily on translational research and require effective mechanisms for knowledge exchange.

 

But how do we achieve fruitful relationships?   When Philip Lowe and I were directing the Rural Economy and Land Use programme from here in Newcastle we didn’t start from the usual assumption that the researchers would do the science then feed it to the people who needed the results. We decided that we needed to take a step back from focusing on impact as an end product and look more closely at the process of research.  We also realised that scientists needed to draw much more on non-academic sources of expertise. There are many experts who are not scientists. And outside their own fields, scientists may be quite inexpert. However, we emphasise science as a mode of thinking and we pay much less attention to expertise: the skilful deployment of knowledge, skills, experience and other technical capabilities. But expertise is what underpins innovation and problem solving.  Relu was based on this philosophy of expertise exchange. A primary objective of the Rural Economy and Land Use Programme was: “to enhance the impact of research on rural policy and practice by involving stakeholders in all stages”. Stakeholders were involved in the overall design and governance of the programme, shaping its scientific direction and knowledge transfer strategy, and also in the formulation, assessment and conduct of its individual projects. Overall, more than 4000 stakeholders were involved across 90 projects. From this experience we distilled the following principles of expertise exchange.

 

The first principle is to engage stakeholders throughout as active partners in research, to help establish its focus, priorities, conduct and dissemination. We found that practical efforts of upstream engagement could lead to real benefits, in terms of the quality, relevance and take-up of research.

 

The second principle is that expertise exchange relies on an inclusive approach, whereby everyone who is interested in a problem should be engaged in its resolution – that includes public institutions, organised interests, industry, and others across the public, private and third sectors.

 

The third principle is that expertise exchange can occur at any time during the life of a research project, through varied mechanisms. This can include formalised knowledge transfer based upon intellectual property contracts, as well as soft knowledge exchange, including informal networks, and the transfer of warm bodies between research and practice.

 

The fourth principle is that expertise exchange must be reciprocal between researchers and stakeholders. Both must be open to new perspectives, otherwise the relationship can become rather one way. But critically the opening up of the research process to stakeholders recognises the contribution of their expertise in the focusing, conduct and application of research projects.  

 

Landbridge epitomises the learning that came out of the Relu programme.  Within research concerning land use and the rural economy, farm and advisers are key elements in this process of knowledge exchange.  Farmers and land managers rely on them for their expertise.  They don’t just include agronomists but also professions such as vets, land agents, ecologists, and many more.  Events like the one we hosted in Peterborough are the living embodiment of knowledge exchange and the principles outlined above.  But the event was also a reminder to me that as researchers that we have to consider afresh, with each new research application, how we can build knowledge exchange into the process and how enriching that process can be for the research and for achieving that elusive “impact”.

 

Addressing the ‘knowledge gap’

Dr Julie Ingram, Senior Research Fellow at the Countryside & Community Research Institute reflects on the landbridge workshop and her involvement in a European project which is attempting to synthesise and convert agricultural research outcomes into suitable formats for farmers, advisers and others in the supply chain.

I attended the Landbridge workshop Taking Stock of the Links between Research and the Land Professions.at the British Academy on 1 May.

The context of the workshop was knowledge exchange between land professional and researcher. In particular it was looking at how to make communication between research and advisers more effective. One of the emerging themes at the workshop was the so-called ‘knowledge gap’ between researchers and advisers. This has been attributed to past changes in funding and policy, which were intended to make research more responsive to users’ needs, but have led to what some feel is an increasing disconnect between research and practice.

Participants at the Workshop thought that this gap is exacerbated by the large number of research providers (public and private) and their extensive research outputs which makes it difficult for advisers to find relevant information. The nature of the outputs was also considered to be problematic with scientific reports and peer reviewed publications often being too lengthy and written in complex scientific language. Commercial sensitivity, copyright issues and cost also prevented some advisers from accessing outputs.

A recently launched European funded project called VALERIE (VALorising European Research for Innovation in agriculturE and forestry) aims to address some of these issues. It is based on the rationale that many EU and nationally funded research projects in the fields of agriculture and forestry provide excellent scientific results but that outreach and translation of these results into farming and forestry practices is limited.  VALERIE over the course of the next four years  will:

•          Review and summarise knowledge - from national, international and EU research projects and studies - for innovation in agriculture and forestry

•          Convert research outcomes with innovation potential into suitable formats for end-users (farmers, advisers, and enterprises in the supply chain)

•          Consult stakeholders in ten case studies to identify knowledge gaps, assess technical and economic viability of innovative solutions and to reveal barriers to uptake

•          Develop a ‘smart’ search engine for agricultural and forestry knowledge and research outputs, for use by farmers, foresters, advisers and researchers. This ‘Communication Facility’ (“AskValerie.eu”) will not only make new knowledge accessible to the end-users, but will also enable them to share their knowledge, experience and views with peers across Europe. Continuity is ensured by embedding it in the European Innovation Partnership NF Platform

For more information: www.valerie.eu

(Re)Connecting science and professional practice

Sue Steer, land agent and Chair of RICS Countryside Policy Panel gives her thoughts on the recent landbridge workshop

My profession in general has not had strong links with the scientific research communities; apart from those surveyors employed in the old Ministry of Agriculture, who worked daily with scientists with access to an immense network of scientific knowledge.  This wealth of research information was largely gathered through the Experimental Husbandry Farms, which were strategically located nationwide to serve the different systems of agriculture. This network of knowledge, built up over many decades with the corresponding  means of dissemination  was swept away by the government in the interests of (short term) economy in the late 80s and 90s. There was a unanimous feeling of regret at the workshop that this system of coordinated  research, dissemination via the specialist land advisors to the farmers and land managers and back to the researchers (plus the opportunity to demonstrate results on the farms), had been so comprehensively dismantled. I read in Farmers Weekly this week that Defra are seeking to dramatically  increase the use  of private companies to undertake research ;  if this is correct it is likely to be detrimental to the research which does not have a direct financial return, (but should be carried out in the public interest).

An erudite Keynote Address by Professor Ian Crute , Chief Scientist, AHDB set the standard for the day, using examples of his own research he explained the challenges of establishing the direction of research with competing interests and tight funding. Many diverse interests can have common objectives and Ian considered that co-ordination of these common aims to help deal with the challenges and opportunities of managing land in a more sustainable way for the future was immensely important.  Jeremy Phillipson followed Ian with a useful summary of the Landbridge Project and the potential for rural professionals as key intermediaries.  The key is knowledge exchange which should be a two way approach with those working in the field feeding back to the researchers as well as vice versa. The question is how can this be done in a coordinated way as well as not just driven by the requirements for economic growth but in the interests of future well-being? This should be the role of government to consult widely and set research objectives and priorities even if it needs to enter into partnerships with private interests.

Two panels one of rural practioners and the other a specially selected group of researchers involved in the rural knowledge exchange field provided the workshop with a comprehensive overview of their personal experiences and in projects which they are involved. All the presentations were valuable and demonstrated the wide range of activities being undertaken and approaches to knowledge exchange.  I hesitate to single out one presentation however, in view of the focus on Scotland this year, I feel justified in mentioning Julie Fitzpatrick’s talk on the history and work of the Moredun Research Institute. It was established by a group of forward thinking farmers in 1920, to help find solutions to improve the health of livestock. Those involved with land management and farmers are still very much involved with the work and coordination with the scientists and pay an annual subscription. It struck me as an excellent model of knowledge exchange. www.moredun.org.uk.

We must inspire and focus on skills

Jonathan Brunyee, National Trust tenant farmer, agri-environment consultant and farm business management lecturer at the Royal Agricultural University reflects on the Landbridge workshop held on 1st May.

What an exciting and worthwhile event.  But how do we turn all the activity and knowledge that gathered in the room into something meaningful for advisers and farmers on the ground?

Although I am now part of it, the world of academic research remains a dark and mysterious place. While I find it intriguing and inspiring, I also find it a somewhat daunting and competitive world.  It’s one that I feel is sometimes too disconnected and distant from day to day land management.

Our first challenge. Somehow we must, first of all, make research (the process and outputs) more accessible and useful to those of us, maybe the less traditionally academic and more practical people like me who are actually within our universities and colleges.

We, as lecturers, must disseminate and translate, and most importantly, inspire. This is an uphill battle If we don’t feel part of the research body or see its relevance.

Traditional academic research isn’t the only area of research we discussed. I have been involved with quite a few consultancy research projects on the ground over the years.  Projects that have looked at conservation grazing, biodiversity decline, rural enterprise, CAP reform etc.  These are often short and sharp pieces of action research work, with defined outputs and recommendations.   But how often do these pieces of work sit on shelves, and do not get used or shared? How often was the research a duplication of something that has been done before?  How often was the brief so poor that the client didn’t get what they needed?

And maybe this leads me to our second key challenge.  Working land professionals and clients must get better at identifying their research needs - the things that will really make a difference – the ‘so what’ question. We must recruit and manage the right research or consultancy team, and utilise and share the outcomes.

We must break down the barriers between researchers and clients. The co-creation and delivery of research can only result in better outputs and translation on the ground.

Our third challenge is probably the most important. For research to mean better practice, it must inform and lead to improved skills and training at the coal face.  And this depends on having training strategies, good/inspiring trainers on the ground, varied programmes (CPD, short courses, distance learning, group, one to one etc.) and a delivery budget. 

Most of us learn by doing and reflecting, not by reading journals or attending lectures.