Knowledge Types Used by Researchers and Wool Producers in Australia under a Workplace Learning Typology: Implications for Innovation in the Australian Sheep Industry

Abstract

This paper reports on research into the learning aspects of adopting integrated parasite management practices for sheep (IPM-s) applying a workplace learning framework. An analysis of four primary data sources was conducted; a postal survey of Australian wool producers, a Delphi process with IPM-s researchers, focus groups and interviews with wool producers.Researchers had a high expectation of conceptual and high level procedural knowledge for IPM-s, while wool producers had a tendency to rely on low-and high-level procedural knowledge for parasite management. Researchers also showed concern for disposition as it related to parasite management. Practices identified as potentially problematic for extension, included worm egg count testing (according to best practice), supplementary feed (specifically for worm management), selecting estimated breeding value-tested rams, weighing and monitoring body condition scores, and keeping written paddock histories.This research provides significant empirical insights into the knowledge differences between researchers and producers that can affect how research is developed and communicated for the IPM-s project to facilitate behaviour change. The identification of some IPM practices as problematic for producers will also allow targeted extension for these practices.

Selecting methods of agricultural extension to support diverse adoption pathways: a review and case studies

“…Learning design was also found to be a factor in the success of training efforts. Specifically, to ensure that the practical and procedural (or action-based) knowledge of farmers was the focus in training efforts rather than a conceptual orientation, which is more common among scientists (Thompson and Reeve 2011). This was found to be particularly relevant in the field of pest management (Halbleib and Jepson 2015).…”