Performing inter-professional expertise in rural advisory networks

Achieving best-fit configurations through advisory subsystems in AKIS: case studies of advisory service provisioning for diverse types of farmers in Norway

“…Sometimes, a good demand-supply match occurs, but, if this does not happen, arrangements are put in place to mitigate such systemic weaknesses, that is, installation of advisory system coordination and capacity building, as described by Klerkx and Proctor (2013). Beyond confirming that findings from earlier work on farmer-advisor interactions in pluralistic systems are also found in the Norwegian case, there is an important emergent finding of specific configurations of farmers and advisors in the Norwegian advisory system (following earlier ideas of Phillipson et al 2016) in response to farmers' dynamic demands (Kilelu, Klerkx, and Leeuwis 2014). However, rather than being only configurations at the farm or project level as these other authors find, the Norwegian configurations might be considered subsystems of the national system aimed at achieving best-fit for a particular type of farmer.…”

“…Agricultural advisory services assist farmers in a broad range of issues, for example, technical, financial, business management, ethical (animal welfare), and regulatory, which are often interconnected and thus require complementary or joint efforts between several advisors (Klerkx and Jansen 2010;Phillipson et al 2016). The agricultural advisory system is part of the broader Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) (EU SCAR 2013), which forms a broad governance framework for advisory services in relation to other innovation support arrangements such as research, education, and innovation funding (Knierim et al 2015;Hermans, Klerkx, and Roep 2015).…”

“…Besides advisors, farmers use different sources of information and support, such as media and peers, which often rank above advisors as most used sources (Gielen, Hoeve, and Nieuwenhuis 2003;Solano et al 2003;Oreszczyn, Lane, and Carr 2010;Lubell, Niles, and Hoffman 2014). As several authors argue, farmers are often surrounded by networks of different complementary advisors (Klerkx and Proctor 2013;Phillipson et al 2016), who also sometimes jointly offer integrated advice on complex issues that have several dimensions (e.g. technical, economic).…”

“…Ingram 2008;Kilelu, Klerkx, and Leeuwis 2014;Phillipson et al 2016;Landini 2016), but such work focuses mostly on the individual advisor-farmer interface or on project level, or on a whole country level. However, how advisory services connect to different segments of farmers within countries, with different information needs and farming characteristics, has rarely been studied.…”

Bridging the Divide between Theory and Practice: Taking a Co-Productive Approach to Vet-Farmer Relationships

“…Indeed, the relationship between 'formal science' and on-farm practice is the focus of a growing literature (Richens et al 2015). Phillipson et al (2016) suggest that a blend of academic and practitioner expertise is essential to ensure the best quality advice and Enticott (2011) argues that veterinary surgeons are particularly well placed to apply and blend formal and informal knowledge to manage these concerns practically. Among others, Enticott (ibid., 2011;Hobson West and Timmons 2015;Phillipson et al 2016) points out that the trusting and sociable relationships that vets often cultivate with animal keepers are of vital importance in effecting meaningful change for animals.…”